21

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 05:24 PM\']I say that the Perfect 21 bonus seemed entirely out-of-place for that show. Get rid of it.

The rules should be $1,000-point per game and increase it $500 in case of tie games. Also, wrong answers = losing points. Don't give me any of this "strike" crap.

I know the 50's version was rigged, but it seems the best way to make a revival is go by the keep-it-simple-stupid rule. All these complications and unnecessary changes to the classic format just doesn't work.

[snapback]78280[/snapback]

[/quote]


I agree wholeheartedly. Perfect 21 was dreadfully anticlimactic. Ian's idea was sound, but it would still pale. Multiple choice was okay, probably necessary, but the strikes and the "phone a friend who happens to be standing backstage" were just complications.

I think there needs to be risk to keep playing, like the original, like "$ale of the Century" or the Joker's Wild Joker's Jackpot. Maybe each game is $1000 a point, but you risk it all to keep playing. Three wins, you get a car (which could also serve as the consolation prize if one tries for. . .) five wins, a $100,000 bonus. Ten wins, another hunk of dough.

Can anyone say how many points a typical margin of victory was? Either in the original, or in Maury's version (when it wasn't settled by a player striking out)?

[Neumms]

Another question. . . did a wrong answer subtract points? I thought, at least in the original, you couldn't lose points, you just lost a chance to score.

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 07:31 PM\']Another question. . . did a wrong answer subtract points? I thought, at least in the original, you couldn't lose points, you just lost a chance to score.

[snapback]78305[/snapback]

[/quote]

No loss of points for a wrong answer, just a strike(two strikes when a second chance came out and you were still wrong)

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'TonicBH\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 03:24 PM\']I say that the Perfect 21 bonus seemed entirely out-of-place for that show. Get rid of it.[/quote]How so?  In the main game, you strive to score 21 points to win a cash prize.  In the bonus round, you strive to score 21 points to win a cash prize.  I didn't mind it.

The rules should be $1,000-point per game and increase it $500 in case of tie games. Also, wrong answers = losing points. Don't give me any of this "strike" crap.

Why increase it only $500?  That seems silly and overcomplicated.

I know the 50's version was rigged, but it seems the best way to make a revival is go by the keep-it-simple-stupid rule. All these complications and unnecessary changes to the classic format just doesn't work.

[snapback]78280[/snapback]

I don't know if I buy that.  I thought "Whammy!" was a (mildly) better way to play PYL than the original.

That said:
1-11, five rounds.  Chance to stop after rounds two and four.
Winner gets $5,000; increase by that much for each tie game.

Big change coming:
Winner plays a hand of blackjack against the house with standard Vegas rules.  The champ may risk any or all of his winnings on that hand.  A push means the champ can play another hand, or walk away.   (If you're THAT concerned about the budget, they can only risk their winnings from the most recent match on the hand.)  They must risk at least $500 if they play it at all.

[Kniwt]

The modern version of '21' isn't dead at all -- it's quite alive in weekday strip on Canada's TVA network, in French, as 'Vingt et un.'

And with the smaller prizes (nobody's gone over Cdn$50,000, I believe) and minor rule tweaks, it's working quite well for the network.

http://tva.canoe.com/emissions/vingtetun

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Kniwt\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 07:31 PM\']The modern version of '21' isn't dead at all -- it's quite alive in weekday strip on Canada's TVA network, in French, as 'Vingt et un.'
[/quote]
Since 99% of us a) don't speak French, and b) don't receive TVA, it's effectively dead.

They might be playing it in Zimbabwe, too, doesn't do us a damned lick of good.

[zachhoran]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 12:47 PM\']

And did ANYBODY run the 21?

[snapback]78244[/snapback]

[/quote]

For those who care, Tim Helms came the closest to going six-for-six in the Perfect 21. He got five right on the In the Drugstore category, and stopped when given the chance for the sixth question.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 09:59 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 12:47 PM\']

And did ANYBODY run the 21?

[snapback]78244[/snapback]

[/quote]

For those who care, Tim Helms came the closest to going six-for-six in the Perfect 21. He got five right on the In the Drugstore category, and stopped when given the chance for the sixth question.

[snapback]78325[/snapback]

[/quote]

But he didn't RUN...the...21 like Chris asked. Thanks for playing anyway.

[Casey Buck]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 06:59 PM\']For those who care, Tim Helms came the closest to going six-for-six in the Perfect 21. He got five right on the In the Drugstore category, and stopped when given the chance for the sixth question.

[snapback]78325[/snapback]

[/quote]

Who took the gag off of Zach? WE DON'T CARE!

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 09:59 PM\']For those who care, Tim Helms came the closest to going six-for-six in the Perfect 21. He got five right on the In the Drugstore category, and stopped when given the chance for the sixth question.

[snapback]78325[/snapback]

[/quote]

Very Karlbergian of you, Zach.

Anyhoo...let me put my two cents in here.

I think 21 could work as a syndie show, if done right.

I like the idea of risking your winnings to play again. However, instead of having the contestant risk their winnings every time, I think something else might do a little better.

Let me explain what I think would work.

First, I would bring back the 7 game payoff structure that the last show had. I'd start out at $5000.

1st game - $5000
2nd- $7500
3rd- $10000
4th- $15000
5th- $20000
6th- $25000

After the sixth game, a champion would be in a position to quit with all their winnings up until that point ($82500 in front game), or play one more game, with a $100,000 prize for a win. Win, and the 100 grand is theirs, and they retire undefeated. Lose, and they either lose it all or are docked half of what they got up to that point. (Yes, I know this reeks of Sale Of The Century.)

I'd keep strikes in the front game to make it move better. If you don't have a pair of at least somewhat intelligent contestants, you might have the game carry over for a while. At least with the strikes, if you have a pair of dummies up there, they'll be eliminated quick.

I'd also keep the stop option open, as most of us probably would. I also liked the Second Chance, and would keep it.

As for the Perfect 21 round, it really doesn't matter to me whether or not they have it (although I do agree that if they have it, it should be for only $21,000).

[StevensM]

If I were bringing the show back, I'd restore the second payout structure.  Winnings would not be deducted from returning champions on their loss.  If I had to change it for budgetary reasons, I'd change it to:
1         $5,000/win
2-3      $10,000/win
4-5-6   $25,000/win
7         $50,000/win

The only problem with this payout structure is that if a contestant got on a streak and survived over sixteen games, the payout climb wouldn't seem significant any more.  The idea with the above payout structure is that with each win the player is going for the same amount or more for the next win, increasing the tension with each win.  I think it would work well for eight-game winners and maybe even a second time through, but I suspect it would get tiresome past that, since the amount being added for each game would be only a small fraction of the total.  Of course, I think that case would be unlikely anyway.

I didn't like the strike element much at all, since it resulted in a lot of players going for big-point questions they couldn't answer, and only got an X for.  Wrong answers should definitely result in a point penalty.  However, to keep the game moving, I'd keep the three wrong answers = automatic loss rule.

I'm still not sold on Second Chance, but I would be in favor of keeping it for now.  I'd certainly remove Perfect 21 to allow for more game time.

As for the cast, I'd like John Cramer back as announcer.  Maury would be an OK host.  I'd like to see Peter Tomarken doing game shows again; maybe he could do this one, although it's a bit more serious than some of the ones he's done.

[dmota104]

[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 12:06 PM\']It's time for your input about a quiz show which was a part of the Brief Prime Time Game Show Renaissance Of 2000.
If it were up to you, what would the rules have been for Twenty One? A certain set dollar amount per win or would the payout have been determined by the difference in the point score? Keep or dump the bonus game? Would winnings have been risked to continue? Who's your host choice? Announcer? What should the $$$ payout have been in your judgment?

[snapback]78240[/snapback]

[/quote]

Play it just like the original '50s version -- only without the rrrrIIIIIGGGGGGGing.  

Bonus game: Play it like "Perfect 21" from the Maury version -- except that the champ plays just for points instead of $10K/point.  The perfect 21 pays an instant $50,000.  Less than 21 pays $500 per point with a chance at one "double or nothing question".

Host: Hmm... sort of a toss-up between Wink Martindale and Jim Perry.  Both have experience in fast-paced quizzers.  Pacing might be a little slower here -- but they can build up the suspense easily.

Announcer: Don Morrow.  It was nice hearing him again on The Chamber -- but let's hope he finds something *much* better.

[tvwxman]

Okay...i'll ask the question.

Why do we have to have a bonus round? The original didn't, and the risk factor in the game (rigging notwithstanding) made being a champion on the show tough...

I say, bring it back, leave the bonus in the garbage....

[TonicBH]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Mar 15 2005, 09:14 PM\']Why increase it only $500?  That seems silly and overcomplicated.
[/quote]

Increase it BY $500 in case of each tie game. This would only apply for the champion, however. (Challenger would still go for $1,000/point if s/he wins)

The blackjack game as a bonus makes as much sense as "Perfect 21" or the "play against the computer" bonus round of the 1980s pilot.

[TLEberle]

As I understand B.J.'s proposed tweaks:

The champ would play for $1,500 in game two of a tie, instead of $2,000. And the challenger who knocks off a champ 21-20 after four ties only wins $1,000.

That is messed up.

You're right, the blackjack game DOES make as much sense as the 'beat the computer' version from the pilot.  Though probably not in the way you mean.  

The upside of a bonus round is at least two-fold: one, it breaks up the action of the games, rather than just a bunch of questions.  The other, is that having a bonus round allows the champ to take a break after a hard fought game and not have to plunge right back in the action.  Plus for those three minutes, the champ is guaranteed to stay on the show.

This is why I asked a year or so ago why a show could work without a bonus round.  I don't think a show like Twenty-one could work in today's environment without one.