Board Games

[The Ol' Guy]

It was a top-of-the-head idea, and after sleeping on it, the excessive difficulty based on rows adds unnecessary complication to the game. You're right, Peter. Same level questions works better. A "roll the dice to move up the columns" is a faster game than a q&a style for tv purposes (I think I'd still like a variation of the q&a version for a home board game), but I still wonder if a toss-up question for control takes away from the even chances to win style of the board game. One guy or gal hot on the buzzer, and the other player is screwed. What if a toss-up question determined who gets first control of the dice? Player A and player B compete. Host reads a toss-up. Player A rings first, is right. Player A rolls dice, plays as standard board game. Your Card Sharks model holds up well where if Player A decides to freeze after any successful roll, a new toss-up comes along. If a player decides to roll on and can't make a match on his 3 key numbers, the opponent takes over the dice. Maybe not necessarily for a full run - but a couple of bonus rolls to put a bit of heat on the other player. Answering toss-ups should be the key to getting as many rolls as you can, but you risk letting your opponent gain a little ground (and maybe even beat you) if you push yourself to one roll too many.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:54 AM\'] Wimpout has that Press Your Luck feel to it that would indeed make a fine game show, but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it. [/quote]
 So've I!

One of these days...

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 02:11 PM\'] Sice TriBond came up again, would you please forgive me for this - I'd like to give a slight overview of my version for two reasons - one, to create a body of witnesses, and two, show how it can work well. My exact rules are in my files at home, so here's the key points from memory. This is what I sent the inventor, so this idea is out there. [/quote]
 I think that's a darned fine idea.  I wonder if, since it's Tri-bond, it would make sense to make it a 3x3 board: 2 out of 3 picture sets wins the game, or something like that.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'Peter Sarrett\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:24 PM\'] My ears are burning. [/quote]
 Seek medical attention immediately!

Two key elements of Can't Stop are the randomness of the dice, and the probability curve of the board.  If you're looking to preserve the board game's flavor, you need to preserve these elements.

Well-reasoned and insightful.  Yes.

The simplest approach would be a Card Sharks model.  Players compete on some sort of knowledge question, with the winner gaining control of the dice.

*snip*

For extra spice, each column awards a different prize for claiming it, if the claiming player wins the game.  The prizes could be visible from the get-go, thus creating stronger incentive for players to attack certain columns, or they might be hidden until someone wins the column.

Another thing to consider is whether column length should be inversely proportional to roll-difficulty or to make them all the same length, with "harder" columns worth more.  The former would seem to lead to a fairly long game; the latter might be faster-moving.

That's one approach, anyway.

I like it, but I don't know if it'd have a chance today.  It's the Heatter-Quigley approach to adapting a game for TV, I'd call it.  "Gambit" was simple and elegant.  "High Rollers" was, too--but it was essentially the same game mechanic. Finding a unique way to earn the dice or control the board or whatever you'd call it would be would seem to be key to making "Can't Stop" work as a TV show.  What got "Taboo" made was not just the box game but the smutty-comedy aspect (which is, yes, what made it fail, but it was a valid try).  In a game-unfriendly TV climate, what would make "Can't Stop" attractive to a packager?

Alas, I only wish I knew.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 08:27 AM\'] Finding a unique way to earn the dice or control the board or whatever you'd call it would be would seem to be key to making "Can't Stop" work as a TV show. [/quote]
 Right. I don't think Peter was suggesting a straight generic toss-up-trivia question for someone to buzz in on...something with a little more meat, like the Card Sharks style of a question about human nature, and then mixing in an aspect of the game (as CS does with the higher/lower option) to tie it together.

How would you do that with Can't Stop? No clue. I'd like to see something like that, but devised so that three players can get involved, since I picture Can't Stop as a three-player show. No idea how it would work, though. Prolly better that way.

[The Ol' Guy]

Thanks for the kind words, Clay. We're both working off the "Tri" part of the game, which is where a 3-point win seemed logical. To use your idea, it could be possible that after a picture clue match is made, those pictures could be removed and the spaces renewed on the game board with new clue sets and pictures.

This has been a fun and challenging idea..the Can't Stop. The idea of how to make several rolls of 4 dice in a row - with a slight delay as players determine how they want to pair and play them (adding time to a potentially long game) - something viewers will sit and enjoy is a challenge. The question-roll-question-roll rhythm of High Rollers with any one roll ending a game quickly was mechanical, but okay. That's why I thought the substituting questions for dice rolls to move up the columns might be closer to classic game show than board game. Between all of us, somebody's bound to nail it..if it can be translated to tv at all. That's it for me...

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 11:01 AM\'] Right. I don't think Peter was suggesting a straight generic toss-up-trivia question for someone to buzz in on...something with a little more meat, like the Card Sharks style of a question about human nature, and then mixing in an aspect of the game (as CS does with the higher/lower option) to tie it together.

