h a l f b a k e r yWhere life imitates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
One player gives a condition. Another player gives a consequence. The remaining player(s) quickly think(s) of an explanation for how the consequence might follow from the condition.
Example:
Condition: "If trees could speak..."
Consequence: "...overcrowding in jails would no longer be a problem..."
Explanation:
"...because trees would probably be able to yell pretty loudly. So we could take advantage of that by keeping prisoners in woods, instead of in jails. If any of the prisoners tried to escape, the trees would yell loudly enough to draw the guards' attention. And with most prisoners living in woods, there'd be fewer prisoners in jail."
The funnier and more believable your explanation, the better.
This game could be played just for fun, or a points system could be added if you want to play competitively. Perhaps the first player to provide a good explanation wins that round, unless another player can immediately provide a better (more believable, or funnier) explanation, or all players could have one minute to think up an explanation, and then vote to decide whose is best.
This could also be played as a card game, with a deck of 'condition' cards and a deck of 'consequence' cards.
Note: This is a pretty simple idea so in all likelihood it's already baked. If you've heard of/played this game already, please could you let me know what it's called? Cheers.
If it's not baked, I'm pretty tempted to make those cards.
Munchausen - storytelling game
http://www.boardgam...of-baron-munchausen
A game about telling an imaginary tale, like "explain to us how you use painted ducks to build a castle". [ilSilvano, Mar 05 2010]
[link]
|
| |
This sounds like how new product design gets done at my day job. |
|
| |
Quid pro quo.
What's your day job [normzone]? |
|
| |
//first player to provide a good explanation// would be loud and chaotic. |
|
| |
Instead, each player should write an explanation on a piece of paper. The pieces of paper are mixed together and then read aloud. A different player is made a judge each round and decides on the best explanation. (This is similar to 'Apples to Apples') |
|
| |
+ well, I guess you explained that really well. |
|
| |
Sounds very much like "Westminster Politics" where each player is expected to describe why a particular policy is going to be great for the electorate, using only a random handful of topical buzzwords and focus-group led reasoning. |
|
| |
Could be a varient of a a game called "balderdash," where you make definitions, or significant events that correspond to a given date. The "real" definition is on the card. All definitions are mixed up, and points are scored based on people trying to guess the correct definition. |
|
| |
Sadly, baked: this is how legislative decisions are made the world over. ([+]) |
|
| |
(fries), it's a privately held (read:one owner) outfit that makes ruggedized computer equipment for the military. The owner sheds ideas like a dog does fleas, and we attempt to translate them into reality before he forgets about them and starts yet more projects. |
|
| |
Cool.
Sounds like a great job...of course I think I'd rather have his...
: ] |
|
| |
//ruggedized//
//The funnier and more believable your explanation, the better.//
Points go to [normzone] in this round. |
|
| |
Make those cards! What have you got to lose? + |
|
| |
While I like this idea I'm not sure how the scoring is practical. I don't think players will collectively agree one explanation is better than the other. +1 anyway. |
|
| |
How about this procedure? The condition and the conclusion are read. There is a buzz-in (like on the game show "Jeopardy"). The person who buzzed in must give an explanation. Then all the other people vote "approve" or "disapprove" - the buzzer-in scores one point for each "approve" but loses one point for each "disapprove". |
|
| |
Therefore, it's advantageous to buzz in only if you have a good answer. |
|
| |
I think it would be fun if another player could then offer a rebuttal stating how the condition should in fact imply the *opposite* consequence. (E.g. "No way! If trees could talk then logging would be discontinued, leading to more unemployment, more crime, and MORE people in jails, not fewer!") |
|
| |
The rebuttal would be subject to the same approval/disapproval scoring. |
|
| |
For simplicity, instead of the buzz-in, the roles could rotate in a circle (if you're playing with 4+ people), with each player in turn playing "Proposer", "Concluder", "Explainer", and "Rebutter". |
|
| |
Truth is funnier than fiction? I make it sound like fun. When it's fun, it's very very fun, but when it's not, it's very very not fun. |
|
| |
Because the tree's true nature would be revealed: pure and utter evil. They would spit vile and blasphemy to all passers by, anyone struck by their dictum would at once be sent through an infinite digression of pain and existence. And since no living man would be seen as composed of any maliciousness close to that of the trees, they would all be released on account of not being all that bad. |
|
| |
How do you keep score? This is just another idea game idea. Probably baked by a fourth grader somewhere. Neutral. |
|
| |
strange place, the bakery is... I put up
an almost identical idea to this about
two years ago, under a different name,
and it collected bones so I deleted it. I
use it as a method of ideas
development with my students in the
form of a two card choice system,
involving additional inputs from
operators and modifiers. I based it on a
combination of the I Ching and Brian
Eno's Oblique Strategies. I particularly
like the idea
of it being a game, so I naturally
approve to the highest order + |
|
| |
//This is just another idea game idea.//
[daseva] that's pure humbug - "always
with the negative" - Donald Sutherland
Kelly's Heroes 1970 MGM |
|
| |
"If we all played a game of 'Explain That!' together..." |
|
| |
...because someone would say "if we didn't wear pants any more...", someone else would say "...it would be really good" and then a third person would come up with a reason which was utterly convincing. |
|
| |
Why would anyone wear pants to the halfbakery? I thought the whole point of the internet was that I could do everything I wanted without pants. |
|
| |
Now I hear people have been wearing pants all along and I don't know WHAT to think. |
|
| |
[+] If I give you a bun .. |
|
| |
This would rely on it being played only by witty, intelligent people. If jut one player wasn't able to regularly come up with inventive explanations, the game would be no fun at all. Also there's no way you could possibly score this game - I'm mystified as to why everyone seems so enthusiastic about it. |
|
| |
Sounds close to the Media doing their Spinning... very interesting stuff!! |
|
| |
Scoring might be a vote at the end of a bunch of related event cards like 'Should we burn all the trees that speak?' |
|
| |
...because Cloud Nine also likes the idea so much that the mutual bunnage would turn her into a vertable Joan of Arc, leading armies to the betterment of all mankind. |
|
| |
If Wales ruled the world then bannanas would become the second most favorite fruit of every third triplet. |
|
| |
Good to see this still attracting interest. I agree somewhat with [hippo] that having a workable scoring system is key to whether this would work as a commercially available game. |
|
| |
I've now come up with a rules/scoring system that I think will solve the difficulties mentioned here. If you've played 'Scruples', the rules of that are *vaguely* similar to my rules for this. I reckon it'll work well. I'm going to keep the precise details under wraps just for the moment, though - sorry! |
|
| |
I've also written 60 or so condition cards, and 20 or so consequence cards, so this is nearing the play-testing stage... |
|
| |
You have two teams. A player from team 1 draws a "condition
card" and reads it and then a player for team 2 draws a
"consequence card" and reads it. Team 1 has 1 minute to
come up with a "explanation." Then Team 2 has 1 minute to
say why it won't work. Then team 1 gets to retort. This goes
back and forth until one team has no retort or they repeat a
reason or they are laughing too hard to speak. |
|
| |
Sounds like the average game night would start out like a light-hearted Lincoln-Douglas debate (condition)... and inevitably end up with a Lincoln-Booth result (consequence). -N8 |
|
| |
For the example question you could also say trees on every street corner could be recruted as law enforcement officers to observe and report thus thwarting crime anywhere there are trees. "We can't rob that bank, there's a palm tree out in front." |
|
| |
I think it could be scored by an honest evaluation by both sides of whether or not the explanation is plausible. |
|
| |
For instance, "If steel were green / dogs could fly" would be one I'd bail on. |
|
| |
In any case, stuff like this is why I love this site. |
|
| |
I think this is how they choose articles for The Onion. [Condition] causes [Effect] says [Political figure]. |
|
| |
To test this, make it into a (prototype) Print 'n Play game, post it on boardgamegeek.com, and ask for reactions. You'll get enough feedback to actually turn this into a new (sellable) party game, or to despair and give up on the idea. |
|
| |
I still think this is unworkable. There's no way of scoring this 'game', and it relies heavily on all participants being of the same high level of cleverness and wittiness. I am reminded of the game "Mornington Crescent" which can be quite funny when played by professional comedians who have been appearing on "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" for 20 years, but is just dire when attempted by anyone else. |
|
| |
What do you mean there's no way of scoring it? For an easy
example, it can be scored the same way as Apples to
Apples/Cards Against Humanity, as [xavier] said back in
2008. |
|
| |