Introducing The Mystery X Game

In summary, the first poster says that X is the American alligator. The second poster says that X is the frog in the glass jar in my bedroom. The third poster says that X is the Yellowbellied Sap Sucker. The fourth poster says that X is 36 inches tall. The fifth poster says that X is 24 inches tall. The sixth poster says that X is the American alligator. The fifth poster says that X's jaws can exert thousands pounds of pressure per square inch when closing. The sixth poster says that X is the American alligator. The fifth poster says that X is not a mammal. The fifth poster says that X is the President of the United States. The fifth poster wins the round.
  • #1
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,142
6
Monkey see, mokey do.
1st poster: X is green.
2nd poster: X is native to Florida.
3rd poster: X is a reptile.
4th poster: X is not a mammal. This breaks a rule: You must actually narrow the options.
5th poster: X's jaws can exert thousands pounds of pressure per square inch when closing.
6th poster: X is the american alligator. The 6th poster wins, and the 5th poster loses. The winner starts a new round.

The object of the game is to win :rolleyes: or at least to not lose. Someone wins when there are no more subcategories left, i.e., when you reach the category that contains only individuals. I haven't really thought this through, but it's just a game. Oh, and for the children out there (don't make me name names), figments of your imagination or things you saw while under the influence of psychotropic substances, while entertaining, don't count.


X is made of latex.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So, am I supposed to just narrow it down a bit, or am I supposed to try to guess at it? If I write a clue, what if it's not for the same thing you're thinking of? Or is that the point? But then, how do we know if something wins? Is there room for dispute if someone adds a bad clue that doesn't fit with the others? Just trying to clarify the game rules here. If someone guesses and is wrong, are they out for the round? (I'll wait for clarification before proceeding with the game.)
 
  • #3
I don't understand either. In your example it appears poster #5 knew it was an alligator, why didn't he just say it's an alligator and win?
 
  • #4
honestrosewater said:
Monkey see, mokey do.
1st poster: X is green.
2nd poster: X is native to Florida.
3rd poster: X is a reptile.
4th poster: X is not a mammal. This breaks a rule: You must actually narrow the options.
5th poster: X's jaws can exert thousands pounds of pressure per square inch when closing.
6th poster: X is the american alligator. The 6th poster wins, and the 5th poster loses. The winner starts a new round.

The object of the game is to win :rolleyes: or at least to not lose. Someone wins when there are no more subcategories left, i.e., when you reach the category that contains only individuals. I haven't really thought this through, but it's just a game. Oh, and for the children out there (don't make me name names), figments of your imagination or things you saw while under the influence of psychotropic substances, while entertaining, don't count.


X is made of latex.
How do you prevent the second (or even the first) poster from always winning ? :confused:

Example (modified from above) :
1st poster: X is green.
2nd poster: X is the american alligator OR X is the frog in the glass jar in my bedroom.
 
  • #5
Why doesn't the first poster just say the answer and they automatically will win every time?

I'll start!

"The Yellowbellied Sap Sucker."

I win! Woo-hoo!
 
  • #6
The third poster says "it's a reptile". The fourth poster further clarifies this by saying "it's not a mammal", as opposed to the mammalian reptiles I suppose. :wink:
 
  • #7
x is 36 inches
x is 24 inches
x is 36 inches
x is 5 ft 5 inches tall
x is an animal
No still can't get it.
Nice idea rose why not give it a try.
 
  • #8
Moonbear said:
So, am I supposed to just narrow it down a bit, or am I supposed to try to guess at it? If I write a clue, what if it's not for the same thing you're thinking of? Or is that the point?
Bah, I thought for sure the monkey see, monkey do idea was foolproof. :biggrin: Right, you just narrow down the possibilities. It doesn't need to be what anyone had in mind; No one even needs to have anything in mind (thankfully).
But then, how do we know if something wins? Is there room for dispute if someone adds a bad clue that doesn't fit with the others? Just trying to clarify the game rules here. If someone guesses and is wrong, are they out for the round? (I'll wait for clarification before proceeding with the game.)
No, no one needs to sit out of the game; Mocking them is sufficient. :wink: I figured we could work out the bugs as it goes along, or it could just crash and burn. But here's some more:
A round starts by someone attributing a property to X. Each person after that attributes another property to X, following the rules that
1) some X having all of the properties listed must actually exist (real or fictional);
2) each additional property must narrow the current possible candidates for X;
3) a property must apply to more than one individual (ex. "George Washington" is not a property, but "President of the USA" is a property).

The round ends when no one can attribute another property to X. There could be some problems with this to work out, but if you give it a go, I think it could get very interesting. You need to think ahead a bit if you really want to win.
I guess we need a time limit though. If no one posts an additional property after ??, the last poster wins. How does 3 hours sound?
 
  • #9
You all suck. :cry:
Nevermind, just scrap it. I'll be back with a new and improved version.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I get it. It's like those games where you start with 20, and people take turns subtracting 1, 2, or 3 from the number, and whoever is forced to say 1 loses, and the person who forced him to say it wins. So the idea is to suggest a category such that the next person who suggests a category must suggest a category that cannot be further reduced. The only way to do this is to reduce the category so that it only contains 3 members. Then the next person is not forced to name an individual, since he can specify a category that contains 2 members. The next person, however, will be forced to name an individual, because you can only break up a category of 2 members into a category of one member, which is just naming an individual. The winner should not then be the person who named the individual, since he would be nothing more than the first poster to notice that the previous guy has reduced it to a category of 2. The winner would be the person who reduces it to a category of 3 (or if the loser is stupid, and had reduced a category of 4 or more unnecessarily to a category of 2 whereas he could have reduced it safely to 3 or more), and the loser the one who reduces it to a category of 2. This game doesn't seem all that interesting as it is, because without further restrictions, it's like that game I mentioned (counting down from 20) but without the restriction that you can only subtract at most 3. If you could subtract 18 at the start, you'd be guaranteed a win. It might be kind of hard to come up with clear restriction here, however.

Here's a game I used to play on long road trips with my family, it's along similar lines. The first person says a letter, and each consecutive person adds a letter. The first person to spell a word loses, and he's out for the round. The game continues until only one person is left, and he's declared the winner. The game could be altered so that it only takes one round - the first person to make a word loses, and the person before him wins. One restriction is that the word must be more than 3 letters long. The second extra rule is a "challenge" rule. You can't just randomly spit out letters, they must eventually make a word. If you say a letter, then any other person can challenge you, and you must produce a word that starts with whatever letters have been said so far. If you can do so, then either we declare the challenger him out for the round, or we just say that the challengee wins. If you cannot do so, then either you're out for the round or the challenger wins. For this game to work, it's probably best with only a handful of people, not the entire forum.
 
  • #11
A ... (um, for AKG's word game.)
 
  • #12
AR (+10 char)
 
  • #13
Wow, don't everyone jump in at once. :biggrin:

ARD...
 
  • #14
Ardv...

I don't get it. Anyone can now see what the word is going to be, why would anyone post the losing post? Unless they just want to win? I don't think this kind of thing will work on a forum where people can see and consider any answer in advance, these games usually are for realtime, fast paced verbal games.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Challenge!
 
  • #16
brewnog said:
Challenge!
Ardvark...you automatically lose.
 
  • #17
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Except I can't spell aardvark! Guess I lose!
 
  • #18
And... I win!

Woo woo!

Ner ner ne nerr nerr!
 
  • #19
Just like the counting-down-from-20 game, the idea is to build up the word in order to "corner" your opponent. You have to be thinking, "what letters can I add so that by the time the game comes back to me, I will be saying the second last letter of a word, but somehow ensure that while it's not my turn, people don't change the 'course' of the word and end up 'cornering' me?" The game won't work if we don't initially determine the participants of the game.

Suppose we have a game with 3 participants, and the game goes like this:

H
A
P
---
P
(this person is thinking that he'll either defeat the next person if that next person doesn't realize that he can choose "I" and need not choose "Y", or he'll defeat the third person because he believes the third person will be forced to choose "N" to make "happiness," since that's the only word that will work)
I
(this person is smart enough to know that he can choose "I")
E
(this person made a good move, since either the first person will not realize that he could choose "S" to make 'happiest', or the first person will realize that, but will only end up in the second person losing. This guy can't lose here)
---
CHALLENGE
(this person doesn't realize he can choose 'S'. Since he believes he's going to be out, and has nothing to lose, he challenges. Normally, you would challenge when you have a good feeling that the previous person added a letter that would not make a word, but if you have nothing to lose, and are hoping that the previous person just randomly added a letter without knowing what he was doing, you may as well challenge. Of course, this guy will lose the challenge, so he's out. The game will continue between players 2 and 3.)

If you guys remember an old children's show called "Ghostwriter," (word!) that's where this game is from. Maybe honestrosewater and Moonbear can finish up their game and the next game can include more people. I don't know if this will work on a forum like this; it seems to require too much organization for a game where people are only going to be posting one letter at a time, but you guys can do what you want.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Ardv...

I don't get it. Anyone can now see what the word is going to be, why would anyone post the losing post? Unless they just want to win? I don't think this kind of thing will work on a forum where people can see and consider any answer in advance, these games usually are for realtime, fast paced verbal games.
It'll work if the participants and the order of playing are predetermined.
 
  • #21
brewnog said:
And... I win!

Woo woo!

Ner ner ne nerr nerr!
pthhhbtttt (we need a smiley blowing a raspberry)

Well, it should be spelled with only one a, that's a waste of vowels! :tongue:
 
  • #22
Evo, this game doesn't have to be fast-paced, but the people who are to be playing must be fixed prior to starting the game. That way, someone will eventually be forced to make a word, and the idea becomes to work your way towards a word that has a number of letters such that it will not land on you. But sometimes you can start a word that seems to be going one way, but people can add different letters and actually make the word land on you. It can get interesting, but I don't know if it will work here.
 
  • #23
AKG said:
Evo, this game doesn't have to be fast-paced, but the people who are to be playing must be fixed prior to starting the game. That way, someone will eventually be forced to make a word, and the idea becomes to work your way towards a word that has a number of letters such that it will not land on you. But sometimes you can start a word that seems to be going one way, but people can add different letters and actually make the word land on you. It can get interesting, but I don't know if it will work here.
I think you're right that it would work best among a closed group. Or just hope that the others can't spell. :redface: :biggrin:
 
  • #24
This game can be made to work (I think)...with one small modification. You pick winners instead of losers.

As each letter is added, the number of words makeable keeps shrinking. The person that shrinks this number to 1 wins, unless nobody adds a letter within 1 hour of the last letter added, in which case that last person wins.

Extra Rules :

1. One person may post two consecutive letters if a 15 minute period elapses since the post of the first letter with no subsequent posts by anyone else.

2. The person that thinks s/he has the winning post must announce this in the post (or before the next post) or forfeit the win to whoever is sharp enough to follow up with a letter and an announcement. If challenged, the winner of the challenge wins the round. The first person to call a challenge is considered the challenger.

Note : There must be a minimum limit on word lengths, say 4 letters and up are considered words, but nothing smaller.

Examples : (#1,#2,#3,...are people names)

#1 : A (millions of words possible from aardvark to azure, or whatever)

#2 : A - I win !

#2 thinks s/he has now reduced the number of possibilities to 1, and hence is the winner, but alas...there's the aardwolf to contend with : so there are two possibilities.

Now anyone sharp enough to notice this will challenge #2 and win the round. If #2 didn't say "I win !", the game goes on ...

#3 quickly posts : R

Now nobody wants to say 'D' because then the next person (possibly #3) will say 'W' or 'V' and win the round. But if no-one responds for 1 hour, then #3 wins by default. So, at the 59th minute (following #3's post) ...#4 takes the chance, hoping that nobody will respond for 15 minutes after his/her post.

#4 : D

Now it's a footrace. The quickest draw gets the game.

