Board Games

[clemon79]

I think the judging issues being discussed would keep a direct translation of the game from happening. But the basic concept, where adding attributes leads to narrower and narrower answers, could be incorporated into a Pyramid-type or Chain-Reaction-type format, maybe.

Bob Stewart, gold courtesy phone, please...

[Clay Zambo]

The fatal problem with having the audience judge is that it has no motivation to be impartial or objective.

Good point.  In my fantasy world, I had a large enough sample that it might overcome the tendency of "I'll vote for Player X 'cause I like him, no matter what he says."  But it's problematical.  (Fact is, the box game is problematical for the same reason.)

The part with three producers making a judgment call is just asking for two producers to be carried out on stretchers.

Being dense here: why?  Innat their job?

[The Ol' Guy]

One of the big problems with subjective calls in a tv game show vs. a board game is there's winning and money on the line. If a contestant is convinced in his heart of hearts he's right and the judges rule otherwise, things can get ugly. I tried to sell Dan Enright on a game of fast responses matching letters with categories (pre-Scattergories). He replied if the host said "name something slippery" and a letter on the board gave the contestant the opportunity to call out "a pickle" - would you give it to him? A wet pickle, maybe..and if in a judge's mind he equates the word "slippery" with hazardous, like ice or an oil spill, he might be predisposed to rule against it. Or, you might slip on a marble, but a marble in and of itself is not slippery. Games with variable answers are a judge's nightmare.  I agree with Chris that a listing game with solid clues would be more workable than pulling answers out of the air and hoping for the best. If not more exciting, at least more fair. You don't want to punish creative players, but an answer that's a matter of opinion is harder to rule wrong.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Dec 7 2004, 07:11 AM\']But it's problematical.  (Fact is, the box game is problematical for the same reason.)
[/quote]
There are a LOT of party games that could be themselves "gamed" like that if played by the wrong crowd. The group I play with plays wide range of intense "gamer" games, light European games, and party games.  When party game time rolls around, we're all aware that if we wanted to, we could get all intense and worry about kingmaking and what not, but that's not the point of a party game, the point of a party game is to specifically NOT think about that stuff, have fun, and let the chips fall where they may. So we have to remember to switch our brains over into that "mode" when we sit down for Taboo, Outburst, etc....

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Dec 7 2004, 07:11 AM\']

The part with three producers making a judgment call is just asking for two producers to be carried out on stretchers.

Being dense here: why?  Innat their job?

[snapback]66344[/snapback]

[/quote]
Can you imagine three Howard Felshers trying to arrive at a timely and satisfying judgment?  You can rarely count on a committee of producers to arrive at a decision on where to have lunch, much less something that "matters" in their job.

In a functional situation, only one producer is assigned to be the point person for judging.  I'm really hard-pressed to think of a show where multiple producers made these sorts of decisions on a regular basis.