It's long been an easy rule of Survivor that if you are a physical threat who continuously dominates at challenges—specifically when it comes to winning individual immunity—you are more often than not walking around with a huge target on your back.
But with these shorter 26-day seasons, I can't help but notice how much more emphasis there seems to be on relationships in the new era. Almost all of our Sole Survivors have claimed the title because of their social game. Though some were well-rounded in all fields of gameplay, the number of jury members who chose a winner strictly due to their relationship status feels higher than it had been in the seasons leading up to Survivor: Winners at War.
If I could run the stats on it, I would, but unfortunately with the fluidity of alliances and introduction of voting blocks in the new school seasons, it's hard to factually say whether a jury member voted for someone based on a relationship or gameplay without having the transcripts of their Final Tribal Council vote confessionals—which I don't. Sorry!
But looking at new era winners like Kenzie Petty (Survivor 46) and Mike Gabler (Survivor 43) we know that in the immediate After Show and subsequent post-game interviews, the jury credited their social game for their win despite the fact that viewers at home could see there were others in the Final Three who played a more universal game.
And of course relationship building has always been a huge aspect of the game—you live in close quarters with your competitors and are trying to convince them not to eliminate you, how could it not be?—but is it becoming such a powerful end game resume item that castaways should start worrying less about the people who fare well in challenges and be more wary of the highly personable player earlier in the game?
Is it time to revisit the concept of voting blocks and do away with alliances for a while? If social gameplay has truly become the most powerful element of a social experiment for $1 million, then maybe it's time to test out what the game could be from a purely strategic angle?
Now, I'm in no way saying I agree with Survivor 48's Strong 5 alliance in that it's time for the physical players to take control of the game again. But with how deep the emotional bonds of social connections have become in recent seasons, I wouldn't mind tearing down those walls a little bit in the name of a change in the Survivor gameplay weather. How about you?
More from Surviving Tribal: