Skip to Content

Questioner - Game of guessing

15 replies [Last post]
Joined: 04/24/2018

Hi, everyone! I'm new to this Forum.

I have an idea for a game, with this premises:
- Simple rules
- Social (for breaking the ice with people that doesn't know too much of each other)

The game works like this:

- There should be at least 5 players.
- Each player receives a card with a "1" and a card with a "2" ("Answer Cards").

First round:

- Any player deals a "Role Card" to each player, including himself. This card must not be shown.
- The Roles are:
* The "Questioner"
* The "Answerer"
* The "Overseer"
* The "Guessers" (there are enough to complete the amount of Players)

- The "Questioner", asks out loud a Question that has only two possible Answers (without knowing who will answer).
Ie: "Would you prefer to be caught by the police: 1) Stealing 2) Being nude in a park".

- The "Answerer" announce that he has the Answerer role. He then proceed to answer, but instead of saying the answer out loud, he will put the card with the "1" or the "2" facing down, on the table (depending on what his answer is).

- All the "Guessers" and the "Overseer", proceed to put the card with "what they think that the Answerer has answered", facing down on the table. They have to guess what he has answered.

- The Overseer identifies himself, saying his Role out loud.
He then has two options:
a) Not protest.
b) Protest.

a) If he doesn't Protest:
Everyone turns his cards (to face up, showing the number).
Each player who guessed right, wins 2 points.
The Answerer gains 1 point per each one who guessed his answer right.

b) If he Protest:
He is implying that the question was too easy, or that everyone knows the answer, so it is not a legitimate Question / Answer.
Everyone turn their cards (facing up).
If everyone's answer is the same (all "1" or all "2"), he wins the Protest. He wins 2 points, and everyone else doesn't win any point.
If not all the answers are identical, he loses. He doesn't win any point. The other players win points as if there wasn't any Protest.

End of First Round.

Next rounds are the same as the First Round, but cards are dealt by the last player who was the Answerer.

The game ends when someone reaches a pre-defined score (Ie: 15 points)

What I want with this game is to create a way to get to know each other, in a fun, (maybe bizarre) and competitive way.

I'm looking to adjust the rules so that the game covers this 3 Statements:

1) "The Questioner has to make a difficult question".
I don't want to get easy questions like "Do you breathe? 1) Yes 2) No".
To accomplish this:
- Each one that Guess the right answer wins points. So, that's not convenient for the Questioner (because everyone wins points but him).
- The Answerer gets more points for each one that guesses right. This isn't convenient for the Questioner either (same reason).

2) "The Answerer, should answer with the truth".
This is difficult to accomplish. But since he wins points for every person who guessed his answer, there's a chance that what's logical might be the truth. Also, answering with a lie, might be embarrassing depending on the question.

3) "Players shouldn't say out loud what they are answering or guessing"
I could add a Rule like "everyone who says his answer or guessing loses points". But I don't want to add rules that are difficult to apply. For example, does implying the answer count as telling the answer out loud? It's a blurry Rule.
So, instead, I prefer to control it by points. If someone says his answer or guessing out loud, there's more chance that everyone will try to guess with the same answer. So the Overseer, might Protest, knowing the possible answer.

I could try the game in real life to find flaws, but I want to find the logic behind all this beforehand:
- Do you notice any "winning strategy" in here? For example, a way to cheat, or a way to use the rules in your favor?
- Will the 3 Statements be respected? Or do you imagine a way to break them?
- Do you have any other suggestion? Do you see any more defects or do you have any improvements?
- Do you see the game interesting to play? If not, how could it be modified to be interesting to you?
- Finally, what would be a good name for this game? An attractive name that also kinda explains what the game is about.

I would love to hear your opinions.

