Timeline for Why didn't the weaker tributes gang up on the stronger ones in The Hunger Games?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2016 at 9:08 | history | edited | Rand al'Thor♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:57 | comment | added | Thaddeus Howze | And I am going to leave Daniel T. point right here because, if you have ever played Diplomacy, it explain exactly why tributes rarely work together. The system is designed to ensure working together almost always fails because only one person can win. Teamwork is almost always doomed to betrayal because each person is socialized to win for their district. The only alliances with any teeth would be intra-district. Everything else would ultimately fail. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 2:50 | comment | added | Daniel T. | If you want to experience some of the tension yourself (and possibly loose some friends) try playing the board game "Diplomacy." Seven players are pitted against each other and alliances are made and broken every couple of turns. | |
| Nov 29, 2015 at 4:50 | history | edited | DVK-on-Ahch-To | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Nov 29, 2015 at 0:57 | comment | added | The Giant of Lannister | Also might add that strength in numbers is no guarantee against superior foes. Not when you are talking about the number of fighters that are in the Hunger Games (24), at any rate. There is no reason why 4 or 5 well-trained and deadly careers couldn't see off all the other tributes in a pitched battle, particularly at the cornucopia (banding together isn't going to help the weaker tributes if they do not have weapons/resources to make the stand). | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 21:46 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 28, 2015 at 21:59 | |||||
| Nov 28, 2015 at 15:40 | answer | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 11:50 | answer | added | o.m. | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 11:01 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor♦ | @MajorStackings Possibly a bit more complicated than that. From a game-theory point of view, it's something similar to playing chicken: if lots of weaker tributes made the same decision, it'd be worth it; but from the point of view of the first weaker tribute to request an alliance with another, what's the point? See my answer below. | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 10:59 | answer | added | Rand al'Thor♦ | timeline score: 18 | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 7:01 | comment | added | Major Stackings | Then I'd say it was a lack of trust that prevented their banding together. | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 6:53 | comment | added | Paul | @MajorStackings In the first installment, we see the tributes of 1 and 2 going around killing the outliers, and the few weaker tributes working with them are killed for not fulfilling duties. | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 6:44 | comment | added | Major Stackings | Didn't weaker tributes ally themselves with stronger ones in order to kill other stronger ones? I don't understand the question. | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 6:35 | history | edited | Paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 28, 2015 at 6:13 | history | asked | Paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |