Massively multiplayer game shows

[Peter Sarrett]

Every year I attend an event at which I run a live game show for 80-100 players.  A couple of years ago I ran a custom format.  Last year I ran a heavily-modified version of Family Feud.  Both were big successes.  I'm developing another custom format for this year, but I'm looking for other formats I can adapt for the future.

The requirements are:

* The game is played by up to 25 teams of ~4 players each.
* All teams play all the time.
* All players on a team play all the time (no "one member represents the team at a time" gameplay).
* Low-tech.  Previous games were run with custom software, a data projector, and a microphone.  No high tech lockout or input devices.
* More than a mere question-and-answer trivia game.

The biggest obstacle is point #2, all teams playing all the time.  Standard Family Feud doesn't meet this criteria, but I was able to modify the game easily.  Are there other broadcast formats that can be adapted?

  - Peter

[Jimmy Owen]

How about a game where the object is to identify a book, movie or song with four-word titles, each team member taking one word each.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jan 27 2004, 06:57 PM\'] How about a game where the object is to identify a book, movie or song with four-word titles, each team member taking one word each. [/quote]
 If you go with this, I suggest you draft Owen as your writer. Could you POSSIBLY limit yourself more?

Is this for the Gathering?

[SplitSecond]

PLAYER 1: "Lord!"
PLAYER 2: "Of!"
PLAYER 3: "The!"
PLAYER 4: "...Dance?"

[Thad Dixon]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jan 27 2004, 10:12 PM\'] PLAYER 1: "Lord!"
PLAYER 2: "Of!"
PLAYER 3: "The!"
PLAYER 4: "...Dance?" [/quote]
 <FF strike buzzer>

HOST: No, I'm sorry, Player 4, that last word we were going for was "Rings."

[Jay Temple]

The format that Trivia Trap originally used for the first half of the game could work with only slight modifications.  Obviously, you start with four wrong answers instead of three.

If the first player to ring in chooses a wrong answer, his teammates eliminate the others one at a time.  If they are unsuccessful, one point goes into a bank for each incorrect answer they chose.  If they are successful, they collect four points plus any points that may be in the bank.  (It starts at 0.)

If the first player to ring in chooses the correct answer, the question is dead, and his team sits out the next question.

The first team to a set number of points wins.

[clemon79]

Are you people even listening? Low tech. No lockouts. TWENTY-FIVE teams.

[Jimmy Owen]

A modified bonus round from "The Better Sex" might work, players select A or B, (for low tech, stand up for A, sit down for B)  players would not be knocked out for a wrong answer, but the right answer gets a point (represented by toothpicks in a shot glass or some such item) for the team.  Team with the most points at the end of questioning wins the game.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jan 28 2004, 07:00 AM\'] A modified bonus round from "The Better Sex" might work, players select A or B, (for low tech, stand up for A, sit down for B)  players would not be knocked out for a wrong answer, but the right answer gets a point (represented by toothpicks in a shot glass or some such item) for the team.  Team with the most points at the end of questioning wins the game. [/quote]
 I don't see how that's "more than a mere question/answer trivia game."

Is an overhead projector considered "too much tech?" Maybe a huge Boggle game? I know it's not really a GS format (Martindale's version notwithstanding), but it's something small teams could put their heads together on.

Ooh! How about some form of Now You See It? Teams could work together to find answers in the grid, and a team writes the answer down on a large card ("LINE 1, DODGER") and stands up to answer?

[Jimmy Owen]

If you dont want q&a, perhaps a higher/lower game similar to "Card Sharks," with the host providing the initial estimate and the players standing for higher and sitting for lower.

[Peter Sarrett]

Chris' suggestion of Now You See It is closest so far to what I'm going for.  Massively multiplayer games seem to work best when there's a puzzle of some kind that teammates collectively solve.  For Family Feud, it was a survey and players had to write the top N answers, all at once.  Before that was a visual puzzle involving the selection of correct images from a number of possibilities.

What I recall of Now You See It, however, is that it's a very easy game.  I'd have to hope to catch a couple of episodes on GSN to refresh my memory.  I suppose the difficulty could be modified by the specificity of the question and a time limit.  Definitely a possibility.

As for overhead projectors, the games I ran in the past went a step further and used computer data projectors.

Keep the ideas coming.

  - Peter

[Jimmy Owen]

Well, if you've got some projectors to play around with, maybe a "Pitfall" style word or picture ID game would be fun.  Which word or pic just appeared twice?  "Cross-Wits" may be a little too much q&a but, it would work similarly to NYSI and you could use overhead projectors.  Good luck, sounds like a fun event.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Jan 28 2004, 12:18 PM\'] What I recall of Now You See It, however, is that it's a very easy game.  I'd have to hope to catch a couple of episodes on GSN to refresh my memory.  I suppose the difficulty could be modified by the specificity of the question and a time limit.  Definitely a possibility. [/quote]
 What I wouldn't give to catch a couple episodes on GSN. Hasn't aired in YEARS.

NYSI was basically a four-line word search, with all words hidden horizontally, and in forward order. Not only could you adjust difficulty through the questions, but you could adjust difficulty through the size of the grid, and you could hide words vertically or diagonally, and/or backwards, and as part of the response a team would have to give coordinates of the first letter. (For backward clues I would suggest specifically telling the players that this was the case, I should think finding the word would be plenty hard enough even with that information since we're used to reading forward.

Ooh, Crosswits is an excellent idea, too...I could definitely see the excitement in the room when a team stands up and declares they would like to call a conference to solve the puzzle. Good one, Jimmy.

You might also be able to do something with the basic concept of Chain Reaction - you could have the room vote as to whether they want the next letter above Word "X" or below Word "Y".

[Peter Sarrett]

I haven't seen Cross Wits since I was a kid.  Was the gameplay basically 1) contestant asks for clue to any word in the grid, 2) contestant guesses at word, which is filled in if correct 3) contestant goes again if correct, else play passes, and 4) contestant can guess at the theme that unifies all the answers?

I love Chain Reaction, but it's a non-starter for this format-- snooze city.  The game needs to have more excitement and collaboration among team members.  Chain Reaction is too slow and cerebral.

  - Peter

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Jan 28 2004, 05:08 PM\'] I haven't seen Cross Wits since I was a kid.  Was the gameplay basically 1) contestant asks for clue to any word in the grid, 2) contestant guesses at word, which is filled in if correct 3) contestant goes again if correct, else play passes, and 4) contestant can guess at the theme that unifies all the answers?


 [/quote]
 Recall that both US runs of Cross-Wits used celebrities, who could help in solving the crossword clues, but the contestant had to guess the theme uniting the answers to the clues. Though on the original, I think a conference was called by the player when the player wanted to solve the puzzle.