Thanks in advance.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Joined: 02/07/2011

I have a couple suggestions for you. This has a very Apples to Apples vibe to it already. The good thing about that game is that players "play the players" instead of "play the game." Keeping that in mind, I suggest you attempt the following:

- Eliminate the "Overseer" role. That seems like it would just slow down the game.
- Provide suggested questions for players to ask, likely on cards. Include blank questions in the deck so players can eventually include their own questions. This speeds up the Questioner's role. They could have a hand of cards to choose from, like 3 different cards, so they have some range of choice. You could even accommodate players by allowing them to change different words in your suggested question.
- Eliminate your Statement 2, since it's too difficult to entirely enforce. Again, trying to work this out each turn would likely slow down the game and not add to the experience... Unless you want to include a "debate" phase to player turns.

I also think that this could easily be turned into a smartphone app game, easing portability and production.

Sorry, I don't have any suggestions for a suitable name at the moment. Hopefully the above would be useful for other aspects of the game.

Jay103's picture
Joined: 01/23/2018
Remove the overseer, and give

Remove the overseer, and give the questioner one point for every WRONG guess. That prevents him from asking something obvious.

Also, the roles get re-dealt every time, I assume so the Q doesn't know who the A is.. but that will slow things down AND make it so you could have the same Q or A over and over, etc., so the scoring opportunities wouldn't be even. I think with my "questioner scores for wrong answers" suggestion, you can just have at least ONE of those roles rotate around the room.. but it's problematic either way in terms of scoring fairness.

But I agree with let-off that it's gonna be tough to have a group of people keep coming up with questions on their own. Apples to Apples has none of that, for example. Otherwise, I definitely see the A2A vibe.

Joined: 09/06/2017
Instead of the overseer you

Instead of the overseer you could give each player the ability to choose 1, 2 or obvious. Those that choose 1, 2 score as before. Those that choose obvious only score points if all other players choose the same answer. The points would be equal to number of players that choose the same answer. If everyone chooses obvious then the score is numbers of players -1. This would disincentive the questioner from asking too obvious of a question. More importantly, IMO this could give the players some interesting choices during the game.

Joined: 04/24/2018
Hi! Thank for your answers!

Hi! Thank for your answers! Sorry it took me so long to reply.
I would like to analyze your answers in detail, but I will reply first.

@let-off studios:
- I didn't know Apples to Apples since it's not popular in my country, but I do know Cards Against Humanity which is similar, I see. You are right that this game has some differences, the concept itself is different, but the way of playing it might be really similar.
- I see that the Overseer role might be more of a problem that a benefit. It is mentioned in the upcoming answers.
- I like your "cards" idea. Mostly to help the Questioner, since it can be difficult to imagine a new Question each time.
- The smartphone app is a good option, but first I would like to think of it as a board game, and then translate it to digital (since I prefer the interactions between people with a board game, rather than an app).
Thanks for your ideas!

- I get that the Overseer role is getting less necessary. One point to the Questioner per wrong answer is a good alternative to it. It does get in the way with the "cards", since if questions are defined by the game, the Questioner doesn't have options (only luck). Maybe if the cards are "suggestions" rather than complete questions.
- I do notice that there is some luck involved in dealing the roles. That wouldn't be a problem for me. BUT I do see your point that dealing all the roles each time is slow. So maybe the Questioner can rotate, but the Answerer is random. Not fair, but at least everyone gets to ask (rotate) a different person (random).
Thanks for your answer!

- I will have to analyze your idea in more detail, since I have to re-think the game without the overseer.
I was thinking in some rule like "if everyone votes in the same way, then x". It's like the role of the overseer but done automatically by the rule itself. But the third card could be an option too. I just have to read it carefully and analyze the different scenarios.
Thanks for your idea!

I will re-think some stuff and get back you you soon.

The Golden Monkey
Joined: 05/01/2018
Sounds Fun

This game sounds fun and it does have a familiar feel to cards against humanity, apples to apples, what do you mean, the game of things, so many but that is evidence that these games are fun and there is a great market for them.

