Life is a big gameshow, that's what he said
A NEW COMIC
BIG LONG DISCUSSION THING:
The other day I played a game of dice for the first time. At first I didn't get it at all; it didn't even seem like a game. You roll some dice, and you either choose to stay and get a few points, or you carry on and try to get more points at the risk of losing all of your points for that turn. It's basic cost benefit stuff; either take the sure thing, or risk losing it all for a bigger gain. It's merely a matter of determing how much risk is reasonable given the benefit (or cost). Of course, taking big risks may result in a bigger win, but over time the riskier choices will ultimately result in a smaller net gain. On the other hand, the safest choice will consistently get you points, but maybe not enough to keep you in the lead. If you can simply strike a balance somewheres between the risky, high-point choices and the safe, consistent choices, you will win a majority of the time. This is a simple matter of probability. That's it.
So why not just stop every time you get a certain number of points, determined by probability?
I quickly learned that it wasn't as simple as that. If you stay without using ALL of your dice, then the next person after you can try to roll your extra dice and add your points to their's. Your not-too-risky but not-too-safe roll may benefit your opponent now. The game takes on a new dimension; your choice is now tempered by a sort of prisoner's dilemma: you can try to use all of your dice in order to screw your opponent, but potentially lose your own points, or accept a smaller amount of points and potentially benefit the other player. The game of this game arises from the combination of one's personal cost benefit choices and the desire to either hurt or help your opponent. The mathematical, risk, and social considerations and choices create a very complex and difficult game.
Tonight I saw a reality TV show on Fox. I don't even know what it was called. It was also the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen. The players were at a round table, taking orders from some big floating head on a screen. They were told who was in the game, and what the stakes were. They were given ultimatums, and the rules were laid down, and there was even a countdown. They were told when to wake up, by calm and disembodied female voice, composed and demanding. There was nothing to it other than people sitting in a room and talking, and then going to bed. The set was a sparse, pseudo sci-fi looking sort of place, all metal and odd coloured lighting and unreasonably shaped furniture. Like a place that could only exist on TV, in this alternate TV world.
The point of the game was that there was 1.5 million dollars at stake, and all ten people had to vote on who got it. That's it. No elimination games, no easter egg hunts, no nothing. The producers of this game eschewed any pretense about it being any sort of adventure or test. Instead, the floating head guy just said "THERE IS 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS AT STAKE. VOTE". And then later he'd say "NOW THERE IS 750,000 DOLLARS AT STAKE NOW AND THAT AMOUNT IS DROPPING EVERY SECOND. VOTE" And then, "GARY OR PETER OR WHOEVER IS NOW BACK IN THE GAME. VOTE" The players essentially determined nothing other than their own votes. Where other reality shows would say "Run around in 12 circles and then try to hit this pinyata with a rubber hose" (after which the producers would just manipulate the game so that the annoying guy was still in), this show just said "THE ANNOYING GUY IS STILL IN THE GAME. VOTE." It had a ridiculous sense of stripped down fatalism to it, with the bleak goal of winning some money by fighting with other people left insultingly apparent.
I watched, enthralled, trying to figure out what the point was, what the trick was. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS EVEN ABOUT!? Then I realized: This game was literally just a prisoner's dilemma, on TV, with the players forced into the situation by the seemingly artificial and arbitrary rules, set by the producers for no other reason than to make things vaguely interesting. This is what reality TV has come down to. It is a game, stripped of all game like pretenses, leaving only the most basic problem. In this case, players literally just have to choose who they want to win money. A player can either choose to vote for whoever everyone else is voting for, or choose to screw everyone else. If you feel like being a jerk, go for it. If you don't, go for it. There's no challenges to overcome, no difficulties to deal with, and no complexity at all. It's pure social bargaining, with wacky, unreasonable people playing out the role of the decision makers. They will argue and argue and argue, and then the big talking head will change some rules or do something new, and then the players will argue and argue and argue.
Playing dice is literally more complex than this show: there are two factors in dice, the cost/benefit analysis of probabilities, AND the dilemma of helping or hurting your opponents. This reality show on the other hand has just the dilemma of helping or hurting others, stripped down and bear, the rest of the rules forced in place.
My new reality show is going to be called WIN OR LOSE. 10 PLAYERS, EACH OF THEM VYING TO... WIN OR LOSE!!!
