Game: Sleuth

Thread: Re: When the Box Doesn’t Have a Clue

thrasymachus — 2008-09-19T17:10:46+00:00

mkozlows wrote:
(particularly because two people had the same initial, and I forgot to use an alternate initial for one of them once)

I did this the first two turns of my first game...just long enough to no remember who had told me what...that sucked (and boy did I feel dumb!

Thread: Re: wich cards are on the Search Deck????

justrag — 2008-01-30T07:38:47+00:00

For all interested: there's a new file in Sleuth's file section: my own custom 'art' version of both Sleuth decks and scoresheet. The colors are a bit garish, but every card should be perfectly clear. Enjoy. Comments are welcome.

Thread: Re: When the Box Doesn’t Have a Clue

scratchie — 2008-01-28T14:26:11+00:00

This game seems to get exponentially harder as you add more people. Three people could play in fifteen minutes sometimes. I would think that four or five people could finish a game in a half-hour if they were experienced, but I find that most time estimates need to be (at least) doubled when most people are playing any game for the first time.

Thread: Re: wich cards are on the Search Deck????

justrag — 2008-01-28T11:40:42+00:00

Aaaaaand thank you very much, kind sir, very much indeed.

The gold is in the mail.

Thread: Re: wich cards are on the Search Deck????

Coyotek4 — 2008-01-28T10:30:13+00:00

justrag wrote:
So, was I right? Was I wrong? A bit of both?
Someone? Anyone?
No-one?

...

How about a bribe, then?

I'm hereby offering 1 geek gold for complete listing of Sleuth Search deck.

You're correct; the one 'extra' is a total Wild Card. Well done.

Thread: Re: wich cards are on the Search Deck????

justrag — 2008-01-28T09:20:34+00:00

So, was I right? Was I wrong? A bit of both?
Someone? Anyone?
No-one?

...

How about a bribe, then?

I'm hereby offering 1 geek gold for complete listing of Sleuth Search deck.

Thread: Re: When the Box Doesnt Have a Clue

mkozlows — 2008-01-22T17:34:52+00:00

Yeah, recording all information (who has what, who doesn't have what, how much of what who has) is absolutely critical to doing anything meaningful.

I played the game many, many times with four people, and it was great and tense, a real deductive brain-burner.

I played it one time with six people, and it exceeded my ability to make accurate records (particularly because two people had the same initial, and I forgot to use an alternate initial for one of them once); the problem is that once you find you have an inaccurate record in one place, you have no idea how much of your deductive logic is compromised, so you're basically done and might as well make a random guess.

Thread: Re: When the Box Doesn’t Have a Clue

twixter — 2008-01-22T16:57:11+00:00

Thanks for the report! It reminds me of a similar experience with my relatives one Easter. The rules in my edition say that 7 players is a maximum not a minimum. Meticulous record keeping, and a system for recording partial conclusions, both seem to be essential for success at this game. I find the sheets that came with the game are too small for more than 5 players.

Thread: When the Box Doesn’t Have a Clue

fehrmeister — 2008-01-22T16:17:03+00:00

Playing games with my wife’s family for the first few days of the New Year has become a special tradition. There’s usually one day where her sister and brother and their spouses travel from about an hour away to come over to her parents’ for the afternoon and evening to join us in some late Christmas dinner, a good visit, and some games. There were nine of us that day, and everyone seemed to be expecting me to arrange the line-up of games once the dishes were cleared from the table and the little kids were put to bed.

We started with a couple games of Wits and Wagers, which went over very well, followed by a couple games of Incan Gold - also a hit. When it was clear that the guests wanted to stay longer, even though it was close to 11:00 pm, I pulled out one of the only other games I brought which could support at least 7 players: Sleuth. The game box said 30 minutes, and although I hadn’t actually tried this one myself yet, I thought it sounded like what our group might enjoy. My wife’s sister-in-law is a high school teacher and really enjoys activities involving deduction, so I thought she would have fun with it anyway, and at 30 minutes, the rest would be able to handle it even if they didn’t end up liking it.

]]>

The simple rules took a little longer than I thought for everyone to grasp. In fact, there were a couple of people that never quite understood the concept of the Free Choice Search cards, even by the end of the game. But we dealt out the cards (only five Gem cards to each player with 7 players), tucked away the “stolen” gem card, marked the identities of our gem cards on our tracking sheets, looked over our individual sets of starting Search cards, and dove in.