I like that this one will teach others about each other rather than just pick the answer that provides the most humor.

I wonder if only answering 1 or 2 makes it a 50/50 chance of getting the answer right. The overseer helped that by his ability to say it is too obvious but if you take him away it is a 50/50 guess. Which could work but I was wondering if you made it a choice between 1, 2, and 3 does the game become more engaging because you can't get as lucky?

I don't know for sure but it sounds entertaining!

Joined: 04/24/2018
@The Golden Monkey, thanks

@The Golden Monkey, thanks for your answer!

Yes, I do notice the similarity to those games, but there are a few differences:
- There IS a "correct answer" (the one that the Answerer gave). It's not just a preference. So you can get it right or wrong.
- As you mentioned, it has to do with knowing each other, rather than getting funny answers.

There is a lot of luck involved (since the 50% change to get it right). But it would be really difficult to change the mechanics to more than 2 answers. This is because with 3 answers you can't have boolean questions (True or False, Yes or No, etc).
The overseer did change that a bit.

I thought about it, and I noticed that I really needed the overseer, BUT I came up with a new idea that could satisfy the need of it, and what the other users suggested. I added the ability to "Protest" to the Guessers.
I also added the "Question Cards" idea, that will help the Questioner in this role.

The new rules are like this:

01 - Each Player has 2 Answer Cards (a "1" and a "2").

02 - One Player is the Questioner (first round, chosen randomly, the next rounds, the role rotates between players).

03 - He deals 1 secret Role Card to each other player. One will be the Answerer, and the rest, Guessers.

04 - The Questioner can pick a Question Card, or can think up a Question on its own. The Question must have only 2 possible Answers.

05 - He proceeds to ask the Question out loud, saying also the 2 possible Answers.

06 - The Answerer identifies himself. He answers the Question, but not out loud, he places his Answer Card facing down, over the board.

07 - Each Guesser must place the Answer Card that he thinks the Answerer has used, also facing down.

08 - The Questioner asks if anyone wants to Protest. Each Guesser that want to protest must say it out loud.

09 - Everyone turns its card up.

10.01 - If someone Protested:

10.01.01 - If all chosen Answer Cards are the same, the Protest is True. The Guessers that Protested get 3 points. All other Players don't get any point.
10.01.02 - If not all chosen Answer Cards are the same, the Protest is False. The Guessers that Protested don't get any point. All other Players get points in the "normal way".

10.02 - If no-one Protested ("normal way"):

10.02.01 - If the Questioner picked a Question Card, he gets 1 point per Incorrect Answer. If he didn't pick a Question Card, he gets 2 points per Incorrect Answer.
10.02.02 - The Answerer gets 1 point per Correct Answer.
10.02.03 - The Guesser that guessed wrong, gets 1 point. The Guesser that guessed right, gets 2 points.

That's it! Let me know your feedback! Thanks!

Joined: 09/06/2017
Include the ability to protest on Guesser cards

Here is a small idea to perhaps streamline your game. You could divide the guesser cards into two sections, so that they form a top half and a bottom half. One half could be the answer 1 or 2 and the other could be protest 1 and protest 2. If a player would like to protest a question they could play protest side towards the center of the table. If they did not want to protest they could place the card so that the plain 1 or 2 is facing the center of the table.

Just a thought. Feel free to disregard, use or improve upon.

Joined: 04/24/2018
Hi @Fri! Thanks for the

Hi @Fri! Thanks for the answer! I wrote the answer but it seems I didn't post it, so I lost it :(.

Anyway, to keep it simple. It is a really good idea. I have to modify it to fit in the game (answers should be hidden until the end, protest should be done after everyone voted, etc).

So, what I think is this.

The board would have a grid made by:
3 Columns: Undefined, Answer 1, Answer 2
2 Rows: Not-Protest, Protest

Each Player has his own color for their Answer Cards (Ie: Player 1 Red, Player 2 Blue, etc).

