Two Passwords
Translation details
Model:mistral-medium-2604.Translated text
Section titled “Translated text”Towards a forest glade, located in the middle of the terrain where the exercise takes place, scouts creep forward, each positioned singly around the area:
The exercise begins as follows: all participants (after receiving cards, the contents of which must not be revealed to anyone) form a circle and then disperse along radii to a distance of 500–800 paces, after which they hide and wait for the signal to start the game.
Half of them are conspirators, who have a password and a response (e.g., Warsaw — Castle). The other half are gendarmes tracking them, who have also been given their own recognition signs (e.g., Vistula — Wawel). No one knows who is a conspirator and who is a gendarme, for everyone has a band of the same color tied around their left arm, but each carries a card in their pocket, given to them by the leader. (On the card, for example: Bandit. Password: Warsaw — Response: Castle.)
Since the side that has the most members on the glade at the end of the game with their band still on their arm wins, each tries to neutralize as many enemies as possible by tearing off their bands, while also saving themselves. But whose band should one tear off? First, one must ask for the password, for what if it is a friend? But by doing so, one might reveal oneself. And what then?
There is a rule: the one who first asks for the password from a distance of 15–20 paces has the right to demand it from the other. Therefore, one must cautiously sneak up to the observed person or lie in wait on their path in order to have the right to ask.
And many complications can arise in the process. For example, the question is asked: Password? The answer is: Warsaw! Then the one asked, in turn, asks for the response to confirm whether they are indeed dealing with a friend. What if the questioner was a gendarme and does not know the conspirators’ response? Then, either they attack the opponent to tear the band from their arm, or, not wanting to expose themselves, they flee after learning the enemy’s password. Part of the secret is revealed. Now, if this gendarme later encounters someone else, they deliberately do not ask for the password, and when asked, they give the wrong one: Warsaw. If they also encounter a gendarme, that one will certainly attack or flee; then they quickly correct themselves, giving the proper password Vistula and receiving the response Wawel in return. Two friends have recognized each other, and now two know the conspirators’ password. If, however, it was a conspirator, they will certainly, upon receiving the password Warsaw, reveal their response Castle to the gendarme. This information is extremely valuable for the gendarme: they approach the conspirator, who suspects nothing, and suddenly tear off their band! The enemy is neutralized, and their password is known. The gendarme is now somewhat in control of the situation, but not absolutely, for one of the conspirators might have similarly deceived the gendarmes and, in turn, also misled them.
There can be countless such tricks as the one above. From this single example, one can see how much presence of mind is required to avoid being deceived by anyone, how vast the field is for various ideas, and how many different stratagems are needed to outwit the enemy and gain the upper hand. Those who recognize each other explain who among the rest are friends and who are enemies, and often begin joint action.
At first, it is difficult to encounter anyone, but the closer one gets to the glade, the easier it becomes. Yet, no one knows whom to trust or whom to guard against, whether it is better to enter the glade (for once someone enters, they are not allowed to leave it) or to try their luck further to tip the scales of victory in favor of their own side. And the edge of the glade may also be occupied, and suddenly a question about the password may be asked, leading to a hopeless self-revelation! Finally, at the designated hour, on the signal to assemble, everyone enters the glade, and after revealing themselves, they count the number of “killed.” One side has won. It should also be added that once a band is torn off, it is not allowed to be tied back on, even if it was torn off by mistake.
Source scan: Polona / National Library of Poland, marked “Public Domain”. View scan — PDF pages 197–200.
Metadata
Section titled “Metadata”- Type: game
- Traits: Not stated in the source
- Source: Zygmunt Wyrobek, Harcerz w polu: zabawy i gry terenowe (1946)
- Printed pages: 191–194 / PDF 197–200
- Digital edition: Digital edition · Source record
- Open the edition at the relevant page: p. 191
- Read the source text: hwp-098