Pilot Run: STRIKEOUT!

[TLEberle]

That's certainly your prerogative but right now you have a bread on bread sandwich. I don't think a meaningful choice like what I proffered is too complicated at all.

[Sonic Whammy]

Again, not saying it can't work. But help me out, how would you enforce it? Give me a sample of how it can play out.

[TLEberle]

How do you enforce what? "Tom, you get to choose whether Harry answers one question on Baseball or two on US Presidents. What do you choose?"

What's to enforce?

[Sonic Whammy]

How would the strikes work? Is answering/failing on the 2 easy questions different from the 1 hard question?

My imagination is that if there's no difference, just like the unlimited passing right now in Round 2, everyone would just give the other guy the 1 hard question.

[TLEberle]

Since every wrong answer gets a strike, that rule would still apply in round three, rewarding a player who paid attention in the first two rounds.

[Sonic Whammy]

See, I wouldn't even treat the easy questions separately. Here, you wanted to think in Tic Tac Dough red category mode. Think Double-Or-Nothing.

If you challenge the opponent to answer the 2 easy ones, they must get both right or they get two strikes. Likewise, if they succeed, you got the two strikes. No splits. SOMEONE must get two strikes if the easy questions are chosen.

That would put the element of risk on you as the challenger. If you think from how they've done in other categories (there's very little repeating of the same category during the game if any, so you can't really "pay attention" in that regard) that they can't answer 2 easy questions on this next subject, then take the chance. But if you think it's gonna backfire, just give them the hard one so that you only incur one strike at most.

[cyclone45]

My favorite Loogaroo game is actually Time Bomb.

[parliboy]

Going to jump in here with my worthless two cents.  Probably quoting people...

Round 1 can be a bit dry right now, but it's fine if it moves faster.  Pacing and format are two different animals and that'll get improved with more run-throughs.

Round 2, simplify the rule: "You may never pass on two consecutive questions".  It still creates the possibility for an all-play while also not forcing the obvious tactic of passing when an opponent has four strikes and you don't.  (And obvious tactic was obvious to your contestants.)  It's a simpler rule than what you have right now (and you admittedly want simpler rules).  It also speeds up the game since players who pass have their decisions made for them on the following question.  If you want to add meat to the decision making without adding more rules on top of that, have a "NEXT" box to show what the category will be for the following question that they'll be forced to play if they pass this one.

Round 3 is, in fact, the previously mentioned bread sandwich.  Here's your fix:  There's a category board, one question in each category.  Have a general knowledge toss-up.  The toss-up isn't worth a strike.  Instead, the toss-up winner can choose to play a category or can force the opponent to play a category of the toss-up winner's choice.  This also addresses Travis' concern about being able to give a strike to an opponent who can do nothing about it.  This also increases the value of knowledge gained about your opponents' strengths and weaknesses earlier in the game, which can only be a good thing.

While the bonus is straightforward, the win condition is creative and interesting.  I understand why you chose it.  It does create the side effect, though, that someone who did well in the first three rounds wins less than someone who just survived to the bonus.  This is easily fixed by changing the total win to a flat amount though.

Some folks might have a problem with the advantages carried by one player over another from round to round.  I don't.  I view it as the strength of your game, and it's the kind of thing that's missing from too many formats.

Round two is clever but why wouldn't a savvy player just pass every time?

Because if everyone tries to do that, the next question is an automatic must-play for everyone, at which point you either get the question right or get a strike. The optimal strategy isn't to duck every question; if anything you want to play as many questions as you feel confident in playing because that accelerates the round (more situations where both your opponents get a strike as opposed to just one of them).

No, it's not.  Because if you're the only one who plays a question, then the only one who can get a strike is you.  If you were the only one who played a question, and getting it right meant your opponents get strikes, then it might be different.  As it is, you can be penalized for playing and your opponents rewarded for doing nothing.

I get that there's a bit of a Challengers vibe there, but on that show, everyone had to play on every category in some way.  The math works way different here.

[Sonic Whammy]

So far, it appears the growing consensus for Round 2 is, "pass one, must play the next". We'll see if the next run of the game in 2 1/2 justifies that. It probably will, but just to be sure. And I like the idea of seeing the categories of the questions, I was actually thinking about that myself before you said it. Tim, what do you think of that one?

Round 3, still under debate, although I'm liking the last idea that I told Travis. Just waiting on his reply.

And Go The Distance, yeah, that's interesting, I didn't notice that about the payoffs until you mentioned it, Parliboy. OK, note made, after this 2nd episode, we'll drop that probably. To this, I ask Tim a question. Should we:
A) Only give the $250's in GTD if they DON'T win the $10K?
B) Drop the $250's altogether and just give the overall winner an extra $1000 for making it to the end?
C) Not give any other bonus at all, just award what they picked up in the first two rounds and the $10K if they win it?

