So seeing as a week from tonight we’ll be performing Richard the Third in a bar/rock club/café/music hall with only 24 hours of rehearsal (see figure 1)…
figure 1
…we thought it only appropriate to take measures to ensure the audience is too drunk to notice any textual missteps or random theatrical inconsistencies. To that end, we have taken a moment from our panicked line memorization to create a Richard the Third Drinking Game. This document will evolve over time as inspiration (or desperation) hits, culminating in horribly rushed, typo-ridden copies being distributed at the venue.
RICHARD THE THIRD THE DRINKING THE GAME [sic] (R3DG)
GENERAL RULES
…Any mention of husbands, wives, or marriage, married people must drink.
…Any mention of God, Heaven, or such matters, all atheists must drink.
…Whene’er a Messenger enters, anyone looking at their phone or laptop must drink.
…At any mention of Saint Paul, anyone and everyone named Paul must drink.
…Any mention of the Tower or imprisonment, anybody who has ever been arrested must drink.
…Whene’er anyone makes a misogynistic comment, all men must drink.
…Whene’er anyone double-crosses another, drinks must be switched with the person next to you.
…Every time someone is killed, everyone must drink.
CHARACTER RULES
Players shall each be assigned a character to follow; each character shall have a specific set of rules to be observed.
RIVERS
Those players assigned to follow Rivers shall drink whene’er he…
…manages to get through a line without asking a question.
…is sickeningly deferential.
When Rivers is killed, the remainder of the drink shall be consumed. These players now follow DERBY.
*DERBY
Only those players who had been following Rivers unto his death, or likewise latecomers who thus were not assigned a character, shall follow Lord Derby. They shall thenceforth drink whene’er he…
…uses an excessive number of personal pronouns; e.g. “Pray God, I say, I prove a needless coward!”
…delivers expository information.
…pledges his support to someone.
When Derby crowns Richmond King, all followers of Derby must rise and shout “HAIL RICHMOND!” If any follower of Richmond at their table is without a drink, a follower of Derby must offer theirs as substitute.
CLARENCE
Those players assigned to follow Clarence shall drink whene’er he…
…talks about his brother. Or his other brother.
…happens to mention his royalty, or others’ lack of it.
When Clarence is killed, his followers must cry out in alarm, then finish their drink. These players now follow THE PRINCES.
*THE PRINCES, EDWARD AND YORK
Only those players who followed Clarence until his brutal end shall follow these, the sons of King Edward. They shall, hereafter, drink whene’er one or both of them…
…offer discourse upon their stature.
…complain.
…mention any of their uncles.
Followers of the Princes are advised to take small drinks, as befit the children they present. Once receiving news of the Princes’ death, they must finish their drink without anyone else at the table witnessing, and thereafter follow RICHMOND.
ELIZABETH
Those players assigned to follow Elizabeth shall drink whene’er she…
…wails, weeps, laments, or mentions wailing, weeping, or lamenting.
…speaks of her children.
…flees to sanctuary.
…prophesies doom.
When, at the end of Act IV, Elizabeth flees once more to sanctuary, abandoning her players, all those following her must now finish their drinks and swear allegiance to RICHMOND.
BUCKINGHAM
Those players assigned to follow Buckingham shall drink whene’er he…
…says something negative.
…says he will follow/wait upon someone before exiting.
…dotes upon Richard.
…doubts upon Richard.
When Buckingham is killed, all drinks must be consumed. These players now must align with RICHMOND.
*RICHMOND
Such players whose characters have abandoned them through untimely death or unseemly cowardice shall align, at last, with Richmond. Newly reborn as Tudors, these players shall drink whene’er Richmond…
…mentions his tent.
…makes a stirring speech to rally his troops/retainers/office supplies.
…insults Richard.
When Richmond is crowned King, all players must rise, shout “HAIL RICHMOND”, and finish their drink.
Feel free to leave more rule suggestions in the comments.
And by all means, come to The Southern on January 14th (at 8 or 11pm) and take part in the game yourself. Oh, and also see some Shakespeare performed by ridiculously brave, talented, sleepy people. Go, go, dispatch.
I invented a card game in a dream last night.
It wasn’t worth trying to remember; in the dream, we played the game twice, and the first time I won without having to make much of an effort, and the second time I lost before the game was over, without getting to do much. The game mechanic was flawed, the card distribution was unbalanced, and subsequently the game was only fun if you got lucky. Which isn’t much of a game.
It did get me thinking about games, though. Or perhaps, Games. Waking after the dream, on the short 3am stumble to the bathroom and back, I suddenly realized why Poker is so popular. It’s sort of the perfect game. Take a basic rule set built around a fundamental quality of human nature (i.e. to try and make patterns out of chaos), use a centuries-old system of random value allotment (a deck of playing cards), come up with a distribution scheme using that system that minimizes unfair imbalance issues (give each player access to a certain number of cards), and then invent a game play order that emphasizes and rewards play based on the science of probability (knowing how likely you are to get a good hand given the cards on the table) and the art of performance (bluffing and calling bluffs). With a deck of 52 cards, you can play a game that can be taught in a matter of minutes that automatically increases its own difficulty depending on the experience of the players. It is, when played correctly, a game where you are almost always assured that skill will be rewarded. It is Fair.
Which, I thought upon waking this morning, is what makes Poker a Sport. Here I am classifying a Sport as any competitive Game where the rules minimize the effect of chance, where the Game is typically won by the player with the most skill. (Athletic Sports are a subset of Sports for the purposes of this rumination.) Sports are games where looking at average statistics of previous rounds played generally predict an average outcome of future games. I say “generally”, because although sports do favor skill over blind luck, chance events do happen, and humans are humans, and even the person with the most skill at any given pastime will occasionally make mistakes.
I’d argue here that there are only two kinds of sporting events that are enjoyable to watch; well, three if you’re a sadist. The first is watching two sides of high skill play against each other; watching rivals who are both very, very good at what they do is enjoyable simply because extreme competence is fascinating. The second enjoyable experience is to watch a game where normally skilled players make interesting mistakes. Watching people cope with unexpected incompetence is also interesting. The third type of game (that only cruel-hearted people enjoy) is to watch a very good player beat the snot out of a very bad player. Yes, this proves the concept that witnessing competence is fascinating, but it’s hard not to leave feeling bad for the other side. The side that just wasn’t very good.
Which brings me back to Poker. Poker is perhaps even one of the purest Sports. It takes no athletic prowess to speak of, and isn’t even terribly demanding on an intellectual level. Utterly average people can, given dedication and study, become very good Poker players. It is the ultimate in equalization.
I don’t play poker, despite my high opinion of it. I have played a few times in the past, and have discovered the odd determination of most people to remove poker from its position at the peak of the realm of sport. This is to say, when most people play poker, they don’t want to have to be good at it. Instead, they play weird variations, increasing the number of rules to the point where half the cards are wild or blind or cause you to trade hands with the person to your left. People have spent years inventing new ways of infusing Luck back into one of the purest games of Skill mankind has ever come up with. I don’t play poker because I only want to play real poker. And for that, I’d need to gamble, which fiscally isn’t something I can really justify.
(Although it should be noted that for some reason I could never fathom, people still play with actual money after turning their poker games into nearly skill-less exercises in card tossing. Seems to me that it’s more fun to put money on something you have a reasonable assumption of being able to Win without having to flip a coin twenty times. But maybe that’s just me.)
After contemplating the defilement of poker, I was left with the reinforced notion that we, people, have way too much interest in giving in to Chance. I’ve played a bunch of games over the years, board games, card games. I find it interesting to note the different types of people who play games. I haven’t yet quantified them, but I’m sure there are plenty of game theory books that explore the issue (and if not, I should probably start looking for grant money). I am fascinating by players who don’t care that a game is based on Luck. If in playing the game it becomes clear that most of the action of the game is based purely on drawing a certain card, or rolling exactly the right number, I tend to lose interest. Certainly all games must have a randomizing factor to keep from being the same game over and over, but over-emphasis on chance (and here’s where I do the big opinion dance) takes the element of play away from the player. If a game is based too much on the luck of the draw, the player isn’t so much playing the game anymore, but rather watching the game play itself.
And for some, this is delightful. Some people seem to enjoy not having to put much effort into the game, to be able to watch it unfold and delight in having any interaction with it at all. Win or lose, they witnessed a story, and for them it’s enough. For me… I need to feel I have some sort of actual impact on the story of the game. I want to take the elements given to me, and through knowledge of the rules and skill at dealing with random factors, attempt to do something spectacular. When I lose a game, I want to know it was either because my opponent was better, or because I made a mistake. I never seethe more than when I lose a game that, because of the game mechanics and bum luck, was utterly unwinnable from the start.
But then, I’m really big on fairness. I like it when there are rules, and when people play according to those rules. I like knowing that my failures are for a reason, a fair reason, not because of some random thing that was beyond my control. Which is to say, one of the points of playing a game, for me, is to leave Real Life behind for a moment, and enter a world where fairness is actually possible. Life isn’t fair, goes the old chestnut. That doesn’t mean our games shouldn’t be.
