Rare 80's High Rollers Clips

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'ITSBRY\' date=\'Aug 18 2003, 08:07 PM\'] The roller keeps their score only if they eliminate the last number from the board or pass the dice to their
opponent forcing them to throw a bad roll. [/quote]
 As you said, this doesn't fix the issue.

Most points win and plays the classic end game for the big prize.

Playing to a \"times-up\" bell is uncreative. I'm not sure if I'm fond of your abstract score system anyhow. Why not just take turns rolling the dice and adding whatever comes up to your score? When you take a step back it's not all THAT different.

but I'm sure you all will point out every possible flaw in obscene detail!  :-)

No. I'm only gonna pull out enough to win.*

* $200 and control to the player who can identify the original speaker.

[TonicBH]

I'd keep the basic format of HR the same, except bring back the \"prizes carry on from game to game\" from the Trebek HR (or did Martindale's do it as well?), ditch the mini-games from Martindale's version, and maybe make the Big Numbers $25,000.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Aug 18 2003, 09:09 PM\'] What you see as a glaring hole, Chris, I see as simply a side effect of a good game mechanic.  Each move should carry with it more risk of ending the game than the previous move. [/quote]
 I don't at all disagree.

That does, however, have the unfortunate side effect of making it very attractive to pass every roll late in the game, in the name of self-preservation.

That's the problem I wanna fix.

If the columns had an average value of $3,000* in prizes each and there was a $10,000* cash carrot dangling in front of me for clearing the board, I'd keep rolling, so long as I wasn't down one game in the match.

But, see, there you are...it strikes me that the only time you would do this is if you were up a game. Even THEN, if I can go in for the kill and stare down the Big Numbers by myself, I think that's strategically the better option. I'd have to have a couple of Insurance Markers in my pocket and a favorable looking board (say, one I could clear off in no more than two rolls of 6 through to even think about it.

Here's a thought, and it's simple. Maybe too simple: Clear the board, you win the match. Period. A player on the ropes down 1-0 might keep the dice if they have a Marker and can win the whole shooting match with a 10. It might keep someone up a game from passing the dice, too. I dunno, just a thought.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' date=\'Aug 18 2003, 09:45 PM\'] I'd keep the basic format of HR the same, except bring back the "prizes carry on from game to game" from the Trebek HR (or did Martindale's do it as well?), ditch the mini-games from Martindale's version, and maybe make the Big Numbers $25,000. [/quote]
 Martindale's did NOT do it, I don't think, but I liked it on the Trebek show. I admit that's another case that might keep the dice in the hands of a player who should otherwise pass...maybe there are some bad rolls out there, but if an 8 knocks off that 5-prize column worth $15,000, then maybe....

And Big Numbers is freakin' hard to win. I have no qualms making it a $25K jackpot. Dunno if I'd go HIGHER, but $25K makes it enticing television.

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 18 2003, 09:47 PM\'] But, see, there you are...it strikes me that the only time you would do this is if you were up a game. Even THEN, if I can go in for the kill and stare down the Big Numbers by myself, I think that's strategically the better option. I'd have to have a couple of Insurance Markers in my pocket and a favorable looking board (say, one I could clear off in no more than two rolls of 6 through to even think about it.

Here's a thought, and it's simple. Maybe too simple: Clear the board, you win the match. Period. A player on the ropes down 1-0 might keep the dice if they have a Marker and can win the whole shooting match with a 10. It might keep someone up a game from passing the dice, too. I dunno, just a thought. [/quote]
 The idea of an instant win in the course of a match consisting of a series of games seems a bit ooky to me.

Three jokers (plus a correct answer) create an instant win on The Joker's Wild, and the Instant Win card creates a... uh... well, you know, instant win on Shoot for the Stars.  But these were single game situations.  Creating a situation where a special (albeit remarkable, in this case) instance betrays the whole match structure makes me uncomfortable.

What I suggested was a patch, as is what you suggested.  I'd like to think my patch is cleaner, if less effective.  Nevertheless, they're both patches, not solutions.

Not that I'm doubting our (collective \"our\") creative abilities, but I'd like to think that somewhere in the 14-year lifespan of the High Rollers format, someone in a paid position in Merrill Heatter's ranks brought up the same issue, and they kicked around ideas as to how to fix it, came up fruitless, and decided to stick with what they had.  I'm not saying a solution is impossible, but it's my gut feeling that this is as good as \"Shut the Box\" is going to get when it comes to being a television game format.

[Timsterino]

Awesome clips, John! It is great that you put these clips on your site. They are so much fun to watch.

Tim :-)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Aug 18 2003, 11:31 PM\'] The idea of an instant win in the course of a match consisting of a series of games seems a bit ooky to me.
 [/quote]
I know, it whispers \"stipulation\" to me too, and you know how I feel about those. It's the best idea I have, tho.

Not that I'm doubting our (collective \"our\") creative abilities, but I'd like to think that somewhere in the 14-year lifespan of the High Rollers format, someone in a paid position in Merrill Heatter's ranks brought up the same issue, and they kicked around ideas as to how to fix it, came up fruitless, and decided to stick with what they had.

Entirely possible. This is merely a discussion of ideas. And we agree that it's not a _bad_ format, but it could just be cleaner. Well, maybe it can't be, this may be as clean as it gets.

One thing that we both agree on is that the progressive jackpots from the second Trebek run improved the show a LOT, and I think did wonders to convince players to roll...after all, if the board consists of a 7 in Column Two and a 2 in Column Three, strategy would dictate you pass the dice (with 20 bad rolls to 16 good (or at least safe) ones...hmm...it's closer than I thought), but if both columns are stuffed and you could win $20K+ on one roll of the dice...yeah, I'd try it.

[zachhoran]

THe $20K is a nice win, but just how wonderful were some of the prizes on 1978-80 HR, i.e. the $7000 fish bowl.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Aug 19 2003, 04:26 PM\'] THe $20K is a nice win, but just how wonderful were some of the prizes on 1978-80 HR, i.e. the $7000 fish bowl. [/quote]
 True. But was that in fact an actual fishbowl, or a $7,000 gift certificant to Tiffany, where one might SELECT a fishbowl? (On the other hand, one might ALSO select someone useful and/or attractive.

The way I'd do it today would be to have a maximum of five prizes per column, but the first prize is ALWAYS $1,000, and this prize increases by $1,000 each game it goes unwon, or $2,000 if the column has five prizes in it. That throws a little cashola into the equation to encourage someone to chase it.

(When seeding an empty column, you'd seed with two prizes, as well...the $1,000 progressive pot, and a merchandise prize. The money never sits there by itself.)

[Casey Buck]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 19 2003, 06:59 PM\'] That throws a little cashola into the equation to encourage someone to chase it. [/quote]
 Cashola? Shouldn't that word be \"casharoo\"?

*ducking*