I was wondering. Would it be possible for the next game where we test a new rule?

We allow the dealer to submit a definition but they aren't allowed to vote in that week's voting?

Of course that would mean that they'd run the risk of running multiple games in a row but it would also take the sting away from winning the previous round.

I feel it could put the game out of balance. Forcing the winners to sit out and deal, gives the rest of us lesser beings a chance to catch up!

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, I agree with Gypsy, especially if the same player got 3 04 four consecutive deals late in the game. On the other hand it ould mean Aquadyne wouldn't win the game.

It takes great skill to come in second regularly!

More seriously, though: penalizing the "winner" creates a perverse incentive to not win. If you're one of the later voters, you have the advantage of knowing that you can vote for someone else's acro to spare yourself the deal. I admit I used to do this, but don't any more because hey, it's just a game, and dealing really isn't much of a hardship, and it all resets every 25 rounds anyway. Who won the last round, anyway? Or the one before that?

Unlike Balderdash or Fictionary (or Dixonary, which is still going strong if any of you care to join), there's no "real acro" to try to guess, so the dealer is at no more an advantage than anyone else by choosing the letters.

Back when we had fewer submitters, we even discussed the idea of allowing more than one acro per person if there weren't enough.

I wouldn't mind everyone joining in every round, but we should ask the follow up question: does the "dealer" gain an advantage in the game by choosing the acro? If so, they would win more often and we'd end up with winning streaks. Maybe the last place player should deal? Maybe we just rotate the deal to "the person on your left" so everyone gets a (roughly) equal amount of deals? Maybe the acro is determined by random number generator (Hey Gypsy, can we have dice that randomly roll letters of the alphabet?)

So I'm fine with experimenting with a new rule or set of rules, but let's not create a new problem fixing an old one.

I *DO* like the idea of "pass to your left". The standings from the last game would create the "circle", the same concept that the first dealer would be whoever won the previous game.

I like it!

The other alternative is to not penalize dealers on their score for dealing.

Effectively we'd compete on "average score" although this could incentivize sitting out rounds and only playing when you can have an awesome acro. (The parallels to "big blind" and "little blind" in hold 'em are relevant here.)

But if we award your score on rounds you deal should be the average of your score on rounds you didn't deal it'd make it simple.

I am not sure about the "pass to the left" idea. The current system allows for someone to not dominate the game and give others a fighting chance. Always have the best Acros? You might have to deal every other round. Sitting out more often things out allows others to catch up. Just my two cents.

Definitely with Mina! Besides if it ain't broke...

Nothing to stop someone starting an ACRO 2 with new rules.. but then we might end up with 2 ACRO games, neither with enough contributors.

I'm going to have to go with what Gypsy said on this. Frequently, the person who deals the most rounds also ends up winning the overall game (or is up at the top at least). If the dealer was also potentially earning points, it seems like it would be easy for the game to get out of balance.

You could always start another Forum: Alternate Acro.

I agree with the comments of Gypsy, Mina, and Weez.

But - If you did want the dealer to submit an ACRO as well, why not give those points as bonus points to all of the other players that round instead of the points going to the dealer?

Sometimes players may get 0 points for a bonus to their scores, sometimes 13 points, and often in between.

That would shake the ranks up quite a bit, potentially.

*fading back into the shadows*