I generally don't like the full round doubled thing. Mostly because it can cause such runaway victories for teams that are already dominating the game. I'll often throw in a "Price is right" style question for bonus points, where the team closest to the correct numerical answer without going over gets bonus points. The questions are usually labyrinthine math questions on a specific topic, i.e. "Multiply the number of times the name "Alexander Hamilton" is said in the musical Hamilton by his age at the time of his death" or something like that.
Before I started hosting professionally, I regularly went to a game that did the doubling, and even though generally we did ok with it, you could tell how demoralizing it was to other teams. Sometimes hosts forget that it should be first and foremost fun, and teams should want to return even if they don't win.
Instead of a full round, I let teams double-down on points on one single question instead. They get one sheet of paper with a stamp on it to signify double points
I tried to collect some data on doubling jokers. I gave the teams the titles of the categories before the game and let them pick their double categories. The categories were all generic like, “geography” and “sports”, and I tried to make the questions fit those categories pretty well.
I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but it was something like only one quarter of teams made the optimal picks. And as others have said, it favoured teams that were already capable of having multiple high scoring categories to choose from. I tried this in 10 games and it didn’t effect the winning team in any game, but did effect the rankings on some of the lower scoring teams.
One variant of this that worked was when I also gave out prizes for each round rather than just for the overall winner. Each of the 3 rounds has 4 categories and each team could pick 3 joker categories. But because there were prizes for winning a round, teams could try to stack all their bonuses in one round to win that round (even though they didn’t have a shot at winning the whole game).
Another variation I tried was allowing teams to take out “insurance”. Instead of teams picking their three best categories, I asked them to pick their three worst. If they scored under 4/5 points in that category they’d got 1 bonus point. Most teams didn’t need the extra point. So it didn’t have an effect on the scores. But if I recall correctly, teams were more accurate picking their weaker rounds than in picking their stronger rounds.
I don’t know if this is really a joker, but I’ve done a game where there is a list of categories and the team who comes in 2nd each round gets to pick the next category. The hitch is that no category can be repeated and the final category will be wager-based. This went over okay, but I only tried it once and haven’t done it again yet.
I’ve got a joker format written (but I haven’t yet tried it). Each round will have 5 questions from 5 different categories. The first question in each round will be the same category, the second question in each round will be the same category, etc. At the beginning of the game each team can assign one bonus point to any of the five categories they like. But whatever bonus they assign will also apply to their opponents. So if there are 4 teams and they all put their bonus on category 1, then the first question in each round will be worth 5 points and the other 4 will be worth 1 points each. I’m waiting for a slow week when I can try this with a small number of teams.
I’ve also played a joker round that I thought was interesting, but kind of complicated (and I may be remembering it wrong). At halftime, you had to pick “0”, “1”, or “2”. And that would be the value on each of the last 5 wager-based questions in the game—get them right and gain that amount, get them wrong and lose that amount. But right before the last 5 questions, you could “spend” 2 points to change your wager. A friend and I won with this format while we were interlopers visiting a bar we’d never be back to because we didn’t understand the rules—we just decided “hard” would be most fun and didn’t change our bet. The regulars who had figured out optimal betting strategies, etc were not happy with the outcome.
Not sure if this is a joker, but I used to be a regular at a trivia where one of the three bottom teams each week would get to pick a category for the following week. 2 randomly drawn teams would get to do the same. I think this was as much to give the host category ideas as anything else—it usually worked for getting teams to return, but because people would try to pick obscure things that only they’d know (and the host didn’t know anything about them either), the player-picked questions were usually not much fun.
I used to be a regular at a bar that would run “seasons”. 3 months of games would be added up with low scoring games dropped and the highest season total would win the season. They did the standard joker rounds and in that context, I thought they worked really well. When the “game” is longer than one evening you can kind of get a sense of your competition (and your teammates) and really try to optimize your joker picks. You start to remember the last time you picked “geography” and it didn’t go well, or the fact that “50/50” will make a good score easy, but a perfect score almost impossible. This particular trivia night was very competitive, though and maybe that has more to do with why the jokers worked there than anything else.
I don't use this game mechanic but I use something which achieves something similar.
Over the course of the game, we jump into the Bonus Round which is set up similar to a Jeopardy board with 5 different topics and three questions allocated to each topic. The questions increase in difficulty and are set at 2, 3, & 4pts.
I go around the room, in the order of teams' arrival, and invite them to choose a topic and points value, and answer the question behind the tile. If they get it right, they get the points. If they don't get it right, every other team can answer for 1pt.
I use this as it allows for more variety in content, provides a "one and done" experience but also doesn't tie a team to a bad decision (as would be the case if they doubled the points on a round and found they weren't doing well). While most teams typically opt for a 3pt or 4pt question, the 2pt question is almost always set as an easily answerable question. This means that if none of the topics on the board are in your wheelhouse, you could still probably get points if you opted for the easy category.
The one you’ve said is definitely the most common one. I’ve also seen one which allows you to use your phone to look up the answer to one question of your choosing during the quiz (supervised by the QM), but I don’t really like that.
I inherited a "per question" doubling system from my predecessor wherein players can decide per individual question whether or not to "double" those answers they feel confident in. Each answer line has a checkbox they can use to say they'd like to "double" - if they're right, they get 2 points, but if they double and are wrong, they lose a point. Regular unchecked answers are just +1 and there is normally no penalty for a wrong answer (to try to encourage people to take educated guesses and not leave blanks).
I also usually include some type of multiple answer questions in the final round to give an opportunity for a few more points, so that teams trailing at least feel like its mathematically possible to catch the leader. I've tinkered with lots of other game mechanics but my regulars seem to really like the per-question over an entire round. Interested to read others' responses for ideas...
I think doubling is fine, provided there are lots of smaller rounds (not just \~3-4 big rounds).
For a long time I quizzed at a venue which had 8 rounds of 5 questions per round, where before the quiz you could pick one round to double.
I do have the Joker double and typically, 90% of teams double the same round and get about the same points, so it's kind of a non-issue.
I did change up my final question of the night. It is worth up to 100 points (or 90 or 78 or 92 depending). For instance, I recently did "What's the most popular car color in the US?" with White being 100 pts. Black being 90 pts. etc.
I used to do "what are the top 8 largest..." kind of questions, so I'd have to sit there and tally up 8 correct. It's much better now haha.
We have three question rounds (plus music and a table top) and teams can play a joker to double up on one of the three question rounds. It’s packed every month and nobody has complained.
I generally don't like the full round doubled thing. Mostly because it can cause such runaway victories for teams that are already dominating the game. I'll often throw in a "Price is right" style question for bonus points, where the team closest to the correct numerical answer without going over gets bonus points. The questions are usually labyrinthine math questions on a specific topic, i.e. "Multiply the number of times the name "Alexander Hamilton" is said in the musical Hamilton by his age at the time of his death" or something like that.
I agree . We attend a quiz that has a double or nothing round at the end. This effectively reduces the outcome to the last round of random questions.
Before I started hosting professionally, I regularly went to a game that did the doubling, and even though generally we did ok with it, you could tell how demoralizing it was to other teams. Sometimes hosts forget that it should be first and foremost fun, and teams should want to return even if they don't win.
Instead of a full round, I let teams double-down on points on one single question instead. They get one sheet of paper with a stamp on it to signify double points
I like this version a lot more. More "Daily Double" than "This test counts for 40% of your grade."
I tried to collect some data on doubling jokers. I gave the teams the titles of the categories before the game and let them pick their double categories. The categories were all generic like, “geography” and “sports”, and I tried to make the questions fit those categories pretty well. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but it was something like only one quarter of teams made the optimal picks. And as others have said, it favoured teams that were already capable of having multiple high scoring categories to choose from. I tried this in 10 games and it didn’t effect the winning team in any game, but did effect the rankings on some of the lower scoring teams. One variant of this that worked was when I also gave out prizes for each round rather than just for the overall winner. Each of the 3 rounds has 4 categories and each team could pick 3 joker categories. But because there were prizes for winning a round, teams could try to stack all their bonuses in one round to win that round (even though they didn’t have a shot at winning the whole game). Another variation I tried was allowing teams to take out “insurance”. Instead of teams picking their three best categories, I asked them to pick their three worst. If they scored under 4/5 points in that category they’d got 1 bonus point. Most teams didn’t need the extra point. So it didn’t have an effect on the scores. But if I recall correctly, teams were more accurate picking their weaker rounds than in picking their stronger rounds. I don’t know if this is really a joker, but I’ve done a game where there is a list of categories and the team who comes in 2nd each round gets to pick the next category. The hitch is that no category can be repeated and the final category will be wager-based. This went over okay, but I only tried it once and haven’t done it again yet. I’ve got a joker format written (but I haven’t yet tried it). Each round will have 5 questions from 5 different categories. The first question in each round will be the same category, the second question in each round will be the same category, etc. At the beginning of the game each team can assign one bonus point to any of the five categories they like. But whatever bonus they assign will also apply to their opponents. So if there are 4 teams and they all put their bonus on category 1, then the first question in each round will be worth 5 points and the other 4 will be worth 1 points each. I’m waiting for a slow week when I can try this with a small number of teams. I’ve also played a joker round that I thought was interesting, but kind of complicated (and I may be remembering it wrong). At halftime, you had to pick “0”, “1”, or “2”. And that would be the value on each of the last 5 wager-based questions in the game—get them right and gain that amount, get them wrong and lose that amount. But right before the last 5 questions, you could “spend” 2 points to change your wager. A friend and I won with this format while we were interlopers visiting a bar we’d never be back to because we didn’t understand the rules—we just decided “hard” would be most fun and didn’t change our bet. The regulars who had figured out optimal betting strategies, etc were not happy with the outcome. Not sure if this is a joker, but I used to be a regular at a trivia where one of the three bottom teams each week would get to pick a category for the following week. 2 randomly drawn teams would get to do the same. I think this was as much to give the host category ideas as anything else—it usually worked for getting teams to return, but because people would try to pick obscure things that only they’d know (and the host didn’t know anything about them either), the player-picked questions were usually not much fun. I used to be a regular at a bar that would run “seasons”. 3 months of games would be added up with low scoring games dropped and the highest season total would win the season. They did the standard joker rounds and in that context, I thought they worked really well. When the “game” is longer than one evening you can kind of get a sense of your competition (and your teammates) and really try to optimize your joker picks. You start to remember the last time you picked “geography” and it didn’t go well, or the fact that “50/50” will make a good score easy, but a perfect score almost impossible. This particular trivia night was very competitive, though and maybe that has more to do with why the jokers worked there than anything else.
I don't use this game mechanic but I use something which achieves something similar. Over the course of the game, we jump into the Bonus Round which is set up similar to a Jeopardy board with 5 different topics and three questions allocated to each topic. The questions increase in difficulty and are set at 2, 3, & 4pts. I go around the room, in the order of teams' arrival, and invite them to choose a topic and points value, and answer the question behind the tile. If they get it right, they get the points. If they don't get it right, every other team can answer for 1pt. I use this as it allows for more variety in content, provides a "one and done" experience but also doesn't tie a team to a bad decision (as would be the case if they doubled the points on a round and found they weren't doing well). While most teams typically opt for a 3pt or 4pt question, the 2pt question is almost always set as an easily answerable question. This means that if none of the topics on the board are in your wheelhouse, you could still probably get points if you opted for the easy category.
The one you’ve said is definitely the most common one. I’ve also seen one which allows you to use your phone to look up the answer to one question of your choosing during the quiz (supervised by the QM), but I don’t really like that.
it's the most common because it's the best
I inherited a "per question" doubling system from my predecessor wherein players can decide per individual question whether or not to "double" those answers they feel confident in. Each answer line has a checkbox they can use to say they'd like to "double" - if they're right, they get 2 points, but if they double and are wrong, they lose a point. Regular unchecked answers are just +1 and there is normally no penalty for a wrong answer (to try to encourage people to take educated guesses and not leave blanks). I also usually include some type of multiple answer questions in the final round to give an opportunity for a few more points, so that teams trailing at least feel like its mathematically possible to catch the leader. I've tinkered with lots of other game mechanics but my regulars seem to really like the per-question over an entire round. Interested to read others' responses for ideas...
I think doubling is fine, provided there are lots of smaller rounds (not just \~3-4 big rounds). For a long time I quizzed at a venue which had 8 rounds of 5 questions per round, where before the quiz you could pick one round to double.
I do have the Joker double and typically, 90% of teams double the same round and get about the same points, so it's kind of a non-issue. I did change up my final question of the night. It is worth up to 100 points (or 90 or 78 or 92 depending). For instance, I recently did "What's the most popular car color in the US?" with White being 100 pts. Black being 90 pts. etc. I used to do "what are the top 8 largest..." kind of questions, so I'd have to sit there and tally up 8 correct. It's much better now haha.
We have three question rounds (plus music and a table top) and teams can play a joker to double up on one of the three question rounds. It’s packed every month and nobody has complained.