geek
Recently Viewed
Hot Games
Agricola
Age of Conan: The Strategy Board Game
Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm
Name of the Rose, The
Sturm Europa!
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942
A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game
Race for the Galaxy
Der Hexer von Salem
Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
Arkham Horror
Settlers of Catan, The
Battlestar Galactica
Galaxy Trucker
Power Grid
Pandemic
Puerto Rico
Stone Age
War of the Ring
Carcassonne
Risk
Jericho
Dominion
#58
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Twilight Struggle
Le Havre
Endeavor
StarCraft: The Board Game
Tigris & Euphrates
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Scrabble
Wabash Cannonball
BattleLore
Clue
Agricola - Im Wandel der Jahreszeiten
Commands & Colors: Ancients
Chinatown
Age of Steam
Bakugan Battle Brawlers
Tomb
Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery
Agricola X-Deck
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Dragon Chess
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
Space Alert
Railroad Tycoon
Caylus
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
2
6 Posts
Subject: User Review
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe | Bookmark
Your Tags: Login to Add Tags | View 
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mike Petty
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
I have to start this review by stating that I’m hopelessly biased toward this game. I had a hand in its early development as the designer, Kory Heath, and I worked on the first prototype together last summer. I’ve carried what became “my version Why Did the Chicken” with me ever since then. It’s provided many hours of entertainment with a number of groups. At the end of last year, I picked it as “the best prototype I played in 2003 that had yet to be published” for Fair Play Game’s year-end picks. Consequently, I was very excited to hear early this year that Kory’s version of the game would be published by the new company, Play Again Games. I quickly got my hands on a copy and I gave it a try with a few groups.

In a nutshell, this is a game of generating semi-random riddles and trying to come up with funny or clever answers. One player takes on the role of judge each round and he will pick his two favorite answers from among those offered by the other players. The rules fit on one side of a three-quarter sheet of paper. It’s that simple, but it offers so much. Colorful nouns and some great starter questions open the door for creative self-expression, surprises and a ton of laughs. When it comes to games in a social setting, I can’t imagine what more you could ask for.

Here’s a little more detail on the game play. The judge draws a question card and two noun cards. The question card has (surprise!) a question on it, but the question will have two blanks. The nouns from the noun cards will be inserted in those blanks in an order chosen by the judge. So, for example, if the question card is “Why does… love…” and the two nouns are “a fisherman” and “a woodpecker”, the judge could ask either of these questions:

“Why does a fisherman love a lawyer?”
“Why does a lawyer love a fisherman?”

Many times the order won’t change the question much, but even so, with 20 question cards and about 300 noun cards, that makes for well over 850,000 possible questions.

As soon as the riddle is read to the other players, they get two minutes (sand timer included) to write down as many answers to the riddle as they choose. If there’s any drawback to this game, this is where it will become evident. It requires some creativity and some people may feel their answers are too inadequate. I can say from experience that, by far, most players I’ve introduced this game to have enjoyed it immensely. I’ve been surprised that some people who I thought would hate it loved it. Others who were initially cold to it warmed up to it and have even won.

As an aside, some may wonder how I can be so confident about this game when it’s only been released a short time. So, I should mention that this idea of using the two-minute timer and the opportunity to submit multiple answers is the main difference between the published version of Why Did the Chicken…? and the version I’ve been playing the past several months. It turns out this is a great addition. So, while most of my experience with the game has been with an early version, I can say with confidence that the published version offers much improvement in gameplay.

When the timer runs out, all submitted answers are read aloud by one player. The judge considers them and picks his favorite two. The players who submitted those responses take one of the noun cards. Of course, since players may submit multiple answers, it’s possible that a player will get both cards. Cards count as points at the end of the game. We usually play until everyone has been the judge three times.

Some comments on…
Components: You get six pencils, a sand timer, several pads of paper (blank sheets), 20 question cards and about 300 noun cards in the box. The cards are quite thin, with only text on the front. The backs are illustrated with either a chicken (noun cards) or a question mark (question cards). That’s it for illustrations. I’m not one to be drawn to a game because of its components, so a slightly low-budget production doesn’t matter to me. It’s very functional and if the choices for materials and the look kept the cost down, all the better!

