Board Games

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:36 AM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 07:33 AM\'] "Rack-O" with Brooke Burns. [/quote]
We've Got Your NUmber played a bit like a shortened version of Rack-O, i.e. in that the players had to place four dice rolls from 2-12 in sequential order to win a round(the MB game Rack-O, which I believe predated the aforesaid 1975 pilot, had players being dealt 10 cards and had to rank 10 cards in their rack from high to low to win) [/quote]
 Sorry, Zach, but I think that merits a

WHOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!

[TLEberle]

Mad Gab?  Ass.  Sharpshooters?  Ass.  The number one rule for a board game to translate is that the game can't suck wang.  Both these do.

I would LOVE to see Wimpout/Fill or Bust/Farkle/Greed/10,000/Risk and Roll/you get my point done as a game show properly.

And the dice game that I think would lend itself perfectly to TV?  Two words: Can't Stop.  "Last Chance" or "son of Sharp Shooters" would be neat.

On the box game side, I think that Times to Remember or Teams of Enemies would also play well; they already feel like game shows.

(EDIT: Bah, Chris Lemon beat me to "Can't Stop."  Well, I'd hope another game guy did, anyway.  Finally, a topic on which *I* can wear the Horan Hat.)

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'SamJ93\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:56 AM\'] Getting back on topic...if someone is willing to build the gigantic set that would be required, the Game of LIFE would be interesting.

 [/quote]
 A game I overlooked last night when typing this thread would be "Easy Money" by Milton Bradley.

Wouldn't you love to see a contestants reaction as a competitor took $75,000 away from them?

[BrandonFG]

I know this made it to pilot stage, but Tri-Bond has some potential. Of course, whoever produces it should find a way to make it interesting. It seems like the concept could wear thin awfully quick.

I had an idea for a game based on "Taboo" long before the TNN version, but I think it could still work, but cut out the silly gameplay from the 2003 version.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:32 AM\'] Teams of Enemies would also play well; they already feel like game shows.
 [/quote]
 Teams of Enemies teeters dangerously close to your "suck" rule. The concept is an okay one, but there was absolutely zero thought put into the actual game they built around it. I was underwhemed the one time I played it, and I won.

(And don't call it the Horan Hat. That ego doesn't need to be fed any more than it already feeds itself.)

[The Ol' Guy]

Sice TriBond came up again, would you please forgive me for this - I'd like to give a slight overview of my version for two reasons - one, to create a body of witnesses, and two, show how it can work well. My exact rules are in my files at home, so here's the key points from memory. This is what I sent the inventor, so this idea is out there.  

The main play of the game is a 16-square game board, 4X4. On their turn, a player or team picks a numbered square. Like J!, a Tri-Bond clue set shows
(A Car - A Tree - An Elephant). Picking player/team gets first shot at what they have in common. If wrong or time runs out, opponent(s) can try. When a clue set is guessed correctly, a picture replaces the clue set in the square. That picture will work with two others elsewhere on the board to create another set of clues. For example, if that picture was Roy Rogers on his famous horse, and two other pictures somewhere on the board are an old-fashioned pickle barrel and a claw hammer - once the third of those three pictures is revealed on the board, the borders of the pictures light up, a signal sounds, and the MC then says, "For one point, what do trigger, barrel and hammer have in common." The player/team who got that third clue picture gets first guess. If wrong, opponent guesses. As players answer TriBond sets to reveal the pictures and guess the visual matches, the first player/team to get 3 picture clue points wins the game. The clue to making TriBond work on tv is visuals, like Concentration. There has to be deduction and anticipation for the home audience. Just doing three-clue readings will get deadly dull. By the way, the clue pictures are scattered through the board, not necessarily adjoining. And one or two pictures can be red herrings, as some pictures could be part of more than one set of three clues. Oh, the lessons we learn...
And before it's mentioned - the picture idea preceeded either the Diamond Version or 10th Anniversary with picture clue cards.

[sshuffield70]

And the dice game that I think would lend itself perfectly to TV? Two words: Can't Stop. "Last Chance" or "son of Sharp Shooters" would be neat.

Amazing how I got both of those games several years ago.  And I think both could make great shows (again......) if done right.

[SamJ93]

Here's another one that came into my head:  I noticed that "Trump: The Game" from the 80's is now back in stores, no doubt due to The Donald's new-found television success.  I haven't played the game, but anyone that has, do you think it could translate into a show at all?

--Sam

[fsk]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:54 AM\'] [quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 05:20 AM\'] And I've been trying to come up with a way to play "Cosmic Wimpout" on TV, but it'll take a more creative soul than I. 
 [/quote]
Wimpout has that Press Your Luck feel to it that would indeed make a fine game show, but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it.

Celebrity Tichu Challenge would be the b0mb, too.

Paging Peter Sarrett.... [/quote]
 

but I think an even better candidate would be the Sid Sackson classic "Can't Stop." I've been trying to work up a format for that one for YEARS, and I can't think of anything that isn't buggy as hell, but there is a game show in there someplace, I just know it.

How about this format for "Can't Stop"?

Like Blockbusters, but when a player gets a question right, they can continue answering questions to claim multiple hexes (their opponent can't buzz in).  If they get a question wrong, they lose all their accumulated squares (for that turn) and the other player gets control.  If the player chooses to stop, they get to keep their hexes and their opponent gets control.

I'm thinking of a fast-paced format like Weakest-Link, with a question every 5-10 seconds.

To make sure the game doesn't straddle, if time is running out, the game shifts to a lightning round format where the host picks a hex and reads a question.  A buzz-in correct answer gets the hex and a wrong answer gives the opponent the hex.

