The rats and the snakes

[pauraque_bk]

scribbulus_ink is calling for players for an RPG where Gryffindors and Slytherins will test their ability to outwit, outplay, and outlast one another for fabulous cash prizes paid time for their player. Yes, that's right, it's HP Survivor! There are no words for how squeeful this makes me.

If no one volunteers to play Peter, I shall be seriously disappointed. He could go really far. Think about it: Who better to take with you to the final two than the most loathed character in the series?

Comments

[maria-futura.livejournal.com]

AHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[pauraque]

*pets, offers a glass of mineral water*

[k2daisy.livejournal.com]

A-hahahahahahahahahaha!

That's just...brilliant!

[eponis.livejournal.com]

Dammit, I'm seriously contemplating playing this. (Thanks for passing on the link!) I ought to have lots of free time this summer, and . . .

I'm just pondering who would be the most strategically useful characters to play. ::ponderponderponder:: I think my first choice'll be either Lupin or McGonagall, but since Gryffindor's likely to be popular, I'm trying to think of an appropriate Slytherin. Snape's likely to be terribly popular, but. I don't think I can resist.

Are you applying?

[pauraque]

No, I don't have the time to commit to it, unfortunately.

Strategy-wise, it could be very tricky to play someone popular and/or known to be slippery, because of the tendency to vote out threats. A good way to go far is to hang back -- it's good to be in an alliance, but less good to be at the core of one. Positioning yourself as a swing vote can save your ass arse. Lupin strikes me as very likely to play that way, and so could be an excellent choice.

[eponis.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Lupin is probably my first choice. McGonagall, I think, would strike a similar balance.

I think, though, that an interesting dynamic here will be the preexisting relationships. For example, I frankly can't see *most* Gryffindors, in-character, voting out Harry. This makes Lupin better than McGonagall, if only because Harry will likely be more loyal to the former than to the latter, but I think that, as a whole, it counterbalances the anti-popular-figure tendency.

The Slytherin side will be less predictable, if only because so few of the characters are canonically fleshed out. There in particular, it'll be interesting to see the effects of Occlumency. (How, for example, could a secret alliance be kept from Voldemort, or possibly even Snape?) I don't expect Snape to win, unless he can keep up some serious bootlicking, but I do think he'd be amusing to play. :-)

[pauraque]

I frankly can't see *most* Gryffindors, in-character, voting out Harry.

Hm, possibly. It depends on how much they see it as "just a game" and how much they want to win. But you have a point -- we should expect the Slytherins to play smarter than the Gryffindors. Actually, that may be a point against Peter doing well -- other Gryffindors may not see the benefit in keeping him around, so he might not last until the merge.

I don't expect Snape to win, unless he can keep up some serious bootlicking, but I do think he'd be amusing to play. :-)

Dude, I totally want to see Snape have a classic Survivor meltdown. "Were you lost in the desert, I would not offer you a phial of water!"

[eponis.livejournal.com]

It depends on how much they see it as "just a game" and how much they want to win.

Yeah. That's what's been most unclear to me so far, along with the extent that this is integrated with canon. To take it to the Slytherin side, would Crabbe and Goyle (Sr.) vote Voldemort off the island? To say no seems to bias the game heavily toward an eventual showdown between Harry and Voldemort; to say yes means to alter some aspects of character dynamics.

we should expect the Slytherins to play smarter than the Gryffindors.

Yes and no. Certainly they'll be more willing to make flexible alliances and betrayals. But in terms of sheer intelligence and strategy, most Slytherin's we've seen (save Snape, Voldemort, Lucius, and possibly Draco) seem quite dull. On the other hand, the Gryffindors, though somewhat naive, are at this point fairly battle-hardened, in problem-solving more than in sheer brute force.

Dude, I totally want to see Snape have a classic Survivor meltdown. "Were you lost in the desert, I would not offer you a phial of water!"

Hee. That would freaking rock.

[pauraque]

Certainly they'll be more willing to make flexible alliances and betrayals.

That's really what I meant by "playing smart" -- lack of loyalty, not actual intelligence (though of course that'll help too). Genuine loyalty is a serious liability in Survivor: it doesn't get you ahead, and it doesn't even necessarily help you if you do manage to get to the final vote. People who played loyal and lost will sometimes turn around and vote for a player who was more cutthroat than they were.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

And you know Peter would get very close to winning. You just know.

[webbapettigrew.livejournal.com]

Watching the real Survivor I've often wondered why people don't play a "Pettigrew" more often--lay low, pretend you don't know that much, agree to every alliance just to write one of their names on the parchment in their nondominant hand so nobody really has a clue who really voted off who...

I don't know how about how he'd survive in this sort of game, though, with people knowing who and what he is at the off. Seems like Survivor is beneficial to the strongest first, then the cleverest.

[pauraque]

pretend you don't know that much, agree to every alliance

I agree, this is a good strategy. That's how Sandra won last season. The "Who are we voting off?" routine was a winner for her. "I don't care who goes, so long as it's not me!"