Jeff Probst and I are on the same page about a few different things. The longtime Survivor host and I both love the show more than is probably healthy, and we both agree the most idealized version of the game is one that lets the players play. Unfortunately, it seems we have very different definitions of what letting the players play means, and that’s never been more clear than after I read some recent quotes going around.
Probst made an appearance at American Cinematheque to take part in a panel, and he talked extensively about both the history of Survivor and what he’s hoping for out of Season 50. The producers have given fans the chance to vote on the various wrinkles and gameplay mechanics they want to see. Apart from the actual length, which remains a sore subject, and which former players would be cast, Probst and company are leaving pretty much everything up to the Democratic process. He said he hopes the voters make wise choices, however, which “let the players play.” Here’s the relevant portion of the quote, per Variety…
Maybe there’s some of you here today who want a season with no idols, no switches. I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be more boring than you think… So I’m hoping people vote to let the players play, and that they want idols in the game, but we’ll see.
Now, this is where it becomes clear we are not on the same page at all. When I say “let the players play,” what I mean is I want the producers to get out of the way and let the actual players decide the outcome themselves. I don’t want to see a constant injection of advantages and tribe swaps and ill-conceived twists. I want to see the actual players play Survivor, which, at least to me, means letting them attempt to think strategically about long-term plans.
During the so-called New Era, there has been a constant injection of variance, to the point where every single episode, you’re wondering when this week’s version is going to drop. Are three contestants going to be pulled out to go on a journey that gives them some kind of advantage? Are producers basically going to hand them tools to make a fake idol? Are we going to split the players in half and have two tribal councils? Are we going to let someone literally change the results of a challenge? To me, that’s not playing. That’s attempting to survive whatever is thrown at you.
Jeff Probst, however, clearly disagrees. He feels letting the players play means giving them situations to respond to. He thinks removing variance from the game allows players to set up alliances and coast without facing any real adversity or uncertainty. So, he wants to throw in advantages and idols and unexpected situations because he seems to feel it brings the best out of players. He’s quite clearly very interested in exploring the new and the different, which is why in the same panel he talked very positively about recent winner Rachel LaMont using her shot in the dark in a very unconventional and unexpected way.
If we’re being honest, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Going back to the first season of Survivor is not in anyone’s best interests. I don’t think people really want to see six consecutive episodes of one alliance picking off other players outside of it. The occasional advantage or way to shake up the game is a good thing, but I also think the producers should trust the players a little more to provide good television without repeatedly handing them obvious mechanisms to do so.
The players will create drama and intrigue on their own. Almost everyone who goes on the show now has watched dozens of seasons. They’re going to scheme. They’re going to lie to each other. The producers might think they’re only doing that because they’re worried about idols or block a votes or whatever else, but I think they would be doing a lot of that if for not other reason than trying to set themselves up to win the game. Yeah, we’d get the occasional season where an alliance would hold tight for the entire run, but if that happened, it would be a fun throwback. Most of the time, they’d just turn on each other like they always do.
Jeff Probst and I both want to see the players play. We quite clearly have different definitions of what that means. Hopefully for Season 50, the end result ends up being somewhere in the middle, allowing us to get a stable season that doesn’t feel like it's constantly interrupted by production choices but does include a few WTF moments that allow us to see how the players adapt.