Not too long ago, I heard that, after TPIR and WoF went to an hour, ABC talked to Bob Stewart about expanding Pyramid to an hour. This would have been shortly before it went from $10,000 from $20,000. Whether it\'s true or not, it got me to thinking how they might have worked it. I think the exact same format would get monotonous if extended to four games a day. I came up with this. I welcome your comments.
On Family Feud, which debuted the same year as the change to $20,000, families stopped playing when they reached $20,000, but they got to keep everything they won. The same interpretation of the winnings limit would be needed here.
Game 1: two new players
Game 2: two more new players
Game 3: winners of 1 & 2
All these are $10,000 attempts.
Game 4: winner of Game 3 vs. defending champion, with a $20,000 attempt
Some details that I worked out:
• If the $20,000 attempt is successful, that player retires and the loser of Game 4 takes his spot in the final on the next show, à la Now You See It. If the winner of Game 3 wins both of his $10,000 attempts, he retires, and the other winner takes on the defending champion.
• Celebrities: It was noted in another discussion that 20 games in one week is too much for the same two people, so we have two male celebrities and two female who each appear in two of the day\'s games. One male and one female play Game 1, and the other two play Game 2. In Game 3, each player is paired with the celebrity that he defeated in the first half of the show. Game 4 features the two winning celebrities from the first half, and the player from Game 3 is paired with the celebrity who was not part of his first two games.
• Who goes first? In almost every version, the female celebrity sat on the left, and a game with two new players would start with the female celebrity. I\'d keep that for Games 1 & 2. If the two winners win differing amounts, the one who won more goes first in Game 3. If they win the same amount, the winner of Game 1 goes first. In Game 4, the returning player always goes first.
I haven\'t decided what I\'d do with the Big 7.
I\'m suddenly getting flashbacks to Tim Connolly\'s old message board with the recent threads of game show proposals...
In all seriousness: Jay, that is a fine idea.
This doesn\'t make sense. Whether you\'re right or wrong in assuming that four games of Pyramid would be monotonous (and just give me an\' Chris Lemon three minutes alone with that Philistine) you\'re still playing Pyramid four times in an hour, with a confounding tournament and letting the champion (or worse, champion pro tem) sit on the sidelines for 45 minutes.I think the exact same format would get monotonous if extended to four games a day.
Chop out the third Winner\'s Circle, for a start. I\'ll explain why in a bit...Game 1: two new players
Game 2: two more new players
Game 3: winners of 1 & 2
All these are $10,000 attempts.
Game 4: winner of Game 3 vs. defending champion, with a $20,000 attempt
Makes sense.If the $20,000 attempt is successful, that player retires and the loser of Game 4 takes his spot in the final on the next show, à la Now You See It.
Simple: have it in all four games, still worth $500.I haven\'t decided what I\'d do with the Big 7.
And hence my suggestion to ditch the third Winner\'s Circle, otherwise...If the winner of Game 3 wins both of his $10,000 attempts, he retires, and the other winner takes on the defending champion.
I think the exact same format would get monotonous if extended to four games a day.
This doesn\'t make sense. Whether you\'re right or wrong in assuming that four games of Pyramid would be monotonous (and just give me an\' Chris Lemon three minutes alone with that Philistine) you\'re still playing Pyramid four times in an hour, with a confounding tournament and letting the champion (or worse, champion pro tem) sit on the sidelines for 45 minutes.
Just let \'em play.
I think in hindsight I should have rephrased the part you quoted. I sat through the Golden Pyramid Awards, which was seven half-hour shows. What I should have said is that I think the casual viewer would be unlikely to sit through four one-and-out games a day, five days a week.
Given the draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaging on of some current game shows, and the addition of more commercials, teases, flashbacks, human interest angles, were the one hour Pyramid to be proposed today, they\'d probably play just the same two games they played in the half hour in the original version...
I sat through the Golden Pyramid Awards
You misspelled \"relished\".
I would, but I can\'t make a damned bit of sense of it. (Of course, I\'m at work and my brain is mush right now.)
GSN Ratings, Recaps and Rumors. Reporting for Game Show Network from our direct sources.
Do they come from the Neighborhood of Make-Believe?