Fun & Replayability: With most groups, this game is non-stop fun from beginning to end. The questions themselves can cause everyone to burst into laughter, but the answers are hilarious—even the horribly lame ones! Most of the time they won’t seem as funny later on. On the other hand, I still crack up when I remember some of the better ones. With thousands of questions possible and so much room for creative expression this game is off the scale, in my opinion, when it comes to replayability.

House Rules: I suggest dealing six nouns and three questions to each player before the game starts. They can use these to make the three questions they’ll judge during the game. Dealing them out this way allows players to create the best questions they can using more options than are offered using the standard rules.

Also, there’s one small thing we do that, I believe, adds to the humor of the game. We’ve found the answers have an added punch if the judge reads the question aloud each time before the answer is read. When it comes to humor, timing is everything, right?

Conclusion
While this game is near and dear to my heart, I won’t benefit financially in any way from sales. My enthusiasm for the product at this time is only based on how much I’ve enjoyed it and how much I’ve seen it entertain the groups that I’ve played it with. While some of the questions will lend themselves to answers easier than others, the toughest ones offer an enjoyable challenge. Also, even the worst answers can be entertaining as well when everyone groans or offers a collective, confused, “What?!?”

I believe any group of creative individuals will thoroughly enjoy this game. As I stated above, I’ve been surprised to find it’s even worked well with groups that I didn’t view as particularly creative. For those who are intrigued by the description, but still have misgivings as to whether or not the game would work with their group of friends, I encourage them to find a way to try it before buying. I’d hate to see anyone miss out on what I think is one of the best party games ever created.
Scott Alden
flag
BGG Admin
Avatar
0405060708
Re:User Review
mpetty31 (#31286),

Sounds like a fun Balderdash (which I love). As soon as I read this review I want to do an online version here on BGG. I wonder if Kory would be interested.
Mike Petty
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
Re:User Review
mpetty31 (#31286),
After playing a lot more of this published version, I wanted to make one suggestion. Let players make one or two "noun" cards themselves before each game. Shuffle them up and deal them evenly to the players, along with enough of the other noun cards (as I suggested in my review).

I still stand behind my original review, but I think having players make their own nouns (or at least some of them) is more fun. I used to always play the early prototype by having players make their own nouns. Now I play WDtC with the same friends and they miss making their own nouns. Personalized cards allow players to be more specific. Instead of "a superhero", players can have "Spiderman" or "Batman". I've found, specific, "colorful" nouns are best for this game as players search for connections for their humorous answers.

--Mike
Richard Potter
flag
Re:User Review
mpetty31 (#31286),
I CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF THIS GAME!
Somebody save me! I love this game. It's fun, funny, social, creative, and dynamic.
I've played this game well rested, I've played this game tired. I've played this game since last year. I've played this game drunk on beer. I've played this game with a fox. I've played this game in a box. I've got to tell you, this game rocks!

Okay, so I'm biased. I was an early tester. I was a middle tester. I am a post-production tester. I hope to some day be a post-mortem tester!

This game is extremely stimulating for right brain activity. Creative; forces you out of typical ways of thinking. Forces you to access parts of your brain you normally don't use because you're too busy thinking over them. Two agonizing, enriching minutes of your life followed by laughing hysterically with your friends. Rinse. Repeat as necessary. Buy it! I need company! I'm lonely. Will you be my friend? :p
Kane K.
flag
Avatar
Re:User Review
mpetty31 (#31286),

Are lawyers woodpeckers, or are woodpeckers lawyers?
Mike Petty
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
Re:User Review
Favre4MVP (#67702),

Yeah, that was a weird change of nouns. It was supposd to stay "woodpecker" throughout the example. It's not easy fixing typos in geek reviews (as far as I know). Guess next time I'll read it carefully first.

-Mike
 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.