The formation of sound alliances is a fundamental Survivor strategy. The process begins ideally from day 1 when there are two tribes, and over time, one votes out one's fellow tribe members. Eventually, the tribes reach the merge and the dynamics are revised. But it is possible for tribe members to get swapped before the merge, as a twist to the game. Certainly some excitement is generated. This does not always mean the game becomes better, as the more relevant question is whether it is fair to the players.
Why the Switch?
It is tempting for producers to implement the tribal swap. They might like to see some new interaction, with old ties possibly being severed. The game would normally become less predictable than before. For example, an alliance within a tribe could be so strong that it could easily vote out all other members to reach the merge. That's when the twist comes - members are switched, to the benefit of some, the devastation of others, and the thrill of the viewers. When the merge arrives, all players have two conflicting identities - old tribe and new tribe - and it is not totally clear where their loyalties will lie when it comes to the vote.
Case Studies of Random Switching
The first switch occurred in season 3 (Africa). At that time, the tally was Samburu 6 Boran 6, with Samburu having a 4 young 2 old split. There was no doubt the 2 would have gone. But the tribal swap changed all that. Without warning, 1 young (Silas) and 2 old were exchanged with 3 members of Boran. In isolation, Silas was voted out by his Boran tribe which even went to the extreme of deliberately losing the immunity challenge. Young Lindsey in Samburu went next after her tribe lost the challenge and she lost a tie-breaker. Old Teresa went as far as 5th, which was rather impressive, considering she could have conceivably have ended up 5th last. Thus the switch had a rather drastic effect and destroyed the young Samburu alliance which in many another season would have easily reached the merge.
However, Amber in All-Stars actually managed to survive despite being the only member of her tribe who was switched by chance to the opposition. Somehow Rob managed to persuade them to keep her in the game on the false promise that he would return the favour. The rest is history, of course, as they went on to win the game and become famous.
Most other instances are less clear cut as alliances may not have been so clearly demarcated and it is difficult to determine how much influence the switches had. Ultimately, players need to make capital of any new advantage they may have gained, and it is their own fault if they fail to do so.
Switching by Sequential Selection
Those were examples of people being randomly swapped. An alternative method is to have the new tribes chosen. Two people could make all the selections for their tribes, and this would be a big responsibility. Or each person could choose another and thus have some say.
A voluntary switch is another possibility. Anyone who feels disadvantaged in his tribe could be allowed to change over (officially) to the other tribe. This choice has been offered to players, but is not surprisingly normally declined. Who would want to look like a rebel after all? Would the new tribe look favourably upon a new member if they were big enough? However, unofficial voluntary switches are far more common when the merge happens, as the deserter thinks he could improve his position compared to sticking with his former tribe. Such a person is unlikely to go far, as people might resent having one too many, but this might still be worth trying.
Impact on Dynamics
A major question in tribal swaps is: which tribe takes priority when the merge comes? Are people loyal to their old tribe or their new one? It seems that the older alliances tend to be favoured as the bonds that had been there are seen to be only temporarily broken. Unfortunately, there could be less incentive to win a tribal immunity challenge, as losing it would mean getting rid of one of the opposition rather than let the opposition get rid of one of your allies who is with them. This is of course contrary to the idea of a competition - whose purpose is for people to try hard to win rather than lose. Perhaps we could get around this problem by letting the winners trade immunity for a reward.
Conclusion
Just like any other twist, the game balance must be respected when people switch tribes. While this can make a game exciting, it should be implemented with careful thought. Basically, it should not be done just on a whim, as it will have a major impact on the power status of the players. Random re-allocation seems rather unfair. Would we want a good player to be forced out of a strong situation into a hopeless one (and the reverse happen to a weak player) purely due to a random event? Allowing people to have some control over who their new tribe members are seems a fairly reasonable practice as it affords some strategic decision making.
It is inevitable that switching will have its winners and losers. The outcome of a game could have been very different if not for a switch, and some players might wonder what might have been if not for the twist that changed their plans. Some seasons are affected and others are not. The problem is that this twist is intended to be a surprise so people are not forewarned, and are unable to react before the switch occurs. It would be a little fairer if they are told categorically at least a few episodes in advance that their tribes are not "permanent till the merge" and some forward planning can be done for this event.
Comments
yes! I love switching tribes!
it changes the game alot
it changes the game alot