Several comments mention guessing games. Here’s my variant:
One “communicator”, one or many askers.
The communicator starts by describing something in the most general terms they can think of.
Each round, the asker(s) can either ask a question, or guess. The question has to be about an attribute of the thing, not its name, and they can’t say “Is it X?” or “What is it?”. The communicator answers, vaguely if the question is vague, getting specific if they’re backed into a corner.
When they guess, the game is over. If they guess wrong, they lose. Then you try to figure out what your next question should have been.
If they guess right, they win and get congratulated.
“It’s a way of moving things from place to place.”
“What kinds of things?”
“Oh, things you want moved.”
“How big can these things get?”
“No more than six feet high, a couple feet wide, less than a foot long.”
“Are they inert and durable?”
“No.”
“Are they fragile?”
“Depends on your standards.”
“Would they break if you dropped them from a foot?”
“No.”
“From ten feet?”
“Possibly.”
“What materials are they made from?
[...]
Eventually the guesser figures out that you’re moving people, one at a time, with no equipment except the person’s own legs.
“I know! Walking”
“WRONG—you forgot to ask if the person’s feet are ever both off the ground, and whether their posture is upright or at an angle. Could have been leaping or running.”
Yes, but sufficiently specific questions should be anle to corner any uncooperative answerer playing in good faith.
You don’t have to accept that answer to “how big,” for example. You can ask, is the stuff organized into discrete items? If so, are they bigger than a cubic mile? If not, are they smaller than a cubic foot? And so on.
Several comments mention guessing games. Here’s my variant:
One “communicator”, one or many askers.
The communicator starts by describing something in the most general terms they can think of.
Each round, the asker(s) can either ask a question, or guess. The question has to be about an attribute of the thing, not its name, and they can’t say “Is it X?” or “What is it?”. The communicator answers, vaguely if the question is vague, getting specific if they’re backed into a corner.
When they guess, the game is over. If they guess wrong, they lose. Then you try to figure out what your next question should have been.
If they guess right, they win and get congratulated.
“It’s a way of moving things from place to place.”
“What kinds of things?”
“Oh, things you want moved.”
“How big can these things get?”
“No more than six feet high, a couple feet wide, less than a foot long.”
“Are they inert and durable?”
“No.”
“Are they fragile?”
“Depends on your standards.”
“Would they break if you dropped them from a foot?”
“No.”
“From ten feet?”
“Possibly.”
“What materials are they made from?
[...]
Eventually the guesser figures out that you’re moving people, one at a time, with no equipment except the person’s own legs.
“I know! Walking”
“WRONG—you forgot to ask if the person’s feet are ever both off the ground, and whether their posture is upright or at an angle. Could have been leaping or running.”
The answerer is being cooperative here though. This is how I would have answered:
“It’s a way of doing stuff to stuff”
“What kinds of stuff?”
“Stuff that’s like some stuff but unlike other stuff”
“How big is the stuff?”
“Around the size of other stuff”
“Is the stuff inert and durable?”
“As much as that sort of stuff can be”
...
Yes, but sufficiently specific questions should be anle to corner any uncooperative answerer playing in good faith.
You don’t have to accept that answer to “how big,” for example. You can ask, is the stuff organized into discrete items? If so, are they bigger than a cubic mile? If not, are they smaller than a cubic foot? And so on.
Very strongly reminds me of this as well. I wonder what sort of exercise might combine the two.