The Frog’s Game, by Addison Godel
[A now very outdated piece that wasn't
even finished or all that coherent when it was written, back in the S2-S3 era.
Basically an attempt to expand some thoughts I had (published on
the Survivor Speculation board as "The Goat's Game") on Sunsawed's
Fox/Bear/Goat/Bunny theory without sticking to the established meanings of the
four animal terms. Of course, this meant yet more animal names in addition
to the menagerie already running around on the boards - and I think I even
reused some of the ones that were already being floated! Thank goodness I
never finished it - had I published it at the time I would have been driven off
the board by exhausted posters, their heads spinning with visions of bumblebees,
sharks, orangutans and God knows what else. In retrospect, it's not so
bad: overly schematic, like FBGB itself, but with a few neat ideas to it.]
Leaving
aside jury members’ individual biases, the big question when it comes down to
winning the million from the jury is, what kind of case can a player explicitly
or implicitly make for her own worthiness?
A consistent in-game persona or style is the best way to make a solid
case later. Note that inconsistency
in character type can be absolutely fatal.
The “rat” identified by Susan in Survivor 1 was an Eagle who got
schemey too late in the game to make a coherent Eagle play at the jury level.
There’s really no need to make separate names for all the different
kinds of mutant players: the important thing is, if the jury recognizes them as
a mutant, they had better be up against a far less appealing mutant or start
spinning like mad.
SUCCESSFUL SURVIVOR PLAYERS
These
character
types have a passable chance of making the final two, and winning, depending on
the competition, alliance-building, and immunity. Note that the
description is based on intention: players may think they
look one way but in fact come across entirely differently.
The
Frog – The Frog is a deeply repulsive player who knows it.
For the most part, it doesn’t really matter what makes the Frog
repulsive. It could be a personal
problem (bitchiness, loudness, sore loser) the choice of a strategy midgame that
offends many other players, or even one key, public betrayal that causes the
player to lose much respect.
What’s important is that this is a player who is fairly conscious of her inability to beat anybody in the game, or at least anyone who will cooperate in an alliance with her. The Frog's strategy is to get into an alliance that will go to the end, where she'll be kept around as an easy beat in the F2. In a sense, this is a pretty passive job; the Frog isn't going to get any less likeable, so the game suddenly starts to revolve around "possession" of the Frog. The Frog may lock into an alliance early or not, because her only real danger is from a) not being recognized as a suitable Frog or b) being in competition with another potential Frog who has a powerful alliance and will eliminate her. Arguably this is why Keith eliminated Jerri; although Jerri certainly didn't see herself as a Frog, she was primed to play the role and she would have been inclined to blot out Keith in the long term.
The
Eagle - This is a player like Colby, Michael, Gretchen, or Alicia, who plays
the game (mostly) on the level and sees herself as being able to win because of
her clean approach and physical ability which suggest that they
"deserve" the prize. They
are the sort of people who would claim that, moreso than other players, they
would actually be capable of succeeding in a real survival situation.
The Spider - Tina, Richard, Jeff Varner. If they make it to the F2, their
case is based around strategic manipulation - they deserve to win because they
got where they are despite seeming odds against them. Richard made this case
very explicitly and won. Tina
didn't make this case overtly, but her position of being up against Colby, who
actually had an even better move to make (picking Keith) made it clear: if I
somehow managed to get this far in a game like this up against people like this
guy, I must have been really damn smart.
The
Owl - An older player with some form of wisdom or maturity which can itself
be a playing card. May also be
short on cash, or a real-life survivor of hard times, or a charitable spirit.
Difficult to make into an overt strategy, but it may be assumed that some
jury members will reward someone who they just think "could use the money
more" / "would know better what to do with the money." [Ed:
I would add that patient, "No more drama" Vecepia made an Owl play in
the end, so you don't have to be all that old to do this.]
The Pussycat - "Hang in there, kiddo!" Elisabeth, Rodger. Not
particularly skilled players, but likeable people and at least decently capable
at challenges. At F2 their case is conciliatory - "My opponent has played
this game really well, and I just want to say that I love you all and I've tried
to play my hardest out here..." This is distinct from the Eagle, about whom
there is no debate - if Survivor were a game of challenges, the Eagle would
unquestionably stand out, and the Pussycat would be a medium-to-bad player.
Of course, other player types can benefit from the personal affections of
other players - but the Pussycat *bases* his case around his personal charm and
good soldiering.
UNSUCCESSFUL SURVIVOR PLAYERS
These
will make F2 only by freak accidents, horrifically bad playing by their
opponents, or the securing of immunity; they can win only by being up against a
really egregious Frog. They are distinguished from Frogs by being
either too strategic or unstrategic, and thus unable to make pacts based on
their own vulnerability.
The Black Widow - A Spider who is too excessively strategic or schemey
will quickly become annoying and unloved, making them passable as a Frog, but
they really can't be trusted by other players to follow the alliance until the
finals, and will be rejected.
The Puppy - Players who just want to have a good time in the Outback/on
the island/whatever meet one of two fates.
They can be consumed by general consensus (alliances are always looking
for a target that all their members can agree on zapping), like Sean.
Alternately, they will be seen as extremely dangerous - their complacency
and dippiness about the game makes them easy recruits for rival alliances.
Amber was axed for this reason - she was NOT a Pussycat, because she
lacked any sense of agency or ability to take the game into her hands. Puppies are the kind of players willing to be carried along
to the Final 4/3/whatever and dropped there; they simply haven't got the knowhow
and ambition to put together a scheme that may (or may not) take them farther.
More strategic players deeply mistrust Puppies and will probably get rid
of them long before the F4 [Ed: Either I'm a prophetic genius, or I patched
this segment in during some attempt to revive the whole piece around the time of
S4 - this is so clearly about a Gabe Cade type boot.]
ALLIANCES
Remember,
all of the player types can beat a suitably froggish Frog, even the types
I listed as unsuccessful - those just have a minimal chance of actually making
it to the F2. Since anybody can beat the Frog, other playing styles
matter only if the final two does not include a Frog, or if by some weird
fluke it includes two players so horribly disliked that it can no longer be
clearly assumed that one would for sure beat the other. That is: you don't
have to really think about how much of a strategic mastermind Tina might or
might not be if she's up against Froggish Keith. The question would become
much more relevant were she facing Jeff Varner!
Alliance
construction is can operate in several patterns, depending on the tendencies of
the players (“sportsmanlike” players will reject the “unworthy”
earlier), but will ultimately devolve to the pattern I call “The Frog’s
Game,” an alliance orbiting around a self-aware Frog, who lets other players
latch onto him. The alliance votes
off non-alliance members and then competes over possession of the Frog at the
final 2. These players need not be
in a specific configuration - in other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be
the Snake, the Frog, the Owl and the Pussycat.
There's
no competition among players to be any of these particular roles ("You
can't be the Fox! That's *my* plan!") except for Frogs. The Frog knows her
shot at second prize depends on there being no other compelling Frogs. The other
types really don't care how many of their kind are around: the goal is to have
the Frog. Organization of alliances
around the Frog will proceed as needed based on each non-Frog player’s
perception of how they can have the best chance of getting to F2. This
is largely a matter of voting numbers, prior votes, and some degree of immunity
strength.
Survivor, played by shrewd players, is the Frog's game.
Survivor
1: Both Richard and Sue see themselves primarily as Spider strategy-makers;
each sees the other as a Frog. Rudy
began with an Eagle play in mind but quickly realized (“I’m the one that has
ta adapt, not them.”) that he really couldn’t hope to win that way, so he
was reduced to a grouchy Owl early on; Sean was born to play a Puppy, and Kelly
was shooting for Eagle. This
alliance, once assembled, knocked out all the other players in the game –
although the core players planned to replace Kelly, a rising threat to make an
Eagle play against one of the Spiders, with Colleen, a suitable Puppy. Immunity made this impossible, and the alliance
self-destructed when Kelly won immunity again and forced a reckoning
among the four core members and disrupting the plan.
Richard was unwilling to ditch Rudy (whose loyalty was crucial to getting
votes on the jury) before Sue and successfully tricked Kelly into backstabbing
Sue, transforming Kelly into an ideal replacement Frog.
Richard’s Froggish tendencies were, in the eyes of the jury, outweighed
by Kelly’s and the fact that Richard could claim an impressive Spider play.
[Ed: I got bogged down in much more detailed vote-by-vote discussions of S1’s endgame (deleted – you’re welcome!) and never got around to making an example of S2. Oh well.]