 [/quote]
 

How would you do that with Can't Stop? No clue.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be a question that has several correct answers.  You score if you name them all correctly--but if you "stop" too soon, and the other side can get even one of the answers you missed, they win control.  (E.g., "Name all the 20th-century Democratic US Presidents.")  That sort of thing might take too long, but it would work if the gameboard used the short-columns idea I mentioned earlier.

I'd like to see something like that, but devised so that three players can get involved...

I've always thought you'd need four players--in teams of two--if only to have enough hands to handle the dice.

[Clay Zambo]

Adding another game to the mix, what about "Upwords"?  Obviously it couldn't be a straight 3D "Scrabble"-on-TV, but the idea of changing one word into another is somehow intriguing.

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 24 2004, 12:24 PM\'] Well, the first thing that comes to mind would be a question that has several correct answers.  You score if you name them all correctly--but if you "stop" too soon, and the other side can get even one of the answers you missed, they win control.  (E.g., "Name all the 20th-century Democratic US Presidents.")  That sort of thing might take too long, but it would work if the gameboard used the short-columns idea I mentioned earlier. [/quote]
 It's a very lovely thought, but you're right that it would take too long.  You're essentially playing an entire round of Family Feud or Hot Potato (with objective answers) in order to get to a brief snippet of the namesake game.  

(See also: Yahtzee)

[alfonzos]

I have given some thought to a game show based on 25 Words or Less and dismissed it as a bad idea. The limit on words and time leaves the players staring at each other in silence for a good chunk of the time. Not good television!

Outburst, OTOH, would make a rowdy version of Family Feud.

[ChuckNet]

A game I overlooked last night when typing this thread would be "Easy Money" by Milton Bradley.

And they could use Billy Joel's 1983 song of the same name as its theme music. :-)

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' date=\'Sep 26 2004, 06:35 PM\'] I have given some thought to a game show based on 25 Words or Less and dismissed it as a bad idea. The limit on words and time leaves the players staring at each other in silence for a good chunk of the time. Not good television!

Outburst, OTOH, would make a rowdy version of Family Feud. [/quote]
 I respectfully disagree.  Skilled players don't stare at each other in silence.

This is not to say I've cracked the "25 Words"-adaptation problem; I don't have a terrific format for it either.

"Outburst" is very much related to "TalkAbout," which wasn't exactly rowdy, but your point there is taken.

[GSWitch]

Some more board games I'd like to see.

BATTLESHIP:  Two teams (celebrity/contestant) takes turns calling off the ocean grid, tyring to find their opponent's ships.  There are 6, instead of 5 ships.  Sinking a ship pays off...
SMALL SUB:  1 hole (starts @ $50,000 & decreases $1,000 per miss down to the minimum of $10,000)
DESTROYER:  2 holes ($5,000)
CRUISER:  3 holes ($2,500)
SUBMARINE:  Same as Cruiser
BATTLESHIP:  4 holes ($1,000)
CARRIER:  5 holes ($500)

B-4. YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!

CAREERS:  Parker Brothers game with 8 career paths (one College), trying to acheive fame, fortune & happiness.   The 7 paths would be...Farming, Big Business, Sea, Politics, Hollywood (Music & Entertainment), Sports & Astronaut.

I'm gonna regret saying this idea...

MYSTERY DATE:  The girls game (once played by Homer Simpson) where there would be four good looking teens (rock star, sports jock, popular kid, scholar) along with that dreaded DUD!  Of course the game would also be played for boys  having four beautiful babes (cheerleader, athlete, musician, scholar) & that dreaded UGLY DUDLING!

[DjohnsonCB]

[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'Oct 19 2004, 02:55 PM\']
Some more board games I'd like to see.

BATTLESHIP:  Two teams (celebrity/contestant) takes turns calling off the ocean grid, tyring to find their opponent's ships.  There are 6, instead of 5 ships.  Sinking a ship pays off...
SMALL SUB:  1 hole (starts @ $50,000 & decreases $1,000 per miss down to the minimum of $10,000)
DESTROYER:  2 holes ($5,000)
CRUISER:  3 holes ($2,500)
SUBMARINE:  Same as Cruiser
BATTLESHIP:  4 holes ($1,000)
CARRIER:  5 holes ($500)

B-4. YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!

There actually *was* a TV game like this, long before MB put Battleship into a box.  It was called "Big Game" and was one of the earliest shows hosted by Tom Kennedy.  If any shows exist, I'd love to see it.

[GSWitch]

Boy did I goof!  Big Game began on NBC in prime time on that dangerous year, 1958 (dangerous being for the big quiz show scandals).  It was Tom's first network game show ever.

Milton Bradley made the Battleship game back in 1967.

YOU SUNK MY PRIDE!