# Need a simple scoring mechanic

4 replies [Last post]
Willi B
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I have a game that plays great as a team game but needs a simple mechanic for alternate play. I would like the game to accommodate 3+ players in odd numbers as well.

The game would play much like Squint in which a player tries to get any of the other players to guess something. Each player in Squint gets a 1 point chip (both the guesser and the person giving the clue). The problem with this model is that if a player is in the lead and giving clues, there isn't enough motivation for others to guess at all (if I need 1 point to win, why guess my clue?).

I need something really simple that works, but haven't come up with anything yet.... also, if it accommodates 2 players, that would be a plus.

kodarr
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2008
Scoring

Clue giver has time limit to give as many clues as they can. Then the players will write down their guesses and put them in upside down in a pile near the card for that round. Scores won't be tallied until after all rounds are over. So 1 round to at least give each player a chance to be a clue giver.
This is the only way for those type of games for the players not to just not guess for the lead player. If you give the player no points for giving clues they wouldn't give any clues or only give bad ones. So you can't do that either.
Blind scoring till the end is the only solution

InvisibleJon
Offline
Joined: 07/27/2008
Score per Squint, but if the

Score per Squint, but if the clue-giver is in the lead, you get 3 points for first correct guess instead of one point. The clue-giver still gets one point. Assuming that scores are relatively small, tripling the value of a correct guess should create enough social pressure to make a player want to guess - especially if it'll give them the lead.

Willi B
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
kodarr - I like the idea, but

kodarr - I like the idea, but I can't see slowing down the game to write things down.

Jon - I think there is potential there... I just have to word it right for the mass market. If the person in the lead starts each round and the clues are worth a mere 2 points each instead of 1 for guessers, then it might be enough.

However, it still has the potential for the clue giver to clam up in the final round and give rotten clues... after his turn, the score count would be right where it was. I would implement a -5 point penalty for getting zero clues correct, but the mass market hates penalties and limits the acceptance.

Right now I'm aiming at mass market publishers, so easy and wide acceptance has to remain.

The one thing I am toying with is chip awards that are not flat scoring devices but will determine the scoring in some other way, but if it's too difficult to grasp I may have to stick with team play. The problem is team play doesn't get everyone involved simultaneously and the two teams can't do the same thing at the same time as in some games.

bluesea
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
This was my first thought.

Willi B wrote:

The one thing I am toying with is chip awards that are not flat scoring devices but will determine the scoring in some other way, but if it's too difficult to grasp I may have to stick with team play. The problem is team play doesn't get everyone involved simultaneously and the two teams can't do the same thing at the same time as in some games.

This was my first thought. have multicolored chips, each with a different value on them. some plus, some minus. So there is still some incentive for players to guess the clues of the leader hoping to force him to draw a "-2 points" chip, say. I'll sleep on it and maybe will have a better suggestion in the morn.