Friday, February 11, 2005

What’s Better/Who Would Win In A Fight

These are two games I learned from my husband and his friends. For anyone who doesn’t know the rules:
What’s Better requires that one person pose the question about two things/people/places/whatevers, the idea being that whichever thing is better is kept, and the other thing has to be banished from the face of earth forever. The object of the game is to stump as many people as possible. If you boil it down, the easiest way to stump people is to choose two things that are a) really really great (or necessary), or two things that b) really really aren’t. It can also be fun to play with your more gray areas, like c) things that go together so well you can’t bear to think of one without the other.
Examples:
What’s better?
a) Monkeys, or bunnies?
b) Jessica Simpson, or Nick Lachey?
c) T-shirts, or jeans?
Moving on to Who Would Win In A Fight? This is fairly obvious, of course, but the bonus of this game is that you can arm your competitors with whatever suits your fancy, as well as giving them some sort of disadvantage, if that appeals to you.
For example:
Who would win in a fight?
Angelina Jolie with an eyepatch and both hands tied behind her back, or
Jennifer Aniston with a throwing star?
David Foster Wallace with a salad fork, or Dave Eggers with a butter knife?

2 comments:

Jackie said...

I'm more of a fan of "Death is Not an Option". That's where one person picks two people that the other player(s) have to choose between to have sex...and, death is...well, you get the idea. For example: Death is not an option: Camille Paglia or Susie Bright; Death is not an option: Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin.

Anonymous said...

anne hensley, here. the ultimate 'what's better' stumper for me has always been couches or socks. curse the mind of dann gesink for that one.