Game: Time's Up!

Image

Toynan — 2008-11-10T11:25:39+00:00

promotional poster for the new frenchcadadian purple edition

Image

jsper — 2008-11-08T17:14:49+00:00

Promotional sheet of game in french

Thread: Re: Time's Up! A review and overview of the rules

rhitmojo — 2008-07-31T02:54:28+00:00

Yollege wrote:
One of our favorite mistakes was a pal saying clues, and he used "Was a high ranking nazi" for Josef Stalin. Needless to say, we all used nazi clues for the rest of the game...

Ryan, I always remembered this comment you posted a while ago about the Stalin Nazi incident. Just last week I played Time's Up! and the EXACT SAME THING happened! I had nothing to do with it either, it totally went down the way you described it! I wonder how often that mistake is made?

Thread: Playing with any number of people

rhitmojo — 2008-07-17T14:20:16+00:00

I've recently been faced with a lot of situations with inconvenient numbers of people, and came up with the following solution that seemed to work.

For any given number of players, you can usually make it work with one or two people left over in some way.

10 people? 3 teams of 3 +1
11 people? 3 teams of 3 +2
13 people? 4 teams of 3 +1
etc.

So the way you can enjoy this game without having to leave anyone out is have floaters. One or two people (or possibly two people that alternate) that guess for everyone, but don't take clue-giving turns. This actually tends to work out nicely, since when you have that many people, the odds are there will be one person that is happy to not make a fool of themselves giving clues (even though that's the most fun part!). I've tried this approach twice now, and it's been very well received. The fun of always being able to guess seems to offset not having a chance to give the clues. It was actually to the point where we had to toss a die to decide who gets that role because so many people wanted to be the floater the second time we played.

As a final note, I recommend adding cards to your deck when you are playing with huge groups of people. 50 or even 60 card decks are much better, otherwise you might not even give everyone a chance to give clues. With multiple people on each team, getting the cards is even easier and goes faster, so the extra cards don't make things take much longer. Having that many more people playing the game also means more people to remember what cards were in the deck, so it's still manageable from that view as well.

So I encourage you all to play this game with as many people as you can find, you can make it work with just about any size group

Image

Cornbread46 — 2008-06-25T14:18:11+00:00

RULES LAWYER!!! (it may have been James Bond....but RULES LAWYER was shouted multiple times!)

Image

jsper — 2008-02-28T16:17:46+00:00

Scoresheet

Image

jsper — 2008-02-28T16:15:28+00:00

Rulebook cover in spanish

Image

jsper — 2008-02-28T16:11:46+00:00

Biographies cover in spanish edition

Image

jsper — 2008-02-28T16:08:55+00:00

Deck in spanish, still in original plastic

Image

lineuphere — 2008-02-27T04:32:29+00:00

US 1st Edition; High Res Box Front

Image

jsper — 2008-02-22T19:38:35+00:00

Side of the box 3 of 3

Image

jsper — 2008-02-22T19:37:36+00:00

Side of the box 2 of 3

Thread: Re: Three player variant

matthewjhoskins — 2008-01-11T01:10:30+00:00

Welcome to the Geek!

Thanks for posting this variant.

We'll have to try it out.

Cheers

Thread: Three player variant

JTimmz — 2008-01-10T22:16:47+00:00

Before I start I should add that it was not me who came up with the core of this variant, I only helped with some suggestions for scoring. Here goes:

I will be using player A, B, and C in this game.

1. Deal each player 12 cards. Each player removes 2 cards from the game which they feel would be too hard, too easy, not funny enough, etc. Basically you have creative freedom here to shape the game slightly. Try to remember the ten cards you are leaving in the game!

2. There are no teams. The player with the most points wins.

3. Everyone plays in all rounds. There is the clue-giver and both other players are trying to guess the correct answer.

Example: Player A is the cluegiver. Both Player B and C are trying to guess the answer.

The clue-giving rules, rounds, guessing restrictions and time limits are unchanged from the main game. The clue-giver may pass at any time at his/her discretion (in rounds 2 & 3), however the clue-guessers may not force a pass.

Scoring:

Player A is giving a clue. Player C guesses correctly. Both Player A and Player C receive 1 point each.

You can tally points in any way desired, however I would recommend you keep scores hidden. This prevents "kingmaking" in the sense that the clue giver may try to shape his clues to the player not currently in the lead. In the case where the clue giver is in the lead, the others players may refuse to guess entirely. Both these situations are funny for a while, but overall detract from the spirit of the game. This is why hidden scoring is suggested, again any method you can come up with is fine. Examples: Poker chips, bowl of cubes, pennies, etc. Take two when you guess correctly, one for yourself and one for the clue giver.

Enjoy!

Thread: Re: Availability

Werebear — 2007-11-29T13:12:10+00:00

ed95005 wrote:
Any word on when this will hit store shelves? This was in short supply last Christmas.

Ed, my understanding is that it should start shipping before the end of this week - so very soon...

If you want, you can geekmail me in a day or two and ask again - I'll know more then.

Thanks!

Russell

Thread: Availability

ed95005 — 2007-11-29T06:18:00+00:00

Any word on when this will hit store shelves? This was in short supply last Christmas.

Thread: Re: Little help

Psauberer — 2007-11-18T21:20:59+00:00

kabrush wrote:
What if you get through all 40 before all teams have a chance to play? I'm missing something here. Thanks.

If that happens (and it's extremely unlikely since you can't pass in the first round) then whichever team is next in line will start the next round, just as if all the cards had made it around the table at least once.

Thread: Re: Little help

grinningpik — 2007-11-18T21:00:22+00:00

This would be highly unlikely, but I guess if your first teams were really awesome it *could* be.

I would echo the "more smaller teams are better" I prefer this although most times we end up with four teams of three or four each. As long as you stagger seating so each team get even number of chances. Another thing to consider is making fair teams. I can not be on a team with my wife and sister in-law for example. We're just too in tune with the thought patterns.

Remember that when the time is up, the remaining cards get passed to another team.

Thread: Re: Little help

kabrush — 2007-11-18T17:16:23+00:00

What if you get through all 40 before all teams have a chance to play? I'm missing something here. Thanks.

Thread: Re: Little help

Psauberer — 2007-11-18T17:02:25+00:00

All teams use the same set of 40 cards.