It might need a larger board than 5x5 to make the game last long enough.  The questions should be easy enough to encourage players to gamble, but hard enough that someone can't win in only 2-3 turns.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'fsk\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 05:30 PM\'] How about this format for "Can't Stop"?
 [/quote]
 It's interesting, but where are the dice?

Perhaps each column has a category assigned to it, and a throw of the four dice (and subsequent pairing into two sets of two) decides which two columns you get to play in?

[Peter Sarrett]

My ears are burning.

Two key elements of Can't Stop are the randomness of the dice, and the probability curve of the board.  If you're looking to preserve the board game's flavor, you need to preserve these elements.

The simplest approach would be a Card Sharks model.  Players compete on some sort of knowledge question, with the winner gaining control of the dice.  

If time runs short, all in-progress markers are removed (only claimed columns stay) and the game switches to toss-up questions with a right answer earning a column.

The first player to reach the top of 3 columns wins the game.

For extra spice, each column awards a different prize for claiming it, if the claiming player wins the game.  The prizes could be visible from the get-go, thus creating stronger incentive for players to attack certain columns, or they might be hidden until someone wins the column.

That's one approach, anyway.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 08:20 AM\'] And I've been trying to come up with a way to play "Cosmic Wimpout" on TV, but it'll take a more creative soul than I.  
 [/quote]
 WOW.

I haven't thought about "Cosmic Wimpout" in over 10 years, since I spent Saturday nights playing RPG's at the local university. I was a geek then. Nearly 14 years later, I'm still a geek.

Except now, I'm proud of it.

[The Ol' Guy]

Good stuff, Peter.
The pairing of the 4 dice is the fun twist in the game. It might have to be modified, just like Trivial Pursuit was. With the game board using the 7 column as both the middle and longest column, you have 5 rows on either side of the 7 (2-6, 8-12).
Now what if you assigned, maybe 4 categories in each game. They do not necessarily connect with any particular row...but like in Jeopardy, make the difficulty of the question match the odds of rolling a particular number. For example, the 2 and 12 column, the question difficulty would be like that of the $1000 row in Jeopardy. 3 and 11 column, $800, 4 and 10 column, $600, 5 and 9 column $400, 6 and 8 column, $200. Make the 7 maybe $50 or $100. I'm not suggesting cash values, just levels of question toughness. Champion goes first, rolls the 4 dice on his turn, pairs up two sets, say 5 and 12. Player starts with the longest column first, picks one of the 4 categories. For each question the player gets right, it's one space up the column. If the player blows it, the turn is over. If a player goes up a few spaces and decides to stop (freeze), the player can choose another category and goes up the shorter column. Same options. When that player's turn is done, the categories used are replaced by new ones, and the next player rolls the four dice. I'm debating as to whether the game should end with the 7 column being the last one a player should capture to go out. It would make it interesting in that if both players have captured 2 other columns - a player rolls the dice on their turn and can't pair any of them up to make a 7, play passes to the opponent. You could be real smart and answer a lot of questions, only to have luck be a major factor for a surprise win. There's still some variables to be determined. What if all questions in a category have the same level of difficulty - say like the Joker's Wild, where you just never know which question will be a bullet with your name on it? Maybe just make the end boxes super-tough? The Hit Man triple crown bonus game had this kind of feel. Only this time, dice, not choice, would determine your column. I agree with a lot of you that there is something here.

[Peter Sarrett]

The problem with matching question difficulty to die probability is that the middle three columns become doubly attractive.  First, because they're easier to roll and thus less likely to crap you out, and second because their questions are easier... and thus less likely to crap you out.  I just don't think it works.

I think the questions have to go in a front game to control access to the board.

[GSWitch]

[quote name=\'The Ol' Guy\' date=\'Sep 23 2004, 10:30 PM\'] Good stuff, Peter.
The pairing of the 4 dice is the fun twist in the game. It might have to be modified, just like Trivial Pursuit was. With the game board using the 7 column as both the middle and longest column, you have 5 rows on either side of the 7 (2-6, 8-12).
Now what if you assigned, maybe 4 categories in each game. They do not necessarily connect with any particular row...but like in Jeopardy, make the difficulty of the question match the odds of rolling a particular number. For example, the 2 and 12 column, the question difficulty would be like that of the $1000 row in Jeopardy. 3 and 11 column, $800, 4 and 10 column, $600, 5 and 9 column $400, 6 and 8 column, $200. Make the 7 maybe $50 or $100. I'm not suggesting cash values, just levels of question toughness. Champion goes first, rolls the 4 dice on his turn, pairs up two sets, say 5 and 12. Player starts with the longest column first, picks one of the 4 categories. For each question the player gets right, it's one space up the column. If the player blows it, the turn is over. If a player goes up a few spaces and decides to stop (freeze), the player can choose another category and goes up the shorter column. Same options. When that player's turn is done, the categories used are replaced by new ones, and the next player rolls the four dice. I'm debating as to whether the game should end with the 7 column being the last one a player should capture to go out. It would make it interesting in that if both players have captured 2 other columns - a player rolls the dice on their turn and can't pair any of them up to make a 7, play passes to the opponent. You could be real smart and answer a lot of questions, only to have luck be a major factor for a surprise win. There's still some variables to be determined. What if all questions in a category have the same level of difficulty - say like the Joker's Wild, where you just never know which question will be a bullet with your name on it? Maybe just make the end boxes super-tough? The Hit Man triple crown bonus game had this kind of feel. Only this time, dice, not choice, would determine your column. I agree with a lot of you that there is something here. [/quote]
 How about a $5,000 bonus if the contestant throws 4 of a kind (IE: 4-4-4-4)!  However, the player would win that if the move is possible (just like the Insurance Marker on High Rollers).