The format is fine; the settings are the problem. A version that works for children is seen through by adults inside half an hour.
vs
With children, hide and seek runs on the thrill of searching. For adults that is too thin: they want to know how they can win, and the moment it turns out the outcome mostly depends on luck, half of them check out.
On top of that, adults start playing strategically the moment you let them. If the best move is to sit down and do nothing, that is what they will do — and then nothing happens for two hours.
So the format needs two additions: the runners need an objective that forces them to move, and there has to be something that makes the result indisputable. That second one matters more than you would think — an argument afterwards ruins the whole afternoon.
Take a whole district rather than a park, and have the runners give away their position more often. That leaves room to move strategically without the game dragging.
A secret end point they have to reach. Now sitting still is no longer a winning strategy and a real cat-and-mouse situation appears.
Have a catch or a completed challenge recorded with a photo the other team approves. Adults argue; evidence makes that unnecessary.
In its classic form, yes. With a bigger area, an end point for the runners and jokers that can tilt the chase, it becomes one of the few formats a mixed group of adults stays with for hours.
Yes, as long as choosing well is rewarded more than being fast. With a good route and the right timing, runners win more often than sprinters do.
From about six it gets interesting, because then a team can split the jobs: reading the map, picking the route, doing the challenges.
Put the end point at the venue where you finish. The game then walks itself there and the group arrives together.
Uitvossen is exactly that adapted format: a large area, a secret end point, challenges with consequences and evidence the other team approves.
Try it free