Playing for Points

[TLEberle]

In looking over the "ways to fix Balderdash" thread by one Chris Lemon, I'm reminded of a conversation that we had, and how it relates to game shows.

At the time, I was tweaking a dice game that I had created.  Without going into too much detail, the goal was to reach 5,000 points, and points are scored in 25p steps.  I asked him whether to keep the point structure as is, or to divide everything by 25, but everything else the same.  (I went for the division).

I'm curious how shows decide what point structure to use.  Lingo could work just as well with words scoring one, and Lingos two.  Nothing changes.  Shop Til You Drop could have divided everything by 50, and the game is still the same.  As a note, one of the only shows to go by single points was "Funny Money."

Is there some psychology involved, and people just like seeing "big numbers"?  Is it left up to the whimsy of the production compnay, or is that something determined during focus groups/runthroughs?

[Matt Ottinger]

People like seeing big numbers; they also like seeing round numbers.  Without knowing anything about your format, the first thing I do is change your scoring to 10p or probably 100p steps, not 25 and definitely not single points.  It doesn't change your game one bit, but it does make your game more attractive to the audience.  Yes, it's stupid, but it's true.

One reason:  There's a natural tendency for a game show watcher to automatically equate points with dollars, whether they actually are or not.  If your point system is small, it looks cheap.

[The Ol' Guy]

Ditto. When I put a game together with a point system, generally if it's based on a tv game or vegas/gambling game theme, I'll stick with higher numbers. Simple word or dice games, it depends on whether you want to have people playing your game enjoy it by putting them into a comfort zone based on games they already know (like Scrabble and Upwords), or you may want to go for an outrageous score system to make it come off as new and fresh. But it is all psychological. Big score, big win!

If I remember correctly, wasn't the ABC summer run of Super Jeopardy years ago played for points? That was a bummer, especially when it's normally a cash game.

[chris319]

Some formats lend themselves to point scoring, others to dollar scoring. On Match Game '7x the points correlated to the number of celebrities matched. On original Password the points correlated to the inverse of the number of clues given. On Jeopardy! and Family Feud the question/answer values and scores translate well to dollars.

One nuance is that with point scoring you're not committed to awarding dollars to the losing player(s) -- they simply lose the game with X points. Suppose on your dice game the contestant falls short of the goal of 5,000 "somethings" and loses the game. If you score in dollars, are you obligated to award the money? Or do you not award the money, in which case the contestant never really had the stated number of dollars, making you look cheap (the current Jeopardy! problem)?

On P+ we scored in dollars and the losing contestant took home the dollar amount won.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 07:47 PM\'] On P+ we scored in dollars and the losing contestant took home the dollar amount won. [/quote]
 I'm a big fan of scoring systems like this. The question I ask myself when I'm noodling around with formats in my head is: How much do I want my champions to win for winning the game, while at the same time providing a decent consolation price for the losers?

I tend to arrive at numbers like these: A winner tends to win somewhere between 1200-1500, or between 1500-2000 in a game involving teams or couples. So I adapt my scoring system to acheive that outcome. Sure, sometimes you're gonna have a low scoring game, and sometimes you're gonna break the bank, but on the average it works out.

[chris319]

I'm a big fan of scoring systems like this. The question I ask myself when I'm noodling around with formats in my head is: How much do I want my champions to win for winning the game, while at the same time providing a decent consolation price for the losers?

It depends on the structure of your game. If a match is a shutout (500 points to nothing, for example) your contestants aren't going to have anything for a consolation prize.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 08:34 PM\'] It depends on the structure of your game. If a match is a shutout (500 points to nothing, for example) your contestants aren't going to have anything for a consolation prize. [/quote]
 True! That, my friend, is what Rice-A-Roni and Turtle Wax is for!

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Aug 5 2004, 09:15 PM\'] If I remember correctly, wasn't the ABC summer run of Super Jeopardy years ago played for points? [/quote]
Indeed it was. And Double Jeopardy! was played for double and a half what the point values were for the first round.

[Ian Wallis]

A winner tends to win somewhere between 1200-1500, or between 1500-2000 in a game involving teams or couples. So I adapt my scoring system to acheive that outcome.

Part of the problem with some scoring systems is that they just don't work.  I know this has been brought up before, but on "Go", for example, the rounds went 250-500-750-1250.  In order to fit the game into a half hour, they couldn't play five rounds, but I'm just not comfortable with those kind of scoring systems.

Also, on "Super Password", the $100 puzzle was meaningless - it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all.  It might sound silly, but if I was rooting for a particular contestant, I was always hoping they'd MISS the $100 puzzle!

