Let's Study Games - Final Tribal Council

[Haschel Cedricson]

For the second thread in the LSG series, I would like us to analyze the decisions that go into designing Final Tribal Councils. FTC is the cumulation of a long game, and it is ultimately the most important part of the game for the winner. There are several different methods that moderators have handled this in the past; both the question format and the choice of F2/F3 allow for a wide range of experiences. This month we will be discussing both.

First off,

from a MOD/SPEC perspective, what are the advantages of a Final 2 or a Final 3? If you have modded your own games, why did you choose the FTC format that you did?

[Haschel Cedricson]

I've done both in my games and don't see either as inherently better or worse, but they do bring different things. I like that in an F3 an additional player gets the thrill of having "made" FTC. I also believe that for the most part it's easier for underdogs to distinguish themselves in front of a jury because there are multiple opponents to push against. This doesn't necessarily mean the underdog is more likely to win, but I'd be a lot more surprised to see an F3 candidate get zero votes than an F2 candidate.

Conversely, the nature of the F2 frames the showdown as a Me Vs You dynamic, and that's not necessarily a bad thing either.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Ness got zero votes to Kirby’s clean sweep.

I’ll have to check the F3s though.

[Haschel Cedricson]

What are the benefits of giving each Juror a thread at FTC vs giving each finalist a thread vs having all of FTC in one thread? Assuming that we don't want to divide Social/Strategic/Structural (or along any other lines), which do we find most useful?

As a finalist, I like having my own thread I think, but as a Juror, I also like having my own thread. But I could see how having separate threads for each Juror could make it harder for some people to follow what is happening.

I like having all the FTC in one thread if I'm honest. I like that players can respond to each other in a more organic way, and I think it makes it MUCH more likely that at least part of people's responses to other jurors gets read.

It worked well in KYE, but I think an important part of that is that jurors were limited on the number of posts they can make. Early games on this website had a one-thread anything-goes atmosphere and it was kind of unwieldy.

I do think the WORST format is the one where each player gets their own thread. Inevitably players will start addressing points the other finalists raised and now we have one conversation split between two or three threads.

[Haschel Cedricson]

No, I'm referring to the FINALISTS having their own thread.

[Haschel Cedricson]

It's pretty easy to make this argument the other way, though, since you could pretty easily end up with finalists addressing things that the other finalists said

True, and this is partially why I prefer to pick neither option.