I've had a similar experience watching The Traitors recently. Have you seen this one? 20-odd strangers come to a mansion, most of whom are "Faithful" but several of whom are secretly chosen as "Traitors." During the days, everyone participates in a variety of mostly cooperative games and contests to increase the prize pot. And at the end of each day, everyone votes to banish one person, which is the only way the Faithful can remove a Traitor. And each night, the Traitors "murder" one Faithful. At the end, if all the Traitors have been eliminated, the remaining Faithful split the prize money. But if any Traitor(s) remain, THEY get all the prize money. My problem with this is that the only real way for the Faithful to try and suss out who is a Traitor is their behavior during the day. But BOTH SIDES are equally incentivized to increase the prize pot, so they all behave the same during the contests. I've always thought the incentives should be opposite, so that there are two prize pots, and the Faithful are earning money OUT OF the Traitors prize pot. That would incentivize the Faithful to do well in the contests, and incentivize the Traitors to sabotage the contests while doing all they can to APPEAR to do well. As it stands, I don't see how the Faithful will ever win this game, and in the two seasons I've watched, they never have.
Geoff, your article bakes so many layers of philosophy into this one anecdote.
I can see how you had a reaction of ire. Maybe not just because the players "cheated" but that the producers allowed it. The gameplay no longer matched the titular objective. But gamesmanship can have so much depth to it. (It's kind of another way to say "play," right?) I always* cheer on players who push the boundaries of what's allowed within a ruleset. Or who use unexpected means to wiggle around unwrittens and to explore possibilities in between unwritten lines.
It makes me think of Ender Wiggin in Orson Scott Card's famous novel who tried out that first video game the older kids were playing. His method to beat one of them changed the way they played from that point on. (Actually, pretty much everything that happened in the Ender's Game battle room exemplified gamesmanship!)
Thanks for the comment! I think that some game shows support gamesmanship - Survivor being a big example of that for me. I'm happy to see how players work the angles on that show. Or the $1 bid on The Price is Right. I just felt with this show the 'game' part should really just be in service of highlighting how talented these bakers are.
I guess my question is: would you watch a 3rd season? Would other folk?
Personally, I watched a few episodes of season 1 but never finished it. Maybe this sort of ridiculousness would keep more folk watching, as Patrick alluded to.
If course, being a show their main goal is to keep viewers watching rather than design a good game. From the sound of it, the decoys may heighten the drama elements, though I think usually poor gamesmanship can ultimately weaken a show too.
Well, I was gonna say it's some awful practice of Goodhart's Law, but given that the show chose to allow their system to be gamed...I don't know. Calling it plainly dumb seems simplistic, but I've got nothing else. LOL
I've had a similar experience watching The Traitors recently. Have you seen this one? 20-odd strangers come to a mansion, most of whom are "Faithful" but several of whom are secretly chosen as "Traitors." During the days, everyone participates in a variety of mostly cooperative games and contests to increase the prize pot. And at the end of each day, everyone votes to banish one person, which is the only way the Faithful can remove a Traitor. And each night, the Traitors "murder" one Faithful. At the end, if all the Traitors have been eliminated, the remaining Faithful split the prize money. But if any Traitor(s) remain, THEY get all the prize money. My problem with this is that the only real way for the Faithful to try and suss out who is a Traitor is their behavior during the day. But BOTH SIDES are equally incentivized to increase the prize pot, so they all behave the same during the contests. I've always thought the incentives should be opposite, so that there are two prize pots, and the Faithful are earning money OUT OF the Traitors prize pot. That would incentivize the Faithful to do well in the contests, and incentivize the Traitors to sabotage the contests while doing all they can to APPEAR to do well. As it stands, I don't see how the Faithful will ever win this game, and in the two seasons I've watched, they never have.
I love that idea. Because the way it currently works seems to be taking out interesting aspects of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Geoff, your article bakes so many layers of philosophy into this one anecdote.
I can see how you had a reaction of ire. Maybe not just because the players "cheated" but that the producers allowed it. The gameplay no longer matched the titular objective. But gamesmanship can have so much depth to it. (It's kind of another way to say "play," right?) I always* cheer on players who push the boundaries of what's allowed within a ruleset. Or who use unexpected means to wiggle around unwrittens and to explore possibilities in between unwritten lines.
It makes me think of Ender Wiggin in Orson Scott Card's famous novel who tried out that first video game the older kids were playing. His method to beat one of them changed the way they played from that point on. (Actually, pretty much everything that happened in the Ender's Game battle room exemplified gamesmanship!)
*At least when that player is me.
Thanks for the comment! I think that some game shows support gamesmanship - Survivor being a big example of that for me. I'm happy to see how players work the angles on that show. Or the $1 bid on The Price is Right. I just felt with this show the 'game' part should really just be in service of highlighting how talented these bakers are.
That's a great example, and a great book series. Ender was the ultimate meta-gamer!
I guess my question is: would you watch a 3rd season? Would other folk?
Personally, I watched a few episodes of season 1 but never finished it. Maybe this sort of ridiculousness would keep more folk watching, as Patrick alluded to.
If course, being a show their main goal is to keep viewers watching rather than design a good game. From the sound of it, the decoys may heighten the drama elements, though I think usually poor gamesmanship can ultimately weaken a show too.
Well, I was gonna say it's some awful practice of Goodhart's Law, but given that the show chose to allow their system to be gamed...I don't know. Calling it plainly dumb seems simplistic, but I've got nothing else. LOL
"As we say in our household You play the game you’re given, not the game you want. (we have a fun household)"
This was my favorite part of this article. It does sound like you have a fun household!
Saw this show and had the same reaction! Cake is fun, but this show does need a bit of game design.