It didn’t take long to realize that this was going to be more difficult than it first appeared. The most significant challenge was keeping our notes organized in such a way that we could make sense of them later. The first question that was asked was using a single attribute Search card, but after that, I think those Search cards were only used once or twice more in the whole game, since people didn’t think it gave them enough information to be worthwhile – it wasn’t as satisfying to record that Craig had 2 diamond gem cards, as to actually look at the one red diamond he might have, and be able to put an “X” on the corresponding space of the tracking sheet. This was an obvious mistake looking back, but we were having such a difficult time tracking the information we were getting that I don’t know how much of a difference it would have made in the end.

]]>

30 minutes in, we weren’t even a quarter of the way through the game, but my teacher sister-in-law was having a blast, and the rest of them were still willing to hang in there and let the game run its course. It became very obvious that the only way this game could take a half-hour would be with 3 people, or at least with several very experienced note-takers, but even then - never with 7. I think there were one or two times were someone responding to a 2-attribute Search query passed the interrogator more than 1 card to look at. Most of the time, we were just recording how many cards were being passed from person to person, if there were any being passed at all. It didn’t take long to start running out of room on our sheets, even using a form of shorthand, and as the game progressed, I thought of a couple of ways I could track information better next time (like marking the initials of who owned each gem beside each “X” on the sheet for example). The fact that each person only held 5 gem cards, that the Search cards rarely lined up with what we actually wanted to ask, and that our note-taking skills had much to be desired meant that 2 hours into our game, the best detectives amongst us still had 12 of the 36 possible gem cards marked as options for which was missing.

The youngest player finally threw in the towel, made a wrong guess, and basically left the game, although she still had to answer questions about her gem cards occasionally. My brother-in-law followed suit soon after, again guessing wrong. My one sister-in-law was still having a blast and was encouraging everyone else to hang in there, but the rest of them were dying for the game to be over, reduced to nervous giggles, giddiness, and lots of sighing. It was almost 1:00 am, and 2 of them still had a long drive ahead of them that night.

Finally, my father-in-law saved the day by making his own guess, after narrowing down the field to about 10 possible gems. He went to the box with the “stolen” card, peeked at the back of the card, and announced that he had guessed right. And so it happened that the person who was probably the least enamored of the game ended up as the victor. The rest of us sank back in our chairs, heaving sighs of relief, and tried to gather up enough energy to walk away from the table.

The general consensus in our discussion afterwards was that this would actually be a pretty fun game if played with 3 or 4 people, where a Search card query could actually turn up a significant number of cards. I’m proud of my relatives for sticking with the game until the end (or near the end) with pretty good attitudes. They’d even be willing to try again if we teamed up into 3 groups of detectives. In fact, my high-school teaching sister-in-law may even buy this game herself.

Even though the experience was long and arduous, we made memories that we probably won’t forget, and that’s worth something in and of itself.

Thread: Re: wich cards are on the Search Deck????

justrag — 2008-01-11T08:59:37+00:00

I don't know either (have never seen or played Sleuth), but let's speculate.

From the reviews and the rulebook we know that there are 3 kinds of Search cards for a total of 54 cards.

First kind, one element cards. That's easy: red green blue yellow diamond opal pearl cluster pair solitaire. 10 cards.

Second kind, two-element cards. That's a bit tougher, let's break it into categories.

A) Color-type. So it's {red,green,blue,yellow} {diamond,opal,pearl}, which gives 4x3=12 cards.

B) Color-configuration. It's {red,green,blue,yellow} {cluster,pair,solitaire}, 12 cards again.

C) Type-configuration. It's {diamond,opal,pearl} {cluster,pair,solitaire}, 3x3=9 cards.

And the third kind is free-choice, just like the one-element cards: free-choice {red,green,blue,yellow,diamond,opal,pearl,cluster,pair,solitaire}, 10 cards.

So the total is now 10+12+12+9+10=53. We're missing one card. That's a "free-choice free-choice" with no characteristics, I think.

Can anyone please check your copy of Sleuth and confirm/deny?

Thread: Re: Sleuthin' and lunchin'

JackFlash — 2008-01-01T00:50:04+00:00

I love Sleuth! I used to play it alot!

Thread: Sleuthin' and lunchin'

gatchaman — 2007-12-31T22:19:04+00:00

We finally pulled out this classic at lunch at work, with five of us. I have the 1971 edition, whoo-hoo! with original score pads, whose last use was probably over a decade ago when we played it as a family.

The sleuthing started out fast and furious. Not really, but what sleuthing ever does? As several people in a row targeted Young-Ki with their questions, I remembered that going after one person can really hose that person, as he gets no information on everyone else's turn. So I avoided picking on Young-Ki as well.

After a few turns for each player, I felt like I was getting close. I knew that three other people did not have the red diamond pair. But did Chi-Ming?

Young-Ki: "Matt, show me your red diamonds."
Me (Matt): "I've got one, here you go."
....
(way after next player has already taken his turn)
...
Chi-Ming: "Wait, did you just ask about red diamonds? Wasn't that already asked? Or was that a similar question to the other Matt? Matt, did you just say you have one red diamond? Really?"

I should have known that was a bad sign.

Chi-Ming: "I'd like to solve."

Phooey, it was in fact the red diamond pair. And Chi-Ming did not have it. The heist was solved.

It worked out well as a lunch game, fitting nicely into a half an hour or 45 minutes even with the brief rules explanation.

Thread: Re: Sid Sackson's Sleuth considered

rootbeer — 2007-12-22T16:58:20+00:00

Hi Seth,

Nice summary of Sleuth. It really needs some whitespace, though. With all those paragraphs bumping up against each other, it's very hard to read.

Just whack the Enter key another time after each paragraph and you're set!

Thread: Sid Sackson's Sleuth considered

wargamer55 — 2007-12-17T04:21:08+00:00

These days game designers are well-known among hobbyists and often have their own followings. Often people will buy a game just because it's designed by Reiner Knizia or Richard Borg.
This is a fairly recent development however, and it used to be rare for game designers to even be credited.
But long before Borg and Knizia -- or even Dunnigan -- Sid Sackson made his mark as the first celebrity game designer. Before his time game designers, if recognized at all, would generally be recognized because of one signature hit. Sackson, while having some major hits such as Acquire and Can't Stop, is also known for the volume, breadth and creativity of his designs. His book Gamut of Games is considered a classic, containing several original designs from him, as well as others. He had a massive collection of games.
Larry Whalen, owner of a Providence game store, formed a game company called face2facegames to bring some of Sackson's designs back into print. Among those is Sackson's deduction game called Sleuth.
Like most Sackson designs, Sleuth is starkly simple in design, yet intriguing. Dispensing with a board (I believe a very early version of the game had a board) the game components comprise two decks of cards, a pad of "Sleuth Investigation Sheets" and the rules (in six languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Korean and Japanese). The cards are completely language independent, so the game works well in any language at all. In English the rules are just over 1,100 words long.
The game is pure deduction. One card is selected from a 36-card deck of gems and hidden, with the most of the remaining cards dealt face down evenly between the 3-7 players and any remainder revealed for all to see. Gems comprise three elements: color, kind and number.
The player knows what he has among his face down cards and whatever was revealed among the leftovers and spends rest of the game trying to figure out what the missing card is.
Questioning isn't free, however. Controlling the scope of the questioning is a 54-card Search Deck. During his turn a player selects a search card from his four-card hand. One interesting point is that the available search cards in a player's hand are face up, so an observant opponent may deduce information from keeping track of which search cards an opponent neglects to use.
Search cards some in three types: One-element, two-element and Free Choice. Play of a one-element card allows a player to ask how many gem cards sharing one feature he holds. For example, If the card says "clusters" then the player has to announce how many gem cards he has that are clusters (three gems -- the other possibilities are pairs and solitaires). This is announced to everybody.
A two-element card narrows the focus of the questioning. The questioner can ask the targeted opponent to hand over (face down) - any gem cards that share both elements. For example, if the card reads "green pearls" then the player might pass over for viewing a green pearl solitaire and a green pearl cluster. (The colors are red, green, yellow and blue; the gems are opals, diamonds and pearls). The questioner records the information and hands the gem cards back. The other players only know how many cards were handed over, but not their identity.
The Free Choice cards, naturally, allow the questioner to choose what kind of card, one-element or two-element, and what characteristics to include. The only restriction is that two of the same characteristic can't be chose, so you can't pick two colors, for example. At the end of his turn a player draws a card from the search deck to replace the card just played.
At any time a player can announce he's going to solve the puzzle and can secretly check the hidden card. If right, the player wins, otherwise the game goes on, with the wrong-guessing player staying involved to answer questions but can't ask any more questions or draw any more search cards.
That's it.
People who like Clue, but want to cut to the chase of deduction without wasting time rolling dice and wandering around the board will like this game. There's just enough of a luck element because of the board play that Clue does not present an exactly equal chance for all the players. Sleuth, on the other hand, is a completely level playing field. While the card draw randomizes things a little, it isn't enough to make a big difference. Winning will primarily revolve around proper sleuthing.
Face2Face Games www.face2facegames.com has provided a real service by bringing this game back into print.

For other game stuff check out my blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: Playing with a regular deck of cards...

richardolen2 — 2007-12-12T06:40:57+00:00

Deduce Or Die will melt your brain away into nothingness.

In a good way.

