The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Kevin Prather on May 11, 2012, 02:47:21 AM
-
On Password Plus, the rule was that if you didn't give a clue in time, the other team got a chance to give two clues. Now, if the other team locked up too, would you get to give three clues?
-
I would think the word would go up and no one guesses.
-
I would think the word would go up and no one guesses.
I've never seen that happen, someone not giving a clue in time when the other team failed to give a clue in time. On Super Password, for the FIRST episode only, they had that rule. On the second show, someone failed to give a clue in time, and Bert was about to tell them "you have two clues", he said "oh, we're not doing that".
Didn't they drop that rule at some point on PW+?
-
Matt: Huh?
Leave the quoting alone.
-
I would think the word would go up and no one guesses.
I would figure they'd throw the whole puzzle out, stop tape, and pick up with another one like nothing happened.
Of course, there is at least one person here who knows better than I do...
-
On Password Plus, the rule was that if you didn't give a clue in time, the other team got a chance to give two clues. Now, if the other team locked up too, would you get to give three clues?
I don't see why. The bible certainly doesn't mention that possibility.
-
Matt: Huh?
Leave the quoting alone.
Sorry about that, I wasn't fully awake and didn't realize where I was typing.
Something I was just thinking about... I've seen most of the run of PW+ and a good majority of SP, but on either of those versions, did they ever have a password that was so difficult, both clue givers couldn't get out a clue for the word with two clues per team? I could've sworn it happened on SP once.
-
IIRC if you were awarded two clues and got buzzed on the first, then you would still get time to give the second clue. I'm not certain of it though.
-
There's one member of the site who could almost certainly give a definitive answer... paging Mr. Clementson...
-
IIRC if you were awarded two clues and got buzzed on the first, then you would still get time to give the second clue. I'm not certain of it though.
I was going to reply and basically say the same thing. While it would take some combing through episodes, my best guess/fuzzy memory of it happening would be just that. The person awarded two clues might run out of time on one, and at that point, that clue just goes away.
-Jason
-
Why give any kind of advantage to the team that already had a chance to give a clue but blew it?
My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound. (Chris C can confirm or deny if the wishes.) In that case, just getting control back after your opponent freezes on one of his/her chances is probably advantage enough, anyway.
-
My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound.
That's why you'd pass in the first place, no gaming needed. :) I imagine it was there because the pass/play decision had to have a time limit, and what's the penalty if you don't decide? The other side gets two clues, penalizing you for hemming and hawing by giving them both the first and second clue anyway.
-Jason
-
My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound.
That's why you'd pass in the first place, no gaming needed. :)
Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.
-
Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.
Not quite, Kevin. That was also a two-clue scenario, where you'd get two clues because I failed to respond.
-Jaso
-
Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.
Not quite, Kevin. That was also a two-clue scenario, where you'd get two clues because I failed to respond.
Exactly. I'm just illustrating why that rule is there. Without it, my scenario becomes not only plausible, but reasonable.
-
Not quite, Jason. Say I passed to you. If it weren't for this rule, you could hemm and haw waiting for the buzzer, effectively re-passing it to me.
Not quite, Kevin. That was also a two-clue scenario, where you'd get two clues because I failed to respond.
Emphasis added above. He was talking about what could be done if not for the two clues rule.
-
Has anyone found an episode where this happened? My answer is we would stop tape while Bobby confers with Compliance and Practices. The logical answer is to put up the word and resume play with a new word, with no one guessing the puzzle. If it's the last word in the puzzle, throw out the password?
We had a policy, not a rule, that the fifth password had to be absolutely gettable.
-
[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]
My thinking is that the rule was put in so that a clue giver couldn't game the play/pass mechanic by just not saying anything on a two-clue word and letting their opponent give the first real clue, leaving an opening for them to pick it up on the rebound.
[/size][/color]
[size="3"] [/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues. It never paid to let time expire (not until Super Password). I was saying the two-clue rule had to be there because otherwise, there was no reason to have a time limit on the play-or-pass question.[/size][/color]
[size="3"][color="#1C2837"]
[/color][/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]-Jason[/size][/color]
-
I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues.
I think that's exactly the point he's making: without the two-clue rule, a player who was passed *to* who recognizes the word as a bouncer simply remains silent. Hence, why he thinks the rule was put into play. His scenario was in an alternate universe where the two-clue rule didn't exist.
-
I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues.
I think that's exactly the point he's making: without the two-clue rule, a player who was passed *to* who recognizes the word as a bouncer simply remains silent. Hence, why he thinks the rule was put into play. His scenario was in an alternate universe where the two-clue rule didn't exist.
Exactly. The two-word rule made the play/pass mechanism ungameable.
