Exactly, IceCat. Despite the conditions these players are living under, MB can make certain they all have plenty of food and water any time he wants, he'll just do things in the best manner to progress the game forward and make the best TV he can with it.

That said, I posted this query on another thread, maybe someone over here can help me out. (And I am rephrasing the query for the second time here.) Every good game has an in-built dynamic to progress the game forward. "Survivor" occurs basically in three acts: Act 1, team-building; Act 2, threat elimination; Act 3, individual politics and manipulations. We are still currently in Act 1. Two of the scenarios for the twist, the 3-3 switch and the 3 teams of 4, essentially create new tribes, regressing the game rather than progressing it forward. I don't see how the game could progress under those twists. Does anyone understand game structuring well enough to explain to me how a regressive move could be used to propel the game forward?

"If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")