Author Topic: pyramid hypothetical (Read 8148 times)

toetyper · « **on:** November 24, 2007, 08:55:59 PM »

what if instead of celebrities. there were 2 teams of civillans playing;;.ala blockbusters--would it be more exciting? less exciting?
more difficolt?' less?

dzinkin · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2007, 09:02:11 PM »

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'170436\' date=\'Nov 24 2007, 08:55 PM\']
what if instead of celebrities. there were 2 teams of civillans playing;;.ala blockbusters--would it be more exciting? less exciting?
more difficolt?' less?
[/quote]
It's not a hypothetical; it aired on ABC as Junior Partner Pyramid, with parent/child teams. And it really, really didn't work, thanks in part to clues that made sense only to the two members of each team. Two related adults (as on Blockbusters) would have the same problem.

With two unrelated adults, who knows?

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2007, 09:07:19 PM »

We put on a version of Pyramid last year at our school. As David said, it dosn't work due in part to inside info that the players use to get clues. Sure, it's funny when you get a box that says "Old Things" and a player says "Grandma Jane", but any other time just brings on a Whoosh effect.

clemon79 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2007, 09:12:40 PM »

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'170436\' date=\'Nov 24 2007, 05:55 PM\']
what if instead of celebrities. there were 2 teams of civillans playing;;.ala blockbusters--would it be more exciting? less exciting?
more difficolt?' less?
[/quote]
"This is what we had for dinner at Aunt Martha's last night." "Pot roast!" <DING!>

And that is all you need to know about why it would be a horrible idea.

And if it's two strangers, it's just stupid. A bad contestant screws things up for everyone. (Yes, a bad celebrity does that too. You'll notice that Stewart had a go-to stable of regular celebrities, most of which were pretty good at the game.) Bad celebrities, you just don't invite back. You never know when a bad player is gonna come down the pike.

toetyper · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2007, 09:20:39 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'170441\' date=\'Nov 24 2007, 09:12 PM\']
Bad celebrities, you just don't invite back.
[/quote]
except for jamie farr

but i do see your point

Jeremy Nelson · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2007, 02:04:36 PM »

See Poston, Tom.

ChrisLambert! · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2007, 02:24:35 PM »

They played a Pyramid-style mini-game on Supermarket Sweep late in that show's run, and it suffered the same problems. The teams used almost exclusively inside references.

whewfan · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2007, 07:57:47 PM »

Peter Lawford is an interesting example. In Pyramid's early years, he was a decent player, and was regarded as one of the best Password players as well. However, in 1979 he was washed up. Who knows why he was allowed to appear one week in '79 when he was either drunk, stoned, or both. In the one episode being traded around, Peter at first appears normal, but when he first speaks, his speech is noticeably slurred. During the gameplay, he gets hyper and can barely stay in his seat. He also got testy and frustrated when the player couldn't get the words on the first clues. Despite his inebriated state, he wasn't actually that bad of a player, although he didn't make it in the winner's circle.

I got an email from a contestant that was on that week, and she said the producers argued about whether to let him continue. One of the biggest issues, oddly enough was whether to allow him to appear without socks.

Neumms · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2007, 08:14:59 PM »

[quote name=\'whewfan\' post=\'170488\' date=\'Nov 25 2007, 07:57 PM\']
Despite his inebriated state, he wasn't actually that bad of a player, although he didn't make it in the winner's circle.
[/quote]

Then that's one of the few places where he didn't make it. Ba-da-bum.

Trouble is, "Pyramid" just can't get celebrities to play who are, indeed, celebrities. And even with lesser-knowns, they were briefing them beforehand, so the quality of play angle is shot.

Teams of strangers is the way to go. It's no less fair than pairing them with celebrities who may or may not be any good. This may involve reworking the front game to give us a chance to meet them, but I've never been wild about the front game anyway. It worked for "You Bet Your Life" and "Rich List" for, what, 20 years and one week.

clemon79 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2007, 08:40:09 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'170489\' date=\'Nov 25 2007, 05:14 PM\']
Teams of strangers is the way to go. It's no less fair than pairing them with celebrities who may or may not be any good. This may involve reworking the front game to give us a chance to meet them, but I've never been wild about the front game anyway. It worked for "You Bet Your Life" and "Rich List" for, what, 20 years and one week.
[/quote]
I think the mere mention of "The Rich List" pretty much blows your own argument out of the water.

toetyper · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2007, 08:58:43 PM »

SO if we do this. with 4 strangers playing, i assume we dont switch partners between games do we?

dzinkin · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2007, 09:02:12 PM »

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'170496\' date=\'Nov 25 2007, 08:58 PM\']
SO if we do this. with 4 strangers playing, i assume we dont switch partners between games do we?
[/quote]
Is it workable to have a rule that says "switch partners if one player sucks"? ;-)

clemon79 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2007, 09:38:37 PM »

[quote name=\'toetyper\' post=\'170496\' date=\'Nov 25 2007, 05:58 PM\']
SO if we do this. with 4 strangers playing, i assume we dont switch partners between games do we?
[/quote]
Well, 1) we don't do this. But if we throw all foresight and common sense out the window and try it anyhow, then 2) you ABSOLUTELY switch partners, for the very reason I mentioned above.

But, see (1).

Gus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2007, 09:39:49 PM »

I've been debating whether to add this to this or the $1000000 Pyramid thread, cause it merges the discussion of both, but I'm putting it here to respond to Toetyper's recent addition. Gus's Million-Dollar Pyramid is ConnectiMatt's with the following modifications. Players are unacquainted civilians. After a WC, the team that played it is split up and re-paired with the losing players. Players leave after two main-game losses. (I've thought up the various re-pairing situations and scenarios' solutions, but I don't think it's necessary to detail them all here.) Each player plays the WC for their own prize. So for instance, say Player A and Player B as a team go to the WC. This is A's first trip, but B has already won twice. A win means A wins $50,000, and B goes to $250,000. I don't like the having to risk your winnings on a return or walk bit --- if they make it, they make it; if they don't, they don't. Excuse the lack of line breaks; anyone know how to add them in Opera Mini?

Jay Temple · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2007, 11:50:17 PM »

[quote name=\'Gus\' post=\'170502\' date=\'Nov 25 2007, 08:39 PM\']
Each player plays the WC for their own prize. So for instance, say Player A and Player B as a team go to the WC. This is A's first trip, but B has already won twice. A win means A wins $50,000, and B goes to $250,000.
[/quote]
You've just doubled your prize budget. (That is not a criticism, just a reality.)

Author Topic: pyramid hypothetical (Read 8148 times)

dzinkin

dzinkin