This reminds me of jan Misali's analysis of Hangman (in fact the title is so similar that I'm inclined to believe that it's definitely inspired despite not ment

This reminds me of jan Misali's analysis of Hangman (in fact the title is so similar that I'm inclined to believe that it's definitely inspired despite not mentioning the video or Misali by name) [^1]. In any case, I'm obviously inclined to agree that they're both weird games, and that the weirdness comes from their fundamental asymmetry. It definitely reminds me of a sort of ritualized play, where an asymmetry is "artificially" constructed for the purpose of being broken down. There's a fictionalized power dynamic that gets produced, yet the erosion of this dynamic isn't just the point, it's often aided by the one in power (how many times have I given my friends hints or extra chances in both games). > It’s cooperative because everyone is ultimately working toward a common goal: deducing the answer I think this point gets pretty close to why these games are fun or interesting to begin with. I don't think it's necessarily because that they teach you about a person based on the object they choose or the guesses they make, but the fact that the game operates at all. In some sense it's like a puzzle, but unlike a puzzle doesn't just operate on its prima facie rules - because if you can't solve a puzzle then that's just too bad, but if 20 questions doesn't end then something is off. In seems that 20 questions is interesting because there are social conventions within which it operates and playing by those conventions seems to demonstrate a social and emotional understanding that power dynamics within the relationship will be cooperatively undermined. [^1]: https://youtu.be/le5uGqHKll8 https://youtu.be/le5uGqHKll8