Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Good game rule changes?  (Read 16924 times)

JMFabiano

  • Member
  • Posts: 1549
Good game rule changes?
« on: August 16, 2012, 01:22:12 PM »
What do you think were some of the best rule changes?

I'll start with adding the push rule to Perry CS, which carried over to the CBS/syndie '86 version.
I'm a pacifist, and even I would like to see a little more action.

Marc412

  • Member
  • Posts: 359
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2012, 01:27:42 PM »
There have been plenty, but the best I can think of is when "Wheel of Fortune" switched to its current "playing for cash" format.  It made time for more puzzles, and thus more chances for players to win.

beatlefreak84

  • Member
  • Posts: 535
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2012, 01:55:59 PM »
The first example that came into my head was Jeopardy! removing the limit on win streaks.  It was nice to see how far each contestant could go until defeat.

The other example was Classic Concentration going from one-game matches to a "lose two and done" format, since it at least gave contestants a second chance if they ended up playing against a contestant who was extremely lucky/good at the puzzles.

Anthony
You have da Arm-ee and da Leg-ee!

Temptation Dollars:  the only accepted currency for Lots of Love™

Marc412

  • Member
  • Posts: 359
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2012, 02:31:24 PM »
How about "Pyramid"?  It used to be that if you lost a game, you were done.  Now you get to play both halves and see if you have better luck with the other celebrity.

entguy1

  • Guest
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2012, 03:57:16 PM »
"Tattletales" originally had the spouses behind the wall tell stories from just a few cue words by their other half in the audience.

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 15959
  • Rules Constable
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2012, 04:03:11 PM »
"Tattletales" originally had the spouses behind the wall tell stories from just a few cue words by their other half in the audience.
Wouldn't this go in the other thread, then?
If you didn’t create it, it isn’t your content.

Jay Temple

  • Member
  • Posts: 2227
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2012, 04:04:01 PM »
The best change I ever saw was Pyramid letting teams decide who would give the clues on their third turn. I actually remember that change. I don't remember the corresponding change in the Winner's Circle, but I'd call it equally good.

Another of my favorites within a single incarnation of a show was TJW changing the rule on triples in the bonus round. If you had (let's say) $850 and spun three $100's, you got $1,000 under the old rules and $1,150 under the new rules.
Protecting idiots from themselves just leads to more idiots.

catnap1972

  • Member
  • Posts: 655
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2012, 05:27:12 PM »
Replacing the (often pointless) 3 questions after the last Fame Game in $otC with the Speed Round.

Marc412

  • Member
  • Posts: 359
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2012, 06:10:29 PM »
Thanks for reminding me--adding the $5, $10 and $15 Money Cards to the Fame Game board.  Sometimes a player picked the $25 in the first round.

alfonzos

  • Member
  • Posts: 1032
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2012, 06:49:56 PM »
PDQ: In the pilot, the first team to score ten points. This was dumped when the show became a series, but was kept in the home game. Also, players must start with three letters but not the first three,
Classic Concentration: a player could save a Take for later in the game. A Wild Card revealed three frames.
Scrabble: the daily tournament the producer finally settled upon.
The Gong Show: the contestant would perform for thirty seconds before getting gonged.
High Rollers: Insurance markers could be earned during the competition not just at the Big Numbers.
A Cliff Saber Production
email address: alfonzos@aol.com
Boardgame Geek user name: alfonzos

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 18598
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2012, 07:25:21 PM »
Jeopardy! forcing contestants to wait until the entire answer is read, then another split-second. I'm not a fan of interrupting the host.
"It wasn't like this on Tic Tac Dough...Wink never gave a damn!"

JasonA1

  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 3157
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2012, 07:41:16 PM »
I'm not a fan of interrupting the host.
Consider my interest piqued!

On $ale of the Century, I found it integral to the game, and their questions were more-or-less written to the rule. The pacing was such that Jim could neatly finish the question and award the money in one fell swoop. Compare this to Caesars Challenge, where players could (and would) buzz-in as soon as the choices were read, because there was no penalty for a wrong answer, and getting to the board was so much more valuable. It did not make for good television. Later, they instituted some version of waiting for the end of the question.

PYL opened the buzzers at some unspoken point near the end of each question, and was the only show to do that AFAIK. Split Second's first run allowed interruption, another show in which I felt it was natural to the format, and was one of several reasons I felt it trumped the revival.

Would you agree interrupting has its place, or do you not like it everywhere?

-Jason
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 07:41:25 PM by JasonA1 »
Game Show Forum Muckety-Muck

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 15959
  • Rules Constable
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2012, 07:44:37 PM »
Would you agree interrupting has its place, or do you not like it everywhere?
I'm not Brandon, but I do think it depends on the game. I think a decent rule of thumb is that if you can see the question, wait for the host to read it (and allow the director to get a wide shot of all players) then that little bit so someone can signal. This also gives more time to your audience who will get that little piff! of neurochemical for knowing that he beat the contestants on stage to the draw.

Sale of the Century would have been reduced (and that's a very deliberate choice of word) to a Wild Gunman contest more often than not if you had to wait for the end of the question. And that's to say nothing of the Fame Game.
If you didn’t create it, it isn’t your content.

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 18598
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2012, 07:56:26 PM »
I'm not a fan of interrupting the host.
Consider my interest piqued!
Would you agree interrupting has its place, or do you not like it everywhere?
I knew I was forgetting something. ;-) The former; on a show like Split Second it definitely made sense, hence the name. IMO, it helped that Tom and Monty still finished the question; you just had to reserve your spot in line fast enough so that you could pick a choice you knew the answer to.

With $ale, it annoyed me, but was forgivable because at least there, you could still hear enough of the question and just had to be fast enough*. I think what irritated me most about Jeopardy! was the fact that contestants buzzed in literally when the card flipped/monitor switched to the response, so you'd have Art/Alex say "This general..." (ding!)

*I was also going to mention this earlier, and since Sale was mentioned, here goes: there was a controversy c. 2005 on Aussie Temptation, where during the speed round, the 3rd place contestant started buzzing in on Every. Single. Question. I don't think she ever answered a single one, but she just wanted to block the champion (who was in 2nd) from going any further. The champ indeed lost, and whoever was in 1st became the new winner. That's not what caused my irritation with the practice, but it was definitely dirty pool in my book.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 08:10:52 PM by BrandonFG »
"It wasn't like this on Tic Tac Dough...Wink never gave a damn!"

TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 15959
  • Rules Constable
Good game rule changes?
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2012, 08:01:46 PM »
*I was also going to mention this earlier, and since Sale was mentioned, here goes: there was a controversy c. 2005 on Aussie Temptation, where during the speed round, the 3rd place contestant starting buzzing in on Every. Single. Question. I don't think she ever answered a single one, but she just wanted to block the champion (who was in 2nd) from going any further. The champ indeed lost, and whoever was in 1st became the new winner. That's not what caused my irritation with the practice, but it was definitely dirty pool in my book.
An interesting coda to that: in the last iteration before Sale became Temptation the player in third at the end of the last Fame Game was excused. That's certainly a way to cut out the kingmaking but on the other hand that last FG segment would be anticlimactic because the player in third not only had to win the question but find some money among the famous faces. One hand gives, the other one takes away.
If you didn’t create it, it isn’t your content.