The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
TJW
dmota104:
Clemon79, thanks for raising a red flag. There's something I meant to address to that effect.
In the event one player keeps his/her turn from start to finish, the losing party (who, as you implied, didn't get a word in edgewise after the contestant interview) would return in the next (or a future) game.
This happened when the champ got to spin first in the CBS days of TJW (if the champ spun 3 jokers to start the game and then won with a correct answer, the challenger came back a week or so later).
Plus, on (dare I call it) \"Civilian Bullseye\", if a player held on to control of the game from start to finish and banked at least the game-winning $2000, the challenger came back to play in the next game.
And on a few occasions of TTD, whenever the \"bonus category\" was on the board and the champion managed to not give up control of the board to the challenger, the challenger came back in the next game.
So, if it's been done before, it can happen again.
(Again, thanks for raising the red flag)
Dan Sadro:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 6 2003, 07:06 PM\'] Hmm. Not bad at all. I have a problem with a Joker being essentially a wasted window unless it comes up with two of his bretheren, tho. [/quote]
Well, this is a game where lady luck is queen. The problem isn't cosmetic, it's that it doesn't follow the maingame usage of the joker, which could probably be altered by giving the joker the highest value on the other windows.
--- Quote ---* When a Joker comes up, it can be frozen, or not, at the player's discretion. (A player may not want to freeze a Joker if they feel they can reach the cash target, to keep that reel spinning to rake in more dough.)
Player wins if:
a) They acquire a set dollar amount, determined through much playtesting, in which case they win double the money and a prize package. (My point in doubling the pot is to encourage players not to freeze Jokers.)
b) They acquire three Jokers in a combination of spins, in which case they win the cash they have accumulated and the same prize package.
c) They spin three Jokers at once, in which case they win the prize package and clear out the Joker Jackpot, which should be set at some significant amount of money and incremented each time it is not won.
--- End quote ---
Three problems I'm seeing. 1 -- this isn't Bullseye. Freezing windows really has nothing to do with the spirit of TJW. 2 -- You've just given three different ways to win three different amounts of money and prizes. It's fine to have one exception to the rule (such as the first ball rule on Bonus Lingo) to make it interesting or dramatic or give one situation extra-special treatment. But you have two different exceptions, and I think you're asking too much of a viewer who is watching people pulling a lever. 3 -- You're assuming that there's returning champions. In this day and age... it should be assumed that there's no returning champions. If for some reason in the development of the television game they agree to deal with returning champions, that would be a better time to develop incremental jackpots.
--- Quote ---If you should fail, you get the cash accumulated to that point.
I don't _think_ I'm complicating things by doubling the pot on a win - it worked on Bullseye for the opposite winning condition - but I'm not sure I've set things up to make a player really _think_ about whether to freeze that Joker window or not. I'd be interested in arguments for and against and possible alternate payouts / win conditions to make that decision more interesting.
--- End quote ---
Assuming that there is 1 joker to 5 dollar values: By introducing freezing windows, you're moving the chance of a triple Joker win from 1 in 256 to a situation where 6 spins would statistically make a Joker-Joker-Joker. I'd much rather have the focus of the endgame spinning to earn money (in an abstractly similar way to the maingame) than in trying to get three jokers, but to each his own.
I also think that the win rate under freezing jokers would be too high.
(edited for clarity and to add one line)
clemon79:
[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 08:07 AM\'] Freezing windows really has nothing to do with the spirit of TJW. [/quote]
I don't think it necessarily VIOLATES said spirit, either, byt YMMV.
--- Quote ---But you have two different exceptions, and I think you're asking too much of a viewer who is watching people pulling a lever.
--- End quote ---
Point taken.
--- Quote ---You're assuming that there's returning champions. In this day and age... it should be assumed that there's no returning champions.
--- End quote ---
Don't agree. Just because everyone else jumps off of a cliff is no reason for me to go jumping off after them. Mo' Money Syndrome is one thing. Having a returning champ _improves_ the show and is feasible. I'm the producer, and if Jeopardy and H2 can do it, so can we. Oh, and we're following a traditional taping schedule; none of this \"pump out 65 shows in two weeks\" crap, and if my high-priced host doesn't like it, I'll fire his ass and bring in Van Ginkel. :)
--- Quote ---Assuming that there is 1 joker to 5 dollar values:
--- End quote ---
Assuming. Certainly that can be tweaked. If we're using computers (and I'm guessing they would be, in portrait orientation), I can have 1000 slides on a reel if I want, and 1 of those could be a Joker, or 999 of them can be Jokers.
Again, though, all of your points are well-taken.
Dan Sadro:
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 10:30 AM\']
--- Quote ---You're assuming that there's returning champions. In this day and age... it should be assumed that there's no returning champions.
--- End quote ---
Don't agree. Just because everyone else jumps off of a cliff is no reason for me to go jumping off after them. Mo' Money Syndrome is one thing. Having a returning champ _improves_ the show and is feasible. I'm the producer, and if Jeopardy and H2 can do it, so can we. Oh, and we're following a traditional taping schedule; none of this "pump out 65 shows in two weeks" crap, and if my high-priced host doesn't like it, I'll fire his ass and bring in Van Ginkel. :)
[/quote]
Well, yes, a returning champion can improve a show (especially a trivia-based one such as this) but the feasibility really goes with the intended output. The most obvious place to put TJW would be on GSN -- eventually the network will look toward using library products (they haven't been immensely successful serving the same old hash every day, so it will eventually be at least an experiment) and bringing a new version of the show could be a big marketing happy happy joy joy. If it would go on GSN, you'd be taping 65 episodes (if you're lucky) in two weeks and the phrase \"returning champions\" would be censored on the set.
If GSN isn't for you, look toward syndication. If you think that TJW would survive in syndication, you're probably much more optimistic than I am. I don't see the draw of TJW in the syndication world; it's not 'edgy' and doesn't have one percent of the name recognition that Pyramid enjoys.
[ Most any person on this forum would jump at the opportunity to host a game show for scale, not just Van Ginkel. :^) ]
clemon79:
[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Jul 7 2003, 09:03 AM\'] but the feasibility really goes with the intended output. [/quote]
And this, I think, represents our fundamental difference with proposals. All I ask is that a premise be good and it be financially responsible. You take it a step further and look for a logical home for it, too. And there's not a THING wrong with that, it just represents a difference in philosophy.
See, I figure if an idea came along for a show that was 1) a good idea, 2) financially feasible, and 3) had a slot to fill, it would already be filling that slot. I tend to operate in the Utopia where there's no harm in having good ideas filed away, just in case something bizarre should happen and the three-hour network daytime game show block comes back into vogue TOMORROW. Never happen, yeah, but I think a proposal can be quality without necessarily having a niche available in the current landscape to fill.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version