Skip to Content

Questioner - Game of guessing

5 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.

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!

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut