Gimmick rules at trash tournaments

[AKKOLADE]

First of all, I'm wondering about peoples thoughts about non-game breaking gimmicks for tournaments. I'm thinking less "start with a bonus 50 points for having the team name better liked by the moderator" and more "lame this bonus." Does breaking away from the normal ACF or NAQT rules ruin the game?

Additionally, I came up with a gimmick rule that might be used at my upcoming event and would like some feedback on it. If you recall the PC trivia game series "You Don't Know Jack", my suggestion is based off of one of that game's rules.

Each team would receive one screw per game. During a toss-up, and toss-ups only, one team can buzz in and "screw" the other. The remaining portion of the toss-up question will be read to the screwed team. The screwed team must answer. If the screwed team misses the question, they lose ten points and the screwing team gets ten points. However, if the screwed team answers the question correctly, they get ten points and the team that tried to screw them lose ten points.

[dtaylor4]

Each team would receive one screw per game. During a toss-up, and toss-ups only, one team can buzz in and "screw" the other. The remaining portion of the toss-up question will be read to the screwed team. The screwed team must answer. If the screwed team misses the question, they lose ten points and the screwing team gets ten points. However, if the screwed team answers the question correctly, they get ten points and the team that tried to screw them lose ten points.

If the 'screw' is used successfully, would the team that used it get the bonus as well?

[AKKOLADE]

They would indeed get the bonus.

[NoahMinkCHS]

I liked the screw in YDKJ, although I didn't use it often (since I knew most of the questions and it just seemed to add insult to injury for everybody else ). It would be interesting to try in a quizbowl format, although the presence of the giveaway changes the equation (since, given non-terrible questions, a decent team will probably know it by the end, unless it's obviously a weak subject of theirs). Maybe if I ever run a trash tournament I'll try this...

As for lames, I'm actually a fan. It's a little gimmicky, but to me, it's a bit like the clock -- it adds a new element of strategy and gameplay, which can make things more fun, although I know many people feel like the game should be decided on knowledge alone and anything else that impacts the score should be avoided. Reasonable point, but since the bonuses are in random order anyway, it's not like it destroys the main purpose of the game. It's a slight alteration to the randomness of the bonuses, and in fact, might mean both teams get bonuses better suited to their knowledge.

This, of course, is not to argue that ACF should adopt lame-and-claims posthaste. But for trash tournaments? It's a good change-up from the norm.

[Susan]

At Chicago, we used to use a slightly different version of the screw in "psychic bowl", a format we came up with for playing on terrible packets. When you screwed someone, they had to answer immediately (I mean, in five seconds or whatever, but no more of the question was read) but you couldn't screw someone before a certain point (first punctuation in the question, first sentence of the question--there was some variability). If you mistakenly tried to screw someone before you were allowed, you were docked the number of points you would have received if you buzzed in correctly.

[ArloLyle]

I'm a big fan of lames and claims, though one gimmick I like better, which I've only seen once or twice, is the punt. It's similar to the screw. The team who punts the bonus to the other team gets 30 points minus whatever the other team can answer correctly.

Oh, and I also remember reading about tournament on here that used "NBA Jam Rules". That sounded like a lot of fun, and I wish I could have been there to see if it actually worked out. I've noticed that some gimmicks that sound cool don't actually end up working very well. For example, phone a friend. It sounds really cool, but it hardly ever gets used and slows down the game when it is used.

[MLafer]

Andy Goss already did the "screw" thing in his 2001 Summer Singles tournament.


ANDY GOSS

[AKKOLADE]

If I am ever in the Library of Congress, I will post here if I should need saving.

[Mike Bentley]

The NBA Jam rules were interesting, atlhough maybe slightly unfair. I think we won a game we probably shouldn't have thanks to Casey's 3 or 4 "blocks" in a game (it's in one of the podcast episodes if you care).

Punts are interesting, although I don't like them as much as lames. They tend to punish teams for uneven bonus difficulty (i.e. when pretty much no one in the room can answer a bonus part successfully) whereas a lame at least lets the whole room skip a crappy bonus.

I guess if you were really good about your editing punts would be a good way to not have to have 22 bonuses in a packet (since none get skipped), but I'd probably just play it safe and do lames over punts.

[AKKOLADE]

[quote="Steroid McBlooddoper"][/quote]

Dear Mike,

Reply to my e-mail at your earliest convenience.

Best,

Fred

[pray for elves]

The NBA Jam rules were interesting, atlhough maybe slightly unfair. I think we won a game we probably shouldn't have thanks to Casey's 3 or 4 "blocks" in a game (it's in one of the podcast episodes if you care).

Punts are interesting, although I don't like them as much as lames. They tend to punish teams for uneven bonus difficulty (i.e. when pretty much no one in the room can answer a bonus part successfully) whereas a lame at least lets the whole room skip a crappy bonus.

I guess if you were really good about your editing punts would be a good way to not have to have 22 bonuses in a packet (since none get skipped), but I'd probably just play it safe and do lames over punts.

It was really awkward to adjust for me; every time we were "on fire" we forgot we could "goaltend", leading us to lose a game or two we could have possibly won.

(For those not at the tournament, being "on fire" resulted, like in the game, from your team getting three tossups in a row. You then got 12 points per tossup/17 per power, and had unlimited "goaltending", meaning that if the other team buzzed in on a tossup, you could shout out an answer before them, and if it was right the question was considered dead.)

[Phil Castagna]

I remember playing this at Andy Goss's singles trash tourney, but the question wasn't finished out. Therefore, the first person to use it just was retaliated against by the screwee, and it just was a pain. I don't think it serves much purpose in a full-room game to finish out the question, since most teams generally know the answer (academic or trash) by the end.

The problem stems from the fact that most people only get to play a certain number of times a year, and most people that complain vociferously at and after tournaments (often justified) are "playing for blood", and don't want any goofy rules that haven't been tested adequately messing everything up on their few chances per year to hear fresh questions.

I am sure that some of these rules would add strategy elements to the game without getting in the way of the aim of the game.

I do also recall playing a trash tourney (one of the Capitol Punishments) which had a steal/sink rule, that if you guessed wrong, the other team could answer for the bonus points. I did think it was great to watch (and play) with two strong teams, but a nightmare for the inevitable mismatches and just made things worse. I do remember that a couple strong players were playing solo that tourney, and could just sink everything they couldn't 30 and it actually gave a 1-man gang a better chance against a full team.