BIG LONG DISCUSSION THING:
The other day I played a game of dice for the first time. At first I didn't get it at all; it didn't even seem like a game. You roll some dice, and you either choose to stay and get a few points, or you carry on and try to get more points at the risk of losing all of your points for that turn. It's basic cost benefit stuff; either take the sure thing, or risk losing it all for a bigger gain. It's merely a matter of determing how much risk is reasonable given the benefit (or cost). Of course, taking big risks may result in a bigger win, but over time the riskier choices will ultimately result in a smaller net gain. On the other hand, the safest choice will consistently get you points, but maybe not enough to keep you in the lead. If you can simply strike a balance somewheres between the risky, high-point choices and the safe, consistent choices, you will win a majority of the time. This is a simple matter of probability. That's it.
So why not just stop every time you get a certain number of points, determined by probability?
I quickly learned that it wasn't as simple as that. If you stay without using ALL of your dice, then the next person after you can try to roll your extra dice and add your points to their's. Your not-too-risky but not-too-safe roll may benefit your opponent now. The game takes on a new dimension; your choice is now tempered by a sort of prisoner's dilemma: you can try to use all of your dice in order to screw your opponent, but potentially lose your own points, or accept a smaller amount of points and potentially benefit the other player. The game of this game arises from the combination of one's personal cost benefit choices and the desire to either hurt or help your opponent. The mathematical, risk, and social considerations and choices create a very complex and difficult game.
Tonight I saw a reality TV show on Fox. I don't even know what it was called. It was also the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen. The players were at a round table, taking orders from some big floating head on a screen. They were told who was in the game, and what the stakes were. They were given ultimatums, and the rules were laid down, and there was even a countdown. They were told when to wake up, by calm and disembodied female voice, composed and demanding. There was nothing to it other than people sitting in a room and talking, and then going to bed. The set was a sparse, pseudo sci-fi looking sort of place, all metal and odd coloured lighting and unreasonably shaped furniture. Like a place that could only exist on TV, in this alternate TV world.
The point of the game was that there was 1.5 million dollars at stake, and all ten people had to vote on who got it. That's it. No elimination games, no easter egg hunts, no nothing. The producers of this game eschewed any pretense about it being any sort of adventure or test. Instead, the floating head guy just said "THERE IS 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS AT STAKE. VOTE". And then later he'd say "NOW THERE IS 750,000 DOLLARS AT STAKE NOW AND THAT AMOUNT IS DROPPING EVERY SECOND. VOTE" And then, "GARY OR PETER OR WHOEVER IS NOW BACK IN THE GAME. VOTE" The players essentially determined nothing other than their own votes. Where other reality shows would say "Run around in 12 circles and then try to hit this pinyata with a rubber hose" (after which the producers would just manipulate the game so that the annoying guy was still in), this show just said "THE ANNOYING GUY IS STILL IN THE GAME. VOTE." It had a ridiculous sense of stripped down fatalism to it, with the bleak goal of winning some money by fighting with other people left insultingly apparent.
I watched, enthralled, trying to figure out what the point was, what the trick was. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS EVEN ABOUT!? Then I realized: This game was literally just a prisoner's dilemma, on TV, with the players forced into the situation by the seemingly artificial and arbitrary rules, set by the producers for no other reason than to make things vaguely interesting. This is what reality TV has come down to. It is a game, stripped of all game like pretenses, leaving only the most basic problem. In this case, players literally just have to choose who they want to win money. A player can either choose to vote for whoever everyone else is voting for, or choose to screw everyone else. If you feel like being a jerk, go for it. If you don't, go for it. There's no challenges to overcome, no difficulties to deal with, and no complexity at all. It's pure social bargaining, with wacky, unreasonable people playing out the role of the decision makers. They will argue and argue and argue, and then the big talking head will change some rules or do something new, and then the players will argue and argue and argue.
Playing dice is literally more complex than this show: there are two factors in dice, the cost/benefit analysis of probabilities, AND the dilemma of helping or hurting your opponents. This reality show on the other hand has just the dilemma of helping or hurting others, stripped down and bear, the rest of the rules forced in place.
My new reality show is going to be called WIN OR LOSE. 10 PLAYERS, EACH OF THEM VYING TO... WIN OR LOSE!!!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home