Pyramid hour proposal

[Jay Temple]

http://gameshownetworknews.blogspot.com/2013/06/pyramid-hour.html\'>There\'s an article I discussed about this proposal. It\'s pretty good, JP

You\'re right that I didn\'t address how to do the first show. Keep in mind that the $20,000 was a continuous production with the 10. I would simply have had the winner of the last game of the 10 as the returning player on the 20. Even if he had $10,000, the fact that he didn\'t have $20,000 would mean that he still qualified.

[Matt Ottinger]

You need professional help.

For writing a blog post?

 

I would argue, in a WHM sort of way, that as a writer, Scott definitely needs professional help. Just not the kind of help J.R. was insinuating.

 

Also, I\'m surprised nobody has pointed out the incongruity of Scott taking a potshot at Jay\'s avatar when \"apparently\", Scott looks like a 60s era Dick Clark.

[Bob Zager]

IIRC, around the same time of ABC\'s discussion with Bob Stewart, a week of special 60-minute editions of LMAD aired, produced in Las Vegas.  Pyramid was pre-empted that week.

[TLEberle]

Going back to the original post: if four games of Pyramid would be monotonous (heresy!), and you have it as one full hour instead of two half-hour programs, why not ape TPIR completely? Let each pair play two categories giving and receiving and whoever racks up more money goes center stage to play one of the umpteen variations on the Pyramid theme.

[Neumms]

Here\'s a notion: Winners of the first two games play something similar to the qualifying round of Password All-Stars. Two or four celebrities take turns giving a list of things that fit the subject. The two civilians play against each other, buzzing in to guess. 

 

Six (or ten) subjects, each for an amount of cash--the structure of consolation money in the end game.

 

Penalty options for wrong answers: free clue(s) for the opponent, or opponent takes the subject by default, or wrong guesser has the dollar value deducted (a la Jeopardy!). 

 

Player with more money plays the returning champion in the front game, winner going for the grand prize. Could be a pyramid of ten subjects in 1:30. 

 

This breaks up the hour without adding anything out-of-place like the Chain Reaction end game. Maybe here, the subjects aren\'t shown to us viewers, putting us in the opposite chair. It would also offer an opportunity for new set pieces. Hopefully moving ones. 

[TLEberle]

Chain Reaction bonus out-of-place? Perhaps you mistyped.

[Neumms]

I\'m sorry--of course, the Chain Reaction bonus game is NEVER out of place. 

[TLEberle]

To another point; many years ago Chris Lemon and I were all square at the conclusion of a rip-roaring game of Tie One On. Inexplicably we decided that to break the tie someone would read off clues for the seven answers and we would \"buzz in\" to answer, whoever scored four right would win. It was one of the hollowest victories I\'ve ever had in playing games, and not all that satisfying or interesting as a tie-break mechanic.

You also tried to \"fix\" High Rollers awhile ago too, is that right?

[Unrealtor]

Since everyone else is writing proposals, why not borrow the tournament format from \"Now You See It\" and adapt it to a partner game?

 

Game 1: Two pairs of civilians compete

Game 2: Each member of the winning team is paired with a celebrity

Game 3: Winning civilian from game 2 is paired with the opposite celebrity, and goes up against the returning champion or the runner-up from the previous show\'s game 3 if the champion is retired

 

There would definitely be winners circles after game 2 and 3, but I\'m not sure about having one after game 1 just because splitting it between partners seems awkward when it\'s an individual game the other two times.

[clemon79]

Since everyone else is writing proposals, why not borrow the tournament format from \"Now You See It\" and adapt it to a partner game?

 

Remember: you asked.

 

Game 1: Two pairs of civilians compete

 

This is why. You may have just eliminated someone right out of the gate for no other reason than they had a shite partner that they had no control over choosing. There is a *very good* reason that this type of game is almost always played by a celebrity / civilian team.

 

And yes, that sucked on Now You See It too.

[J.R.]

You also tried to \"fix\" High Rollers awhile ago too, is that right?

I wish there was a way make it so that the contestants actually *wanted* to roll the dice instead of passing the instant there\'s even a sniff of a bad roll possibility.

[Neumms]

 

You also tried to \"fix\" High Rollers awhile ago too, is that right?

I wish there was a way make it so that the contestants actually *wanted* to roll the dice instead of passing the instant there\'s even a sniff of a bad roll possibility.

 

 

Me, too. That\'s what I tried to fix. 

[clemon79]

The problem is that, ultimately, it\'s damned near impossible to either lower the risk or increase the reward in a sensible manner sufficient to make keeping the dice an appealing option (especially in a front game) because you have to make the potential reward at least approach that of \"winning the game, playing Teh Big Numbers, maybe picking up a couple of prizes, and getting to play again.\" And once you\'ve done that, your endgame is no longer the climax, which utterly defeats the point.

[Neumms]

To another point; many years ago Chris Lemon and I were all square at the conclusion of a rip-roaring game of Tie One On. Inexplicably we decided that to break the tie someone would read off clues for the seven answers and we would \"buzz in\" to answer, whoever scored four right would win. It was one of the hollowest victories I\'ve ever had in playing games, and not all that satisfying or interesting as a tie-break mechanic.

 

I\'ve not played Tie One On, but looking it up, it\'s basically the front game of Pyramid, isn\'t it? Describing one object at a time? No, it doesn\'t sound interesting, but it\'s not guessing the subject from the list of things, the part of Pyramid I appropriated.

 

Doing it as a jump-in feels a bit like Tribond, which is very satisfying, and it should be added fun to watch celebrities come up with the list than reading one. It could have the feel of Dick\'s post-games at the Winner\'s Circle. The increasing cash values of the subjects (50-50-50-100-100-200) would hopefully create a bit more intrigue than \"first to four.\"

[TLEberle]

In all this time I actually came up with a format that wouldn\'t be completely insulting and not a joke like the Price is Pyramid one I came up with. That said, I\'m not going to share because I think you should Let Them Play.