Crosswords Close to Sinking? Colbert Speaks.

[Matt Ottinger]

I still like the idea that you start with five players, two in front and three spoilers.  Play the game like you've been doing it, but everybody accumulates their own score.  You still trade places on a "spoil", but you don't get the other guy's score, you just earn the right to start adding to your own.  High score at the end, even if he's in the back row, is the winner.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'169598\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:52 AM\']
I still like the idea that you start with five players, two in front and three spoilers.  Play the game like you've been doing it, but everybody accumulates their own score.  You still trade places on a "spoil", but you don't get the other guy's score, you just earn the right to start adding to your own.  High score at the end, even if he's in the back row, is the winner.
[/quote]
I like that concept.

For the show are the front two players that originally start the game generally the more experienced crossword solvers? Or do the coordinators just randomly place two contestants in those spots?

If so, two scenario ideas:

1) Out of the five, put your best two up front (from the preliminary auditions), and possibly spot the back row $250 or so, as a "handicap" of sorts.

2) Play a quick one-minute speed round, with each word worth a point, no spoils or anything, just every player for themselves. Top two scorers go to the front, and no "handicap money", to prevent someone from intentionally throwing the round. Have another word played to break any ties amongst players.

Anyone know how the pilot played out? Did they use the three-person team from the Flash pitch film, then split the team into three individual contestants?

[TonicBH]

Now I don't take any credit for this idea, but I thought of basically agreeing with the "Every contestant should have their own scoreboard" thing.

My way would go like this: Introduce all five on the offset, spoilers are not in play. After the first break, the two highest scoring players are put down in front and the other three become the spoilers. Play as normal, except when a spoiler takes a front player's podium, the front player keeps their score and the spoiler brings theirs. The highest-scoring player at the front row wins.

This may not fix all the problems (as somebody could potentially rack up $5-6,000, be dethroned by a spoiler and end up winning the game with lesser money), but it would help the prize budget. Maybe throw in the elimination idea from another person's suggestion.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' post=\'169604\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 06:52 AM\']My way would go like this: Introduce all five on the offset, spoilers are not in play. After the first break, the two highest scoring players are put down in front and the other three become the spoilers. Play as normal, except when a spoiler takes a front player's podium, the front player keeps their score and the spoiler brings theirs. The highest-scoring player at the front row wins.[/quote]
I'll accept your first part, since five equal players at the start makes more intuitive sense.  But limiting the winner to the highest score in the front row still means the game could take an ugly turn at the end because a vastly superior player just happened to miss a clue at the wrong time.  It's better than what they're doing now, I just think it doesn't go far enough to reward performance.

[Neumms]

One player down in front. The three or four are spoilers. Player gets a free crack at every clue until he misses one that a spoiler gets, then they trade places, keeping their money with them. Whoever has the most money at the end of the game, wherever they are, wins.

Either a returning champion (hey, it works on Jeopardy!) starts in front, or there's a toss-up clue with everyone to determine who's the first player in front. (I would denote the front player with a chair, everyone else standing behind them as if looking over his shoulder.) There could be another toss-up to start the double-money round.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169620\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 10:20 AM\']
One player down in front. The three or four are spoilers. Player gets a free crack at every clue until he misses one that a spoiler gets, then they trade places, keeping their money with them. Whoever has the most money at the end of the game, wherever they are, wins.
[/quote]
How's that different from "Bob, you have control"? No point in even having "rows", then. Might as well just have five people standing there, and light up whoever currently has "control".

Of the ideas postulated so far, Matt O's is the easiest to follow for the viewer and best keeps in the spirit of what they were going for in the first place. Though I do like all five players participating in the first round, and rewarding the two highest scorers with the initial front-row spots from Round 2 forward.

I don't think I would give a Spoiler the money for a spoiled answer, though...getting into a position to add to your score should be its own reward. (But I'd want to playtest the hell out of that to see if that really disrupts game balance, too.)

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169624\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM\']I don't think I would give a Spoiler the money for a spoiled answer, though...getting into a position to add to your score should be its own reward. (But I'd want to playtest the hell out of that to see if that really disrupts game balance, too.)[/quote]
I would think that if you want to do that, then players shouldn't lose money for wrong answers.  Instead, your score is frozen and stays that way if someone scoops up the response.  Otherwise, you dodged a bullet.  (Fwiw, in the way it is now, if someone scoops, the score doesn't actually change; the player who got it wrong lost X dollars and the X dollars you got from the right answer gets put in to make the two cancel.)

My idea would essentially be monkey in the middle for the first 2 rounds with whoever's still on the "outside" playing for cash in the final.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169624\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM\']
I don't think I would give a Spoiler the money for a spoiled answer, though...getting into a position to add to your score should be its own reward. (But I'd want to playtest the hell out of that to see if that really disrupts game balance, too.)
[/quote]
Which reminds me...for some reason, I see the idea of a "score transfer" confusing the hell out of Joe Sixpack.

Contestant A has $1,000
The spoiler in back has $700, and slips into contestant A's spot.

It just seems like a lot more work for Ty to keep explaining why the front podium keeps changing numbers. A lot of work to ask the average viewer to follow.

Maybe reduce the number of spoilers to one or two?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'169629\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 12:40 PM\']
Which reminds me...for some reason, I see the idea of a "score transfer" confusing the hell out of Joe Sixpack.

Contestant A has $1,000
The spoiler in back has $700, and slips into contestant A's spot.

It just seems like a lot more work for Ty to keep explaining why the front podium keeps changing numbers. A lot of work to ask the average viewer to follow.
[/quote]
I don't think so, necessarily. "Joe comes down to the front row, and brings his $700 with him, Larry, you can fight your way back in and get the chance to add to your $1,000." All the more reason to develop a scoring system that works without giving the spoiler money for the right answer, so that all of that remains static during the transfer.

Make the player's name a PROMINENT part of the score readout, and I not only think it works, I think it makes a lot more sense. Joe was standing *there* and had that displayed in front of him, now he's standing *here* and has that displayed in front of him.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169624\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169620\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 10:20 AM\']
One player down in front. The three or four are spoilers. Player gets a free crack at every clue until he misses one that a spoiler gets, then they trade places, keeping their money with them. Whoever has the most money at the end of the game, wherever they are, wins.
[/quote]
How's that different from "Bob, you have control"? No point in even having "rows", then. Might as well just have five people standing there, and light up whoever currently has "control".

Of the ideas postulated so far, Matt O's is the easiest to follow for the viewer and best keeps in the spirit of what they were going for in the first place.
[/quote]

You're right on the first point--a front row (preferably with a big stylish modernist chair) is just for visual interest.

If it's five players, four of them spoilers, there could be five podia in the back row, the solver moving forward to the lower step (and sitting on said stylish chair) but his score staying on the now empty podium in the back. When he is unseated, he goes back to the podium he had, not the new solver's.

My idea is basically Matt's, I just think it's far simpler and more elegant to have one solver at a time rather than two. For one thing, it eliminates the "whose podium do you want" issue.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169633\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:35 PM\']
My idea is basically Matt's, I just think it's far simpler and more elegant to have one solver at a time rather than two. For one thing, it eliminates the "whose podium do you want" issue.
[/quote]
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't find it interesting and it doesn't seem to keep in the spirit of what the Crosswords people wanted the game to be. You're just slapping a skin on "one player has control, when they get it wrong, it's a toss-up for the others." Fine and good, but I find that boring and I'd like the game to have a little more meat on it.

[MyronMMeyer]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'169600\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 01:29 AM\']
For the show are the front two players that originally start the game generally the more experienced crossword solvers? Or do the coordinators just randomly place two contestants in those spots?
[/quote]

The first 2 players are pretty-much randomly chosen, near as I can tell. I have a theory that they choose 2 people with the best blurbs, since there's not a whole lot of interview.

-Myron

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169636\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 04:56 PM\']
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't find it interesting and it doesn't seem to keep in the spirit of what the Crosswords people wanted the game to be. You're just slapping a skin on "one player has control, when they get it wrong, it's a toss-up for the others." Fine and good, but I find that boring and I'd like the game to have a little more meat on it.
[/quote]

Yeah, you may be right. Ideally, I think it would be simple good like the $1,000 Race on "Trivia Trap"--that actually was exciting--but it might just be simple boring.

I do love the idea of spoilers--maybe it's just watching Trebek "Double Dare." Dr. Stratton Lindenmeyer (I think that's his name) is so, so, so much cooler than any devil, dragon or whammy. On Crosswords, it's dramatic when Ty introduces the spoilers and makes them seem treacherous, but then the game starts and it's just people with buzzers.

It's funny how what's terribly infuriating about this and Temptation also makes interesting game discussion.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'169647\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 03:46 PM\']
Yeah, you may be right. Ideally, I think it would be simple good like the $1,000 Race on "Trivia Trap"--that actually was exciting--but it might just be simple boring.
[/quote]
See, I though the Race was simple-boring (or simple-painful if Jayne Meadows was on and Eubanks had to read her the categories every time because she was too vain to wear glasses)

I do love the idea of spoilers--maybe it's just watching Trebek "Double Dare." Dr. Stratton Lindenmeyer (I think that's his name) is so, so, so much cooler than any devil, dragon or whammy.

They beat Beauty and the Geek by a solid 25 years in casting the most bookish, nerdy PhD's they could. It was brilliant.

It's funny how what's terribly infuriating about this and Temptation also makes interesting game discussion.

Well, what's particularly infuriating is exactly this: We've fixed both shows, right here in these threads. We know EXACTLY what's wrong, we know EXACTLY what needs to be done to make 'em right, we know it CAN be done, and we know it isn't gonna happen.

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'169649\' date=\'Nov 15 2007, 06:59 PM\']
See, I though the Race was simple-boring (or simple-painful if Jayne Meadows was on and Eubanks had to read her the categories every time because she was too vain to wear glasses)
[/quote]

Particularly painful in that she showed up without Steverino. Why else do you invite her? You only do it to get him. After all, Audrey was the funny, talented one.