So, into the gameplay:
- The Answerer identifies himself
- The Questioner asks everyone to put their Answer Cards, facing down, over the Undefined Not-Protest Square.
- He then asks who want to Protest. The ones that want, move their Answer Cards to the Undefined Protest Square.
- Then, the Questioner turn all Answer Cards up, and move them to the corresponding squares (Answer 1 Not-Protest, Answer 2 Not-Protest, Answer 1 Protest, Answer 2 Protest).

Even if it sounds more complicated, I think that when played, it will be easier, since its more visual.
The Answerer should have a different Answer Card color (Ie: White) so that is easier to see who guessed right.

I'm doing some modifications, but I think I will include this, even if I have to adapt it a little more.

Thanks for the idea!

Joined: 09/06/2017
Why is there a protest phase?

Since the answers remain hidden until the, what additional information do players have during the protest phase to help them decide whether or not protest? If there is not a good answer to that question then IMO you should strongly think about combining the answer and protest phases. There are two benefits to doing this. One is speed up game play. The other is depending on how it is implemented you could eliminate the need for a board.

Joined: 04/24/2018
Hi, Fri! Oh, I get it

Hi, Fri!

Oh, I get it know.
Yes, I can combine them.
The only thing I have to do is that the Answer and the Protest should be done exactly at the same time. This is because the Protest shouldn't affect the Answer decision (if I see another player protesting, I change it to make him lose).
So it could be done by the Questioner counting to 3, and everyone puts the card as the same time.
I do like the board, since the counting might be easier with it (If all the cards are in the same column, the protest was right, etc).

Thanks again!

Joined: 09/06/2017
Another thought/card layout

So I had another thought about how to pick the Questioner and the Answerer. Since each player has cards of a certain color have some thing similar to this on the bottom of each question card:

Questioner Answerer

The player that is using the color cards closest to the word "Questioner" would become the new questioner and the player using the colors cards closest to the word "Answerer" would become the new answerer. The order of the colors on each card would be randomized. If the questioner made up their own question you can flip a new question card to determine roles for the next round.

Feel free to use disregard or improve upon.

Writing out the above explanation, I discovered that I can directly inject HTML into my post. So below is a rough idea of the card layout I was suggestioning:

Protest 1 Protest 2
1 2
Joined: 04/24/2018
Hi again Fri. Quote:So I had

Hi again Fri.

So I had another thought about how to pick the Questioner and the Answerer. Since each player has cards of a certain color have some thing similar to this on the bottom of each question card: Questioner Answerer The player that is using the color cards closest to the word "Questioner" would become the new questioner and the player using the colors cards closest to the word "Answerer" would become the new answerer. The order of the colors on each card would be randomized. If the questioner made up their own question you can flip a new question card to determine roles for the next round.

I need a clarification. The colors at the bottom of the Question Card are for the next round, aren't they? This would avoid that if a card comes twice, it wouldn't be the same Questioner and the same Answerer. This is a good idea, I like it.

Writing out the above explanation, I discovered that I can directly inject HTML into my post. So below is a rough idea of the card layout I was suggestioning:

I still have a problem with the 2 columns x 2 rows layout. Let me give you an example. If I'm going to Protest with Answer 1, but I see that someone is voting for Answer 2, I already know that I will lose, so I won't protest. This would make the whole Protest thing difficult to apply. That's why I thought of adding a third Column, with: "?" and "Protest ?". So the actual answers are only shown after everyone already voted. Sorry if I can't explain it well, English is not my main language :P.

For a second, I came with another idea. That with your 2x2 Grid, but everyone voting at the count of 3, and instead of using cards, using only a colored coin (depending on where it's placed, it is your answer). But that could potentially cause another problem: Waiting for a split second to see if someone voted in a way that will make me loose and dragging your coin into a different place quickly. BUT, (I'm thinking while writing) with cards the only problem you could have is someone changing from Protest to Not Protest (since you can't change your Answer number, because your card already says your Answer). Maybe putting together "1" and "2" squares, separated from "Protest 1" and "Protest 2", so that no-one can drag their answer card between them? Or having 4 cards? 1, 2, Protest 1, Protest 2? And using the board only for counting score purposes.