Also, it may be better to do 6 teams of two. I've played the game a lot and it doesn't play as well with teams of more than 2 players.

Thread: Little help

kabrush — 2007-11-18T16:37:41+00:00

Was reading rules for game. Say I have 12 people. I break down to 3 teams of four. Does each team of three wind up with forty cards, or do all teams use the same set of 40 cards.
Thanks.

Thread: Re: Time's Up! A review and overview of the rules

Yollege — 2007-08-28T23:35:01+00:00

One of our favorite mistakes was a pal saying clues, and he used "Was a high ranking nazi" for Josef Stalin. Needless to say, we all used nazi clues for the rest of the game...

Thread: Time's Up! A review and overview of the rules

rhitmojo — 2007-08-27T15:10:54+00:00

Originally I wasn't going to talk about the rules, but after reading through some of the forums I saw that not everyone had apparently read them, or there was some confusion about the rules, so I'll start with the setup and overview.

Rules:
Initial Setup:
You break up into teams, the game recommends multiple teams of two rather then creating just two big teams and I definitely agree with that. The players all sit across from each other, so that the teams are all interspersed. This is important so that if one team misses a card, and there are only a few left, they don't get another crack at it before all the other teams have.

Now you deal our 40 cards, split however you would like. If this means that some players will get more cards then others (it often does) this is ok. After dealing out 40 cards, you deal out an additional 2 cards to *each* player. Before everyone looks at their cards, decide amongst the group if you will be doing the yellow or the blue clues. I generally thought the yellows were a tad easier, but it doesn't really matter, as I'll explain later. Now each person looks at all their cards and chooses and discards 2 of them. After everyone has done so, all the cards are collected into a single card deck which will be used for the rest of the game.

The important thing here is that there are 40 cards. This is enough cards that most people will not be able to easily remember every single one, but there aren't so many that memorizing what's there is impossible. There also provides a lot of possibilities for multiple types of a given person, like several movie directors, or football players, etc. which definitely adds to the fun. If you want to give people a bit more flexibility in which cards they keep and use for the game, then alter then number you deal out after the 40 cards, and have everyone discard that many. For one group that really doesn't like cards of people they don't know, I deal 4 additional cards (instead of 2) and allow everyone to discard 4.

The Play:
The game is divided into 3 rounds, where the clue giving is successively limited, but the players are successively more familiar with what names are in the deck.

An important note that applies to all rounds of play is that when you don't get one of the words, you are not allowed to say what it was, other players who think they figured it out based on someone elses clues, they aren't supposed to say anything. So when the clue-giving ends, whatever cards were passed or missed simply get shuffled back into the deck of available cards and passed to the next person.

In order to get a card, you have to say everything that is on the card. Exceptions to this are names that are in parenthesis. For example, if the card reads:
"Thomas Alva Edison" then the person guessing must say each part, even "Alva"
"(Edgar) Degas" then the person guessing only needs to say "Degas"

Round One:
The player giving clues is not allowed to pass, and can say and do anything, with the following exceptions:
- Can not say any part of the name (Saying "apple" when doing "Johnny Appleseed")
- Can not use nicknames ("His first name is often shortened to ‘Dick'")
- When using "rhymes with" or "sounds like" clues, can not say the actual rhymes with or sounds like word. (You can't say "His last name rhymes with pig" but you can say "His last name rhymes with the animal that goes "oink")

If someone breaks one of these rules, there turn is over. The reason for this is there is no passing in round one; it would be too easy to just break one of these rules and use that as a functional pass. The player's partner can guess as much as they want, and can even tell the clue giver to go to different areas. It's common to hear "I know who you are talking about, I can't remember his name, give me clues about his name!!" etc.

After this round, every single name is read out loud in order to remind everyone what names are "in play." The score is tallied, and that cards are shuffled back together.

Round Two:
In this round, the person giving the clues may pass if he doesn't want to try a name. They are allowed to use one word, in addition to whatever gestures or sound effects they would like. The can say their one word as often as they would like, but they only get one word, in addition to charades.

If they break this rule, then the card is passed and they go on to the next card. Their partner only gets one guess as well, and this guess has to be the correct name and pronunciation. This is important because memory of what cards are there is a big part of this game. They may not know who "Chandler Bing" is, so "Candle Bing" is not correct. Also, although not technically part of the rules I believe, the person guessing is only really allowed to say their guess. They can't ask questions; verify what the person is doing, etc.

At the end of this round, the scores are tallied, but the names are not read aloud again. The cards are collected into a deck and shuffled again for round three.

Round Three:
In this round, the person giving the clues may only gesture, make sound effects, point to things, etc. But they may not say anything. The clue-giver may pass if they would like. The person guessing only gets one guess, similar to round two.

The team with the highest total score wins. If there is a tie and your group hates ties, then the team with the higher round three total wins, if that is ties, round two, etc. If still tied, well, then congrats, it's a tie. (That's a house rule, I believe.)

Review:
Times up is a great game. This is exactly what party games are meant to be; everyone sits around comfortably, you don't even need a table, and it's just plain fun. Every time I've played this game, there have been people laughing so hard they've almost cried, and everyone, even people who typically don't take part in games, has gotten into it and wanted to play again.

A huge part of the game is the fact that you are playing with a limited deck and you are playing out that deck to completion. As a result, there will most likely be several names that take 4 or 5 attempts before people get them. This is a real beauty of this games design. While I may have no clue how to begin describing "Englebert Humperdink" in round 1, my partner may eventually get that card and have to describe it back to me. As a result of everyone seeing the cards and trying to describe them in course, no card is "too hard" As a testament to how this works, whenever there are only 2 or 3 cards left in the deck, the last team usually gets them all, because everyone knows which ones are left.

Another fun thing in this game is that using other peoples clues, referring to what other people have done, etc. is allowed. I've seen people think an ice skater is a gymnast and get the clue that way. One name was "Dorothy Hamill" and a guy describing it to his wife talked about her being a gymnast and then something like "she has the same names as Aunt Ruth's daughter-in-law" etc. Sure enough, when "Dorothy Hamill" came up in round two, the person said "Gymnast" and the guesser immediately shouted out "Dorothy Hamill!"

I like that everyone is encouraged to pay attention to everyone else. Here's a good example … the person next to you spends all his time pantomiming something and you have no clue who he is referring to, he just looks like he is sword fighting, etc. You can tell your partner definitely knows who it is. If on your turn, you draw that card, it will immediately dawn on you what the guy next to you was trying to do, but not only that, you can just do the same thing, and your partner will get it right.

Final Thoughts:
Times up is a must have that is great in light fun atmospheres. It's not the first thing I would suggest on a wargamers weekly meeting, except as some filler or a break, but that's because it's a party game, through and through. The only situation I can see people not enjoying this game in is if they take themselves way too seriously, or have a hard time making a fool of themselves. Other then that, you are probably in for a great time.

Thread: Re: Want a sure-fire way to ruin a party?

rhitmojo — 2007-08-27T14:07:49+00:00

elmonty wrote:
When we played, our team correctly guessed 1 name in the first round, and the other team got 0. Not a lot of fun there.

Are you sure you were playing this correctly? The rounds are supposed to keep going until every single card is guessed. While it's true that you may not know who "Sally Rides" is, you will remember how frustrating it was to try and describe her, and then suddenly you will see your partner struggling similarly and you will know instantly, Sally Rides! Or your partner will say, "This must have been who you were trying to get me to say" Also, using the same cards isn't just about knowing which ones you got. You pay attention to everyones round and it really is not that bad. Part of the beauty of this game is that there is so much interaction. I remember playing where someone had described the giant imaginary bunny to get "Harvey" and then eventually someone got it later, "Harvey Kietel"... On round two, the first person who got that card said "Bunny" and their partner knew it was Harvey Kietel immediately. There is also a lot of referring to other players going on. If Mom and Dad spent all their time on a clue that was obvious to everyone, next time it comes up, you can bet that the person is going to point to Dad.

Generally, in the first round, if you get a name you don't know, then yeah, you are not going to have enough time to get it, but when you are getting names that people know, it's not too uncommon to get as many as 5 or 6 in that short amount of time you have. I even see people get 5-6 at a time in the second round totally by referring to the memorable way that people got things in round 1. ("Unprenouncable" -> "Roy Lichenstein!", etc.)

I also think it is a lot more fun with 3 teams of 2 then 2 teams of 2, I would encourage you to try the game again if you have a chance, remember, just keep passing the pile along until everyone has gotten everything!

Thread: Learning a new game, and something about ourselves?

potts_games — 2007-08-14T13:20:48+00:00

My wife (Patty) and I hosted an end of summer cookout this past weekend for some of our friends. After plenty of good food and socializing, one of the couples (Jim and Jill) mentioned that they had brought a new game (Time’s Up) for us to try. After hearing their experience at a local church group, Patty and I, and one other couple (Bob and Terri) decided to join Jim and Jill for a game.

Jim, with some help from Jill, explained the rules. It sounded simple enough, 3 rounds of guessing the identity of 40 famous people (below is a very brief summary of the rules);

- In the first round you can say almost anything you want for a clue, and your partner gets multiple guesses per card.
- In the second round you can only give 1 word clues, and your partner gets one guess per card
- In the third round, you cannot give verbal clues, and your partner only gets one guess per card.
- You only have 30 seconds for each “session”, and you continue to rotate “sessions”, until all 40 people are identified.

The first round was a little slow getting started, as 4 of us were learning the game (and trying to figure out who some of the people on the cards were) for the first time. Final score J&J: 25, B&T: 10, M&P: 5. Not a great start for Patty and I, but we had 2 more rounds to go.

In the second round the new couples made a move, resulting in the following scores; J&J: 15 for a total of 40, B&T: 16 for a total of 26, M&P: 9 for a total of 14. It helped that we all new the people on the cards now, and had an idea of what 1 word clues might best describe the person. J&J’s total looked insurmountable at this point, but maybe we could run the table in the final round, for a miraculous victory.

Alas, no miracle. I have never seen so many blank stares as people try to figure out what gestures to use for an individual, but if you come up with the right one, the answers are easy. We continued our improvement from round 2, but we could not get back from our 5 point start. The third and final round resulted in the following; J&J: 12 for a total of 52, B&T: 12 for a total of 38, and M&P: 16 for a total of 30.

As an example, here are some of the names we had to work with in our game; Bob Dylan, Ludwig von Beethoven, Julius Erving, John Elway, Dracula, Bram Stoker, Sitting Bull, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

We all had a lot of fun and laughs with this game, and it even resulted in Patty telling me to add this to my list of games to purchase (she never does this), which means that it is probably a 10 in her book. We have a couple family functions over the next few weeks, so this game should make it to the table often. We had an interesting discussion at the end of the game about the round-by-round scores, and what they might be telling us about our everyday lives, and communication. It looks like the less we talked, the better we did in the game.

Hmmmmm…Less talk, more games, I wonder if this might work in all aspects of our lives.

Thread: Re: 6 Player Game after approximately 2 12 packs of Pabst

jollypirate — 2007-08-09T13:40:21+00:00

Update: Just played a 10 player game, and again, all but one loved the game. Even though there were just 40 cards in the game, this one took quite a bit longer to play through. I suppose in the first round, you only knew what four of the names were, and with the five groups, it took longer for any one person to be looking through the deck again.

I'm heading off for Korea for a year and two different people offered to hold on to that game for me.

The generosity.

Thread: Re: 6 Player Game after approximately 2 12 packs of Pabst

tada — 2007-07-28T21:03:02+00:00

I guess I gotta get this game. It sounds too fun. Good report Frank.

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

cferejohn — 2007-07-28T19:21:02+00:00

BodhiWolff wrote:
You'd ask people to put in their 5 names, and time after time you'd get ...
a. 15 entries for Britney Spears
b. one person who would enter the same name 5 times
c. *some* joker who thinks it is funny to enter "My aunt martha" or "me", etc.

Wow, really? Sounds like people just didn't want to play the game. We just had a rule that "it has to be someone who everyone in the game has a chance of knowing" and that worked just fine. So if it's a bunch of high school friends, you could use some high school teacher, but if there is a non-high school person there, that would be out of bounds.

While rhyming per se was not allowed (i.e. if you are trying to get them to say "Bart" you can't say "Rhymes with Tart"), you *can* say (according to our rules) "Rhymes with a kind of open-faced fruit-pie" or something like that.

Anyway, we did have one guy who didn't like the game and tried to sabatoge it using the names of Indian poets, but we finally got him to stop it in exchange for not playing it so damned much. Doing 3 rounds actually helped alot.

Thread: 6 Player Game after approximately 2 12 packs of Pabst

jollypirate — 2007-07-28T14:58:48+00:00

I almost didn't order this game with my last bulk order from Thought Hammer, but reviews and comments about the game here steered me towards it...and didn't steer me wrong, no sir.

I read the review from the guy who played it wrong, so I had a VERY clear idea of how to play the game, which is a good thing. This game would be impossible if played incorrectly, but the ingenious device of using the same limited pool of names over and over for the three progressively harder rounds, not only makes the game accessible, but really adds to the hilarity.

As, I'm sure, does the intake of beer.

There were six of us for game night. Me and Tensi, Gary and Keefe, Mark and Jeff. None of us had played before, and although our first plays of For Sale went well, there was still a bit of apprehension as I tried to explain the rules.

Round One Highlights:

Gary breaking two of the only three rules of the game: going for Rumplestillskin he gets Rasputin, tell Keefe it starts with the same letter (then tells everyone the name on the card). Using Willy to get Williams (for Tennesee Williams), which is almost the exact example given in the rules (which I read) as to what is forbidden.

Jeff trying to get Mark to guess Lizzy Borden THREE SEPARATE TIMES. Jeff first did the rhyme, over and over. Next time he tried to get him to guess the last name by saying "they make milk products." Mark keeps guessing "cows" and other farm animals. Third time he drew the card Jeff (and the rest of us) just laughed for the 30 seconds. Finally, though Mark draws the card, looks at the name, and says "Who the hell is this?" Jeff shouts out "LIZZY BORDEN!"

Round Two Highlights:
For Woody Allen, the word "daughter" plus some vigorous air humping.

Round Three Highlights:

Gary doing an excellent evolutional morph from a monkey into a thinker, two or three times. Keefe kept missing it, and even remarked after missing it the second time how hard some of these cards were going to be to pantomine. "How the hell is anyone going to get Darwin?"

I can't recall everything that made us bust out laughing, but it was a great game, and hey, Tensi and I won, but like the very best of party games, no one really cares, because (smiles and enunciates clearly while nodding head) "Everyone who has fun is the winner."

I can't recommend this game enough. We were all laughing until our faces and sides hurt.

Thread: Re: Want a sure-fire way to ruin a party?

jollypirate — 2007-07-28T14:24:25+00:00

Just played for the first time last night, and the obscure cards actually add to the fun. There is a bit of frustration at first when either a clue giver or receiver doesn't have a clue about the person, but because of the mechanic of the card going back into the stack, eventually people will "get it"...even if they still have no idea who the guy is.

Thread: Re: Want a sure-fire way to ruin a party?

bendavis2 — 2007-07-23T21:36:48+00:00

I'm pretty srue that the rules state that you each player gets an equal number of cards, and then discards several of them that they feel would bog down the game. In our family, when we play, we are more liberal with this rule, and take as many cards as we want until we come up with 10 satisfactory cards per team.

In other words, if some of the cards are too obscure for you, and you just can't hack it; then try picking easier names instead of giving up partway into the game.

Thread: Private Ahab, Muhammad Balboa, and Custard's Last Stand

theonomous — 2007-05-29T15:05:40+00:00

The botanical gardens were out and games were in for our out-of-town guests on Memorial Day. We celebrated a wonderful day off with several games. After a couple card games we grabbed our drinks and snacks and left the table behind for a bout of Time’s Up.

We divided into teams by couples: Justin and Susie, Amanda and John, and Jess and Jay. Susie and I were the only two who had played the game, but being a newcomer never stops anyone from enjoying Time’s Up.

I distributed the requisite cards, and we selected cards to eliminate. Among the 12 cards eliminated were: Charlie Chaplin, Isadora Duncan, Beetle Bailey, Stephen Crane, Paul Cezanne, Yul Brynner, and Spiro Agnew.

I’ve selected some of our 40 cards, based on the clues and guesses they elicited.

Anne Frank: John, giving clues for Amanda, mimes writing in a journal and then hanging by a rope with his tongue hanging out.

Kenneth Branagh: Jess had to phonetically break this down in Round 1; she started with the first syllable of his last name: “What holds boobs.” Jay didn’t get it. In Round 2 John gives an effective 1-word clue. “Boobs,” he shouts, cupping his hands under his chest.

Cindy Crawford: Another great series of clues. It starts in Round 1 with the clues, “Model. Did Pepsi ads in the 90s, had a thing on her face.” By Round 3 all we needed to do was point at a spot just above the lip.

Captain Ahab: Great moment with Jay and Jess. Jay was giving clues: “Rank in the military.” Jess was guessing: “Sergeant, corporal, general…” Jay: “No, lower!” Jess: “Private!”

Batman: Hilarious third-round clue-giving included cupped hands above heads (bat ears, of course) and swooshing sounds (cape? Batmobile?)

Geoffrey Chaucer: Another one that the lit people got right away

Jimmy Buffett: Efficient one-word clue-giving: Margaritaville. It somehow translated in the third round into drunken swaggering and guitar playing.

Rocky Balboa: I kept getting this in the third round, but after Susie guessed “Muhammad Ali” she couldn’t figure out why I was doing boxing motions and waving my hands in the air with grunting noises resembling the word “Adrian.”

Marie Curie: Good one-word clue: Radiation.

Bilbo Baggins: Another good one-word clue: hobbit.

Norman Bates: Yet another great one-word clue: Psycho.

L. Frank Baum: Few knew who this was initially, so we ended up working on his name phonetically. The clues transformed into “dropping bombs,” so by the third round we were flying planes and making noises for whistling and exploding bombs.

Chubby Checker: It was fun to watch Jess do the Twist in the third round.

The Unsinkable Molly Brown: This is one that Susie knew and was working her darndest to get me to understand. The girls knew it instantly, but I just looked at her dumbounded. “Titanic!” she’d say. “Sinking ships!” I shouted. My futility overwhelmed me, as it would again with…

Joe DiMaggio: Susie again was giving great clues. “Race car driver,” she starts with. I have no idea. I start guessing names and somehow end up with Joe. “Good! Italian! Something Italian.” I still have no idea, so I’m shouting, “Joe Spaghetti! Joe Meatball!”

Fidel Castro: One-word clue: Cuba.

Andre Agassi: One-word clue: Tennis.

Marlon Brando: Possibly the greatest and most difficult of the names. Amanda did a great impression of him by puffing her cheeks up and acting rotund. I added “Stella!” He also collected “The Godfather” and other clues as he stuck around in Round 1. None of the guessers seemed able to connect to the clue-givers on this one.

T. S. Eliot: Susie’s fantastic 1-word clue: “Wasteland!”

General George Armstrong Custer: Susie is from South Dakota. She had a lock on this one. I wasn’t connecting this Custer to the one from Little Big Horn. So I was breaking it down by word: “Baking soda! First president’s first name! Like ice cream but with eggs!”

Dave Barry: Absolutely hilarious. Dialogue follows:

John: The man from Wendy’s.
Amanda: Dave!
John: Good! Fruit!
Amanda: Pear!
John: Small fruit!
Amanda: Pear?
John: SMALL FRUIT!
Amanda: PEAR! DAVE PEAR!

The John/Amanda and Jess/Jay teams were really in sync, while Susie and I lagged behind and couldn’t seem to gain traction with one another. Of course, there was some shameless clue-stealing by other teams, which is a hilarious part of the game. It was also interesting to see how our team divisions affected the clues we were able to use—Jess, Amanda, Susie, and I were all literature majors in college with several years of graduate school between us, so we instantly got one another’s clues when it came to authors (like Eliot, e.e. cummings, and Chaucer). It’s always funny when you know instantly what another team’s clue giver is getting at, while your teammate and theirs is looking at the clue giver like she has fish crawling out of her eye sockets.

Scores:

Round 1: Jess and Jay: 16; Amanda and John: 16; Justin and Susie: 8 (ouch!)
Round 2: Jess and Jay: 13; Amanda and John: 14; Justin and Susie: 13
Round 3: Jess and Jay: 14; Amanda and John: 18 (holy smoke); Justin and Susie: 8

Winners: Amanda and John!

Thread: Re: Want a sure-fire way to ruin a party?

ellephai — 2007-05-15T00:09:16+00:00

elmonty wrote:
First of all, many of the names on the cards are either unknown or difficult, depending on whom your teammates are. Secondly, the timer only gives you 30 seconds. How many names can you describe in 30 seconds? It takes that long just to give the clue. You're just getting started when the timer expires.

I couldn't believe this. About the names, I didn't think they were that hard, but anything using people's names like that is going to be quite culturally specific, so it really depends on who you are and where and when you're from. One thing we did, though (and I'm not positive if this is a real rule or a house rule, because I have only played once and I didn't read the rules, someone who knew how taught me), was go through the cards before beginning--they were dealt out so each person got an equal number, and you were supposed to discard a certain number that got taken out of the game, so we played the whole game with a subset of the deck. That was everyone's chance to discard people they had never heard of. You might try that.

What really astonished me was that it took anybody 30 seconds to give a clue. I think, though, that this just goes to show the falseness of an assumption gamers frequently make about party games. I think we tend to treat party games as if they require no skill, and are just something anyone can do. And maybe some are, but a lot of them just require a different set of skills than what many of us are used to. The first round of Time's Up is a lot like Taboo, only easier because gestures are allowed. It's really a test of mental agility and verbal communication skills. How many names can you describe in 30 seconds? I don't know about you and your pals, but I can describe plenty of them.

Thread: Yo Beyonce!

Jowjow — 2007-01-29T05:45:10+00:00

Last night a few friends of mine (Derek, Steve, and Adam) and I played a doubleheader of Time's Up, doing first the blue names on 40 different cards, then switching to the yellow names of the same cards without looking them over. As usual both games were a laugh riot. Early in game 1 Adam got pretty frustrated at not knowing many of the celebrities, but by endgame he'd gotten in the groove by using other skills (memory and improv) to make up for his lack of celebrity knowledge. Before he switched gears, the score after round 1 was 32-8, but rounds 2 and 3 were nearly dead even. Game 1's highlight was Steve's involuntary volcano of beer when Adam did his best impression of 'Medusa'. We quickly cleaned up the mess after we could breathe again.

We switched partners for game 2 and it was Adam and I vs. Derek and Steve.
By this time Adam had gotten with the program and we were a well-oiled machine, winning the game by 15 or so. The highlight of this particular game was Adam's flub at trying to guess Bjorn Borg, the famous tennis player. Struggling with the name, he blurted out, "Beyonce Bork"! The game resumed several minutes later when we could breathe again.

Awesome, awesome game. I think I'm gonna have to order the expansions!

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

darlok — 2007-01-10T16:11:43+00:00

BodhiWolff wrote:
I used to play "Names in a Hat" (or whatever you wish to call it) when I was in University, and it was one of my favourite games. We played a cutthroat version in the grad studies department.

However ... when I tried to introduce it to other friends later in life, there were problems with the setup. We'd carefully explain the rules, carefully explain why it was important to get the setup right, and plead with people not to go off the wire before the game even started, 'cause it would ruin it for everybody. You'd ask people to put in their 5 names, and time after time you'd get ...
a. 15 entries for Britney Spears
b. one person who would enter the same name 5 times
c. *some* joker who thinks it is funny to enter "My aunt martha" or "me", etc.

4 games in a row, at 4 different parties, we had the game ruined before it even started, just by the names alone.

Then, inevitably, the arguments ensued. Half of the people felt that the names of pop-culture icons were the only names that should be included, 'cause other names (i.e. "old" names, like, from history, y'know?) were impossible to expect people to work with! The other half felt that the first half were idiots. Food was thrown.

The reason I finally cracked and paid money for a copy of Time's Up was simply to have a set of pre-set names which nobody could mess with, and which nobody could argue about.

I have never, ever, regretted it!

sorry man, ya'll need 2 b more creative....after years of playing 'celebrity' i finally got a chance to play TimesUp at bgg.con, and thought it was really lame to play with pre-fabbed clues. Half the fun is being creative in coming up with the clues. maybe u just played with less than desirable players.

when i teach new players, i always take my time to explain the rules and preface them that tigerWoods, BritneySpears, Bush, are not good clues. But they can use any clue that at least half the room would know. For example, Michael J Fox is fine, as is Alex P Keaton, or even smurfette or strawberry shortcake. Good clues are those that will b fun to make people act out. Such as Dick Butkus...always with wonderful results...

