I came here to post this exact same thing, so I'm glad to see so many others in agreement. To the person who thought that this would lead to too many tied games, the game designer apparently doesn't have a problem with tied games, as they say in the rulebook, "All players who correctly guessed the central tiles win." For those of use who enjoy this sort of game — as my whole family does — it really is more about the enjoyment of figuring it out than about trying to win. But losing because someone else had more clues than you did definitely sucks the enjoyment out of it. Ties are okay, though!
I'd be perfectly happy if this were an official variant implemented here, but clearly this is how I'd play it if we were playing in real space around the same table: Every question is part of its own "round". Different people get to ask the question each round. But as soon as *anyone* makes a successful guess, *everyone* else gets one chance to guess, themselves. That way, everyone *truly* is guessing based on the same number of clues. (Not just the same number of "turns" as described in the original base game and implemented here.)
I hope this can find a way to become a real option here. My family enjoyed the premise of the game, but was greatly let down by this one element.
I'd be perfectly happy if this were an official variant implemented here, but clearly this is how I'd play it if we were playing in real space around the same table: Every question is part of its own "round". Different people get to ask the question each round. But as soon as *anyone* makes a successful guess, *everyone* else gets one chance to guess, themselves. That way, everyone *truly* is guessing based on the same number of clues. (Not just the same number of "turns" as described in the original base game and implemented here.)
I hope this can find a way to become a real option here. My family enjoyed the premise of the game, but was greatly let down by this one element.