Joined: 04/24/2018
Back to the colored coins,

Back to the colored coins, instead of the Answer cards.
If the 4 squares of the board("1","2","Protest 1","Protest 2") are really far apart... wouldn't it be enough? Or even, instead of being a board, it could be just 4 individual squares (and it would be easier to transport). There could be other variations, like little colored balls and little baskets.
I think that if I manage to overcome each problem of this layout, it would be the best way to do it, since it's really simple.

Joined: 09/06/2017
Yes, you can use the colors

Yes, you can use the colors on the bottom of the cards to select the Questioner and Answerer for the next round.

Your use of English is very good overall. English is my first language, but I even find it difficult to use in it's written form. (See above post with using lots of tedious HTML instead of writing stuff out. :)) Don't be too frustrated about not being able to convey all ideas with perfect clarity. Remember that we are trying to convey abstract ideas to each other, largely without a frame of reference using an imperfect and often ambiguous language.

After some thought I think that solution may be to just use four(4) answer cards: 1, 2, Protest 1, Protest 2. (I was trying to do this using just two(2) cards). The players would play their cards face down and reveal at the same time. You can then use the board to sort them if desired. IMO if you use a large font and some clever background colors you could even eliminate this step.

Joined: 04/24/2018
Ok, back to definitions. I

Ok, back to definitions.

I like the Color Grid at the bottom of the Answer Card for choosing players. It will speed up the process. That will be included in the game.

For the gameplay, I'm settling between 2 options. I already discarded the 2 cards option, since it has a few problems. So, the 2 options that remain:

Each player has a colored coin
There are 4 squares at the table:
- 1
- 2
- Protest 1
- Protest 2
When the Questioner asks if everyone is ready to answer, he counts to 3, and everyone puts its coin in the corresponding square.
It's faster to play this way.
The answers are already arranged and its easier to count scores.
The chaos produced by everyone putting its coin at the same time could be fun.
There could be some cheating like "I made a mistake, I wanted to put my coin there instead of here", after everyone already voted.
The chaos might be too much if there are too many players and the squares are far from some of them.

Each player has 4 colored Answer Cards:
- 1
- 2
- Protest 1
- Protest 2
Each player answers putting the chosen card facing down over the table.
When the Questioner says so, everyone turns their card up, revealing the answer.
Here are 2 alternatives:
- There is a board with 4 squares (1, 2, P1, P2) and everyone places its card there, so it's easier to count.
- There's no board, and the scores are counted just by looking at the cards.
I think that I prefer the option with the board, because:
- The score is somehow difficult to count (I will post the Score counting below). I could write the counting method graphically in the rules, and it would be easier to understand.
- If instead of having a board, there are 4 squares, it could be used for both game modes (coins and cards) and I could test them to see which one is better.

The Scoring method is like this:

01) If someone Protested and all Answer Numbers are the same:
01.01) The Guessers that Protested get 3 points
01.02) All other Players don't get any points

02) If step 01 is not true:
02.01) The Questioner gets 1 point per Wrong Answer
02.02) The Answerer gets 1 point per Right Answer
02.03) The Guessers that didn't Protest and guessed Right get 2 points
02.04) The Guessers that didn't Protest and guessed Wrong get 1 point
02.05) The Guesser that Protested don't get any point

That's it.

It might seem weird that if you Guessed Wrong you get 1 point, but that is for penalizing the Guessers that Protested since they don't any point (for Protesting wrong).

If someone want to comment regarding the 2 Gameplay options (Colored Coins vs 4 Answer Cards) I would like to hear your opinions.


Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut