After the game is completed, it needs to be proofed. Traditionally, before our son, Philip a/k/a Lil Jeop, went to college and before he started playing the games, this was done at the dinner table as a family treat. The two of them would compete with one another over the answer. When Phil is home, this still continues, though I write fewer games and I write them more slowly now, so this is not very frequent. Sometimes when Phil realizes he's heard a game he just won't answer when playing.
The key is to read the game aloud, because this helps me find about 90% of the typos and the poorly phrased questions. I mark them and . . . honestly the one thing I hate is then going back and fixing them. There was a long time when I had a pile of edited games sitting on the dining room table and I'd forget to make the corrections in the actual game until almost game time, and then I'd have to hunt around to find the right one (God forbid I should actually title them or anything), a panicky scramble I apparently preferred to, say, simply making the corrections right after I marked them.
The thing about Marjorie is that she doesn't like playing the games online, because she doesn't get into strategy of bagging or anything and hates to have to type under a tight buzzer (though no one could call my buzzers tight these days). But her knowledge of certain things is tremendous (trust me, she'd have killed everyone who played the 1586 game) and her knowledge of other things, like the casts of movies I know she's never seen, is surprisingly good. On the other hand, the first time we heard this line in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,", "I know nothing of these early sixties sitcoms of which you speak," we looked at each other and cracked up. Marjorie grew up without a TV and late night TV in particular was a mystery to her. She saw some afternoon TV at a friend's house, but in the evening no. Popular music past 1975 isn't exactly a high point in her knowledge either. So sometimes I'll just simply say, "there's no way in hell you're getting this" and I'm right about 99% of the time. She can make a pretty damn good educated guess, though, since she's basically heard me read every single game I've ever hosted, and that goes back a ways. As Sherlock Holmes might say, she knows my methods.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Writing a Bonus
A bonus in Flashback is not as easy as a bonus in, say, a general trivia game. In a general trivia game, you can find a bonus in the theme; in Flashback the theme is the year and some years have bonuses that are obvious and some do not. The limitations of how I put the sources together can also limit the availability of a bonus. Nearly always I am staring at a single source (a couple of times, most often when dealing with a year before 1700, I will find a new source) and have to find a bonus after writing the first 45+ questions.
In its simplest form, a bonus is two questions tied together. The perfect bonus is a single question with two answers:
Q: WHO WERE THE FIRST TWO MEN ON THE MOON?
A: NEIL ARMSTRONG, BUZZ ALDRIN
Q: WHAT TWO ACTRESSES TIED FOR THE BEST ACTRESS OSCAR?
A: BARBRA STREISAND; KATHARINE HEPBURN
Those are unusual. Sometimes you can combine two related concepts. If you were doing 2010:
Q: WHO BECAME PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM? WHO WAS SELECTED AS THE NEXT SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?
A: DAVID CAMERON, JOHN BOEHNER
The next kind is the "two variables in a single question" kind.
Q; WHAT WOMAN TOOK WHAT CABINET OFFICE AND BECAME THE SECOND FEMALE EVER IN THE CABINET?
A: OVETA CULP HOBBY; SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Finally, there's just two relatively unrelated questions as "one question." You don't need examples; it's anything.
I don't go searching for the perfect bonus; the first one I find in the source is the one I use. For 1911, it is in fact a "two variables in a single question" bonus. The good thing about it is that it's answer is suggested by two questions earlier in the game.
In its simplest form, a bonus is two questions tied together. The perfect bonus is a single question with two answers:
Q: WHO WERE THE FIRST TWO MEN ON THE MOON?
A: NEIL ARMSTRONG, BUZZ ALDRIN
Q: WHAT TWO ACTRESSES TIED FOR THE BEST ACTRESS OSCAR?
A: BARBRA STREISAND; KATHARINE HEPBURN
Those are unusual. Sometimes you can combine two related concepts. If you were doing 2010:
Q: WHO BECAME PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM? WHO WAS SELECTED AS THE NEXT SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?
A: DAVID CAMERON, JOHN BOEHNER
The next kind is the "two variables in a single question" kind.
Q; WHAT WOMAN TOOK WHAT CABINET OFFICE AND BECAME THE SECOND FEMALE EVER IN THE CABINET?
A: OVETA CULP HOBBY; SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Finally, there's just two relatively unrelated questions as "one question." You don't need examples; it's anything.
I don't go searching for the perfect bonus; the first one I find in the source is the one I use. For 1911, it is in fact a "two variables in a single question" bonus. The good thing about it is that it's answer is suggested by two questions earlier in the game.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The First Question
A good trivia game begins with a good first question. I probably wrote that in "Secrets of Host Jeop" in 1995 and I really haven't changed my mind.
For 1911, we will begin with a question from the William Howard Taft book. Why? Because that particular chronology series is very reliable in giving a lot of facts from which to select the right first question. Even if it didn't, it would at least be a decent first question. We can guarantee it will be in American History (since nearly all the players are Americans), and, heck, William Howard Taft is funny.
No, I'm not going to tell you the question. You'll have to come on the last Wednesday of the year to see it.
But here are some of the facts I've discarded (since I haven't actually written the game, I'm listing the ones I doubt I'll use from other sources, too, though you never know):
Appointed Joseph R. Lamarto to the Supreme Court. No one's ever heard of Joseph R. Lamarto. I could turn this into this question:
Q: IN JANUARY, PRESIDENT TAFT APPOINTED JOSEPH R. LAMARTO TO WHAT JOB HE HIMSELF HAD TURNED DOWN?
A: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
In a pinch, i.e., if there were no other questions from the source, I'd use that. It works with Taft because he had in fact turned down the Supreme Court. But unless it's a Supreme Court justice someone has heard of, random appointments like that aren't the source for good questions.
The United States Commerce Court opened. I don't care. You don't care.
Appointed Walter L. Fisher Secretary of the Interior. Probably the most boring thing I've ever read is the endless arguments between Gifford Pinchot (whose acolyte Fisher was) and Richard Ballinger over conservation during the Roosevelt and Taft administrations. I try to avoid it like the plague (but can't always; I have some books with titles like "100 Years of Federal Forestry").
Appointed Commission on Economy and Efficiency to study governmental reorganization. Are you still awake?
President and Mrs. Taft celebrated their silver wedding anniversary in the White House with a night garden party for 5,000 guests. This wouldn't be that bad, you could ask people to estimate the number of their anniversary, or the number of guests. 5,000 guests at the White House is a huge crowd, and do you think you could think of 5,000 people to invite to your party? But there are better facts; pass.
There are about half a dozen others, some just as boring and some of which are the possible bases for questions either now or later in the game.
It is perfectly possible that notwithstanding that the source is called "William Howard Taft", the first question will be not include Taft's name in either answer or question.
For 1911, we will begin with a question from the William Howard Taft book. Why? Because that particular chronology series is very reliable in giving a lot of facts from which to select the right first question. Even if it didn't, it would at least be a decent first question. We can guarantee it will be in American History (since nearly all the players are Americans), and, heck, William Howard Taft is funny.
No, I'm not going to tell you the question. You'll have to come on the last Wednesday of the year to see it.
But here are some of the facts I've discarded (since I haven't actually written the game, I'm listing the ones I doubt I'll use from other sources, too, though you never know):
Appointed Joseph R. Lamarto to the Supreme Court. No one's ever heard of Joseph R. Lamarto. I could turn this into this question:
Q: IN JANUARY, PRESIDENT TAFT APPOINTED JOSEPH R. LAMARTO TO WHAT JOB HE HIMSELF HAD TURNED DOWN?
A: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
In a pinch, i.e., if there were no other questions from the source, I'd use that. It works with Taft because he had in fact turned down the Supreme Court. But unless it's a Supreme Court justice someone has heard of, random appointments like that aren't the source for good questions.
The United States Commerce Court opened. I don't care. You don't care.
Appointed Walter L. Fisher Secretary of the Interior. Probably the most boring thing I've ever read is the endless arguments between Gifford Pinchot (whose acolyte Fisher was) and Richard Ballinger over conservation during the Roosevelt and Taft administrations. I try to avoid it like the plague (but can't always; I have some books with titles like "100 Years of Federal Forestry").
Appointed Commission on Economy and Efficiency to study governmental reorganization. Are you still awake?
President and Mrs. Taft celebrated their silver wedding anniversary in the White House with a night garden party for 5,000 guests. This wouldn't be that bad, you could ask people to estimate the number of their anniversary, or the number of guests. 5,000 guests at the White House is a huge crowd, and do you think you could think of 5,000 people to invite to your party? But there are better facts; pass.
There are about half a dozen others, some just as boring and some of which are the possible bases for questions either now or later in the game.
It is perfectly possible that notwithstanding that the source is called "William Howard Taft", the first question will be not include Taft's name in either answer or question.
The Order of the Sources
As I mentioned, there are two racks of books, 46 or more, on a wheeled cart. The higher shelf has smaller books and the lower shelf has larger books. Oversized books are lain on the right of the cart.
One question per source.
One fact is that there are fewer large books than small books. And the small books are thinner. However, there is a wild card: two filing cabinet drawers full of printouts of chronologies printed from the internet. For some games, this will mean far more sources on the lower shelf.
Before I bore you to death . . . .
The books are put together in some sort of order, which isn't exact or scientific, but is intended to allow for some pattern to the questions. I don't like to have sports, music or entertainment questions directly after one another. If the year has a particular fact that dominates it (1963: the Kennedy assassination; 1964: the British invasion) and so it is likely that there will be multiple questions about the year, I like to keep those questions, and thus those sources, separated. And I like to put those questions in something of a chronological order. In an 1815 game, questions about Napoleon and Waterloo will give some sense of the direction of the year: escape from Waterloo, turning of the troops sent to capture him, gathering a force, marching north, fighting the battle, abdication, capture, sailing to St. Helena. You can box yourself in with a source when you don't do this; you can also box yourself in when a later source has nothing but something you've already used (in which case I sometimes cheat and take something from the source I already used).
I honestly can't tell you the "big event" of 1911, however, so as we work on that game in here, there's nothing that will obviously come to mind. Although I am pretty sure that being Emperor of China was not a growth industry.
One question per source.
One fact is that there are fewer large books than small books. And the small books are thinner. However, there is a wild card: two filing cabinet drawers full of printouts of chronologies printed from the internet. For some games, this will mean far more sources on the lower shelf.
Before I bore you to death . . . .
The books are put together in some sort of order, which isn't exact or scientific, but is intended to allow for some pattern to the questions. I don't like to have sports, music or entertainment questions directly after one another. If the year has a particular fact that dominates it (1963: the Kennedy assassination; 1964: the British invasion) and so it is likely that there will be multiple questions about the year, I like to keep those questions, and thus those sources, separated. And I like to put those questions in something of a chronological order. In an 1815 game, questions about Napoleon and Waterloo will give some sense of the direction of the year: escape from Waterloo, turning of the troops sent to capture him, gathering a force, marching north, fighting the battle, abdication, capture, sailing to St. Helena. You can box yourself in with a source when you don't do this; you can also box yourself in when a later source has nothing but something you've already used (in which case I sometimes cheat and take something from the source I already used).
I honestly can't tell you the "big event" of 1911, however, so as we work on that game in here, there's nothing that will obviously come to mind. Although I am pretty sure that being Emperor of China was not a growth industry.
Monday, November 15, 2010
The First Ten Sources
These actually seem to make some sense:
1. The Ty Cobb Scrapbook (mentioned before)
2. The Hundred Years (mentioned before)
3. William Howard Taft (part of the Oceana Presidents series, with a chronology of his administration)
4. The Story of Twenty Five Years (chronology of George V's reign)
5. Arizona, The Territorial Years (autographed copy; got it on eBay)
6. United States Naval Aviation (oddly, rather early in the naval aviation era)
7. Chronology of Tennessee A&I University (which was founded in 1911)
8. A Chronology of the Boston Public Schools (which ends in 1911 because it was published in 1912)
9. Winston Churchill, Young Statesman (mentioned before)
10. The Papal Encyclicals, 1903-1939 (one of five volumes that I got at the library book sale and haven't used yet, even though the book sale was in March)
1. The Ty Cobb Scrapbook (mentioned before)
2. The Hundred Years (mentioned before)
3. William Howard Taft (part of the Oceana Presidents series, with a chronology of his administration)
4. The Story of Twenty Five Years (chronology of George V's reign)
5. Arizona, The Territorial Years (autographed copy; got it on eBay)
6. United States Naval Aviation (oddly, rather early in the naval aviation era)
7. Chronology of Tennessee A&I University (which was founded in 1911)
8. A Chronology of the Boston Public Schools (which ends in 1911 because it was published in 1912)
9. Winston Churchill, Young Statesman (mentioned before)
10. The Papal Encyclicals, 1903-1939 (one of five volumes that I got at the library book sale and haven't used yet, even though the book sale was in March)
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Preliminary Sketches
So it turns out there was one source that didn't work for 1903 that did work for 1911, a Winston Churchill chronology. Churchill apparently did nothing as a "Young Statesman" in 1903, but did in 1911. So hurrah. I'm also going to stretch one source, misleadingly called "The Hundred Years" even though it covers only a very few years in the hundred it claims to encompass. It has an entry for 1910 and I can probably stretch it to make some facts fit 1910. One way I do this is if, say, a building is finished in Year X, I can ask a question that includes the fact that Year X+1 is the first complete year it is open. It's not inaccurate, and it's hard to come up with stuff for some years.
The next thing I do is to sort the available sources for those that start and end in the relevant year. I have four books that end in 1911, either because the subject died or just because that was the publication year. One of my favorites, a book called "American Game Protection", an unbelievably exhaustive chronology of laws protecting birds and game, happens to end in 1911. Unfortunately, sometimes when it's simply the last entry because that's when the book got published, as opposed to some event that naturally ends the book (the end of the Civil War, for instance), the last entries are not particularly interesting.
There are also even more that start that year and far more that start the year before, either because they are based on the decade or because they are based on the start of King George V's reign in Britain. I like to use those because it's more likely they will both have something germane to the period (why start a book in 1911 if you have nothing to say about 1911) and more likely to not be more germane to some other year. Although for this game it doesn't matter.
Here's the secret: one of my rules is that I don't repeat a source during a year until I can no longer write a game that doesn't repeat a source. It doesn't matter if the source uniquely has something for another year, I can't use it until I've used them all up. This year, it took until late September when I could no longer find at least 46 sources that I hadn't used.
The next thing I do is to sort the available sources for those that start and end in the relevant year. I have four books that end in 1911, either because the subject died or just because that was the publication year. One of my favorites, a book called "American Game Protection", an unbelievably exhaustive chronology of laws protecting birds and game, happens to end in 1911. Unfortunately, sometimes when it's simply the last entry because that's when the book got published, as opposed to some event that naturally ends the book (the end of the Civil War, for instance), the last entries are not particularly interesting.
There are also even more that start that year and far more that start the year before, either because they are based on the decade or because they are based on the start of King George V's reign in Britain. I like to use those because it's more likely they will both have something germane to the period (why start a book in 1911 if you have nothing to say about 1911) and more likely to not be more germane to some other year. Although for this game it doesn't matter.
Here's the secret: one of my rules is that I don't repeat a source during a year until I can no longer write a game that doesn't repeat a source. It doesn't matter if the source uniquely has something for another year, I can't use it until I've used them all up. This year, it took until late September when I could no longer find at least 46 sources that I hadn't used.
The Blank Canvas
So, 1911. I usually start out thinking about what I know about the year without looking at any resources. For 1911, there's not an awful lot. I know Taft was President, and Wilson was Governor of New Jersey. I imagine that TR was probably stewing about something Taft was doing or not doing, since he was about to run against his former protégé. I imagine something nasty was going on in the Balkans. Arizona and New Mexico were probably working on state constitutions, since they were going to become states the next year. Ty Cobb was probably doing something interesting, and I know I have a book called "The Ty Cobb Scrapbook", which covers Cobb in amazing detail (but is sort of a hagiography, but heck, I'm a born Tigers fan). That's about it.
The next thing I do is to look at my Chronologies database. This is a database of over 2100 chronologies which are the building blocks for games. I'll discuss the rules of how that works in discussions of the first game of 2011, but for now just assume there are about 90 books I need to check to see if they have entries for 1911 (which isn't hard to check, since all the books are entered by first and last dates, so I only have to look at the ones that show data in between). These are books I haven't used in 2010 yet. It's a small number because it's the end of the year, but also because a lot of these books are on specific years or really narrow ranges, like a book that covers nothing but Stonewall Jackson's service in the Civil War, which is just 1861-63. A number of the others aren't really there, they're lost, but I haven't deleted them from the database because I might find them or I might replace them and I'm anal that way.
My guess is that at most I will have two or three sources I have to use because of this. It might indeed be zero, because the last game I wrote was 1903, and a lot of the sources I had not used yet that cover this general time period were used in that game.
Next, I check the piles of unused sources, which are not in my database but just lying around the office. I like to use about two or three new sources every game. One reason for this is that it keeps the games fresh, particularly when there's a great new source, either covering a new topic or covering a topic in an unusual way. Another is that based on the rules for how I write the games, it's bad to have a lot of narrow sources, either by topic or time, used in the same game. Again, I'll elaborate more on that for the first game of 2011.
If I've written a game on the year before, I'll probably re-read that game. I certainly have written on 1911 before, because I've done every year of the 20th century at least once, and many of them five or six times, and I have all the games in my files. I re-read both to remind myself of the big events of the year and to make sure I don't inadvertently write the same question. So, just to pull something out of the air, if Ty Cobb were in a race for the batting title with Nap Lajoie, I would make sure that if last time the answer to the question on this topic was "Ty Cobb", this time it would be "Nap Lajoie" or "second base" or "Cleveland" or whatever.
Then I just pull books off the shelf that are likely to fit the topic. I like to make sure I have a mix of really narrow topics ("Pasadena Chronology") and really wide ones ("20th Century Year by Year"). Unless a year is particularly appropriate for it (say, 1964 and rock music), I like to limit the number of books used on a particular topic. I like to cover the whole world if I can (there are only so many Asian or South American or African sources, of course) and I like to cover a lot of topics--art, literature, music, sports, daily life--along with the usual political and military things that people might know off the top of their heads.
The books get put on a wire rack in my office, short books on the top, tall on the bottom. My rule is 46 questions minimum; there is no maximum but except for oversize books, I won't go over the size of the wire rack once I've hit 46.
I usually use one of the broader sources for the bonus, because I like a good bonus where the double answer is integral to the question. Again, if I were doing 1964, I might use a narrower source like a Beatles chronology (I probably have a dozen of these), because it's not hard to get a double answer out of it. I suppose I might end up with Arizona and New Mexico as a dual answer for 1911.
On to actually picking the books.
The next thing I do is to look at my Chronologies database. This is a database of over 2100 chronologies which are the building blocks for games. I'll discuss the rules of how that works in discussions of the first game of 2011, but for now just assume there are about 90 books I need to check to see if they have entries for 1911 (which isn't hard to check, since all the books are entered by first and last dates, so I only have to look at the ones that show data in between). These are books I haven't used in 2010 yet. It's a small number because it's the end of the year, but also because a lot of these books are on specific years or really narrow ranges, like a book that covers nothing but Stonewall Jackson's service in the Civil War, which is just 1861-63. A number of the others aren't really there, they're lost, but I haven't deleted them from the database because I might find them or I might replace them and I'm anal that way.
My guess is that at most I will have two or three sources I have to use because of this. It might indeed be zero, because the last game I wrote was 1903, and a lot of the sources I had not used yet that cover this general time period were used in that game.
Next, I check the piles of unused sources, which are not in my database but just lying around the office. I like to use about two or three new sources every game. One reason for this is that it keeps the games fresh, particularly when there's a great new source, either covering a new topic or covering a topic in an unusual way. Another is that based on the rules for how I write the games, it's bad to have a lot of narrow sources, either by topic or time, used in the same game. Again, I'll elaborate more on that for the first game of 2011.
If I've written a game on the year before, I'll probably re-read that game. I certainly have written on 1911 before, because I've done every year of the 20th century at least once, and many of them five or six times, and I have all the games in my files. I re-read both to remind myself of the big events of the year and to make sure I don't inadvertently write the same question. So, just to pull something out of the air, if Ty Cobb were in a race for the batting title with Nap Lajoie, I would make sure that if last time the answer to the question on this topic was "Ty Cobb", this time it would be "Nap Lajoie" or "second base" or "Cleveland" or whatever.
Then I just pull books off the shelf that are likely to fit the topic. I like to make sure I have a mix of really narrow topics ("Pasadena Chronology") and really wide ones ("20th Century Year by Year"). Unless a year is particularly appropriate for it (say, 1964 and rock music), I like to limit the number of books used on a particular topic. I like to cover the whole world if I can (there are only so many Asian or South American or African sources, of course) and I like to cover a lot of topics--art, literature, music, sports, daily life--along with the usual political and military things that people might know off the top of their heads.
The books get put on a wire rack in my office, short books on the top, tall on the bottom. My rule is 46 questions minimum; there is no maximum but except for oversize books, I won't go over the size of the wire rack once I've hit 46.
I usually use one of the broader sources for the bonus, because I like a good bonus where the double answer is integral to the question. Again, if I were doing 1964, I might use a narrower source like a Beatles chronology (I probably have a dozen of these), because it's not hard to get a double answer out of it. I suppose I might end up with Arizona and New Mexico as a dual answer for 1911.
On to actually picking the books.
The Last Game of the Year
It may not have been the first time, but the first time I remember guest-hosting Flashback for ToddLok was the last Wednesday of 1995, which would have been December 27. Todd, of course, was pretty strict in limiting the years he covered in his games to 1960 or later (with a couple of exceptions). And he always began with a question that revealed the year.
My background is in history, so I thought it would be fun to run a game on a year way before 1960, in fact, one hundred years before the year we were about to begin. So I wrote a game about 1896. I began it just like Todd did, with a question that required people to guess the year. I don't remember the question (my pre-1999 games were destroyed when a hard drive fried) but I do remember the reaction, which was pretty close to emptying the room. A few friends remained and a few others who came in (back when the rooms needed to be wedged into to get in, remember that?) stayed, but there was a lot of "WELCOME TO FLASHBACK TO 1896" followed by a TOS-approved version of "WTF?" and "Online Host: ______________ has left the room."
I don't remember if I hosted for Todd at the end of 1996, but by 1997, I was the permanent host of Flashback, and the question at the beginning to set up the year went out soon afterward. I was starting to experiment with years all over the place, and it just didn't make sense to surprise people who might be expecting a pop music game to give them the popular music of 1655. So instead, the next game was announced at the end of the prior game, met with anything from groans to applause.
But the tradition of doing the "century" for the last game of the year continued. And having just written a game for December 22, I am now confronted with writing the next game, which tradition dictates will be 1911.
My background is in history, so I thought it would be fun to run a game on a year way before 1960, in fact, one hundred years before the year we were about to begin. So I wrote a game about 1896. I began it just like Todd did, with a question that required people to guess the year. I don't remember the question (my pre-1999 games were destroyed when a hard drive fried) but I do remember the reaction, which was pretty close to emptying the room. A few friends remained and a few others who came in (back when the rooms needed to be wedged into to get in, remember that?) stayed, but there was a lot of "WELCOME TO FLASHBACK TO 1896" followed by a TOS-approved version of "WTF?" and "Online Host: ______________ has left the room."
I don't remember if I hosted for Todd at the end of 1996, but by 1997, I was the permanent host of Flashback, and the question at the beginning to set up the year went out soon afterward. I was starting to experiment with years all over the place, and it just didn't make sense to surprise people who might be expecting a pop music game to give them the popular music of 1655. So instead, the next game was announced at the end of the prior game, met with anything from groans to applause.
But the tradition of doing the "century" for the last game of the year continued. And having just written a game for December 22, I am now confronted with writing the next game, which tradition dictates will be 1911.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)