Yeah, the problem with (and, arguably, the point of) the Games is that each contestant actually has a fighting chance - it’s not impossible for the less physically able to win. If you can hobble the careers somehow, the entire field opens up.
I mean, yeah, the 12-year-olds are screwed (I think the youngest victor ever was fourteen, at least the youngest in recent memory). But anyone else has that 1/24 chance, and those odds aren’t actually bad per se.
We have seen examples of geeky victors winning with smarts and mcgyvering, insane victors winning by sheer luck, good actors winning by running rings around the competition, and even some victors turning the game makers tricks to their advantage (they tend to, not to put to fine a point on in, not have a family anymore when they get home, so people are really reluctant to do that these days.)
Another point to consider: there are hints that the drawings are
rigged on favor of those with a lot to loose, or those whose death would be a punishment to their loved ones. We don’t have a single example of a friendless orphan tribute, and the children of victors are disproportionally reaped. So, we have to take into consideration how our tactics would leave our lives after the Games.
Not if that forest fire is controlled by a human who can set any tree or bush on fire at any moment, or the beasts are violent mutants specifically engineered to kill people.
Chronos, they’re not just sending stuff after you randomly. They’re watching you on a monitor, and may at any moment decide to kill you, by pressing the specially designed “kill this person” button. You piss them off = you die.
I’m not saying outsmarting them is impossible (it isn’t), but just refusing to follow the rules, in an obvious way, is fast track ticket out in a pine box.
And following the rules is also a fast track ticket out in a pine box. The scenario basically boils down to “Someone has decided to kill you and your family. In what way do you choose to let them do it?”. The correct answer is, you don’t choose to let them. You do everything you can to try to stop them. Maybe they’re too powerful and you’ll fail, but it’s simply absurd not to try.
And it’s a Hell of a lot harder to make an arena big enough to have forests and rivers and such as secure as a bank vault.
I’m not sure what informatino you’re making your assumptions from.
If you agree to play by their rules, no one kills your family. The odds are then 1/24.
If you don’t agree to play by their rules, they make a concerted effort to kill you off by “natural” forces (fireballs, avalanches out of nowhere, swarms of deadly bees, mutated predatory animals trained to hunt humans, etc.). Odds are extremely close to 0. You also run the risk of having your family, village or entire district wiped from the planet should you not die as quickly as they like.
You’re honestly suggesting that the second option sounds like a better bet?
Rules lawyering aside, how are you willing to assume fireballs, force fields, mutated predators can exist, but an obvious boundary error is all but certain?
If I play by their rules, then next year, there’s another Hunger Games, and the year after that. They’re not going to stop trying to kill my family. If I play by the rules and lose, my family starves. If I play by the rules and win, then they rig the selection to toss more of my family into the arena. And the fact that they’re trying to kill my whole family, not just me, does nothing but increase my resolution to oppose them.
If your family is starving, and you loose, they might not starve. Communities tend to band together to support the families of tributes, if my reading is correct.
And if you lose, your family members are less likely to be selected in following years.
If you win, they will no longer starve, as you will have unlimited food and shelter forever. All adult family members are safe from the games. You can opt out of having children.
I’m not saying you should play by the rules. I’m saying you need to do it some way they won’t pick up on until it’s too late, or can’t counter.* Posturing* or demonstrating is sure death for you and your family.
And hey, winning gets you out, with money, food and popularity. That’s a better starting point for a rebellion, no? You have a whole year to get your act together.
Form an alliance with all the other Non-careers for a knock-down to the death fight in the first few minutes at the Cornicopia with the intention of splitting up the loot and carrying on the game as ‘normal’ after…should have takers as this gives a better chance of winning since the careers win almost every year. . Only 4-6 are careers which leaves 18-20 potential recruits. Even if if some won’t do it you should still have the careers outnumbered. Have the larger/more capable allies fight the careers one on one and the smaller/weaker ones swarm one career then move on to the next (They need to go as a pack to keep their nerve up)
Actually, I would instruct all the weaker/smaller allies to actually try to tackle the nearest career right near the jump off. Even if they slow em down a bit it would allow the more combat capable allies to get weapons sooner.
This should work, and since the careers are planning on fighting, they probably won’t run until too late and so will probably all die…but they will probably take 6 with them so this leaves (hopefully) you and 11 others.
One could then have a second alliance of a subset of them to claim the supplies and then operate as careers themselves. Not sure this is necessary though and wouldn’t play well with the audience. It would surprise the audience to actually allow the little 12 year old shrimps to take their share and head off…plus, in the long run, they aren’t that much of a threat anyway.
So, divide up the supplies, everyone goes there own way and duke it out. I would probably then try to ally with one other person of about my ability in a fight to play until only us left and that would most likely be a stand up fight (since both of us will be watching out for the betrayal).
I would probably do ok at this because, like Katniss (though not nearly as good), I spent much of my teen years hunting/fishing…I could probably supplement my supplies to at least not be starved to death in a long, drawn out attrition by someone else.
If you did win, you would at least look honorable. You vanquished the careers with the help of the others, actually let people leave with the supplies and no double-cross…stood with your one ally and won by final fair contest. Behaving in this way could get you sponsors and, if you did win, would make your post-arena life popular with the crowds/districts.
I still don’t see why I should turn on any of my fellow POWs just because the nation I’m at war with wants us to. This isn’t about starting a revolution: If we’re positing a real-world Hunger Games, then the revolution has been ongoing for decades. Yeah, the books (as I understand it) claim that the revolution was suppressed by instituting the Games, but that’s like claiming that a fire is suppressed by dumping liquid oxygen on it.
No, the games are just a demoralizing power demonstration. Revolution is kept in check by other means, mostly having to do with superior firepower and control over communication.
Chronos, is your strategy is to convince the other tributes to refuse to participate in the few days you have together before the games start? And then what happens?
As for why…self defense? One of them comes at you with a fireaxe, how do you react?
Really? Look around the world a bit. Quite few horrible places, yes? Are all the people there between 12-18 dead? Why would they be in the Hunger Games world?
Never having read the Hunger Games . . .
Never underestimate a honeypot. I like the idea of staking out a territory but I’d put up a rude shelter with some food and use it as a trap.
The big question never having read the book is would a strategy of staying to one place or constantly moving be a better defensive strategy?