Jeff Probst shares why new Survivor seasons begin with three smaller tribes

On a recent episode of On Fire with Jeff Probst, Survivor host and executive producer Jeff Probst shared some insight about why the new era Survivor seasons begin with three smaller tribes rather than two larger tribes.

It's been a common complaint among old-school Survivor fans. Cohost Jay Wolff, who added he didn't want to be contentious, hinted that some old-school Survivor fans miss the big tribal councils where anything can seemingly happen, rather than the smaller tribal councils we see in the first six-ish episode of new era Survivor seasons.

To be more specific, the Survivor 47 cast, which is who Probst, Wolff, and cohost Charlie Davis were talking about, started with three tribes of six players as opposed to two tribes of nine players, which is how many older seasons of Survivor started.

As always, Probst had a very interesting answer! He revealed the process they'd go through if they were trying to have those big votes that some fans want to see.

"Look, yeah, there are trade-offs for every new idea," Probst said. "So, if you want to critique Survivor, which is fun to do, you can really dig into it if you look at it from the point of view that you're the producer and you're in charge."

"So, if you want more of the large group dynamic when it comes time for votes, if you want that in the show, get that whiteboard out and write that in big, bold letters across the top," Probst continued. "Then, go through and list all the fun ways you can achieve that, and imagine all the new scenarios you'll get and how those scenarios will impact the game. Play it all the way out to the end in the final three and final tribal council and what those speeches might be about and how they use the large numbers. All that stuff. That's a great start. Then, go back and look at what you're going to give up."

Probst also shared what happened as you play the game out in this way with two big tribes. He mentioned that for those first couple votes, you might have 8-1 or 9-1 votes against one player rather than the 3-2 blindside.

"What's good about that?" Probst asked. "Maybe you lose a player who wasn't performing as well as you wanted them to. On the other side, it might be hard to build enough mystery if it's a 9-1 vote."

The question came about because Genevieve Mushaluk shared how challenging it was to get a tribe of 11 people moving in the same direction to vote out one player at tribal council in episode 8!

For the first 24 seasons of Survivor, all but one season began with two tribes competing against each other before coming together at the merge. The lone exception was Survivor: Cook Islands, which started with four tribes of five. In season 25, Survivor: Philippines, the season started with three tribes of six players, and that paved the way for the new era of Survivor (every season since Winners at War) to start each season with three smaller tribes rather than the two larger tribes.

And, I think we all remember the stunning 5-4 blindsides when we think about the glory days of Survivor. We all forget about those 8-1 or 9-1 votes that Probst is talking about.

Look, I'm for getting into the larger tribe votes earlier. I think there's a lot of chaos during these votes, and that makes it interesting for the audience, but at the same time, it's much more exciting when you have smaller tribes, fewer votes, and fewer numbers to pull off massive moves. Look at the vote to eliminate Kishan Patel in episode 4. One player didn't have a vote, and Rome Cooney took Kishan's vote with his Steal a Vote advantage. Now, there's a blindside. With a larger tribe, there's no way you get the excitement of that moment with a larger tribe. There are just too many people to get them moving in one direction.

In addition, there's so much chaos right now in Survivor 47 (post-merge) because these players are loyal to other players and inexperienced working together. No one knows who to trust, and that feels very fun!

Clearly, Survivor producers have thought this through. We might not like it when the Yanu tribe loses every challenge and is permanently at tribal council for the first few weeks of the game like we did in Survivor 46, but it beats watching the weakest players be picked off one by one like we've seen in Survivor so many times.

I think there's a balance that can be achieved. Maybe, if there was variance or multiple tribe switches, that could make things even more interesting, but I think the game is pretty good as it is.

I look at other reality shows, especially the longer-running shows like Survivor, and I see how they've had to reinvent themselves over the years. Survivor does it much better than any other show on TV, and I don't think that it is particularly close. It's all a matter of taste and preference, which Probst hinted at, but there's no denying how exciting the shorter season of Survivor has become. Every week, it's a blindside. The producers have influenced the game just enough to eliminate the safe vote, which is what plagued the show, in my opinion, for a long time. You can't get an alliance of four or five and control the game because of the hidden immunity idols, advantages, and Shot in the Dark. Those elements have changed the game for the better.

So, it's hard, but it makes a lot of sense why Probst and the producers have chosen to start with three tribes rather than two. The game is much more exciting week after week, consistently, rather than a few big moments spread out over the course of the season.

Watch Survivor 47 episode 9 on Wednesday, Nov. 13, only on CBS and Paramount+!