-
I'm just reposting this to make sure I'm not crazy, because I think we all didn't completely read each other's posts. There was no reason to not respond to the play-or-pass question in your scenario. If you wanted the other person to give the first "real" clue, you'd pass. I don't know how you'd "game" that mechanic. When you pass, and the other player doesn't give a clue, the person who had the option originally gets two clues.
I think that's exactly the point he's making: without the two-clue rule, a player who was passed *to* who recognizes the word as a bouncer simply remains silent. Hence, why he thinks the rule was put into play. His scenario was in an alternate universe where the two-clue rule didn't exist.
Exactly. The two-word rule made the play/pass mechanism ungameable.
Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.
-
Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.
Illegal: True, but they are still penalized in that the receiver is not allowed to respond to it. and now the team that passed in the first place gets to give the second clue same as they ever did, but with that illegal clue to go on as well, which is in almost every case going to be *more* useful than a legal one (because, usually, that's why it's illegal in the first place).
Useless: Right, what's to stop you from saying "boondoggle!" when you are passed to and bounce it right back? Well, two things: one, a nonsense clue is often going to throw your partner WAY off the track, but more importantly, if it was patently obvious they were shirking the pass rule by doing it, I'm guessing they would simply stop down tape and tell them to cut it the fark out, or else we'll just toss you and get a new contestant in here / you can forget about ever being booked on the show again. (Spirit of the game and all.) When we play Password at game sessions we straight-up ban nonsense clues. (Admittedly, this usually doesn't enter into it because we are all honorable gamers who respect each other and wouldn't intentionally break the game like that anyhow.) Occasionally after a word someone will ask "That clue you gave, X. What were you going for there? I don't see it," but I can't think of a situation where the clue wasn't justified following an explanation.
Now, as for giving a not-great-but-justifiably-plausible clue when you are passed a bouncer: that's just good strategy. :)
-
Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.
Illegal: True, but they are still penalized in that the receiver is not allowed to respond to it. and now the team that passed in the first place gets to give the second clue same as they ever did, but with that illegal clue to go on as well, which is in almost every case going to be *more* useful than a legal one (because, usually, that's why it's illegal in the first place).
Useless: Right, what's to stop you from saying "boondoggle!" when you are passed to and bounce it right back? Well, two things: one, a nonsense clue is often going to throw your partner WAY off the track, but more importantly, if it was patently obvious they were shirking the pass rule by doing it, I'm guessing they would simply stop down tape and tell them to cut it the fark out, or else we'll just toss you and get a new contestant in here / you can forget about ever being booked on the show again. (Spirit of the game and all.) When we play Password at game sessions we straight-up ban nonsense clues. (Admittedly, this usually doesn't enter into it because we are all honorable gamers who respect each other and wouldn't intentionally break the game like that anyhow.) Occasionally after a word someone will ask "That clue you gave, X. What were you going for there? I don't see it," but I can't think of a situation where the clue wasn't justified following an explanation.
Now, as for giving a not-great-but-justifiably-plausible clue when you are passed a bouncer: that's just good strategy. :)
The reason why I brought this up is that I recall seeing a clip where the password is "Belgium," the celebrity is told to "say anything," and he promptly says "hockey puck," getting buzzed.
EDIT: It was part of blackwood's clips compilation, so there's no context and I can't say whether the celebrity was passed the first clue.
-
Except that an illegal or useless clue does not trigger the two-word rule.
Illegal: True, but they are still penalized in that the receiver is not allowed to respond to it. and now the team that passed in the first place gets to give the second clue same as they ever did, but with that illegal clue to go on as well, which is in almost every case going to be *more* useful than a legal one (because, usually, that's why it's illegal in the first place).
Useless: Right, what's to stop you from saying "boondoggle!" when you are passed to and bounce it right back? Well, two things: one, a nonsense clue is often going to throw your partner WAY off the track, but more importantly, if it was patently obvious they were shirking the pass rule by doing it, I'm guessing they would simply stop down tape and tell them to cut it the fark out, or else we'll just toss you and get a new contestant in here / you can forget about ever being booked on the show again. (Spirit of the game and all.) When we play Password at game sessions we straight-up ban nonsense clues. (Admittedly, this usually doesn't enter into it because we are all honorable gamers who respect each other and wouldn't intentionally break the game like that anyhow.) Occasionally after a word someone will ask "That clue you gave, X. What were you going for there? I don't see it," but I can't think of a situation where the clue wasn't justified following an explanation.
Now, as for giving a not-great-but-justifiably-plausible clue when you are passed a bouncer: that's just good strategy. :)
Emphasis added by me, to help illustrate the reasoning behind my next question: If, in the course of your play (I dunno if you use the puzzles format, or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?
-
Emphasis added by me, to help illustrate the reasoning behind my next question: If, in the course of your play (I dunno if you use the puzzles format
They don't.
or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?
That's a rarity. Like once a quarter that a word can't be played. Nobody scores, other side gets a new word.
-
(I dunno if you use the puzzles format, or good ol' CBS-era rules),
Neither one, because while good TV, they both suck as an actual *game*: one point per word, loser of the previous word has the option on the next one, bounce back and forth between giving and receiving, a 30-second shot clock to give a clue and get a response, no opposites, no limit on number of clues, and we play a full card per side, so 20 words in a game.
or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?
That's a rarity.
And by this Travis means "it has never happened in the eight-or-so years I have been playing Password with these people." We LIVE for those words. Those are the words that make Password great. At the absolute worst, there comes a point in a particularly nasty word where the two givers kinda glance at each other and implicitly (and wordlessly) agree that it's time to back off the "plausible clue" restrictions a tiny bit, to include non-plausible words that rhyme with (or, more often, rhyme with a part of) the word in play. And that doesn't even happen until we're *at least* fifteen or twenty clues into a word.
When I tell people "if the National Password League ever caught on, I'd quit my job," I'm dead serious.
-
I was confused, I got it in my head that he meant a word that we just couldn't get to. In all the time playing Password, there's never been a word where you couldn't clue something. There's nothing in the rules that says every Password is gettable in one or on the bounce. Sometimes it takes that dragnet approach and it'll take several clues to drive the point home. With the rules as I've learned 'em, Password is up on the medal podium of games I'll play any time I'm asked.
-
I was confused, I got it in my head that he meant a word that we just couldn't get to.
I did too, and I still can't think of a time we've totally thrown in the towel on a word.
But yeah, there ESPECIALLY does not exist a word we couldn't even START.
-
I was confused, I got it in my head that he meant a word that we just couldn't get to.
I did too, and I still can't think of a time we've totally thrown in the towel on a word.
But yeah, there ESPECIALLY does not exist a word we couldn't even START.
"The password is...boondoggle." *ding*
-
"The password is...boondoggle." *ding*
"Snafu", "trifle", "busywork", "political" (followed closely by "pork"). We'd probably get to that "alright, back it off or we'll be here all night" point, and lead into "Daniel...." and "coonskin" to get us to "Boone", and it would probably solve pretty soon after that.
-
"The password is...boondoggle." *ding*
"Snafu", "trifle", "busywork", "political" (followed closely by "pork"). We'd probably get to that "alright, back it off or we'll be here all night" point, and lead into "Daniel...." and "coonskin" to get us to "Boone", and it would probably solve pretty soon after that.
Bravo.
-
(I dunno if you use the puzzles format, or good ol' CBS-era rules),
Neither one, because while good TV, they both suck as an actual *game*: one point per word, loser of the previous word has the option on the next one, bounce back and forth between giving and receiving, a 30-second shot clock to give a clue and get a response, no opposites, no limit on number of clues, and we play a full card per side, so 20 words in a game.
or good ol' CBS-era rules), a word comes up that NEITHER honorable clue-giver can come up with a legitimate clue for (besides saying "boondoggle!" just to dump the abomination in the other guy's lap), do you just toss that word and resume play with a new, presumably easier-to-describe word?
That's a rarity.
And by this Travis means "it has never happened in the eight-or-so years I have been playing Password with these people." We LIVE for those words. Those are the words that make Password great. At the absolute worst, there comes a point in a particularly nasty word where the two givers kinda glance at each other and implicitly (and wordlessly) agree that it's time to back off the "plausible clue" restrictions a tiny bit, to include non-plausible words that rhyme with (or, more often, rhyme with a part of) the word in play. And that doesn't even happen until we're *at least* fifteen or twenty clues into a word.
When I tell people "if the National Password League ever caught on, I'd quit my job," I'm dead serious.
Thank you both for the explanation... you both got what I meant! And it's good to hear you folks don't go out of your way to write your own material for a Password game, specifically material that can't be described while holding to the traditional "one word only" clues, as well as the other restrictions Mr. Lemon mentioned.
-
And it's good to hear you folks don't go out of your way to write your own material for a Password game, specifically material that can't be described while holding to the traditional "one word only" clues, as well as the other restrictions Mr. Lemon mentioned.
Lord, why would you? Password home games can be found at thrift stores and Ebay for a song. There is no shortage of vetted (well, semi-vetted, in the case of the Endless editions) words out there.
That said, I still maintain that if you open up the dictionary to a random page, point to a word, and can't come up with a single solitary word that would be a remotely-plausible clue (and remember, you get to give multiple clues if you need to, so if you need to link them to paint a picture, you can), then the problem is not with the word, the problem is that you suck at Password.