I highly recommend it, if you're looking for an incredible deduction game you can play with cards.

Thread: Re: Playing with a regular deck of cards...

coolpapa — 2007-12-12T02:53:59+00:00

You might take a look at Deduce or Die. It's one I've wanted to play for a while, so I can't give any personal testimonials, but I expect nothing but good things.

Thread: Playing with a regular deck of cards...

El Diabolo — 2007-12-12T02:18:22+00:00

It seems as though it would be possible to devise a version of this great game using a regular deck of cards. Before I go out and reinvent the wheel I thought I would see if anyone knows if this has already been worked out. The game Liar!seems very close.

Image

fehrmeister — 2007-12-05T05:32:33+00:00

Examples of the Two Element, Free Choice, and One Element Search Deck Cards

Image

fehrmeister — 2007-12-05T04:56:20+00:00

Sample Gem Cards Showing Each of the Three Types of Gems

Image

William Hunt — 2007-10-25T12:47:17+00:00

cover of the French box

Thread: Re: Does Slueth work with just 2 players?

cull — 2007-07-02T03:55:45+00:00

I tried hiding 3 gems. It works with 2 players, but maybe 4 gems would be even better.

My wife and I played Sleuth tonight. We made the following changes to the rules:

- Hide 3 gems.
- Both people get 13 gems.

It worked but was still over a little too quickly, maybe 15 minutes (I didn't keep track). Next time we'll try hiding 4 gems and giving ourselves 14 cards each.

For both of us, it was our first time ever playing this game. We did have the feeling it would be a little better with more than 2 players, but it was still a good deduction game, although relatively light with hiding 3 gems.

Thread: Light review of Sleuth

Boltana — 2007-05-21T23:28:52+00:00

In Sleuth players take the part of a detective and attempt to determine the missing gem by questioning the other players.

Components: 6.5

The game consists of 2 card decks. 36 Gem cards and 54 Search cards.
The Gem deck contains 1 card for each combination of the 3 different gems (diamonds, opals and pearl) in each setting (solitare, pair or cluster) and color (red, blue, green, yellow).

The Search deck consists of 3 cards (one element, two element and free choice). The cards determine what type of questions a player can ask of another player.

The cards are a good thickness and should hold up to repeated use without significant wear and tear. The graphics used for the Gem cards are a bit of disapointment to me. I know that they are intended to be language independent, but they are very confusing. Each gem card has a unique image at its center that is surrounded by a graphic with all three gem types displayed. Even after more than a half dozen plays, I'v found that my eye keeps straying over to this centeral border and causing me to check each card 2-3 times to make sure I am recording the information correctly. I have found that by ignoring the central grpahic entirely and instead looking at the top left or bottom right corner shows a much smaller representaion for the gem card without this graphic.

Rules: 6.5

The rule book is another let down. Most of the rules are straight forward, but the rules concerning dealing out the Search cards appears to contain a typo. In the rules it tells the dealer to shuffle and then deal 4 Search cards face up to each player. But later it says that on a players turn they should play one Search card face up in the center of the table. If the cards are all face up to begin with then I'd expect it to say the card should just be played in the center of the table, but not have to point out it remaining face up. We have taken to playing with our Search cards face down until played. Either way it does not seem to effect the game play.

As for the rules:
At the start of play, the dealer draws one card at random and places it aside. This gem is now the missing gem whose identity all players are attempting to discover. Next a number of the remaining cards are dealt to the players with odd number cards placed face up in the middle of the table.

Next each player receives 4 Search cards. Each turn a player may either play one search card to question another player or discard all 4 of his Search cards to draw 4 replacement cards.

Play continues until a player beleives they know the identity of the missing Gem. They may do this at any time, not having to wait for thier next turn. They announce to the other players the identity of the Gem and check the previously place aside Gem. If they are correct they have won. If not they are out of the game, but must continue to answer questions of the other players, but taking no more turns themselves.

Gameplay: 7

If a player uses a one element card he may ask another player how many Gem cards that player has that match the search criteria on the card (ex Yellow). The questioned player must then announce this number to all the players.

If a player uses a two element card, the player of thier choice must announce the number of cards that match the 2 criteria on the search card and then show the active player the Gem cards they have that match.

Free choice cards allow the active player some flexibiity. They may use them either as a one or two element card. Most of these cards have one fixed search criteria and allow the player to choose the second criteria (if used as a two element card). There are also Free choice cards with no preselected criteria, which allow a player to pick both elements if they wish to use it as a two element card.

Overall: 6.5

This proved to be an enjoyable light weight game that could really be played in 15-20 minutes for 3 players. I'm looking forward to playing this with a larger group and trying out the more challenging game where players attempt to identify two Gems.

