5 Responses

  1. watervole
    watervole September 2, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

    I think it might end up a bit like ‘Pit’ with everyone playing as fast as possible.

    Reply
    1. undying-admin
      undying-admin September 2, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

      Mm, for that reason I think it would be best with a group of people who don’t know each other. (And who aren’t gamers!)

      Reply
      1. mr_malk
        mr_malk September 5, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

        As an ice-breaker for people who are not naturally gregarious, you may find that the passionate arguments are abbreviated to “Mumble, red.”. “Oh, I’m green. Do you like Scarecrow?”

        Or even:
        A – “Red.”
        B – “Green and Scarecrow”.
        A – “Lion.”
        A&B – “OK.”

        I think that enabling the quality of argument to affect whether or not the change is made would affect this, rather than making it wholly random. How that would be determined is a different matter. It could be the number of arguments that one person can come up with for their case, that the other person accepts as legitimate. This is partly subjective of course; someone arguing that green is good because sprouts are green may encounter vociferous resistance to the validity of their argument.

        Reply
        1. undying-admin
          undying-admin September 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

          Mm – if people really don’t want to talk to each other, you can’t force them.1 But I would hope that, in the icebreaking context the game’s being played, they would be prepared to buy in to the idea of having enough conversation to plausibly be “convinced” – whether that be by weight, number, or persistence of argument is probably best left up to individual preference.


          1 Well, you can, but not within the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

          Reply
          1. mr_malk
            mr_malk September 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm |

            Not force, no. But it’s like doing conversation practice with EFL students (something I have done a lot). You learn to phrase questions in such a way that it’s very hard to give one-word answers, otherwise one-word answers is all you get. Not as a deliberate refusal to co-operate*, but as an easy get-out/line of least resistance.

            I would say that some incentive to expand on the bare minimum within the framework of the game would be a good thing. Loquacious people don’t need much help to break the ice in any case, it’s the shy ones who are naturally reticent that need the motivation.

            *Or at least, not necessarily.


Leave a Reply