[chris319]

This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. People then say the preceding elements are meaningless if the game hinges on the last element. This is true but if you eliminate the prelude every game is basically sudden death.

Using Jeopardy! as an example, Final Jeopardy! exists so that players can come from behind and win. This gives the game a climactic finish. If you ended the game after Double Jeopardy!, the ending would be anticlimactic. The problem with Final Jeopardy! is, if one player is more than 2x ahead of his nearest opponent going, it is merely an exercise in going through the motions. It's one of those conundrums you just have to live with.

The most important element of a traditional game show is "playalong", but the dramatic elements of suspense, irony and climax are very important secondary elements. Your objective is to keep an audience entertained, first and foremost.

[Don Howard]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 02:32 PM\'] This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. [/quote]
 Which is a big reason why I liked The Final Showdown stage of The Big Showdown.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 12:32 PM\'] This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. [/quote]
 True, but I think the better shows do it in such a way that, going into that final act of the game, the amount of the achievement necessary to come from behind is proportional to the amount of the lead they need to make up.

Herein we have a difference between a show like "Go!" and other shows. On Go, it could be 250 to 1250 going into that last round, or it could be tied at 750 a throw, it didn't matter, the same achievement won the game for either team. Building up the lead didn't mean jack.

Now we have the Countdown Round on "Split Second". Appropriately, the player in the lead is rewarded by being assigned the lowest number of correct answers to win. But it doesn't matter if their lead was $50 or $500, they still only get a one-question advantage over the next closest player. Better, but not perfect.

Now, consider "Joker's Wild". If you're looking at your final spin and it's $450 to $500, you're breathing pretty easy, because you know you will at LEAST have a chance to tie, and you have a reasonable chance of catching a Joker or a pair and winning the game outright. BUT, if it's $50 to $500, well, now you're praying for three Jokers, or some combination that will let you pick Fast Forward Asian Yachtsmen Of Renoun and reel off a bunch of right answers. MUCH harder to pull off, but we've seen it done.

THAT'S what I like to see. I don't mind the game engineered to go down to the wire, but make someone who has performed poorly to that point pull off something truly great to win.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 03:32 PM\'] A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win.
 [/quote]
 This is one of "Wheel of Fortune"'s faults some of the time, when Pat has to spin and it lands on, say, $250. Even an extra grand, for $1,250, ain't gonna help if Joe has $22,000 total and Beverly is in second with $5,000.

[chris319]

Herein we have a difference between a show like "Go!" and other shows. On Go, it could be 250 to 1250 going into that last round, or it could be tied at 750 a throw, it didn't matter, the same achievement won the game for either team. Building up the lead didn't mean jack.

It wasn't perfect but it gave the game the potential for a come-from-behind win. The same thing exists in the Double/Triple round of FF. The game play is the same for the final question.

In the big picture this is all secondary to the consideration of whether the audience is entertained.

[dickoon]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 6 2004, 08:32 PM\'] This is always a dilemma in game show development: A game should turn on the last  element played so that any player can come from behind to win. This gives the game a dramatic finish. People then say the preceding elements are meaningless if the game hinges on the last element. This is true but if you eliminate the prelude every game is basically sudden death. [/quote]
 Excellent and fundamental point, one which should be borne in mind by every person who fancies themselves a game show designer. (Incidentally, amateurs, I wouldn't take the criticism from this board too seriously; if any of Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right hadn't happened and someone here were to propose one of them, I'm sure we would heartily shoot them down. It's just as if someone were to invent chess for the first time today...)

Another approach is to deliberately do something more interesting than having straightforward count-up-most-wins points. You could have a game board where it's more important to have particular points, or particular combinations of points, rather than raw totals of points (eg Hollywood Squares), where points are not directly related to gameplay (eg the voting elements of Weakest Link), where it is not necessary to have the most points to continue play (eg the Malcolm Rule on the much-maligned Malcolm pilot), where points are converted into some other medium for the final round (eg American Gladiators, The Crystal Maze, the final British series of The Krypton Factor), straightforward 1-0 scoring with some sufficiently interesting scoring mechanism (Interceptor, Knightmare, though these are both player-house), tons and tons of other things.

I list those shows not to limit you to the things that you can do - indeed,  if there is going to be a startling new show which lasts multiple years, it will likely come out of a new paradigm for scoring which happens to be genuinely interesting to watch. Indeed, I would say that "what could we do that's more interesting than most points wins?" is at least as good a starting-point for would-be game designers as any. Then forget Prof. Steev's pitch session and try to sell your interesting new idea in the UK where interesting new ideas are occasionally appreciated :-)