Wordplay - Still Oddly Enjoyable

[chrisholland03]

I just finished a Wordplay marathon -  Some thoughts:

1)  I noticed for the first time how the set was staged - am I wrong or did it pretty much mean the studio audience (if it even had one) had a pretty narrow view? 

2)  The writing got better as the series progressed, however you could quickly spot the episodes where they wrote the comedy for any celebrity and not for the celebrities on the stage.  That coupled with the varying ability of the celebrity to read the prompter, and do comedy determined the quality of the episode.  Bert Convy, Abby Dalton, and Bill Rafferty were the trifecta of terrible here.

3)  The game strategy is way more complex than it seems like it should be.  Assuming both players know the definition of all 9 words, the challenging player has an advantage since they play the last word.  This appears to be mitigated by the returning player taking the 3 outlier words (the word in each column that only has 1 possible connection). 

4)  Almost every episode in my sample set had a bonus round irregularity - typically delays in revealing the clues. There were a couple of instances where the bell didn't ring immediately after a correct response, which also caused a delay in revealing the next clue.  This caused contestants to rush the bell, which prompted Tom to slow them down. 

Overall I found the show oddly enjoyable, depending on the particular week of celebrity.  A 'B' tier show in my opinion that had a decent run.  I wouldn't mind seeing the concept dusted off.

[BrandonFG]

It's been several years since I watched, so this may be fuzzy memory. If I'm not mistaken, due to the connected words structure, a contestant could whiff on the first few words, get the last one right and win the game because of all the connected money.

That didn't sit right with me when I watched, but other than that, it was an enjoyable show.

[TLEberle]

Sure. Chris's point is that the champion should play defense--don't help the challenger create a glob where six words are all connected and it's worth $700. The problem there is that the game then becomes dumb luck of which words are worth the most, but hey, it's not the first time that a game show featured luck.

[bricon]

1)  I noticed for the first time how the set was staged - am I wrong or did it pretty much mean the studio audience (if it even had one) had a pretty narrow view? 

There was an audience.  The 3 celebrities faced the audience directly if that helps you picture the staging.  I don't remember the big board hindering the audience's vision.  Perhaps if someone was sitting in the farthest left side audience row the board might have been a bit of an issue for seeing the first celebrity.

[Jimmy Owen]

What I found odd was that they used CG for the main game and old-fashioned trilons for the bonus.  Why not one or the other?

[clemon79]

What I found odd was that they used CG for the main game and old-fashioned trilons for the bonus.  Why not one or the other?

I almost wonder if they had one front-game format they had planned that would have been manual, but ended up scrapping it for what they eventually did. Because given the two gameboards constructing the front-game one would have been FAR less expensive than the Double Definition board.

[parliboy]

Sure. Chris's point is that the champion should play defense--don't help the challenger create a glob where six words are all connected and it's worth $700. The problem there is that the game then becomes dumb luck of which words are worth the most, but hey, it's not the first time that a game show featured luck.

I don't think the champion can really play defense, though, other than by dictating that the challenger play specific words.  The challenger can always make connections, and he can always play for more money than the champion.  There isn't really a plausible strategy where the champion wins if the challenger gets all of his words correct.  And if someone saw a show where the challenger scored all of his words and lost, then by all means show it to me.

[TLEberle]

Chris H.--what was the rate of victory for the returning champions in your marathon?

[chrisholland03]

Checking the shows now...will report back shortly (the whole point of the marathon was to convert to digital media)

[chrisholland03]

Still working on the numbers but I did come across an interesting episode that highlights the challengers advantage in picking the final word:

Word 1 - Champion - $50 (no connection)
Word 2 - Challenger - $50 (no connection)
Tie Game $50 to $50

Word 3 - Champion - $100 (no connection)
Word 4 - Challenger - $50 connected to $50
Tie Game $150 to $150

Word 5 - Challenger - $100 connected to $100
Word 6 - Champion - $100 (no connection)
Challenger wins $350 to $250

The Challenger protected his lead by selecting a non-connecting Word 6 after stealing Word 5.  The only risk he had was not knowing the value of the word he picked.

So by just having control over the positioning of the last word, the challenger was able to win.

[chrisholland03]

So here's the numbers:

Sample size of 25
Average number of correct words per show - 5

13 Returning Champion Wins
12 Challenger Wins

6 Games where the last word was the only incorrect answer (Returning Champion wins all 6)
6 Perfect Games (Challenger wins all 6)

4 Games where the Returning Champion had more correct answers and lost
2 Games where the Challenger had no correct answers

2 Games where a contestant answered their first round word incorrectly and still won (1 champion, 1 challenger, different shows)

1 Game where both contestants had the same number of correct answers, but not for their assigned word (the Challenger won not because he answered the last word correctly but because of his choice of the last word)

[TLEberle]

Interesting indeed. Thanks for that. And that's about two-fifths of the whole run, isn't it?

[chrisholland03]

I want to say it ran 36 weeks, so closer to 1/5 of the run

[chrisholland03]

1)  I noticed for the first time how the set was staged - am I wrong or did it pretty much mean the studio audience (if it even had one) had a pretty narrow view? 

There was an audience.  The 3 celebrities faced the audience directly if that helps you picture the staging.  I don't remember the big board hindering the audience's vision.  Perhaps if someone was sitting in the farthest left side audience row the board might have been a bit of an issue for seeing the first celebrity.

That makes sense based on this shot