Balderdash
Dec. 10th, 2007 02:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI assume it goes without saying that I'm not very good at Balderdash :) However, I was wondering about the rules.
The basic idea (varied slightly in different incarnations) is that one player picks a random word (or film title, or acronym[1]), either by drawing the next card in the pile from the published game, or by flopping a dictionary open in the freestyle version.
She announces it, and then each other player invents a definition, handed to her on a bit of paper. Then she reads them all out, and each player guesses which is correct. You get one point for guessing the correct definition, and one point for each person who guesses yours.
This has the implicit assumption that no-one will know the definition already. Typically, if you know the right definition beforehand, you get N points (where N is 1 or larger), but don't participate in the rest of the round. (One set of rules says the rest of the round is cancelled if several players do.)[2]
The question is, what's the fairest way of doing it? Should players be rewarded for knowing? It's actually barely related to the real point of the game. Giving them a bonus and moving on seems most sensible.
Another option would be that you don't get anything extra; you make up a definition anyway, and just get one extra point for voting for the right one.
Another would be that your definition is entered, and everyone who votes for an equivalent answer to the real one gets a point, but you get a point for anyone who votes for yours instead of the real one.
The things to avoid are: it being an advantage to *not* know the answer, which really seems unfair, and putting too much judgement on the caller. After all, if she doesn't know wha
[1] You know what I mean.
[2] Did someone in fact get it right?
Words are ok, you generally know or not.
Complete the silly law is ok for the opposite reason. They're all made up, so (unless by an immense stroke of luck, you actually really know the answer), you don't get any points for saying something else it's illegal to do on Tuesdays in Cardiff -- after all, there's lots of things -- you have to guess what's on the card.
But we had difficulty with people. Do you have to guess whatever's on the card, however weird? The correct answer for "John Dee" was "invented the crystal ball" and for "Christian Huygens" was "invented the pendulum clock"[3]. Do you get points for saying "British court magician/philosopher" and "Dutch physicist and astronomer"[4]?
Those are possibly less specific, but a whole lot more accurate. They (when we went over to the internet) basically the first sentences of the wikipedia entries.
But if so, how is the caller supposed to know if they're accurate or not? I guessed that John Dee supposedly invented the crystal ball, but I wouldn't done if I didn't know who he was.
[3] Leaving aside the inaccuracy of that.
[4] I wasn't *sure* of either. I knew the scientists I was thinking of existed and had similar names, but I could equally well have been confused with "Jack Dee" and "Hayden Christensen"
The basic idea (varied slightly in different incarnations) is that one player picks a random word (or film title, or acronym[1]), either by drawing the next card in the pile from the published game, or by flopping a dictionary open in the freestyle version.
She announces it, and then each other player invents a definition, handed to her on a bit of paper. Then she reads them all out, and each player guesses which is correct. You get one point for guessing the correct definition, and one point for each person who guesses yours.
This has the implicit assumption that no-one will know the definition already. Typically, if you know the right definition beforehand, you get N points (where N is 1 or larger), but don't participate in the rest of the round. (One set of rules says the rest of the round is cancelled if several players do.)[2]
The question is, what's the fairest way of doing it? Should players be rewarded for knowing? It's actually barely related to the real point of the game. Giving them a bonus and moving on seems most sensible.
Another option would be that you don't get anything extra; you make up a definition anyway, and just get one extra point for voting for the right one.
Another would be that your definition is entered, and everyone who votes for an equivalent answer to the real one gets a point, but you get a point for anyone who votes for yours instead of the real one.
The things to avoid are: it being an advantage to *not* know the answer, which really seems unfair, and putting too much judgement on the caller. After all, if she doesn't know wha
[1] You know what I mean.
[2] Did someone in fact get it right?
Words are ok, you generally know or not.
Complete the silly law is ok for the opposite reason. They're all made up, so (unless by an immense stroke of luck, you actually really know the answer), you don't get any points for saying something else it's illegal to do on Tuesdays in Cardiff -- after all, there's lots of things -- you have to guess what's on the card.
But we had difficulty with people. Do you have to guess whatever's on the card, however weird? The correct answer for "John Dee" was "invented the crystal ball" and for "Christian Huygens" was "invented the pendulum clock"[3]. Do you get points for saying "British court magician/philosopher" and "Dutch physicist and astronomer"[4]?
Those are possibly less specific, but a whole lot more accurate. They (when we went over to the internet) basically the first sentences of the wikipedia entries.
But if so, how is the caller supposed to know if they're accurate or not? I guessed that John Dee supposedly invented the crystal ball, but I wouldn't done if I didn't know who he was.
[3] Leaving aside the inaccuracy of that.
[4] I wasn't *sure* of either. I knew the scientists I was thinking of existed and had similar names, but I could equally well have been confused with "Jack Dee" and "Hayden Christensen"
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 03:09 pm (UTC)AFAIK the official rules are: 1 point for each person who votes for your answer, 2 for voting for the correct answer, and 3 for submitting the correct answer in the first place, at which point yours is discarded (to prevent two nearly-identical choices being read out) and you can't get points for being voted for.
I think this is sensible. You get rewarded (with 2) if you half-knew it but needed reminding, or if you didn't know it but used etymology or other background knowledge to correctly guess the best answer. You get rewarded even more (3) if you happened to know it beforehand, but you can't score any more than that, because your answer is discarded. This presents the vocabularily-endowed player with a very interesting strategic choice: do you submit the correct answer, take the 3 and run; or do you think you can do better than that by making up something false and convincing, claiming 2 for voting correctly, and fooling a few people for a few more points?
I will also say that the game is well-designed and uses difficult words, so you hardly ever end up in this situation anyway. Even in a group containing multiple FreeRice top scorers, you hardly ever get people submitting correct answers. There was one time we cancelled a round because we got seven correct definitions for "triskaidekaphobia", but that was very much an exception.
Oh, and the People category is silly. I always go for words or acronyms.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 03:29 pm (UTC)Yeah, that sense. I think we didn't know/had rules that didn't say 2/3 points for guessing right, so it seemed like you'd do best by creating a similar answer[1] and hoping. But doing so felt a bit like cheating. That way would work fine.
[1] Being of course the problem: you might do best by voting for the correct answer, and submitting as similar as answer as possible (if it so happened that other people might also have dim memories).
I will also say that the game is well-designed and uses difficult words
Oh yes, totally. triskaidekaphobia, is an anomoly, being quite famous as an obscure word. (And reasonably transparent from the etymology, I guess.)
Oh, and the People category is silly. I always go for words or acronyms.
Oh, indeed. Most of us were quite beginners. Though all of the categories can be very *funny*.