Thread: Re: Sleuth: Review & Comparison to Clue and Mystery of the A

Vince Londini — 2007-05-07T19:45:50+00:00

HiveGod,

You make a great point about theme - I'm in the camp of liking Sleuth, but I also enjoy my "dumb fun," too!

Thank YOU for the feedback on the ideas,
Vince

Thread: Re: Sleuth: Review & Comparison to Clue and Mystery of the Abbey

HiveGod — 2007-05-07T17:37:37+00:00

I like Sleuth--a lot--and will play it at the drop of a hat. The one thing it's lacking is an engrossing sense of theme. Clue and Mystery of the Abbey have layers of artificiality beyond the deduction element that allow for role-playing, or, to put it more simply, dumb fun.

Sleuth, in doing away with such artificiality, feels very much stripped down. This isn't a bad thing, just different... While it may be the 'purest' of the three, it is also the most dry. As a mental heavy-lifting exercise, as a raw puzzle, it's really only for those who can see the beauty in such things and get all hard/wet for it.

I've never seen someone merely shrug their shoulders at Sleuth--they either love it or hate it. Me, I love it. Most of my group does not.

Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking analysis!

Chris

Thread: Sleuth: Review & Comparison to Clue and Mystery of the Abbey

Vince Londini — 2007-05-06T23:31:02+00:00

Sleuth
A Review & Comparison

Basic overview
Sleuth is a deduction game that uses two sets of cards to provide both the mystery and guide the detectives' information gathering. The jewel deck consists of every combination of 3 gems (diamond, opal, pearl), 3 settings (solitaire, pair, cluster), and 4 colors (red, blue, green, yellow). The question deck consists of cards that specify either one or two variables. A one variable card allows the sleuth to ask an opponent a question like "How many Green items do you have?" A two variable card empowers a more detailed query such as "How many opal clusters do you have?"

Game play
One card from the jewel deck is removed from play, this is the combination that needs to be guessed. All remaining cards are dealt evenly to the players with leftovers exposed for all to see. Each player draws 4 question cards. The provided matrix/worksheet allows sleuths to track which cards are in play and thus hopefully deduce which card is missing.

Each player's turn consists of playing a question card, asking the corresponding question to one opponent, making notes, then drawing a replacement question card as the signal to the next player to begin.

Comparison to Clue and Mystery of the Abbey
Deduction games vary by number of variables, quantity of variation within each variable, and mechanism that restricts the players' cross-examination of each other. Yes, restricts. Moving around the board in Clue or MotA isn't about making the questioning easier. In a game where opponents must answer truthfully, players would quickly devise the optimal set of questions and the game would devolve into little more than an exercise. The questioning mechanism makes the game interesting and will probably determine its replayability. Whereas the variables and variation primarily affect game length.

With Clue, players must discover which three cards are missing, one from each of the 6 weapons, 9 rooms, and 6 suspects. Clue limits the interrogations by requiring the player's marker to rest in the specific room mentioned in the question. The die-roll required to move the varying lengths between the rooms introduces a random (shall we say) frustration.

In Mystery of the Abbey, players must discover one specific combination of 3 religious orders, 3 religious ranks, 2 body-types, 2 head adornments, and 2 options for facial hair. MotA requires that players only cross-examine an opponent whose token rests in the same room/location as the player's token.

MotA rules limit the number of variables that can be specified in the question, but otherwise the player formulates a query to learn what exists in the opponent's hand or gathered knowledge. Instead of directly querying the opponent's hand, Clue requires detectives to suggest a specific combination of the variables for rebuttal.

Sleuth dispenses with the board and limits the question to variables listed on a question card in the player's possession. More like MotA, players use this card to directly query the opponent's hand (but not knowledge). Unlike MotA, players may ask their question of any opponent. Sleuth's question cards introduce the challenge of determining which one of the four question cards when asked to which opponent will yield the most information.

Our choice
Of the three, Sleuth may be our favorite. Two reasons: Just the right number and variation of variables (game length), and enjoyable challenges using the question cards while also making correct deductions from answers to other players' questions (replayability).

Image

EBAl — 2007-04-27T18:56:34+00:00

Image

EBAl — 2007-04-27T18:56:17+00:00

Image

EBAl — 2007-04-27T18:55:56+00:00

Image

Flix — 2007-03-04T22:29:42+00:00

Better quality picture of German box art

Image

Flix — 2007-03-04T21:05:49+00:00

The beautiful card tray of the German edition

Image

bill_andel — 2007-02-07T02:42:53+00:00

Custom clue sheet (play aid)

Thread: Sleuth - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-03T02:07:08+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.

In Sleuth each player takes on the role of a detective (surprised you didn’t I ?!). The crime is the theft of a missing gem and the first detective to identify its exact nature will win the game.

Sleuth consists of 36 Gem Cards. The gem types include diamonds, pearls and opals and each gem can be blue, green, red or yellow. Each gem can then be a single gem, double gem or a cluster (3). This makes for 36 possible combinations that the players must work through. This may not sound too daunting but of course each player is racing to identify the missing gem before the other players.

The game begins with 1 gem card being placed aside face-down to represent the missing gem. The rest of the gem deck is then dealt amongst the players and these cards can be eliminated immediately by the players that hold them. Each player receives a deduction sheet, which can be used to help eliminate gems although some people find it easier to use their own methods on a blank piece of paper.

The deck also consists of search cards and each player receives 4 of these face-up in front of them for the whole table to see. On a player’s turn they can choose to use one of their search cards to question another player. The search cards come in 3 types. One element search cards allow a player to ask anyone else about 1 feature of a gem in their hand. For example they could ask if they are holding any diamond cards or any cluster gems. A two element search card is more powerful as it allows two features to be asked about such as ‘do you have a double opal card’ or ‘do you have any green opals?’ The third type of search card is a free choice card and these can be used to ask a one or two element question. All used search cards are discarded and a new one is drawn from the deck.

A player can also choose to use none of their search cards and discard them to draw four new ones. At any point during the game a player can elect to guess the missing gem (even out of turn). The player then checks the card secretly and reveals it if they are correct. If they are incorrect they are eliminated from the game and must return the card face-down. However they must still answer questions posed by the other players.

The Final Word

Sleuth is as simple to learn and play as the above outline is to read. This allows the game to be played within 10 minutes of opening the box, a major strength. In addition, players will find Sleuth an extremely difficult game to master and over time the players will learn to refine their questioning techniques.

Incorrectly recording evidence gathered or making false deductions can be frustrating as it will usually end in defeat, but that is the nature of the beast. Sleuth is as much fun with 3 players as it is with 7 and it lends itself well to party environments. It is certainly more challenging with more players so young children may prefer to play 3-4 player games. Sleuth is an elegant deduction game and people that like the process of elimination and problem solving will find Sleuth a treat!

Thread: Re: Six Players + Three Cards Missing = An Even Better Game!

Armadi — 2006-06-18T17:04:37+00:00

I've heard that play time can be lengthy with more than four players, how long was this game? Based on your statement that you had about an hour to play, I'm guessing that the playtime was less than an hour.

Thread: Six Players + Three Cards Missing = An Even Better Game!

Chuckles — 2006-06-18T12:47:48+00:00

Hard to believe that I've loved this game for 25 years and have never played a six-player game. When we had about an hour to play last Saturday, and no other short games available, Sleuth was nominated, and I had a first-time experience with this hallowed game.

My goodness; great as this game is with 4-5 players, it kicks serious ass, in a different way, with six. We play with three cards missing, so of the 36 cards in the deck, we each held 5 (5 x 6 = 30), three were missing, and three were face up.

With four players, the process of finding the missing cards (we always play with three gone) is usually one of finding, one by one, the cards that no one else holds. With five players, there's a little bit of "deduce people's hands and get the missing cards by elimination."

But with six players, this latter, indirect, far more creative element really takes over. It is incredibly slow going to figure out that each of your five opponents isn't holding a particular card. So you wind up finding it more efficient to figure out each opponent's five-card hand.

I screwed up early in this game, asking a question I already knew the answer to (duh!). So I figured I'd be in trouble, but then the game grew so complex I knew that I'd be able to come back. A mistake in a four-person game isn't so forgiving, because everyone is going to be able to deduce relatively quickly.

By about halfway through the game, I knew Ron's distribution of cards among singles, pairs, and clusters. I also knew Stephanies between diamonds, opals, and pearls. This info helped me make a lot of indirect deductions. By about 2/3 of the way through the game, I had Ed's hand filled out, soon to be followed by Ben's.

I had Ron and Stephanie down to one card each, and each of those single cards were in one of two places. I was still some way from getting Nora's hand, at the time that I knew two of the three missing gems.

Then it came to me in a flash: on my notes it became apparent that whichever of two pearl pairs was NOT being held be Stephanie was the answer. And I didn't even need to use the tactic of picking my own question; I had the card to ask it. It was not necessary for me to figure out Ron's last card, or Nora's last two, as they had the other three cards not identified on my sheet.

That enabled me to get the answer, and to win.

I immediately screwed up by announcing the answer, forgetting that we play for second, third, fourth, etc. Inconsiderate jerk! But it turned out that three of my opponents (Nora, Stephanie and Ed) had already written down one erroneous choice, and thus weren't going to get it anyway. Ron wasn't anywhere close, didn't have any of the three cards, though he didn't have any clear mistakes yet. Ben had two of the three missing cards, and was clearly in second place.

As much as I love this game with fewer players, I'm going to try to play it with six whenever I can. It kicks serious ass as a six-player game.

Image

DukeOfEarl — 2006-06-05T10:18:01+00:00

Cards used in the German "Diamantenjagd" edition

Thread: Sleuth - Session Report

gschloesser — 2006-04-08T13:09:31+00:00

Originally released in 1967 by the 3M Game Company, Sleuth is a masterful deduction game from master designer Sid Sackson. Players must deduce the identity of a missing gem by skillful questioning of their opponents, using logic and the powers of deduction.
Only one will prove to possess the skills to earn the title “master sleuth”.

I must confess that I am absolutely HORRIBLE at this game. I played it numerous over the decades and have always lost. Always. I’m fairly certain that there are police forces that are very thankful that I never pursued by childhood dream of becoming a detective!
Still, in spite of my clear lack of deductive skills, I admire the purity of the game’s design.

After being out-of-print for far too long, Sleuth has been given new life by Face2Face Games. The new edition features redesigned packaging and cards, which while more attractive, are a bit less clear than the very plain cards in the 3M versions. It also includes a thick rulebook, which at first glance is quite formidable, until you realize that it includes the instructions in six different languages. The actual rules are quite brief, and easy to understand.

The deck of cards is divided into two components: gem cards and search cards. The gem deck consists of 36 cards in four colors (red, yellow, green and blue). Each color has three gem types – diamonds, opals and pearls – and each of these is subdivided into settings – solitaires, pairs and clusters. These are shuffled and one is secretly removed, with the remainder being distributed amongst the players.

The search deck contains cards which dictate the questions a player may ask of his opponents. They, too, come in several varieties. “One element” cards allow the player to ask an opponent to reveal the number of cards he possesses that depict either a type of gem, or a type of setting. The opponent must announce the number of cards he possesses that match the criteria to all players. “Two element” cards are a bit more specific, as the cards specify two criteria (blue opals, yellow pearls, etc.). The targeted opponent announces the total he possesses to everyone, but passes the matching cards to the active player. In this manner, the player gets specific information, while everyone else gets general information. There are also “free choice” cards which gives the player a bit more freedom when asking his question. A player discards the card after asking a questions, drawing a replacement from the search deck.

Each player is given a information sheet upon which he can record the answers given by opponents. The idea is to develop a system whereby answers can be cryptically recorded, helping to eliminate cards that are in the possession of the players. The ultimate goal, of course, is to eliminate all but one card, thereby correctly identifying the card that was removed at the beginning of the game.

The recording of information on the sheet is critical. Players must combine the information gleaned from the responses to the wide range of questions being asked, using logic and deduction to discern the identity of the cards being held by the players. Information which may seem useless early may later be combined with other information to help identify cards. Fitting these pieces of the puzzle together is the key to skillful play, and is obviously a skill in which I am woefully lacking.

When a player feels he has discerned the identity of the missing gem, he can declare this at any time, even if it is not his turn. If he is incorrect, he cannot win, but must still answer questions when asked. If correct, he is elevated to the “chief of detectives” position … and wins the game.

Sleuth is direct, pure and simple to play. While players are limited in the questions they can ask by the search cards they possess, deductive reasoning and logic will prevail over any luck factors. While the game can accommodate up to seven players, it last far too long with that many involved. It truly shines with 3 or 4 players.

While deductive games are not my forte, Sleuth is one of the best – if not THE best – of the genre. Fans of deduction and logic puzzles should certainly investigate this gem of a game.

We really should have conceded the game from the beginning, as Jim declared that he played the game dozens of time in the past, proving this by showing us his well-worn 3M edition. Ever the fools, we opted to proceed. I actually felt I was doing quite well, using what I thought was a clever coding system to record the answers and identify the cards being held by my opponents. However, Jim spoiled my fleeting hope by correctly identifying the missing gem – the blue opal cluster – while I still had ten possible gems listed on my information sheet.

Ratings: Kevin 6.5, everyone else 6

Thread: Re: Best number of players?

Lord_Piet — 2006-03-31T01:46:44+00:00

The normal game is great with 5 players. With 4 (or 3) we remove 2 cards and that makes the game much better and less random with fewer players.

Thread: Re: Best number of players?

Akke — 2005-11-17T06:41:39+00:00

Ik works with six, but then the game is much longer and more difficult.
Three players is often too short and easy (depending on how the cards are distributed).
For the best experience I'd suggest playing the first few games with 4 players.

