If you were reviving Double Dare '76...

[clemon79]

If I get the subject right I score fifty bucks. I can either sit on that and play a new subject or dare you. If you\'re right the score is now 50-50, and you won that same prize money while having seen another clue.

...under the pressure of potentially giving up double that if you\'re wrong.

(In other words, we agree; I don\'t see the problem either. Seems damned well-balanced if you ask me. The two-question game might be considered an issue, but it\'s very easily solved: play to a higher amount.)

[clemon79]

Yes, this.

Okay, but that\'s the risk/reward scenario: are you sure enough that the next clue will get past them that you are willing to put up your $50 delta at 2-to-1 odds? In the case of the other player, yes, they have seen one extra clue. But before all of that (during the toss-up phase when it was worth the original $50), your only penalty for a wrong answer was coughing up a penalty clue. Now, it\'s straight-up coughing up double the money.

Having that be worth the same $50 makes total sense to me.

[TLEberle]

To the point about a game possibly ending after two questions: so what? Joker\'s Wild and Card Sharks could be done quickly, and they seem to be lauded around here. The unpredictability (and inherent excitement therein) makes Double Dare a good game and it could have been a great show. Imagine if Joker\'s Wild didn\'t have the possibility of pairs or higher, and you just chose from three categories that came up. Boring. Double Dare without the daring could take up to nineteen subjects; increasing the length of the race doesn\'t make the game better, just longer. Sure, the Dare and Double Dare can make the game over in a hurry, but isn\'t a game show about risks and rewards and excitement?

[PYLdude]

The difference between Double Dare and Card Sharks along with TJW is that there is much more random luck involved on the latter two shows. Double Dare doesn\'t involve 52 cards or a slot machine mechanism that the player has no control over. It puts the contestant in the position where they directly control their fate in the game. 

[Neumms]

Here\'s a question, just because I loved that show. Would you change the Spoilers round at all? I loved the concept. I\'d be tempted to play up the Spoilers\' personalities more--or lack of same--a little like The Chase. It did seem, though, like some rounds were hopeless, with more than four clues that seemed like easy gets. 

 

[TLEberle]

That\'s a very interesting question; and here\'s my counter-question--how else do you have a bonus round using the Spoilers that is even to both sides. Sure, the contestant doesn\'t win by solving the puzzle (and 20Q showed how uninteresting that race could be) but the champion does have to use a modicum of intuition to play.

[Neumms]

That\'s a very interesting question; and here\'s my counter-question--how else do you have a bonus round using the Spoilers that is even to both sides. Sure, the contestant doesn\'t win by solving the puzzle (and 20Q showed how uninteresting that race could be) but the champion does have to use a modicum of intuition to play.

 

I love the idea of Spoilers, don\'t get me wrong, but it\'s sticky. If there are a couple of clues up there that could go either way, the concept works. Then it\'s just a matter of careful writing.

 

Then again, if five clues look like outright gimmies, then it doesn\'t seem like a challenge for the contestant, it\'s more like, \"boy, are they ever tight with the prize money.\" 

 

Maybe there\'s an inherent flaw in a game that has you betting on \"don\'t pass.\" (Another example is the final round of Dog Eat Dog.) Maybe Spoilers would be better if instead of choosing clues, the game is deciding at what point the Spoilers know the answer. (More like the front game but at higher stakes.) 

[TLEberle]

That\'d be a way to increase the Dare aspect of it; after each clue you can stop with some amount of money or risk it and give the next one.

The reason I was OK with the final conflict of Dog Eat Dog is that if you were paying attention to your opposition you should be able to figure out who would do well at which categories. That said I think if they were buzz-in face-offs it would have been more interesting.

[Jay Temple]

The only thing I might have done differently is to not have all Ph.D.\'s. Instead, I\'d make them part of the contestant pool. The first spoiler to get one right becomes the next contestant, and if no one gets it, then the person who would have joined as a spoiler jumps straight to the game.

[Neumms]

The only thing I might have done differently is to not have all Ph.D.\'s. Instead, I\'d make them part of the contestant pool. 

 

Exactly. This was the fundamental problem with Dog Eats Dog. Too many Ph.D.\'s. 

 

I agree in theory it should work, but the questions didn\'t exactly require any depth of knowledge. It may be that top dogs and dog pounds each won 50% of the time, but that seems less due to perception and canniness than the whole contestant pool being dim. I thought the top dog should have the option of fielding the question himself. (If that swings the balance too far, then say top dog must successfully answer or stump on 4 of 5 instead of 3 of 5.)

[clemon79]

The only thing I might have done differently is to not have all Ph.D.\'s. Instead, I\'d make them part of the contestant pool. The first spoiler to get one right becomes the next contestant, and if no one gets it, then the person who would have joined as a spoiler jumps straight to the game.

 

Brilliant! Succinct, logical, and easy to explain to the audience at home.

 

No, wait, what\'s the opposite of that.

[Bryce L.]

OK, going back to that revival proposal I\'d seen, instead of the spoilers being Ph.D\'s, they were instead three members of that day\'s studio audience (specifically, the three who had scored the highest on a pre-taping screening test)

[TLEberle]

I don\'t remember: which came first--The Better Sex or Double Dare?

[clemon79]

Someone wanna explain to me exactly what the problem was with the Spoilers being learned people? Specifically, why it was such a problem as to be worth going to the trouble of coming up with stupidly convoluted rules or administering a test to the studio audience to fix? \'Cuz I\'m not getting it.

[TLEberle]

I liked it that was because there was always someone else to root for if I particularly liked one of them or the champion was a doof.

I wouldn\'t restrict the Spoiler pool to just Ph.D holders; you can be smart and a good quiz show player without eight years of collegiate experience.