| 1. |
Divide cards between players. |
|
 |
| 2. |
Decide who will go first. |
|
|
| 3. |
The player whose turn it
is, studies the card on top of their pile and selects either 'Strengths',
'Weaknesses / Risks' or 'Special Skills'. |
|
|
| 4. |
All players then look
at their own top card, and discuss who has got the best characteristic in this
category. |
|
|
| |
For example: |
|
|
| |
--- The Giddens
risk, "Misguided postmodernists may attack", is preferable to the Butler
weakness, "Increasingly impenetrable writing style". (It doesn't matter
if some postmodernists misunderstand your argument and slag you off. But if no-one
can understand your argument in the first place, that's bad). So here, when comparing
'Weaknesses / Risks' , the player with the Giddens card wins (unless
someone else's card beats theirs). |
|
|
| |
--- The Foucault
strength, "Model of power innovative and
realistic" is better than the Psychologists strength, "Resistance
to postmodern self-doubt". (Self-belief isn't much of a contribution to the
world, but good ideas are). So here, when comparing 'Strengths' , the player
with the Foucault card wins (unless someone else's card beats theirs). |
|
|
| 5. |
The winning player takes
one card -- the card which just lost that battle -- from each other player. |
|
|
| 6. |
If several players are
involved, the discussions about who has the superior characteristic on their card
will inevitably be more complex. In case of dispute, a majority vote decides the
outcome. If this still does not decide it, then for God's sake, go and watch TV
instead or something. |
|
|
| 7. |
The player with all (or
most) of the cards at the end, wins.
|
