More Chickens, More Fun. B'Gawk! revisited

What I love about the Internet is the people it brings to me, and me to.

In reaction to the game of B'Gawk as described in Monday's story about The Ultimate Camp Resource

Roger Greenaway commented:

"Make this game even better by changing 'elimination' to a 'forfeit' e.g. infringers slide circled fingers up their foreheads to make chicken shades, then strut round the circle as a cool but miserable chicken. After completing the forfeit you are a full participant again."

And then Bruce Williamson wrote:

"This B'gawk game reminds me of an activity sort of like a "wave" in a circle that I used to do with groups. I think I called it "Synapse." Everyone joins hands. The leader starts a simple squeeze of either the hand on his/her right or left. When this is first done it's fun to see the hands jerking around the circle as the signal gets to each person. The leader then sends a squeeze in the opposite direction. Next the group experiments with sending the one-direction signal in such a silent, stealth manner that it is hard to see the impulse as it passes around. The ultimate challenge is when the leader squeezes both hands simultaneously and the impulse travels around in both directions at once reaching that poor soul opposite the leader who on a good day successfully passes it on in both directions at once.

"I love the utter hilariousness of B'gawk, but what I really HATE about it is the elimination rule, even being out for just one round. To me it runs counter to the New Games approach that so wonderfully and magically transformed many of the hatefully competitive games we were subjected to and humiliated by when we were children. With children I don't think it is fun to be individually eliminated, to be singled out and feel you are not good enough, especially if for various reasons (I think of my own lack of sports coordination when I was little) a child always seems to find himself/herself in the losing group. What price is paid when a child is always thinking inside "I'm not good enough or I'm too stupid or I'm (fill in the blank) to stay in this game."

"By changing just that one rule, B'gawk can easily be turned into an utterly fun test of a group trying AS A GROUP for its next personal best, where the group cheers on the ones who don't always get it RIGHT. Just amend the rule to say that "everyone stays in and that . . . the goal of the game is to look ridiculous and go as fast as possible . . . and see how quickly the GROUP can successfully B'gawk TOGETHER."

"I mean, I know a game like this shows up in a camp handbook for all the best reasons, but this bit about eliminating people deserves to die, at least until a group has played together for a good long while, and even then I am not so sure, not even with highly self-aware adults. I think fun disappears when players get individually eliminated. It doesn't mean those kinds of rules aren't enjoyable in certain circumstances. But I strongly believe they are mostly joy killers. The only thing that could make the existing B'gawk rule about elimination even worse would be for the game leader to blow a classic coach's whistle really loudly, point at the person who just messed up and yell that they are OUT.

"Looking at my own nefarious career leading many different kinds of groups in various playful activities, ropes course challenges, New Games, etc., and from examining my own childhood history, I think the amount of shaming and bad feelings that have been generated by competitive games in people's lives is really amazing. I think one of the reasons that New Games took off so quickly in the 70's was because our generation was sick and tired of the old rules. Today? I would imagine that the video game generation as it "matures" (is that an oxymoron?) will probably want more competition than ever, the bloodier, more violent and ruthless the better."

I shared these comments with the Resource, and, within say a coupla hours, got an email telling me a new, revised version had been published, as follows:

B'gawk! (The chicken game!!)

Stand in a circle. Make two circles (one with each hand) with the index finger and the thumb. Hold a circle over each eye. The person starting drops one hand (a quick bounce, as if the hand was tied to elastic) and says "B'gawk!!" The direction is decided by which hand is used; if the first person drops his right hand, the person to his right must then continue the action. If he drops his left hand, the person to his left continues.

If BOTH hands are dropped, the action continues in the same direction, but the person directly opposite is skipped over. The first person cannot use a double B'gawk, because direction has not yet been established.

If someone messes up (ie: B'gawks when they shouldn't, or hesitates too long), they must run around the circle flapping arms and making chicken noises until they return to their original spot, and rejoin the play. Note: the group continues to play while the chicken run around the circle - this adds to the chance of being distracted, making mistakes, and becoming a chicken. More chickens, more fun!

The goal of the game is to look ridiculous and go as fast as possible.

It is this kind of responsiveness, this ease of and openness to change, that makes the Internet such a deep and inviting playground. "More chickens, more fun!"