“Password” scoring

[alfonzos]

This classic game is being revived using the original format. I would like to submit this variation of scoring. In the original game, the more clues given reduces the value of a correct response. This seems counterintuitive to me. Shouldn’t the harder words be worth more points?

Anyway, I would make the following rule changes: both teams get three chances to play but the value of the word starts at six and ascends to ten. The starting team still gets the play, pass or double option. Of course, this means the double option means that either team could score twelve points on one clue. The goal is still twenty five points.

Opinions, please.

[TLEberle]

Wouldn’t a team hold out to score more?

[JasonA1]

I think you're assuming that words got down around 5 points because the players were giving A+ clues, but the word was far too difficult to be solved early. I don't think that was the case, most times. The words weren't "hard" -- the players just weren't solving them. Sometimes that happened because the clue givers were trying two disparate paths, making a "medium" difficulty word into a near-impossible one.

Anything that encourages the players to clue at less-than-100% efficiency is not good, IMO. One way to get at your idea would be to assign each word an overall point value based on its difficulty, and award those points no matter how many clues it takes. That way, the players are always trying to solve.

But all of the above doesn't make Password a better show, I wager.

-Jason

[Neumms]

Wouldn’t a team hold out to score more?

Probably not with another team getting its turn.

Longer it takes, lower the score has bugged me a little, too. Another work around would be simply a set amount per word. That may not be as interesting, but I don't know that the scoring was that much of the fun anyway.

[Casey]

It seems counterintuitive to me to reward someone more points for taking more turns to guess the password.

[JasonA1]

I feel this should be self evident, but to put it another way: picture a difficult bank shot on a billiards table. What's more impressive, and deserving of higher honors? The person who can sink the ball on the first attempt? Or the person who can tap it in after several failed attempts that loosened the proverbial lid of the jar?

-Jason

[parliboy]

Original format is fine, but cut total clues to six.  Nobody cares about a password that's worth three points.

[Steve Gavazzi]

Original format is fine, but cut total clues to six.

Isn't this what they did on the '70s version?

[Mr. Matté]

It seems counterintuitive to me to reward someone more points for taking more turns to guess the password.

[Bryce L.]

Original format is fine, but cut total clues to six.

Isn't this what they did on the '70s version?

It's precisely what they did. If a word got to the 5 point clue without being solved, it'd get tossed then.

[WhammyPower]

Original format is fine, but cut total clues to six.

Isn't this what they did on the '70s version?

It's precisely what they did. If a word got to the 5 point clue without being solved, it'd get tossed then.

Also, Password Plus originally tossed after 6, but quickly changed to 4 words (and remained at 4 during Super Password).

[Casey]

It seems counterintuitive to me to reward someone more points for taking more turns to guess the password.

I didn't like it on Pyramid either...