#3 (or some #5) : W/V

If 15 minutes elapse with no post, then #4 posts : W/V and wins.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
It would be a bit of a shame for #3 to lose this just because some #5 refreshed the screen 3 seconds earlier and saw #4's post. This could be remedied by creating a 2 minute window immediately following the 1 hour, during which nobody other than #3 can post. If #3 doesn't claim the win within this window, s/he forfeits the win to the quickest person that gets in after the window expires.
 
  • #26
Gokul43201 said:
This game can be made to work (I think)...with one small modification. You pick winners instead of losers.

As each letter is added, the number of words makeable keeps shrinking. The person that shrinks this number to 1 wins, unless nobody adds a letter within 1 hour of the last letter added, in which case that last person wins.

Extra Rules :

1. One person may post two consecutive letters if a 15 minute period elapses since the post of the first letter with no subsequent posts by anyone else.

2. The person that thinks s/he has the winning post must announce this in the post (or before the next post) or forfeit the win to whoever is sharp enough to follow up with a letter and an announcement. If challenged, the winner of the challenge wins the round. The first person to call a challenge is considered the challenger.

Note : There must be a minimum limit on word lengths, say 4 letters and up are considered words, but nothing smaller.

Examples : (#1,#2,#3,...are people names)

#1 : A (millions of words possible from aardvark to azure, or whatever)

#2 : A - I win !

#2 thinks s/he has now reduced the number of possibilities to 1, and hence is the winner, but alas...there's the aardwolf to contend with : so there are two possibilities.

Now anyone sharp enough to notice this will challenge #2 and win the round. If #2 didn't say "I win !", the game goes on ...

#3 quickly posts : R

Now nobody wants to say 'D' because then the next person (possibly #3) will say 'W' or 'V' and win the round. But if no-one responds for 1 hour, then #3 wins by default. So, at the 59th minute (following #3's post) ...#4 takes the chance, hoping that nobody will respond for 15 minutes after his/her post.

#4 : D

Now it's a footrace. The quickest draw gets the game.

#3 (or some #5) : W/V

If 15 minutes elapse with no post, then #4 posts : W/V and wins.
Now that could work.
 
  • #27
Gokul43201 said:
It would be a bit of a shame for #3 to lose this just because some #5 refreshed the screen 3 seconds earlier and saw #4's post. This could be remedied by creating a 2 minute window immediately following the 1 hour, during which nobody other than #3 can post. If #3 doesn't claim the win within this window, s/he forfeits the win to the quickest person that gets in after the window expires.
I think this the only case when this rule might apply (if any) is if #4's post comes well after #3's. If #4 posts immediately after #3, then there's no reason why #3 should get a 2 minute buffer. Personally, I like the idea of a footrace, otherwise, if #3 stays online then all this rule does is extend the game unnecessarily by an hour. However, if people are generally in favour of this rule, then it should only take effect if #4's post comes at least 50 minutes after #3's, or something like that. Also, although I doubt we'll run into this, it's better to be prepared beforehand than to have to scrap a game because of this: suppose someone has spelt a word and isn't aware that no more words can be formed from it. Maybe he spelt the word "formed" and thinks "formidable" can still be made. This person naturally does not claim the win, but the next person should be able to claim it without having to add a letter. Perhaps we should allow a [] (blank letter) to be played in this situation. I'm sure this is reasonable and didn't need to be said, but since the existing rules require a letter, I thought I'd say this so that there can be no confusion.

Anyways, I think the modifications you've made are really good, so hopefully no one minds if I start:

FIRST LETTER

M
 
  • #28
m a...
 
  • #29
m a v...
 
  • #30
m a v i ...
 
  • #31
One little extra rule : plurals, tense changes, etc (forms other than the root) are not considered new words. Okay ?
 
  • #32
Gokul43201 said:
One little extra rule : plurals, tense changes, etc (forms other than the root) are not considered new words. Okay ?
I was just going to ask about that.
 
  • #33
Also, what happens if the n'th letter allows k possibilities and the n+1'th letter allows one possibility but also completes the word ?

For instance ...
 
  • #34
...M a v i n - I win !

Or do I ??
 
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
...M a v i n - I win !

Or do I ??
I'd say you win because use of the "n" cancels out any other words that I am aware of.
 

Similar threads

  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top