Game: Quiddler

Thread: Re: Quiddler: Rewarding mediocrity

RollD6 — 2008-08-05T01:52:32+00:00

I respectfully disagree with your impression of the game. I played this game for the first time over the weekend with three other wordsmiths. One of them introduced the game and we were instantly hooked, with several very close games (within 10 points) and scoring in the 220s-240s regularly and that is without bonuses for longest or most words (we didn't use those rules).

I plan on ordering 2 copies of this game, so we can keep one at my girl friends house and one at mine.

Thread: Wild Card Vowel

alfonzos — 2008-06-29T19:43:47+00:00

During the last round of play, when a player if forced to declare words for scoring, when a player's hand does not contain a card with a single vowel a player may declare a wild card vowel. This vowel is worth zero points and does not add one to the length of the cards in the word.

Example: Another player has already declared words for scoring and I must play my hand. I hold "QU", "Z" and "X". I draw "V". I declare a wild card "I" and discard the "X". I score "QUIZ" as a two-card word valued at 23 and I am penalized 11 for the "V".

Thread: Re: The Speed Quiddler Girl (Rules, Session and Pictures)

sightreader — 2008-06-10T19:47:29+00:00

ackmondual wrote:
interesting, but shouldn't this be under the Variants section of the forum?
Oh... sorry... I thought it was under the variants part. I think it started out as a response, and in the process I got confused as to where I was...

Thread: Re: The Speed Quiddler Girl (Rules, Session and Pictures)

ackmondual — 2008-06-10T14:54:28+00:00

interesting, but shouldn't this be under the Variants section of the forum?

Thread: Re: Overview of game-play and first thoughts.

wmreed — 2008-05-30T14:30:34+00:00

binary667 wrote:
(you only use one of the bonuses when playing with only two players.)

I can't find this in the rules. Where is that mentioned?

Also, I don't agree that an element of luck ruins the game. Scrabble itself has an element of luck when drawing tiles, unless one can identify letters in the bag with their figertips -- which seems unsportsmanlike to me.

I readily concede that it may have more luck than some prefer, but not every game has to include the strategy of Chess to be fun.

I guess that's why I prefer Quiddler to Scrabble. Everyone playing can be successful. For me, that's more fun. Someone who wants a greater challenge or greater competition ay not prefer this game.

Thread: Quiddler - [session report]

ackmondual — 2008-03-01T08:12:04+00:00

I had to keep reminding myself that 1) words must be formed with at least 2 cards and 2) you don't always need to form one long word with all your cards. Many smaller ones are acceptable!

Our 5p game had us shuffling the deck twice.

game summary
-of the 8 rounds, I had 4 of them with leftover cards for penalty
-I've gotten longest word bonus twice
-I lost the challenge for "FAQ", which was 23pt penalty. I could've gone with a sure word and reduced the penatly to 8pts, but I wanted to go through with it anyways.
-The player who scored 99 lost a challenge as well.
-challenges were handled by a dictionary the owner had on computer
-much of the time, everyone was getting "all out".
-it's nice that the game's full list of acceptable 2 letter words was available. It may have 'cheating', but none of us objected. Helped me out of a jam on more than one occassion.
-Longest Word formed by anyone was 6 letters
-Most Words formed by anyone was 4 words
-another player had a choice between tying Longest Word or letting another player have it. He choose the latter since it got him 12 points more.
-with all of us, especially myself, when it came to drawing, we would just go with the card that left us the lesser penalty
-overall, I was hurting in score and progress

final score (estimated)
me: 80
the rest in lowest to highest: 99, 178, 238, 268

Since I like word games but am not crazy about them, I'd like to play this game again, but not often. Since this game is easy to learn and makes for great filler, like it or not, it was probably gonna get played again in the future.

Thread: Re: Quiddler: Rewarding mediocrity

rdjanssen — 2007-12-27T20:22:48+00:00

Don't forget the 10 point bonus for longest word each round. This makes it advantageous to hold out for the longer words. Perhaps doing away with the 10 point bonus for most words (when playing with more than two people) would also help.

Image

potza4 — 2007-12-20T09:48:43+00:00

Quiddler card examples

Thread: The Speed Quiddler Girl (Rules, Session and Pictures)

sightreader — 2007-12-10T00:02:18+00:00

This game night began with an improved version of what I used to call Power Quiddler. I guess I'll call it Speed Quiddler now, for lack of a better name. It requires a lot less math than my previous version.

Basically, you lay out 12 cards then start a one minute timer. When you see a word, you do not say the word. Instead, you call out a bid based on the number of cards in the word. So, the word G-I-N would result in a bid of three because the word uses 3 cards.

There is also the Magic Seven rule. If a card is worth 7 (or more) points, it counts as a bonus card. As an example, the word W-I-TH would normally be a bid of three. However, the W (10 points) and TH (9 points) cards are bonus cards, so you can actually bid five.

When the minute is up, the person with the "best bid" reveals what their word was and - if it's legitimate - claims all the cards in it. If the word is not legitimate, return the cards and move on to the next best bid.

Stack the cards so it's clear how many rounds you've won.

Priority for determining who had the "best bid" is as follows:
1. Highest Bid
2. Fewest rounds won (i.e. winning rounds gives you a handicap)
3. First person who called that bid

At the end of the game, count up the total score of all your cards. Highest score wins.

Kelsey had never played this game before, and she made us all deeply regret teaching her. Even with a crushing lead, she was able to find increasingly obscure words that overcame the handicap of having the lead, despite Chris' attempts to prove her words weren't in the "Scrabble Dictionary".

More of our friends arrived for pizza, so we cut the game short after only playing half the deck.

To simplify adding up scores, I suggested the following procedure:
1. Start with an exceptionally high scoring card
2. Add little cards to it until it adds up to 20 points.
3. Count how many stacks of 20 you have then add what's left.

This worked quite well, and we quickly got accurate scores from even the most mathematically challenged of us. In the short game, Kelsey score 131, I scored 80, Chris scored 70 some, and the others were in the 40's and 50's.

Thread: Re: Scrabble dictionary?

JediStitch — 2007-12-04T14:07:16+00:00

Yes, it is an official rule that you can look in a dictionary when it is not your turn. Which can be a pain in a two player game!

Thread: Re: Scrabble dictionary?

DJHastings — 2007-12-04T01:40:42+00:00

dyfrgi wrote:
I've also typically played that you may look in the dictionary when it is not your turn.Unless I'm mistaken, this is the official rule.

Thread: Re: Scrabble dictionary?

thatmarkguy — 2007-12-03T19:07:20+00:00

Also keep in mind that a Scrabble dictionary only has up to 8-letter-long words; in later rounds of Quiddler, you might be making words with more letters than that.

Thread: Re: Scrabble dictionary?

dyfrgi — 2007-12-03T18:32:34+00:00

The way the rules regarding dictionaries are given in the rules is as follows:
a) Pick a dictionary to standardize on at the beginning of play.
b) If you believe a word isn't a real word, is proper, etc., then you may "challenge" it. If the challenge succeeds (ie, the word is not in the dictionary), then not only does the challenged player not receive points for it, but they also must subtract that many points from their score. If the challenge fails, then the challenger must subtract that many points.

I've also typically played that you may look in the dictionary when it is not your turn.

The games I play tend to be pretty friendly, without using the usual challenge rules.

Thread: Scrabble dictionary?

Sonja — 2007-12-03T15:48:33+00:00

Do you have to play this game with a Scrabble style dictionary? Is it like scrabble where you can bluff and put bullshit words?

Image

sightreader — 2007-11-27T05:02:01+00:00

Kelsey celebrates her dominance while Chris seeks mercy from the Scrabble Dictionary God

Thread: Re: Power Quiddler: A session with pictures!

sightreader — 2007-09-19T17:46:13+00:00

duchamp wrote:
Hey, Ft. Collins doesn`t seem to have changed since I was there in 1985 - the warm feeling in almost all of your players` photos fit perfectly to my memory. Say hello to Jed Schlosberg, who used to live at Linde 409 those days (now a guy in his 60`s).

Quite a cool place!

Yes it is. It's exploding like crazy southward, past the HP plant, and traffic is starting to get antsy with a lot more stoplights.

Thread: Re: Power Quiddler: A session with pictures!

duchamp — 2007-09-19T10:20:10+00:00

Hey, Ft. Collins doesn`t seem to have changed since I was there in 1985 - the warm feeling in almost all of your players` photos fit perfectly to my memory. Say hello to Jed Schlosberg, who used to live at Linde 409 those days (now a guy in his 60`s).

Quite a cool place!

Image

sightreader — 2007-09-13T06:48:53+00:00

Power Quiddler Party (see variant description)

Thread: Re: Quiddler: Rewarding mediocrity

electricvomit — 2007-09-11T12:16:19+00:00

Ebon Wendigo wrote:
Thank you for a thorough and well thought out review. I disagree with one point. I don't think the game rewards mediocrity. This would be true if judged in the same context as Scabble but it is a different kind of game with different goals and therefore different tactics. It is not so much a word game that uses cards as a card game that uses words and is more like Gin Rummy than Scrabble. My wife and I like all three, Scrabble, Gin Rummy, and Quiddler, all for different reasons.

I guess I see your point, but I think the bottom line is you're going to end up spelling mostly three and four letter words that are far from challenging.

Thread: Re: Quiddler: Rewarding mediocrity

Ebon Wendigo — 2007-09-11T11:38:20+00:00

Thank you for a thorough and well thought out review. I disagree with one point. I don't think the game rewards mediocrity. This would be true if judged in the same context as Scabble but it is a different kind of game with different goals and therefore different tactics. It is not so much a word game that uses cards as a card game that uses words and is more like Gin Rummy than Scrabble. My wife and I like all three, Scrabble, Gin Rummy, and Quiddler, all for different reasons.

Thread: Quiddler: Rewarding mediocrity

electricvomit — 2007-09-10T20:56:45+00:00

Why I bought it:
I was at a garage sale and I happed upon a box of board games for 50 cents a game. I picked up about six games, Can't Stop and Quiddler being two that I can remember off the top of my head. I didn't stumble across a Dark Tower or anything like that, but they were all games that I thought I would at least play once. I specifically picked up Quiddler because my word game collection is rather weak, and although I have not played Set, I have only heard good things about it, so an association to Set helped too.

Gameplay:
Quiddler plays in 8 rounds, in your typical clockwise pick-up-and-discard fashion. Each round players get one more card to add to their hand, so the game has that escalation factor to it. You basically have two strategies to work with: you can go for the bonus of having the longest word, or the bonus for the most words. The individual rounds went quickly, a fast round went around the table once, and the longer rounds went around the table 3-4 times.

What I liked:
First of all, the game is physically pleasing. That is, the cards are of good quality. The artwork on the cards was simple, but good. The rules were short, but well written. I read them once and I was ready to play. However, once I got to the actual game, the positive experience slowed down.

What I disliked:
The first two rounds of the game were interesting. They happed in a very quick manner, and adjusting to the game strategy was fun. However as the game went on, I felt that there was just not enough to the game. The game concluded in a way that felt like we were going through the motions. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Later impressions:
After sitting on the experience for a while, my girlfriend and I came to the same conclusion, which was that Quiddler rewards mediocrity. The nature of the game dictates that quantity will come over quality, especially in the early rounds. This principle contributed to the lackluster play. It's no challenge spelling words like "the, sins, ex, and that." Word games are supposed to challenge you, not make you spell the words that a first-grader can spell.

Additionally the game lacked that opponent feedback a lot of word games, especially Scrabble, have. With most of my word gaming coming though Scrabble, this aspect was missed.

Consider picking this game up if:
You are looking for a fast-moving word (or card) game that accommodates 8 players.

Thread: Re: Strategy question regarding delaying going out

thatmarkguy — 2007-08-29T22:45:45+00:00

I think in theory it might be viable, but in *practice*, it's never going to happen.

If you have a set, you have to make the decision of 'what is my likelihood of improving my score more than other people improve theirs'. Only if you think that staying in is worth the risk of letting other stymied people get 'back in it' and overcome an all-vowel/all-consonant draw, as well as risking letting other fully-setted hands more chances to improve their hands - is it worth continuing.

For a hand not to end quick, you'd need EVERYONE who has a completed set to make this same determination - you need everyone to think continuation of the hand will help them more than their opponents.

In practice, this is extremely unlikely. If even one person thinks an immediate end is more to their benefit, the hand will be 'called' in short order. At any table of N relatively adept gamers with fully-setted hands, N-1 of them will *not* be the one to most benefit from a hand continuation. And all it takes is one of them to realize this to make the hand end early. It would take either some sort of collusion or some sort of group delusion to make every setted hand think continuation is to their benefit.

To me, this is the game's fundamental flaw. The rules combine with human nature to defeat the game. Rarely does a hand last one go-around before someone calls an end. Even if, theoretically, delaying a call may be the best play for any given player - it should seldom be the best play for *every* player. And that's what it'd need to be.

Thread: Re: Strategy question regarding delaying going out

stormseeker75 — 2007-08-29T20:38:06+00:00

I think it depends on the number of players. Going out early in a big game means that at least 1 person will probably be taking a big hit. By delaying, you may just let them back in the game.

Which reminds me, I should write a Quiddler review....

Thread: Strategy question regarding delaying going out

Nodosaurus — 2007-08-29T17:58:47+00:00

My wife and I were discussing strategies for Quiddler. We were wondering if it is ever advantageous to delay going out. We haven't had a chance to try the strategy yet. The idea is, if you have good letters, to play looking for a longer word or more words to try to secure the bonus. Or just wait if you just have low-valued letters. Since going out gives everyone else a chance to a last play, it doesn't seem like it would cost a whole lot.

What are people's experience with such?

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-07-25T20:22:53+00:00

The Money Shot

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-07-25T19:57:33+00:00

I could have sworn "clob" is the short form of "clobber"!

Thread: Re: Two games and a new arrival

doubleo — 2007-07-07T12:18:05+00:00

I'm new to all this but really loving it. I'm just in time to wish your daughter a very happy first birthday. I'm almost too scared to ask her name. . . I hope it doesn't start with Q!

Thread: Re: Ups and Downs

glsonn — 2007-07-01T18:05:37+00:00

I don't know if we're mensans around here, but that does sometimes happen - especially in the early rounds. And bluffing...? Forget it. We're too well-read to get away with that in our family.

Thread: Re: Ups and Downs

Fad23 — 2007-07-01T17:56:54+00:00

I was playing with some mensans yesterday and the score seemed largely to be about what cards were dealt. If you had a horrible hand then there was no chance at all, since people went out invariably before the end of the first round.

Thread: Re: Playing Quiddler in a Special Ed. setting

DJHastings — 2007-06-08T18:10:08+00:00

A question: if you redraw cards after playing a word, what ends the round?

Thread: Playing Quiddler in a Special Ed. setting

Von Cougar — 2007-06-05T01:29:25+00:00

I was first introduced to Quiddler a few months ago at a Monthly Rotational, a regular TABS (www.tabsonline.net) event. My fiancée was also introduced to the game, and she quickly fell in love with it. She very much enjoys Scrabble and other word games, so this was a no brainer for her.
After a few games, I brought it to the school I am interning at to see if one of the teachers that I am with, a Language/Resource/Spec Ed teacher, would like to try it with the kids, as an 'educational support game.'
After teaching her the rules, we knew that as is, the game would not work with most of the Spec Ed kids we work with, considering their lack of rich vocabulary.
So we came up with the following variant:

-Each player begins with 10 cards
-The rest of the cards make up a deck, and one card is flipped over beside into an 'open' area
-On a player's turn, they draw a card, play scoring words onto the table, play a card to the open area, and draw up to X cards (determined by the round)
-Cards in the open area may be used by the active player (taken from the open area and placed into the scoring word); it is not replaced
-Each round the players' hand limit decreases by 1, from 10, until the 8th and final round (players should have 3 cards, plus one drawn)
-Bonus scores are possible: +5 for a word of 5 letters or more, +5 for two or more words, +5 for using all cards in hand

I think that's pretty much what we do.

So we've introduced the game to 6 grade 7/8 students who come to us for Resource periods. It has been a big hit each time, and I picked up a copy of the game for the teacher.
Today we played with the two of us, and two students who were knew to Quiddler. After a quick intro, we began. We only got two rounds in, but I think we hooked them in for some more Quiddler later this week.
In the first round, J picked up a wimpy 14 points, while A did nicely with 26. I was next with a nice 28 points, while Ms. A came in with 27.
In round two. J came back with 33 points! A only had 17 this time. I had a nice 30 points, but Ms A. owned us all with 39 points!
We've learned that playing against the Language teacher does not bode well for the rest of us. Thank goodness young teen boys aren't competitive, eh? That's what Jungle Speed is for!

Image

stormseeker75 — 2007-05-30T22:39:16+00:00

Will pose for geekgold

Image

stormseeker75 — 2007-05-30T22:38:59+00:00

We are boardgame geeks, and proud of it

Image

roseofarc — 2007-05-28T03:12:38+00:00

Clinger. It could only be better if it had the "IN" card.

Thread: Re: Delay in going out

vandemonium — 2007-04-17T19:54:33+00:00

DJHastings wrote:
As a house rule, we often play that no one can go out until their second turn. That way, even if someone has a word in their hand at the start, everyone gets to draw at least twice. When playing this way, you're less likely to find yourself with nothing in your hand when it's you're forced to lay down.

My uncle just slaughters us and I don't think any house rule except, "Uncle John" always loses would help. I can't stand going out on the first turn unless I have a killer hand and want to try and stick it to the rest of the gang, but somehow that never works out either (for me) Fun game in any case! One of our favorites for a lighter quicker game night.
Cheers,
Van

Thread: Re: Delay in going out

rmartinc — 2007-04-17T19:50:33+00:00

I've also thought about a time limit during the round after one player took 30 minutes (at LEAST) for his first turn because he had to go out. I'd wave the limit after someone has gone out (or extend it). I haven't done it because it hasn't been a problem because I will never play with him again.

Thread: Re: Delay in going out

generalpf — 2007-04-17T19:35:03+00:00

This is a good idea. I've always thought the game was broken as shipped. Alternatively, I thought of having a minimum word length in the later rounds.

Thread: Re: Intentional successful challenge as spoiler?

DJHastings — 2007-04-17T18:32:21+00:00

We just make them take their cards back and continue the game. But then, we usually play word games with what we call the "educational" house rule, where there are no penalties for challenges, and whoever played an erroneous word just has to take it back and make a valid move instead.

Thread: Delay in going out

DJHastings — 2007-04-17T18:15:43+00:00

As a house rule, we often play that no one can go out until their second turn. That way, even if someone has a word in their hand at the start, everyone gets to draw at least twice. When playing this way, you're less likely to find yourself with nothing in your hand when you're forced to lay down.

Image

chaosbreaker — 2007-03-03T17:52:30+00:00

Play Quiddler solo at the publisher site. www.setgame.com

Thread: Re: Overview of game-play and first thoughts.

binary667 — 2007-02-14T07:57:01+00:00

We will have to give that a try, it sounds far more exciting than the actual rules, the variant also seems to suggest better game-play with more than two people. I will post what I think about it when we get the game to the table again.

Thread: Re: Overview of game-play and first thoughts.

sightreader — 2007-02-13T21:35:23+00:00

binary667 wrote:
Essentially, whomever was lucky enough to be dealt the higher scoring letters or whomever was able to play all of their cards as one word the most times won the game.

We had trouble with this as well. Most people are able to go out immediately, and with more than 3 players it's always in someone's interest to go out immediately. As you note, this pretty much gives victory to the person with the expensive cards and leaves the guy who didn't get any vowels stuck.

In response, we play the "Speed Quiddler" I described in the variants. That version has no luck and is extremely competitive and challenging.

Thread: Overview of game-play and first thoughts.

binary667 — 2007-02-12T08:23:26+00:00

One of my friends picked up Quiddler with the idea that it would be a light alternative to Scrabble. We broke it out, read through the rules, which are very easy to comprehend, and well written. The cards themselves are of decent quality, I don't think they will wear out very quickly. The game-play consists of eight rounds with the first round each player being dealt 3 cards and then each successive round adding one card to that for a total of ten in the final round. Each round the objective is to create words using all of your cards, words must be at least 2 letters long, you can create as many words as you want as long as you use the number of cards that you were dealt at the beginning of the round. Each turn consists of drawing a card, either from the deck or from the discard pile, if you can play all of your cards minus the one discard, then you play all of your words and discard. At this point every other player gets one more turn to try and play as many of their cards as they can. If you are unable to play all of your cards then you simply discard and it is the next player's turn. Once somebody has successfully played all of their cards and every other player has had their final turn you then add up the total number of points on the face of each card, subtracting any unplayed cards from your total. There are two possible bonuses you can accrue each round, a ten point bonus for longest word and a ten point bonus for most words(you only use one of the bonuses when playing with only two players.)

We played three games, only two players, we decided to use the bonus for the longest word. I very quickly noticed a major flaw with this game, it is far too easy to create words, even when we had to use ten cards in the final round we never had to take more than two turns to be able to use all of our cards, and very rarely did somebody have to subtract points due to unused cards. Essentially, whomever was lucky enough to be dealt the higher scoring letters or whomever was able to play all of their cards as one word the most times won the game. I'm not sure if this is a syndrome of having advanced word knowledge and anagramming skills due to playing hundreds of games of Scrabble or if it is a flaw of the letter distribution itself.

Maybe this game would be more fun with more players but as a two player game it falls flat.

Thread: Ups and Downs

glsonn — 2007-01-18T04:50:38+00:00

Up Here

Quiddler makes you think about all the short words you've seen or heard. You'll need them to beat the other players by forming such words from the letter cards you're dealt. Once in a while you'll be able to spell something longer than four letters, but the majority of the time it'll be words of length two, three, or four that you play. You probably won't have time to wait for something longer, even in the hands where you hold eight, nine, or ten cards. That's because someone is almost sure to meld (play words from all of their cards) in the first or second round.

If you play with other word-wise people, final scores will depend largely on the cards you were dealt. Playing with others who are not so wordy can give you a great advantage. Not only can you try to bluff by playing words than really aren't (not something I actually encourage), but you'll also simply be able to overpower them with your larger vocabulary. Even if you get 'bad' cards, you'll probably still be able to keep up with the rest of the pack.

There is just a bit of strategy built in with bonuses for most words played and for longest word played. If that's enough strategy for you, enjoy.

I like the rune-like letters on the cards. Very nice artwork.

Down There

You are only supposed to use the dictionary when it is not your turn. We sometimes do away with that rule. It doesn't seem to change play much. And what if you were looking at the dictionary as the player before you finishes? Do you then have to suddenly close the book because it's technically now your turn?

I'll say it again...There is just a bit of strategy built in with bonuses for most words played and for longest word played. I wish there were a tad more.

I wish the backgrounds of the cards had more elaborate decorations to go with the nice lettering instead of just being plain white.

Neither Here nor There

We usually use the Scrabble dictionary as our rule and guide. It's handy, as it tends to be kept near the rest of the games, and much more manageable than Webster's 3rd or just about any other commonly used 'house' dictionary. It's also easy to find legal words since proper nouns are not included.

Image

carl67lp — 2007-01-11T03:49:29+00:00

Laika, playing solo, prepares to score 39 points

Thread: First solo game

carl67lp — 2007-01-10T15:45:51+00:00

My wife wasn't up for any gaming last night, so I decided to break out the Quiddler deck and play a solo game. Anyone who's read my review of the game knows I don't care a whole lot for it as a multiplayer game, but I figured I'd give it a shot as a solitaire title.

Quick overview: You deal out 8 face-down piles of 5 cards each, then deal a face-up card onto each pile (thus, 48 cards in all). Make words according to the rules of the game from the face-up cards, then turn up cards where you've cleared the top of the pile. Ran out of cards in a pile? Just turn up a card from another one to keep the eight-pile row going.

I approached the game as a bit of a puzzle--I'd need to make sure to leave enough vowels when I cleared words away to ensure that I could continue to make words on subsequent turns. Also, I'd have to have a fallback position in case I didn't turn up another vowel, or some other letter or letters to complete a particular word.

The first couple of "turns" went easily. Then things began to get a little more challenging. I turned up a "QU" card, but thankfully was able to play it somewhat quickly. A "J" came up early on, and it took a while for me to clear that one.

It was fairly soon that I got a pile completely cleared, and I realized there was a bit of strategy to the solo game. Quite simply, it was obvious that I'd want to pull a card from underneath one of the more difficult letters (like Q, X, or J) so that I'd have a shot at clearing the board.

My strategy worked quite well: I was down to just a few cards left. But BLAST IT! I turned up a series of cards with only one or two vowels, and there was a dreaded "Q" on one end and an "X" on the other. My mind raced...could I finish the game? I wracked my brain trying to come up with long-enough words to clear out most of the cards. Somehow, I came up with a way to clear out that "X," but alas a "Q" and a "C" remained on the board.

I had lost.

But overall, as I packed up the cards, I realized I'd found a rather enjoyable solo game. It's enough of a challenge that I wouldn't mind playing it solo more often, and it's fast enough that I can play just about any time I want.

Thread: Re: Quiddler: Fairly enjoyable for a husband and wife

carl67lp — 2007-01-10T15:14:22+00:00

generalpf wrote:
Once again, great review.

Thank you kindly. It was interesting to write it, because as I did so I realized the game, to me, isn't so bad...it's just that it's not so good either. You make a good point about the game being broken; I don't know that I'd go quite that far (I'm about to write a session report for a solo game), but it's quite close nonetheless.

Thanks again for your kind words!

Thread: Re: Quiddler: Fairly enjoyable for a husband and wife

generalpf — 2007-01-09T20:06:49+00:00

carl67lp wrote:
That last point above has a caveat: On more than one occasion, I found that I'd gotten a perfect hand dealt to me, and was able to go out on my first turn. This caused my wife no small amount of annoyance. The scores were not very even at the end (I think separated by perhaps 20% or so), and it was obvious that this problem was the cause. I should note too that we played without the bonuses, something that really would not have caused the scores to be much different, I don't think.
Great review. About your point, this was exactly my problem with the game. Especially in the later rounds, I could go out as soon as I was dealt, and by improving my hand and delaying, I was simply giving the guy on my left a chance to improve his hand. Better to go out and hopefully do it when not everyone else has a perfect hand.

The bonuses for us didn't get handed out too often. The Longest Word bonus did on occasion but the Most Words was often a tie.

We played it once, never again. It's not a bad game (it's fun), but I consider this flaw major enough that the game is "broken".

Once again, great review.

Thread: Quiddler: Fairly enjoyable for a husband and wife

carl67lp — 2007-01-09T19:05:31+00:00

DESCRIPTION
In this rummy-like game, you'll compete to score the most points by making words out of the cards in your hand, each of which contain either one or two letters (the latter being things like "QU" or "TH"). Bonuses are awarded for most words and longest words. Play begins with a hand of three cards each, and ends with a hand of ten cards.

WHAT'S GOOD
First off, the cards are of good quality, and the artwork on each letter is quite nice--it lends an air of distinction to the game and elevates it to something more than it might have been otherwise.

The gameplay is sound: Draw a card, discard, next player. When you can make words out of all your cards, you discard and lay down the rest of your hand. Your opponents have an opportunity to make one last turn, but points are deducted from the cards they couldn't use. This is a great device, as it prevents any one player from getting too far ahead in points, while penalizing those who choose to delay their outlay for the possibility of a better set of cards.

Each round plays similarly, with an additional card doled out on each hand. This too is a nice feature, since the early hands feel like a warm-up for the later ones.

Given that you don't have any upper restrictions on the length of the words (words must be made up of at least two cards), you can always play a ton of short words if you're not worried about the word-length bonus. Conversely, the same is true of the word-count bonus: play long words, and not short ones. In this way, even people who might not have a great grasp on the language can still play just the same.

Finally, the game really does play quite quickly: I think my wife and I finished our first game (all rounds) in around 20 minutes, tops.

WHAT'S BAD
That last point above has a caveat: On more than one occasion, I found that I'd gotten a perfect hand dealt to me, and was able to go out on my first turn. This caused my wife no small amount of annoyance. The scores were not very even at the end (I think separated by perhaps 20% or so), and it was obvious that this problem was the cause. I should note too that we played without the bonuses, something that really would not have caused the scores to be much different, I don't think.

Also, while it's true that someone with a limited vocabulary can play just fine, it's almost a problem to have an overly expansive one. Why? I can easily see challenges being thrown constantly to crazy words, and while a dictionary is handy, who wants to be looking things up all the time? I suggest a house rule (as we did) that limits certain words, in addition to those noted in the rulebook. As an example, we omitted all foreign words unless they were widely acceptable in English (i.e., "chateau" would be okay, but "maison" might not be).

The last bad point: the game really feels like it's more about the luck of the draw. I suppose it's unavoidable, but you can feel really rotten when you've had a bad hand and your opponent is out on her first turn.

CONCLUSION
It's a good game, but it's not a great game: Even though I won the round, I noted to my wife that I preferred playing Guillotine (which I lost). I think it had to with the fact that I felt like I was doing a puzzle while playing Quiddler, rather than playing a game. Sure, puzzles are fun, but they're not always what I want when I want to play a game.

Even so, Quiddler remains in our games pile, ready to be played, unlike other games that are relegated to the closet or the garage sale. It simply has its time and place.

Score:

Thread: Re: Variations: Timed; Different bonuses + set number of cards

sightreader — 2007-01-05T07:24:06+00:00

dyfrgi wrote:
We've been experimenting with some variants on this lately. One idea is to introduce timers and, instead of running the game with turns, run it asynchronously.

We've been using a very successful timed variant for years... I simply forgot to post the rules on BGG. Check out the VARIANTS section.

Thread: Re: Power Quiddler: a frantic timed battle of PURE skill!

sightreader — 2007-01-05T07:13:51+00:00

An example of play:

Jack and Jill are playing Power Quiddler. Jack bids 8. Jill just bids 3. Jack raises his bid to 15. Jill raises her bid to 4. The timer expires.

Jack has the high bid of 15 and is the scoring candidate. His word is QUIK, but he misspelled it, so he cannot score.

Jill becomes the next candidate with a bid of 4. Her word is QUIT, which is legitimate and she scores 14, even though she only bid 4.

The cards are replenished to 12 and the timer restarted. Jack bids 7. Jill bids 4 then raises to 13. Jack also raises to 13. The timer expires.

Although the bids are tied, Jack is the scoring candidate because Jill is leading by one round. His word is HAT, but it only adds up to 12. He overbid, and therefore cannot score.

Jill is the next candidate with the word THAT. However, there is only one "T" on the table, so her word cannot score either.

Since there are no more scoring candidates, all 12 cards are removed and shuffled back into the deck. 12 fresh cards are dealt and a new round starts.

Without further comment, let's just say Jack wins the next round with a score of 26. Now they're tied with one round apiece, but Jack is leading in points (26 to 14).

In the next round, Jack bids 31 then Jill bids the same. Since they are tied (one round apiece), Jack gets to be the candidate because he bid 31 quicker than Jill. This is true even though Jack is actually winning in points -- the number of ROUNDS you've won is used to break ties, not the score in cards.

Thread: Power Quiddler: a frantic timed battle of PURE skill!

sightreader — 2007-01-05T06:50:01+00:00

This variant has become so popular that we've actually forgotten what the original rules were. It is a combination of "Ricochet Robot" and "Quiddler". This game is not just a vocabulary workout: it's also a ferocious arithmetic challenge!

1. Shuffle and lay out 12 cards face up (a 3x4 array)

2. Start a 1 minute timer

3. Players shout out their bids (Example: "I can make a word worth at least 20 points...!")
3a. You bid by announcing SCORES, not words.
3b. If you find higher scoring words, you may RAISE your bid as many times as you wish before time expires
3c. You are NEVER obliged to bid higher than bids from other players!!
3d. You may NEVER lower your bid. Your bid OBLIGES you to form a word worth at least that value.

4. When timer expires, the player with the HIGHEST bid becomes the "scoring candidate".
4a. If several players are tied for the high bid, the candidate is the player who has the fewest rounds to their credit (NOTE: not points, not cards... ROUNDS!!!)
4b. If there is still a tie, then the player who made that high bid first becomes the candidate.

5. The scoring candidate verifies that their word is legitimate
5a. The candidate announces the word formed and verifies no card is used more than once
5b. The word must abide by "Scrabble" rules of legitimacy
5c. If the word is NOT legitimate, then a new candidate is selected from the remaining players using procedure (4) above.
5d. If the word is legitimate, then the candidate must prove that it is worth AT LEAST the amount bid. Underbids are acceptable, but an overbid eliminates the candidate from scoring.
5e. If the candidate overbid a legitimate word (i.e. their arithmetic was faulty), then the players may either elect to move on to the next candidate or declare a misdeal

6. If the candidate's bid was legitimate, she scores the cards used in her word
6a. The scoring cards are stacked face down in front of her
6b. Stack her cards so that it is clear how many ROUNDS she has won (perhaps in a zig-zag fashion)

7. If no scoring candidate could be found, then a misdeal is declared and all 12 cards are shuffled back into the deck.

8. Replenish the array to 12 cards and restart the minute timer to begin a new round.

9. If the array cannot be replenished to 12 cards, the game ends
9a. Add up the values of each player's scoring cards.
9b. The player with the highest score is the winner (NOT the player who won the most rounds!)

Optional Handicap Rule:
If there are excessively skilled players on the table, they may be given a handicap
1. When a handicapped player becomes a candidate, they point to the letters of their word in the order they appear.
2. Neighboring letters in handicapped player's word may not be adjacent to each other in the 3x4 grid. These letters may, however, be diagonal to each other.

Thread: Re: Quiddler - A Light Review

dyfrgi — 2007-01-03T17:59:45+00:00

It is played for 8 rounds, but that makes the last hand 10 cards, not 11. It's extremely easy to change that and play with different hand sizes - I often play 5-12, or even just 5-10 - but the original rules say: "In the last hand of the game, each player is dealt ten cards."

Thread: Quiddler - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-03T09:36:01+00:00

All of my reviews aim to offer a brief overview that allows people to get a good feel for what the game may offer them. I feel that other reviews can be sought if detailed game mechanics is what you are after.

As this is a game based on educational principles I am also able to draw on my experience as a primary school teacher (Australia) when reviewing them. I hope you find this insight useful.

As they did with Five Crowns, SET Enterprises have successfully created a new game based on some very well established predecessors. Quiddler aims to test and extend the vocabulary and word knowledge of the players. The deck is made up of 118 cards. Most of the cards display 1 letter and a numerical value, but some offer a letter blend such as CL, TH, ER, IN or QU and a numerical value.

Like Five Crowns, each hand has a set number of cards dealt to each player. The first hand requires 3 cards to be dealt to each player and one additional card is added for each subsequent hand. The game lasts for a total of 8 hands, so in the final hand all players are dealt 11 cards. Once the hands are dealt, a card is turned over.

Each player can then draw a card from this pile or from the deck. Once a card is drawn the player must discard a card to the face-up stack and if they can use all their cards to create one or more words then they are safe. All other players get one more turn to use all their cards. If they cannot finish then they are allowed to lay down any words they have completed. All cards not used will score bad points (the numerical value on the card) and these are subtracted from their score.

The player with the highest score at the end of the eighth hand is declared the winner. Quiddler also throws a couple of added targets into the mix to keep the play fresh. At the end of each hand 2 bonuses can also be awarded. The player that creates the most words will earn an additional 10 points and the person who creates the longest word also gets 10 points. If 2 or more players tie for one of these bonuses then the bonus is not awarded.

The Final Word

Quiddler is a very simple game and the theme has been seen in many different formats over the years. But this should not be seen as a negative as this is a classic case of a genre that needs little tampering as Quiddler is very successful in achieving what it set out to do. It offers families a very neat educational game that can help children and adults build their vocabulary and make word play a fun activity.

The card format also has many benefits over board-based alternatives like Scrabble as it is far more portable. Going on a family holiday? Quiddler will fit in the kids backpack, Scrabble will not. The inclusion of the letter blend cards (TH, CL etc) are also very supportive for younger minds as they act as ‘jump starters’ for young children that struggle with spelling.

The final tick of approval for Quiddler is that it is very easy to modify the play. If the playgroup has a medium to high-level vocabulary then the players can agree that only words of a certain length can be created. The number of cards per hand can be increased also as players develop their skills. This means that Quiddler can be played by the family for years and the complexity can be raised to extend the players as they develop.

The two bonus scoring rules are also excellent as it gives the players a number of goals each hand and may see players change their hand with each new card drawn. All in all Quiddler has plenty to offer.

Thread: Two games and a new arrival

Bigwood — 2006-07-08T15:20:23+00:00

A little family history first... Late in her second pregnancy, my wife and I started regularly playing a card game or two after our 1 year old son went to bed. We've played Lost Cities, Bohnanza, and Brawl, but her favorite game is Quiddler.

After a late-term ultrasound turned up some worrying surprises, our midwife asked us to come down to the hospital to induce labor. She told us she wanted to start things gently. It might be four to eight hours before things got going. We called my wife's mom (a.k.a. Grandma), threw Quiddler in the suitcase, and headed to the hospital.

After we got settled, we played the first game while waiting for Grandma to arrive. We played with a ten point bonus for longest word. The game went quickly with most hands finishing after two to four turns. My wife dominated the middle of the game, capping her charge with "tuxedo" in the hand of six. (Coincidentally, this was the third time the word "tuxedo" had appeared in as many games.) I managed to go out immediately in the last two hands and her contractions heated up a little, but she kept her wits and beat me by sixty. Wife - 267, Me - 216

Grandma arrived and we explained the rules to her. By this point, my wife was experiencing mild contractions--nothing that would get in the way of another game, though. After making the best of terrible cards for the first few hands, Grandma's background as a fifth grade teacher and voracious reader began to pay off. The contractions were starting to interrupt the game for my wife, but she was still in the lead. Several times in the last few hands, she had to set the cards aside for a minute or so to catch her breath. It came down to the final hand. I went out immediately, but Grandma was able to lay down her hand immediately as well. A close finish, but Grandma won by nine. Grandma - 244, Me - 235, Wife - 200.

We set the cards aside as labor began in earnest. Somehow she made it through the next eight hours without any pain medication (though I could have used something...) As my baby daughter appeared, there were four nurses, two nursing students, one midwife, Grandma, my wife, and me in the delivery room. Sadly, no one was up for post-partum game of Bohnanza.

Thread: Another step in converting the family into gamers

Gnomekin — 2006-04-19T19:31:41+00:00

Over Easter, I visited my brother and parents. At this point, I have become well known in the family as the game player and every time I visit the family, I bring a few games over in order to try and convert my family to my way of thinking. I gave them Ticket To Ride the year it came out and it has made a positive impression.

My father's side has a long history of playing Scrabble so I included Quiddler in my bag when Easter rolled around.

Regrettably, I was able to talk only my mother into playing Quiddler with me. The fact that it is simply a cross between gin rummy and Scrabble made the game very accessable for her. (I had never known that my parents had played rummy but she assured me that my father had a history of being able to track people's hands through the dicard pile.)

For the sake of simplicity, although I mentioned it, we did not play with either the longest or most word bonus.

Which was lucky for me because my scrabble loving mother would have beaten my by even more points. Not only was she able to consistantly find words in her cards in three rounds or less, she also was able to use a number of high scoring letters. In the end, she beat me by over 75 points and was willing to admit that it was a good game.

Ah, one step closer in my evangelical works.

Thread: Re: Playing solo

puella — 2006-04-16T12:16:41+00:00

I find that Quiddler is my favorite game to play solo. It is challenging, and I agree, there are times I have very unusable letters at the end.

Thread: Re: A fun enough word game

kdiddy13 — 2006-03-13T18:28:42+00:00

Oops. You're right. A minor detail for the review, but a major point of the game. Thanks for the correction.

It also leads to the main problem of people racing to go out instead of working for a good hand. Why work for a good hand when going out early increases the chances someone else will loose points? Or why work for a good hand when someone else will probably go out early, leaving you with a hand that doesn't spell anything? Probalby my biggest complaint with this game.

Thread: Re: Playing solo

Marquisx5 — 2006-01-31T02:10:18+00:00

Huh. We've been playing Quiddler for lots of years now, and I never knew there was a solo mode.

Huh.

Thread: Playing solo

fractaloon — 2006-01-30T21:58:14+00:00

Quiddler includes rules for solo play. The game comes in a small box with a deck of cards. Each card has a letter or a couple of letters on it. The game is played by making words out of these cards.

The solo game plays much like spider solitaire. You lay out 8 stacks of cards, each with 6 cards. They are all played face down and the top card in each stack is flipped over.

You then remove cards from the top of the stacks to form words. As you remove the cards, you flip over the now exposed cards and continue making words. If you remove all the cards in a stack, then you can move the top card from another stack to the open spot and flip over the card you just revealed in the other stack.

The game ends when you either use all the words or can't make any more. You win if you use up all the words. This is actually pretty hard. If you aren't careful, you can end up with some unusable letters.

It's a fun game and plays real quick. Each round only lasts a couple of minutes. Like spider solitaire, it's addictive. Every time you lose a hand, you want to play again to see if you can do better the next time.

In summary, it's a neat game to pass some time with.