-
And it's good to hear you folks don't go out of your way to write your own material for a Password game,
Why would we do that? That would be terribly impractical: whoever "wrote" the material couldn't play. I dislike the "no-brainer" words: the ones that there's an absolute lay-up clue for 'em, and all it does is give a free point to the team with control. That's way worse than a word you have to struggle and claw over.
A couple of years ago I was playing Password with some HS friends. My partner had given clues of "crochet," "quilting," "pattern," and the like, and seeing that the word just wasn't getting there decided to start cluing parts of the word, so I got "hypodermic," "gesture" and "score." Since these clues came with no warning that I should be building a word instead of just trying to guess it whole, I had no idea that the word was "needlepoint," and it went dead. There's a way to tell your partner "don't listen to that guy's clue, he's an idiot," but not "we're approaching this piecemeal," and I think there oughta be.
-
but not "we're approaching this piecemeal," and I think there oughta be.
Nobody's stopping you from implementing a convention. You could become part of Password history, man! :)
(For what it's worth? I didn't need the spoiler. If the tack of a word completely changes, it's usually a pretty safe bet they are going piecemeal. ESPECIALLY on that first piecemeal clue. If you take that clue (assuming it was given with proper inflection), give the PAINFULLY obvious answer, and are still called wrong, that should have given you some information.)
-
The only reason I could envision "writing" material is if you were using the Puzzles format of Password Plus or Super Password, and wanted to write a puzzle regarding a person who was not notable at the time either of those shows were in first-run...
-
but not "we're approaching this piecemeal," and I think there oughta be.
Nobody's stopping you from implementing a convention. You could become part of Password history, man! :)
(For what it's worth? I didn't need the spoiler. If the tack of a word completely changes, it's usually a pretty safe bet they are going piecemeal. ESPECIALLY on that first piecemeal clue. If you take that clue (assuming it was given with proper inflection), give the PAINFULLY obvious answer, and are still called wrong, that should have given you some information.)
Curious, any KNOWN instances of a difficult word being dealt with piecemeal on the CBS shows? (I'd ask about ABC, but since we only got one episode with Brett Somers and Jack Klugman, as well as part of an episode with Sheila McRae and Martin Milner to work with, I hardly consider that sufficient "sample size" to be meaningful...)
-
Curious, any KNOWN instances of a difficult word being dealt with piecemeal on the CBS shows?
Here's how you answer that: before you get to that point, wouldn't the word be thrown out and unscored? Is watching that sort of verbal groping enjoyable TV?
-
Curious, any KNOWN instances of a difficult word being dealt with piecemeal on the CBS shows?
Here's how you answer that: before you get to that point, wouldn't the word be thrown out and unscored? Is watching that sort of verbal groping enjoyable TV?
You and I both know the answer to that question, some 50-odd years after the fact... a resounding NO! ...But did Goodson-Todman, CBS Television, and any other involved sponsors truly grasp that "Old El Stinko" concept, way back when the show was still broadcasting in Black and White, and while Jack Clark was still behind the announcer's microphone? ...There's likely no other way TO know the answer to THAT question, short of checking the episodes which have turned up on GSN (um, excuse me, Game Show Network) in the years following their original airings...
-
The only reason I could envision "writing" material is if you were using the Puzzles format of Password Plus or Super Password, and wanted to write a puzzle regarding a person who was not notable at the time either of those shows were in first-run...
Shoot. I'd go out and buy a Taboo game for that.
-
Shoot. I'd go out and buy a Taboo game for that.
I suppose if you want to play without having seen the material yourself, and you don't want to eBay the old MB games, it does provide you five words with some link to a sixth word. But looking at a few Taboo cards right now, they often don't make good puzzles, and you'd be looking through them yourself to vet them anyway (YMMV, of course, just my opinion).
TWO-CITIZEN-FIRST-TRAVEL-TICKET
SECOND-CLASS
SHOES-SOCKS-SWIM-SANDAL-SUMMER
BAREFOOT
Among a decent one like...
SERVICE-WAITER-MEAL-MONEY-TOE
TIP
-Jason
-
The only reason I could envision "writing" material is if you were using the Puzzles format of Password Plus or Super Password, and wanted to write a puzzle regarding a person who was not notable at the time either of those shows were in first-run...
Shoot. I'd go out and buy a Taboo game for that.
And lemme guess, if you wanna go "whole hog" and do Alphabetics as well, you just filter through enough MB Password games until you have a decent set of 10 consecutively-lettered words to try (using any possible setup, from A-J all the way to Q-Z)... right?
-
And lemme guess, if you wanna go "whole hog" and do Alphabetics as well, you just filter through enough MB Password games until you have a decent set of 10 consecutively-lettered words to try (using any possible setup, from A-J all the way to Q-Z)... right?
No, I open my Password Plus home game and pull out an Alphabetics.
/why in the hell would I waste that much material?
//also you do not seem to understand that we're not PLAYING Password as a game show