Does it matter if he can\'t even be arsed to spell Meredith\'s last name correctly?Do they come from the Neighborhood of Make-Believe?
Was that necessary?
You need professional help.
You need professional help.
For writing a blog post?
You don\'t think dedicating space on his \"news\" blog to a casual game show proposal with an unflattering picture of the OP a little... off?
You don\'t think dedicating space on his \"news\" blog to a casual game show proposal with an unflattering picture of the OP a little... off?
I\'ve been one of his harshest critics but when many of your contributions to the on-topic sections in recent months are just snarky or rude remarks towards people you\'ve jabbed at multiple times previously without provocation, he may not be the only one who should step back and observe the past.
Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty and will try to improve my attitude in the future.
You don\'t think dedicating space on his \"news\" blog to a casual game show proposal with an unflattering picture of the OP a little... off?
The only thing odd about that article, that stood out to me anyway, was his need to post Jay\'s avatar with the caption \"Jay Temple. apparently.\" As if that\'s actually an accurate representation of Jay. Although, I\'ve never met Jay, so who knows. For all I know Chris could indeed look like a shark with a blood thirst for hockey players.
Other than that, a fine article (I mean we do analyze things here), just from a source some may not happen to like a lot.
S\'what I\'ve been told, anyhow.For all I know Chris could indeed look like a shark with a blood thirst for hockey players.
What was even \"fine\" about it? The writing is terrible, he can\'t even count to two, it doesn\'t really have a point at all.Other than that, a fine article (I mean we do analyze things here), just from a source some may not happen to like a lot.
It doesn\'t have a point, but it is just there. Yes, the \"One Question\" bit is rather pointless (especially the bolding), but other than that it doesn\'t offend me. I suppose that\'s what I mean by \"fine\".
You\'re right that I didn\'t address how to do the first show. Keep in mind that the $20,000 was a continuous production with the 10. I would simply have had the winner of the last game of the 10 as the returning player on the 20. Even if he had $10,000, the fact that he didn\'t have $20,000 would mean that he still qualified.
You need professional help.
For writing a blog post?
I would argue, in a WHM sort of way, that as a writer, Scott definitely needs professional help. Just not the kind of help J.R. was insinuating.
Also, I\'m surprised nobody has pointed out the incongruity of Scott taking a potshot at Jay\'s avatar when \"apparently\", Scott looks like a 60s era Dick Clark.
IIRC, around the same time of ABC\'s discussion with Bob Stewart, a week of special 60-minute editions of LMAD aired, produced in Las Vegas. Pyramid was pre-empted that week.
Here\'s a notion: Winners of the first two games play something similar to the qualifying round of Password All-Stars. Two or four celebrities take turns giving a list of things that fit the subject. The two civilians play against each other, buzzing in to guess.
Six (or ten) subjects, each for an amount of cash--the structure of consolation money in the end game.
Penalty options for wrong answers: free clue(s) for the opponent, or opponent takes the subject by default, or wrong guesser has the dollar value deducted (a la Jeopardy!).
Player with more money plays the returning champion in the front game, winner going for the grand prize. Could be a pyramid of ten subjects in 1:30.
This breaks up the hour without adding anything out-of-place like the Chain Reaction end game. Maybe here, the subjects aren\'t shown to us viewers, putting us in the opposite chair. It would also offer an opportunity for new set pieces. Hopefully moving ones.
I\'m sorry--of course, the Chain Reaction bonus game is NEVER out of place.
Since everyone else is writing proposals, why not borrow the tournament format from \"Now You See It\" and adapt it to a partner game?
Game 1: Two pairs of civilians compete
Game 2: Each member of the winning team is paired with a celebrity
Game 3: Winning civilian from game 2 is paired with the opposite celebrity, and goes up against the returning champion or the runner-up from the previous show\'s game 3 if the champion is retired
There would definitely be winners circles after game 2 and 3, but I\'m not sure about having one after game 1 just because splitting it between partners seems awkward when it\'s an individual game the other two times.
Since everyone else is writing proposals, why not borrow the tournament format from \"Now You See It\" and adapt it to a partner game?
Remember: you asked.
Game 1: Two pairs of civilians compete
This is why. You may have just eliminated someone right out of the gate for no other reason than they had a shite partner that they had no control over choosing. There is a *very good* reason that this type of game is almost always played by a celebrity / civilian team.