I may have one other idea, but let's figure all this out first.

(And PS: Huzzah to anyone here who's subscribed recently. We really need it. Hope you're enjoying yourself.)

[Loogaroo]

What I don't like about the suggestions for round 3 is that it's turning what should be a simple, dramatic knockout round into some complicated game-within-a-game where answering one question grants to the ability to answer another question or pass a question to the other player and some such. I feel like eyes will glaze over if we get too deep in the weeds with rules explanations. I've discussed the "hot streak" format with Travis, and the idea that someone could buzz in, get a question right, rattle off two more right answers, and their opponent is dunzo all because they weren't fast enough on the first question really doesn't sit well with me.

I would be more inclined to try something different with the questions, i.e. Seesaw lists or something of that sort, before mutating the final round rules too much.

[TLEberle]

Round 3, still under debate, although I'm liking the last idea that I told Travis. Just waiting on his reply.

There's no reason to wait for me. Also, I'm recovering from neurosurgery and can't just dash to a computer terminal--sometimes I read the board from an iPad.

What I see is several people lining up to say that round three needs work. I'm glad to see that Tim is receptive to that since it's his creation after all. The one thing that I can't stand in game shows is arbitrary penalties (cf: Lingo, Make the Grade, Nick Arcade), and round three as it stands is largely arbitrary. That said, I love what Gene has put forward.

So here's one last note: the nature of the game isn't so much that one person wins as somebody loses by striking out. You're kinda driving in the opposite lane by having losers rather than a winner.

[parliboy]

What I don't like about the suggestions for round 3 is that it's turning what should be a simple, dramatic knockout round into some complicated game-within-a-game where answering one question grants to the ability to answer another question or pass a question to the other player and some such. I feel like eyes will glaze over if we get too deep in the weeds with rules explanations. I've discussed the "hot streak" format with Travis, and the idea that someone could buzz in, get a question right, rattle off two more right answers, and their opponent is dunzo all because they weren't fast enough on the first question really doesn't sit well with me.

I would be more inclined to try something different with the questions, i.e. Seesaw lists or something of that sort, before mutating the final round rules too much.

Tim, a seesaw list mutates your rules a lot more than what I threw out.  It also slows the game down too much.

You mentioned what you don't like about round 3 suggestions.  What I don't like is that the progression for how complicated your rules are isn't going one way or another.  Right now, your rounds rules complications are ranked something like: 2-1-3, and the game would flow better with something... linear.  Either 1-2-3 or 3-2-1.

See, here's the thing about round 3 right now: you believe it's dramatic... but it's not dramatic.  You want it to be, but it's not.  The drama has to partially rely on your contestants' investment in the game, as well as overwrought production values.  You don't really have those, and there isn't enough game to make this work in a convention setting.  So instead of dramatic, it's bread sandwich.

(Please understand, I am talking about the format, not you.  Any aggressiveness is predicated on the idea that I've spent a LOT of hours working with other peoples' prototype board games and always want to see them get better.  This conversation is no different for me.)

[Sonic Whammy]

I'm in agreement that there's a rule out there that can add drama and still keep everything simple. We've all got this, I know it.

Anyway, was talking with Tim earlier today. He's working on an overhaul twist that makes everyone in Rounds 2 and 3 decide on a choice of two categories to play rather than a play or pass thing with a single category. This keeps everyone active on all questions. And the 3rd round isn't going to have forced strikes. The only thing he didn't get to tell me was what the max length of the rounds will be.

(BTW, feel better, Travis, haven't been here or seen you on FB in a while, didn't know anything was going on.)

[Loogaroo]

The ruleset I have at this point looks like this:

R1: Pass on as many questions as you want, but if you pass and nobody answers incorrectly, it's a strike. ("Caught looking", as it were.) And yes, that means if everyone passes, they all get a strike because they're all cowards.
R2: Each question is a choice between two categories. It's a toss-up question when multiple players choose the same one.
R3: Same as R2. If different categories are picked, whoever started the round with more strikes (or less money if that was tied) has the obligation of going first.

That should simplify things. Given that this is being done in a convention setting where people aren't likely going in with a super game-showy mindset, I feel like simplicity and clarity needs to be prioritized over clever pass/play or question mechanics.

(I also wonder if the forum here is really the place to have this discussion. I feel really self-conscious that there's this much philosophizing over a concept I literally conceived as a teenager.)

[parliboy]

And yes, that means if everyone passes, they all get a strike because they're all cowards.

*Like*

(I also wonder if the forum here is really the place to have this discussion. I feel really self-conscious that there's this much philosophizing over a concept I literally conceived as a teenager.)

We autopsy formats all the time. We're spending more time with yours because it's in the pilot stage. We don't get to do that too often.

There are only so many places *to* have this discussion. That said, you have the right to say "forget you guys, this is my baby", and nobody should begrudge you that.