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

darlok — 2007-01-10T16:10:20+00:00

dumb it down, put it in a pretty package, sell expansions,

welcome to americana101

i'm currently working on a boxed version of tag. the base edition will come with 10 cards, 9 yellow and 1 red. Players will randomly select a card, whoever get's the red one, is IT.

Deluxe version is also in the works, where the cards will be replaced by tshirts, same color/concept(see above).

see also: werewolf

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

BodhiWolff — 2007-01-10T16:02:36+00:00

I used to play "Names in a Hat" (or whatever you wish to call it) when I was in University, and it was one of my favourite games. We played a cutthroat version in the grad studies department.

However ... when I tried to introduce it to other friends later in life, there were problems with the setup. We'd carefully explain the rules, carefully explain why it was important to get the setup right, and plead with people not to go off the wire before the game even started, 'cause it would ruin it for everybody. You'd ask people to put in their 5 names, and time after time you'd get ...
a. 15 entries for Britney Spears
b. one person who would enter the same name 5 times
c. *some* joker who thinks it is funny to enter "My aunt martha" or "me", etc.

4 games in a row, at 4 different parties, we had the game ruined before it even started, just by the names alone.

Then, inevitably, the arguments ensued. Half of the people felt that the names of pop-culture icons were the only names that should be included, 'cause other names (i.e. "old" names, like, from history, y'know?) were impossible to expect people to work with! The other half felt that the first half were idiots. Food was thrown.

The reason I finally cracked and paid money for a copy of Time's Up was simply to have a set of pre-set names which nobody could mess with, and which nobody could argue about.

I have never, ever, regretted it!

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

Joe Casadonte — 2007-01-10T15:46:35+00:00

AirOne wrote:
* say anything that starts with a capital, including:
- names of persons or groups
- titels of books / cd's / movies / tv-series / songs
- nationalities / places / countries
- brand names

That's got to be really hard....

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

AirOne — 2007-01-09T13:01:21+00:00

Thanks, I didn't know that.

When we where playing on New Years Eve we pretty soon skipped "you are not allowed to say uhhhh"-rule. But that might have something to do with the amounts of alcohol consumed.

Thread: Re: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

ed95005 — 2007-01-02T17:13:03+00:00

Yes, Time's Up is based on the public domain game, Celebrities.

Thread: Who's The Man? -> You don't need Time's Up at all!

AirOne — 2006-12-31T13:22:59+00:00

I was actually amazed to find this game in the database because you don't really need Time's Up to be able to play it! Who's The Man is the version I always play in The Netherlands and it's a great party game!

The advantages of Who's The Man over Time's Up are that:

* it's free
* you are not limited by one set of (American) names
* you are limited by more restrictions which makes the game more fun (my opinion)

Although the games are quite similar I'll describe the rules. It must be said that we play with a tough ruleset aimed at adults. You can alter this wherever you like ofcourse.

Who's The Man?

Needed to play: pen, paper, watch.

Preparations

The game involves multiple teams, you are allowed to make as many as you want with as many team-members as you want, they must be equally balanced though. Every team-member writes down 3 names on separate pieces of paper. These must be names that all players should be able to know. You can make this as hard as you like... We make it quite difficult by allowing everyone that has ever published anything in any type of media (and which you could have known if you had paid enough attention ). All pieces of paper are folded twice and collected.

Round 1

The first member of team A stands in front of the crowd and opens the first piece of paper and reads the name. He now has 1 minute to describe the person on the paper. His team-members try to guess who he's talking about. Members of the other teams shut up and watch the time. They will have to pay attention because if the name is not guessed it goes back into the collection and turns up later again.

If the name is guessed by the team A members, their candidate throws the piece of paper on the ground and grabs the next one. He tries to collect as many names as possible in one minute. When time is up the first member of team B takes a piece of paper from the collection etc. until all names have been guessed. Now all teams count how much names they have guessed and this is written down on a score-paper. All pieces of paper are collected again for the next round.

Round 2

The same as round one but now the candidates are only allowed to use one word. Mostly this will be a word used in the descriptions in round 1. The team now has only 30 seconds to guess as many names as possible before the other team takes over.

Round 3

The same as round one and two but now the candidates are not allowed to speak and must act to get the name across to their team-members. In this round the team again has only 30 seconds to guess as many names as possible before the other team takes over.

Scoring

At the end of round 3 the scores of the teams in the three rounds are summed up and the team with the largest amount of names guessed is the winning team of this game.

Multiple Games

If you want want to play some more you'll have to put the first batch of names on the side and make new ones to start again. The last game of the night is a really big one where you add all the pieces of paper that have been used during the games in one big collection. This can be quite hilarious as you'll have to remember clues and names from the very first game you played hours ago! The team that guessed most names overall wins this evening of playing Who's The Man!

Restrictions

If an opposing team discovers a breach of these restrictions the candidate must stop and put the name back in the big collection. Now it's the next teams turn. The restrictions are quite important because if well garded by the opposing team(s) they will guarantee a hilarious and fast-paced game.

* In the first round the candidates team may guess as much as they want but in the second and third rounds the team is limited to only two guesses. Consultation between team-members is allowed.

* Everything on the piece of paper must be guessed in the correct manner... Thus "Bunny!" is not enough if the paper says "Bugs Bunny".

* If the candidate does not recognize the name on he paper he puts it back in the collection and picks another one.

In general it is forbidden to:

* write names illegibly

* guess the other teams name

* have any form of interaction between the candidate and the teams. The candidate speaks/acts and the team only guesses. No questions or hints!

* point at stuff

For the teams candidates it is forbidden to:

* say anything mentioned on the piece of paper

* say anything that starts with a capital, including:
- names of persons or groups
- titels of books / cd's / movies / tv-series / songs
- nationalities / places / countries
- brand names

* use numerals and ordinals like one, two, three or first, second, third

* use occupations, jobs, trades, professions or businesses

* use rhyme

* say uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

So... tonight is New Years Eve and I'm going to play Who's The Man again! I hope others will have as much fun as I always have with this great game!

Thread: Re: Rules Clarifications / House Rules

blakeolas — 2006-11-17T23:38:49+00:00

The rules actually specifically state that rhyming, name variations and spelling are explicitly prohibited. However, some other specifics worth mentioning:

Don't look over another's shoulders. You'll spoil what's coming, and give your team an unfair advantage.

In rounds 2-3, we play that when you pass or flub a card, it's gone for the round. This is important because when there are only a few cards left, you shouldn't get a second chance. This is specifically important in round 2 when you could conceivably get multiple words by passing and returning to the same card.

Thread: Re: What is the replay value of Time's Up?

mixmaster — 2006-10-30T01:42:22+00:00

Thanks for the info! I think Time's Up will find it's way under the christmas tree this year

Thread: Re: What is the replay value of Time's Up?

davebo — 2006-10-29T19:43:31+00:00

mixmaster wrote:
Since all the names on the cards are used each time the game is played (at least that's how I think it works)

You think wrong!

The replay is great on the game. If you played this game so often[/] that it becomes unplayable because you've developed shorthand for the answers, then you've played it way too much, and you've certainly gotten your money out of it.

Plus there are expansions.

Plus, even if you do[/] develop short hand, it would mean you'd always have to play with the same people to utilize it.

Thread: Re: What is the replay value of Time's Up?

Octavian — 2006-10-29T19:10:42+00:00
There are over 400 cards and you use 30-40 per game. Further, each card has two sides and you only use one side in a given game. Finally, even if you've used all the cards, the different combinations create replayability. You might have one game where only one name is a baseball player - miming that becomes relatively simple. In the next game that same name might appear along side one or two other baseball players and suddently that same mime is less distinct.

The replayability is fine.

-MMM

Thread: What is the replay value of Time's Up?

mixmaster — 2006-10-29T19:02:58+00:00
Since all the names on the cards are used each time the game is played (at least that's how I think it works), what is the replay value of this game amongst the same group.

It would seem that each name would eventually have some set sequence of words or hand gestures associated with it so that players could instantly guess the name from previous plays.

Thanks in Advance,
Mike

Thread: Re: Want a sure-fire way to ruin a party?

elmonty — 2006-09-10T05:18:53+00:00
I honestly tried several times but could never get anyone to play this game. I traded it away.

Thread: Re: Time's Up - US specific?

grinningpik — 2006-08-16T20:23:08+00:00
I agree that it is fairly American in flavour. Of course in Canada we know almost all the American politicians and sport stars that it really makes little difference. I'm very tempted to buy the blank card and print Canadian celebrities just to make the game feel more homey. This might work to help you down under.

Thread: Re: Time's Up - US specific?

Moviebuffs — 2006-08-16T06:52:40+00:00
Oh Yes.

It is a little US - specific, but the historical people are global. The US-specific tend to be the sports stars, etc ....

BUT ... these are the fun ones!

When we first played it, we used to ditch the ones we'd never heard of (you all get to ditch 2 from 12 at the start of the game), but now we always leave them in.

There's a lot more satisfaction in getting an unheard of guy or girl correct by explaining it in bits.

And at the end of round one, you all get to find out who they all are (there's a complete list) before rounds two and three.

Just watch out for [o]John Jacob Jinglemeyer Schmidt![/o]

N.

Thread: Time's Up - US specific?

sedge — 2006-08-16T06:34:47+00:00
Well,

here is a party game that I generally only hear good things about and am looking to pick up. However - I assume that the names in the game have a US flavour (such as American sports stars, personalitites, politicians, etc). Would it be fine to play this game if you're not from the States or would the US flavour pretty much preclude non-US players from getting into it?

Any thoughts and comments welcome. Many thanks.

Thread: Re: Rules Clarifications / House Rules

ccmonter — 2006-01-01T20:48:13+00:00

What you have described above, I would not call "House Rules". It describes almost exactly the way that we play, and (of course, in my opinion) the way that the game should be played.

No Rhyming words, no nicknames, no spelling. You're missing out on the fun of the game if you allow those kinds of things in.

A lot of heckling in encouraged, as long as the guesser is ok with it. If the guesser says "be quiet", then you can be quiet for 30 seconds. After the timer is up, let the heckling continue!

I'm glad that you're enjoying the game. We haven't played in a while due to all the new different games that we have, but we always have a great time playing Time's Up and it's still our #1 party game by far.

Thread: Re: Need Rules

HappyProle — 2005-12-31T20:34:44+00:00
That's too funny. I always knew there was thrift store competition. Now it has a name.

Thread: Rules Clarifications / House Rules

scriptorum — 2005-12-30T16:56:16+00:00
I played this several times over the holidays with my folks and we all enjoyed it immensely. Dad, who's usually pretty finicky about games, actually requested to play it one night. (This is a rave review.) Unfortunately there were several points where we were not clear about what we could and could not do in the game. These are the boundaries we established.

In round one, we allowed conversations. The guesser could ask any questions of the cluegiver, and they could freely converse until the guesser blurted out the correct name. However:

We had nothing but trouble with "sounds like", so we disallowed rhyme clues.
"His first name rhymes with Egg."

But if you got the guesser to say a rhyming word, you could use it as a clue.
"That word you just said rhymes with his first name!"
"His first name rhymes with what you make an omelette with."

There was very little attempt to get around the "no spelling" rule, so we never made a ruling on indirect spelling.
"What you just said starts with the same letter as his first name."

We also never brushed up against the nickname rule.
"Another name for Willy is...?"

At the end of the round, someone quickly read out all the names. If anyone requested it, we did a bio lookup in the booklet. This is the only time we allowed a lookup!
"Ok, so who the hell is Boutros Boutros-Ghali? And how the hell did you get me to say it without knowing who he is?"

In rounds 2 and 3, kibosh on the convo. Penalty counts as a pass, move on to the next card. Nearly anything the cluegiver said, we counted as a guess. There were exceptions, though:

We'd allow comments that weren't specific to the current card
"Stop tapping the top of the timer!"

And even game reminders
"Don't pass so quickly, give me a chance to say a name!"

Lead in comments were ok, too
"The answer has to be George Jetson."
"The diver, Greg Louganis."

Minor name stumbling was generally forgiven.
"Macsomething ... Macarthur. Douglas MacArthur?"

But if it ever slipped past a monologue, we made them pass.
"Is this the same guy you were trying to do last time?"

We also did not allow names that had flat-wrong pronunciations
"Ah, you're doing Jeopardy, Alex Troobek." (Trebek)

If the first name is wrong, that's it, you missed it, move on
"General James MacArthur"

In all rounds, after a turn ends, no clue-blurting. However, since there was no "you screwed up, move to the next card" penalty, this was barely policed by peer pressure.

We commonly tried to get the other team to spit out their guess of our clues. (Yeah, sneaky, I know, but all in good fun.)
"I can't believe you didn't get that! Patty got it, right Patty?"

But telling your team mate what it was would generally get you a boo, but not much else.
"Gene Roddenberry, not George Lucas! Geeze!"
"Hey, no blurting!"

Talking during the other team's turn happened egregiously, but only if it was in good fun. Trying to make the other team's guesser laugh instead of paying attention was commonly accepted, although it would sometimes get you a dirty look.
"Hey, Dad, are you doing an impression of Mom?"

Clue-stealing was common and accepted. This was often how you'd clean up the final few cards in round three.
Me: (foot: thump thump thump)
Mom: "Bugs Bunny?"
Patty: (foot: thump thump thump)
Dad: "Thumper!"
Mom: "Oh, Thumper!"

Setting up card-pantomime mneomincs while the other team was playing was not allowed, and is just bad form.
"Huh, so how would you George Jetson?"

What house rules have other players established?

Thread: Re: Need Rules

Spielguy — 2005-12-29T23:13:31+00:00
I passed on that copy a few days ago and I'd like to ask you to stop frequenting Savers and any D.I.s you have been visiting.

Thanks for your support.

Thread: Need Rules

HappyProle — 2005-12-29T20:54:47+00:00
I found a never-played copy of this at a thrift store today. The rules appear to me missing. I know the rules aren't much, but if someone could post them that'd be swell. I'd give you a few geekgold too if you want it.

Thread: Re: End of Round Rule Variant

ccmonter — 2005-12-29T13:51:52+00:00
We try to use what seems the most fair to us:

VARIANT: The team with the lowest number of points after the previous round starts the next round. The team with the second lowest number of points goes next, and so on.

This is supposed to be a light and fun affair, and this variant attempts to make sure that the scores are closer at the end of the game.

Thread: End of Round Rule Variant

tsukata — 2005-12-27T20:39:32+00:00
As the rules are written, the team that completes a round passes the deck before the next round begins. That means that a team can be screwed if there is only 1 name left in the deck. However, if a team gets the last 5 in a row, it would not be fair if they got to go first in the next round.

VARIANT: When a team finishes a round stop the clock (or turn the timer on it's side). The team gets to use whatever is left of ther 30 seconds to begin the next round.

Thread: Re: Variant for 3/4/5 players or No Team Set Up

tsukata — 2005-12-27T20:34:04+00:00
We've been playing with a very similar concept, as we often get a 5-player game. When we play, the deck always gets passed to the left.
The scorekeeper is the starting player, and gives clues 1 person to the left. Let's say the Scorekeeper is A. Therefore, the first rotation is:
A->B
B->C
C->D
D->E
E->A

For the second rotation, everyone gives clues 2 to the left.
A->C
B->D
C->E
D->A
E->B

Rotation #3 is 3 to the left (or 2 to the right).
A->D
B->E
C->A
D->B
E->C

Finally, rotation #4 is 4 to the left (i.e. 1 to the right).
A->E
B->A
C->B
D->C
E->D

Both the giver and reciever get points for a correct answer, and we continue in this rotation throughout the game, regardless of what round we are in. The only problem is that in the "1 to the right" rotation, you will be guessing immediately after you've seen the deck. Therefore, if there are less than 4 cards left in Round 1 or less than 10 cards left in Round 2 or 3, you skip Rotation #4 and place it between Rotation #1 and #2 in the next Round.

Thread: This game won me over in a big way

gtatters — 2005-11-18T07:01:48+00:00
I'm not really big on party games. I often have a difficult time quickly recalling names of people and things. I do not have much of a mind for trivia. Memory games? Not so much. These were my impressions of what would make up Time's up. So after some arm twisting (well, really I was steam-rolled by Paul!) I sat down at the table very begrudgingly to play this game.

Round One: my opinion of this game started to decline from my already low preconceptions. I turned over the card with 'Gepetto' on it. "Who the hell is that," I moaned. But I see Paul use a trick to get someone to figure out a name by breaking it down phonetically. "Ok, I can work with this," I think to myself.

Round Two: It finally sinks in that I'm going to be seeing the same cards again this round. We can only use one word this time, but we have last round as a shared experience on which to base some grunts and charades to supplement the crucial word. Sometimes these non-verbal clues are based on conections between tangentially related characters that we made in the previous round (like a charade to represent Elvis Presley for the Elvis Costello card). People are also playing off of their opponents' charades.

Round Three: We have descended to grunts, squeaks, and wild emphatic gestures that only make any sense to the people playing the game. We seem to have developed our own little language system that will only have meaning until the end of the game. Onlookers are wondering how one player staggering like Frankenstein can yield the correct answer of 'Jolly Green Giant.' Jim's charades all look the same to me, but he and Paul are 20 cards ahead of Christy and me. By this time I am laughing my ass off!

My teammate changed from Rick to Christy between rounds one and two, so Christy and I got smoked by Jim and Paul. That is not to diss Christy at all, as she had neither exposure to cards/clues in round one, nor a decent partner. Despite losing horribly, I loved the game so much, I must have it!

This weekend, I'll be going to the beach for Thanksgiving with some family/friends (mostly muggles). Over the next couple of days I will be checking around for a copy to bring with me to spread the joy. Only after I try to push Attika, Settlers, Carc, of course...you know the drill.

And in the future when I encounter particularly intractable muggles who won't even give Bohnanza a chance, I will shove Time's Up their way!!

Thread: Re: Want a sure-fire way to ruin a party?

Hallow — 2005-10-27T16:54:00+00:00
This is currently my favorite party game. That said I understand your frustration. Regardless of the way you played I had a similar experience in that I explained the correct rules but the folks playing could not get over the fact that they did not know some of the names. We didn't even start the game...oh well.

Another suggestion is to take a few cards out of the stack and play with less cards

Good luck on your second playing

Ben