Pirates and Ninjas
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:35 pm
I have a vague idea that I've mentioned this here once already, but it doesn't show up in search, and I found it helpful just last week, so here it is even if it's here again. It's an icebreaker game, Pirates and Ninjas. I think I made it up once but conceivably I copied it from somewhere and forgot the source; in any case I don't want any credit. The game goes like this.
The first player proposes two things and asks which one is better. All the next players, in turn, cast their vote for one or the other—and offer one reason why their chosen option is better than the other one. The last player to vote (and give a reason) is the first player, who proposed the two things. The vote is tallied and a winner is declared, if it isn't a tie.
Then the player who was first to offer a vote, in the last round, becomes the new first player. Keep going as long as you like.
Three rules make it actually interesting; the zeroth rule just makes the game easy to understand.
0) The first vote is always between Pirates and Ninjas.
1) Everyone has to choose one option or the other. No-one can abstain or declare that both options are equal.
2) It is not allowed to offer a reason that is essentially the same as one that has already been given by a previous player (at least, not as a reason for the same choice!). If there is an obvious reason why one thing is better, but somebody has already said it, then you have to think of some more obscure and dubious reason, and say that, even if it isn't your own real reason for preferring your option. If there is any argument about whether or not a reason is essentially the same as a previously mentioned one, whoever cares most about the point is allowed to have their way, but if somebody just uses this to slime through with an unimaginative answer, everyone else is allowed to frown on them and mock them.
3) The most important rule is just the emphasis that there are no other rules. Offered reasons do not have to make sense, though frowning and mockery may ensue if they don't. Any two alternatives can be compared: forks or spoons, fruits or vegetables, Saturday or Sunday, green or purple ... whatever. The two alternatives don't even have to be remotely comparable, though it's not usually fun if they're not. They don't have to be obvious peers; in particular, one can be more detailed than the other. You can compare "pirates versus ninjas with flying unicorns mounting lasers, at the task of distributing lemonade". This was once necessary in order to provide a competitive vote when the company had a preponderance of pre-teen girls who loved Johnny Depp.
The game is silly but easy to understand. It involves everyone, gets everybody interacting, and gives everybody a chance to be listened to by everyone else. It lets people show something of their personality, but within constraints that are obviously absurd enough that nobody is put on the spot by any expectation of adequate performance at a serious task. People who are older, or younger, or don't speak the common language so well, are at no disadvantage. If the group is large enough then even potentially controversial choices, like men versus women, tend to become harmlessly silly by the need to invent more and more reasons for either choice.
If you're ever in a potentially awkward situation with a bunch of people who don't know what to say to each other, it's a great thing to try.
The first player proposes two things and asks which one is better. All the next players, in turn, cast their vote for one or the other—and offer one reason why their chosen option is better than the other one. The last player to vote (and give a reason) is the first player, who proposed the two things. The vote is tallied and a winner is declared, if it isn't a tie.
Then the player who was first to offer a vote, in the last round, becomes the new first player. Keep going as long as you like.
Three rules make it actually interesting; the zeroth rule just makes the game easy to understand.
0) The first vote is always between Pirates and Ninjas.
1) Everyone has to choose one option or the other. No-one can abstain or declare that both options are equal.
2) It is not allowed to offer a reason that is essentially the same as one that has already been given by a previous player (at least, not as a reason for the same choice!). If there is an obvious reason why one thing is better, but somebody has already said it, then you have to think of some more obscure and dubious reason, and say that, even if it isn't your own real reason for preferring your option. If there is any argument about whether or not a reason is essentially the same as a previously mentioned one, whoever cares most about the point is allowed to have their way, but if somebody just uses this to slime through with an unimaginative answer, everyone else is allowed to frown on them and mock them.
3) The most important rule is just the emphasis that there are no other rules. Offered reasons do not have to make sense, though frowning and mockery may ensue if they don't. Any two alternatives can be compared: forks or spoons, fruits or vegetables, Saturday or Sunday, green or purple ... whatever. The two alternatives don't even have to be remotely comparable, though it's not usually fun if they're not. They don't have to be obvious peers; in particular, one can be more detailed than the other. You can compare "pirates versus ninjas with flying unicorns mounting lasers, at the task of distributing lemonade". This was once necessary in order to provide a competitive vote when the company had a preponderance of pre-teen girls who loved Johnny Depp.
The game is silly but easy to understand. It involves everyone, gets everybody interacting, and gives everybody a chance to be listened to by everyone else. It lets people show something of their personality, but within constraints that are obviously absurd enough that nobody is put on the spot by any expectation of adequate performance at a serious task. People who are older, or younger, or don't speak the common language so well, are at no disadvantage. If the group is large enough then even potentially controversial choices, like men versus women, tend to become harmlessly silly by the need to invent more and more reasons for either choice.
If you're ever in a potentially awkward situation with a bunch of people who don't know what to say to each other, it's a great thing to try.