And yes, that sucked on Now You See It too.
You also tried to \"fix\" High Rollers awhile ago too, is that right?
I wish there was a way make it so that the contestants actually *wanted* to roll the dice instead of passing the instant there\'s even a sniff of a bad roll possibility.
You also tried to \"fix\" High Rollers awhile ago too, is that right?
I wish there was a way make it so that the contestants actually *wanted* to roll the dice instead of passing the instant there\'s even a sniff of a bad roll possibility.
Me, too. That\'s what I tried to fix.
The problem is that, ultimately, it\'s damned near impossible to either lower the risk or increase the reward in a sensible manner sufficient to make keeping the dice an appealing option (especially in a front game) because you have to make the potential reward at least approach that of \"winning the game, playing Teh Big Numbers, maybe picking up a couple of prizes, and getting to play again.\" And once you\'ve done that, your endgame is no longer the climax, which utterly defeats the point.
To another point; many years ago Chris Lemon and I were all square at the conclusion of a rip-roaring game of Tie One On. Inexplicably we decided that to break the tie someone would read off clues for the seven answers and we would \"buzz in\" to answer, whoever scored four right would win. It was one of the hollowest victories I\'ve ever had in playing games, and not all that satisfying or interesting as a tie-break mechanic.
I\'ve not played Tie One On, but looking it up, it\'s basically the front game of Pyramid, isn\'t it? Describing one object at a time? No, it doesn\'t sound interesting, but it\'s not guessing the subject from the list of things, the part of Pyramid I appropriated.
Doing it as a jump-in feels a bit like Tribond, which is very satisfying, and it should be added fun to watch celebrities come up with the list than reading one. It could have the feel of Dick\'s post-games at the Winner\'s Circle. The increasing cash values of the subjects (50-50-50-100-100-200) would hopefully create a bit more intrigue than \"first to four.\"
The problem is that, ultimately, it\'s damned near impossible to either lower the risk or increase the reward in a sensible manner sufficient to make keeping the dice an appealing option...
Yep. I think the only fix it is to make the winning the game or match somehow depend on how many prizes you have.
What the heck, consider this: Two players, three games per show, Big Numbers at the end. I\'d go back to a prize under every number instead of the columns, but either works. Instead of best-two-out-of-three, they play all three games. The one who won more loot plays Big Numbers. Presumably the prizes are bigger in each subsequent game.
It doesn\'t change all that much--not like adding a celebrity\'s face concealed by puzzle pieces--but it does add at least a slight bit more strategy to the decision to pass, especially in the third game. It also means it won\'t straddle, so then GSN might run it.
Either utterly anticlimactic when you realize someone has a big enough lead that it doesn\'t matter, or you render the first two games meaningless when you try to fix that problem. Thank you, drive through.
How did they format the once-a-week HR syndicated? It wasn\'t cleared in my market.
According to the Game Shows Wiki, the 1975 syndicated show had the same two players competing for the entire half-hour, with the Big Numbers played after each game. If time ran out with a game in progress, whoever had knocked off more numbers was declared the winner and got their prizes (or $100 if they hadn\'t claimed any prizes that game).
Here is my only suggestion for an HR revival:
If you bring back the 3-column main game format, one thing that might be worth rolling for, instead of passing when there is only a few bad rolls, is to offer a car. Have one letter (C-A-R) per column and if a contestant can clear all 3 columns (thus obtaining all 3 letters), they win the car on top of the other prizes in each column. In the original Ruta Lee years, they would offer two 1/2-car prizes under two of the numbers, albeit hidden, which sometimes created the same pass-or-go-for-the-car scenario.
You\'re not going to give away a warehouse full of cars since how many times will all 3 columns get cleared in one game, let alone by one person? But it does create an extra layer of strategy for both players to consider and it rewards a contestant for clearing all 3 columns in a single game.
Was there always a car available in the Big Numbers, or wasn\'t it just cash at one time in the 3-column Trebek/Martindale eras? My mind seems to remember a non-car, cash-only Big Numbers era, in which the idea was based upon.
