Whenever a new deduction game works its way into the mix, I quietly hope that this will be the one that everyone somehow loves, so that I can scratch that core gaming itch of mine more regularly. Recently, these hopes were pinned on a game called 13 Clues. But unfortunately, this game was not the one.
Two to six players each receive their own unique three card mystery to solve in the Clue archetype: a person who did the crime, a place they did it, and a weapon they used. These are selected from a pool of 10 suspects (5 male, 5 female), 10 locations (5 indoor, 5 outdoor), and 10 weapons (5 hand weapons, 5 ranged weapons). These same 30 cards are also divided into 10 "suits" (colors) with 3 cards each -- so there are several angles on which to investigate information.
Each player's three-card mystery is displayed on the outside of a secret screen, so that all their opponents can see them, while they themselves cannot. Inside the screen, each player has a worksheet for tracking information, and two randomly dealt cards from the leftovers -- card they can see but no one else can. In games with fewer than six players, remaining leftovers are placed face down in the center of the table. The game takes its name from the fact that each player begins the game with "13 clues" to sort through: cards they can't see that are possible answers to the mystery.
The gameplay involves each player on their turn directing a question at one of their opponents: "how many red cards do you see?" or "how many outdoor locations do you see?" That player must report back a true answer, surveying the screens of all their opponents (each with its own displayed mystery), plus the two secret cards they're holding behind their screen. When an opponent reports a number that doesn't match with what you see, you have to determine whether that's because of your own three card mystery, or because of those two secret cards that opponent has hidden.
There is one tweak to the deduction genre here that's clever: whenever you aim a question at a player, you pass them a token. Those tokens each then represent a question they get to ask on their turn. The more one player is "picked on" by the group, forced to give away information without gathering any for themselves, the more questions that player gets to pose during their next turn, making up for the knowledge imbalance.
Unfortunately, the rest of the game simply isn't as smart as other games in the deduction genre. "Everyone else sees your cards" works so much better in Code 777, because you're restricted in what information you can seek each turn. (You draw a card that gives you a question to ask -- you only have control over which opponent you ask.) The freedom of 13 Clues lets you zero in on information with razor precision in fairly short order.
And the value of an "I see nothing" response is immeasurable. Unlike Sleuth, or even Clue, where there is an advantage in sussing out exactly which cards are being secretly held by each player, in 13 Clues, you really only need to learn the 3 cards in your own mystery. And that mystery comes unraveled at lightning speed. One moment, you're trying to deduce whether one player's answer meant they have a particular card, or you do (in your mystery). The next moment, a happenstance "I see zero pink cards" answer completely removes those cards from contention for everyone.
Accusations are even more revealing. On their turn, a player may guess at their mystery -- and the rules require that all three of the cards they guess be cards they cannot see anywhere. There's no using the strategy of Clue where you inquire misleadingly about information you know to help zero in on one piece of information you don't. When a player makes a wrong guess, you immediately know that player can't see any of the three cards they guessed. It only takes one or two of those to blow the game wide open.
Basically, the deduction matrix here simply isn't as wide as it looks at first glance. In the beginning of our play, each of us was bemoaning the difficulty of crafting a note taking system that would hold everything we might learn. In actuality, the game took exactly 9 turns total (individual turns, not rounds), speeding to an uneventful end.
I'd be willing to give the game another chance, just to see if maybe players wising up with experience makes information more difficult to ferret out. Or perhaps someone gave an error in responding to a question when we played, causing a cascading sequence of wrong accusations that brought the game to a premature end? But I suspect I'll never find out. Like I said, deduction games are hard to get to the table in my group -- and I'd much rather push a beloved one into the mix than try to champion this noble effort that flamed out so hard.
At best, I'd say 13 Clues is a C-. And even that mark is probably only that high because I have such a soft spot for the genre.
No comments:
Post a Comment