Okay, even then:Was there always a car available in the Big Numbers, or wasn\'t it just cash at one time in the 3-column Trebek/Martindale eras? My mind seems to remember a non-car, cash-only Big Numbers era, in which the idea was based upon.
I don\'t see what needs fixing. Sure towards the end of the round, the dice become a hot potato due to all the bad rolls, but what\'s wrong with that? If a correct answer meant you HAD to roll, then it\'d be broken.
I don\'t see what needs fixing. Sure towards the end of the round, the dice become a hot potato due to all the bad rolls, but what\'s wrong with that? If a correct answer meant you HAD to roll, then it\'d be broken.
The argument is that \"the optimal strategy is to avoid playing the game as much as possible as soon as it\'s dangerous to do so, and that\'s bad.\" I like High Rollers enough that I\'m willing to overlook it, but I acknowledge that a format centered around the gimmick of giant dice on a big dice table probably wants the players incented to want to interact with that gimmick as much as possible.
Don\'t have a bonus game
Axe the Big Numbers? Tell me you did not just say that.
My two cents, adding stupid ideas that don\'t make good TV sense.
Each player gets their own box to shut instead of working on a communal box. The prize-per-column still happens, so that each player\'s 1st column activates the same prize, etc. The winner of the game keeps the prizes he claimed. There\'s no need to worry about awarding $100 to the winner, since it\'s impossible to win without having claimed at least one column first. (If your opponent claimed all of the columns first, he shut his own box.).
To really fuck with the odds: 1) You can still force your opponent to roll and 2) the penalty when you make a bad roll is that your opponent can clear a number off of his board. This also addresses what to do if all you have left is the 1. It also makes later turns more important than early ones, which is still important to TV.
I\'m not saying that it\'s a great idea, but I remember plenty of times when people would pass without hesitation when there was only one or two bad rolls out of the 11 possible number combinations. I just want to see less of those early \"chicken\" passes, when the odds are 80-95% that you\'ll land a good roll, and see some more players keep control & roll their own demise. High Rollers is one of those shows where, in theory, someone could become champion by doing as little as possible -- or nothing at all. I think a game show should require contestants to have to make some sort of effort in order to win.
I just don\'t buy into the idea that the \"effort\" should be to keep passing as soon as there is a >0% chance to lose. If there are incentives in place where the pass factor comes into play later in the game, I think that makes for better TV. \"Millionaire\" uses the \"Survive the first 10 Questions to win 100% of your winnings\" incentive to keep people from being chicken too early. \"Deal or No Deal\" used the \"Banker will only offer you about 50% of the sum of all the remaining amounts that you could still potentially win\" to keep people from wimping out. What is wrong with having an incentive(s) on the board to keep the \"active\" play strategy happening more often than the \"passive\" play strategy?
I\'m not saying that it\'s a great idea, but I remember plenty of times when people would pass without hesitation when there was only one or two bad rolls out of the 11 possible number combinations. I just want to see less of those early \"chicken\" passes, when the odds are 80-95% that you\'ll land a good roll, and see some more players keep control & roll their own demise.
Your proposal isn\'t going to come close to accomplishing that.
What is wrong with having an incentive(s) on the board to keep the \"active\" play strategy happening more often than the \"passive\" play strategy?
Nothing, until that incentive has to be so big that it marginalizes your endgame, which is where the big prize is SUPPOSED to be. And I\'m suggesting the sweet spot of \"big enough to be worth the risk, but small enough to keep the Big Numbers important\" does not exist on High Rollers by the very nature of the front game / endgame format.
Honestly Travis comes closest to an actual feasible plan by removing the Big Numbers outright (which is the common thread in your (and in fact most modern prime-time) examples: they don\'t have endgames, or are ALL endgame, depending on how you want to look at it), except I posit that removing the Big Numbers from High Rollers is roughly akin to sucking the peanut butter out of a Reese\'s cup.
If you want contestants to roll the dice in the main game, it has to mean something. If a lavish prize package can\'t do that; what will?
I have my own ideas about Wheel of Fortune, but we\'re already plenty far afield.
If they involve the Cyrillic alphabet, the battery from an AMC Gremlin, and jumper cables, I\'m way ahead of you.I have my own ideas about Wheel of Fortune, but we\'re already plenty far afield.