Thread: Best number of players?

Sonja — 2005-11-17T06:08:28+00:00

What's the ideal number of players to play Sleuth with? Does it work well with 6, for example?

Thread: Re: Can it work?

Eduardoh — 2005-10-11T11:34:04+00:00

Sure. That´s what I was expecting of it. I wanned a more direct deduction and logic game than MoA, wich has a lot of going there, then to that other place, then you have to chase the righ person...and that damn chaos of passing cards. :/

Well, I think we´ll like Sleuth.

Thanks
Eduardo

Thread: Re: Can it work?

Phlegm — 2005-10-10T22:24:46+00:00

Sleuth has it's own brand of questioning. More direct and with less wasting of time spent moving around a board.

I've played both and prefer Sleuth. It's similar to MotA but without all the frills. It'a a classic deduction game. You don't have to fiddle around moving around the board. You spend your time trying to figure out the problem which is what the premise of the game is about, right?

Thread: Can it work?

Eduardoh — 2005-10-10T12:22:33+00:00

Well, my group is in love with Mistery of the Abbey, but we would like to try a game without the chaos of MoA.

So, I was thinking, can Sleuth work with the questioning mechanich of MoA?

I ask this, because that questioning stuff in MoA is a lot of fun, and everyone seemed to enjoy a lot.

Thanks
Eduardo

Thread: Re: Does Slueth work with just 2 players?

quozl — 2005-10-05T17:14:10+00:00

I was wondering if it might work with three hidden gems.

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Armadi — 2005-09-10T15:35:48+00:00

I learned this game at a wonderful home in Lake St. Louis- owned by the extraordinary host and hostess Jay and Sarah Moore (MUkid and MUgal). A brilliant and courteous fellow named Chester Ogborn taught the game. Why do you ask?

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

cornjob — 2005-09-09T04:34:52+00:00

Hey congrats, man! Where did you learn this game?

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Armadi — 2005-09-06T21:27:33+00:00

Thanks, Coyote4k for the excellent puzzles. Now that I have some gg I may create a puzzle myself. And hopefully we'll see quite a few people posting puzzles. I really need the mental workout since I feel like I'm approaching senility already (currently 30 years old).

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-06T21:09:19+00:00

Well done, Armadi! You are absolutely correct!

1 GG for you. As for the next puzzle ... it may be a bit, but stay tuned.

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Armadi — 2005-09-06T17:46:48+00:00

OK I have the correct answer.

[o]The 6 remaining gems are all diamond. They are the green solitaire, red solitaire, blue pair, green pair, green cluster and yellow cluster.
The gems that can be in both opponents' hands are the green solitaire and cluster and the yellow cluster. The yellow diamond cluster is the missing gem. [/o]

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-06T01:49:19+00:00

Again, a close call ... looks like everyone's at least agreed on the single characteristic shared by the six remaining gems ... but there's still work to do.

By now, you could probably guess (after enough tries) the correct answer, so to be on the safe side, it would help if you could identify all six remaining gems, indicating which of them is, in fact the correct answer.

Keep trying! If everyone gives up, I will post my solution.

Thx again for the show of interest!

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

cornjob — 2005-09-05T19:52:06+00:00

[BGCOLOR=#339999]Red Diamond Pair.....last six are diamonds.

I have to admit, this is a bit of a guess since I got things crossed up when I got down to the last 8. I think I was able to successfully backtrack and fix it...but not so sure.[/BGCOLOR]

I did mine a funky way...but you can still read it.

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-05T15:55:51+00:00

Good tries, but neither quite hits the mark.

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

joelee — 2005-09-03T17:03:09+00:00

[o]Blue Diamond Pair is what I come up with.[/o]

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Cilamene — 2005-09-03T09:46:56+00:00

[o](a) Missing gem: red diamond solitaire.
(b) The last 6 gems are all diamonds.[/o]

I *think* that's what my deduction tells me, but my brain is wrapped up in knots right now. Good fun though (right or wrong) and thanks for posting this!

Thread: Re: New Sleuth puzzle, with 1 GG for the first solver.

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-02T23:59:41+00:00

Well that one didn't last too long. Try the new one, also for 1 GG:

http://boardgamegeek.com/geekforum.php3?action=viewthread&th...

Enjoy!

Thread: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #3

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-02T23:56:39+00:00

No delay for this one, as the opponent count rises.

What follows is a stand-alone, solitaire version of the game. You'll be told your own cards (as well as any shown to all), and clues as to the cards of your 'opponents'. (Clues with parentheses after them indicate specific cards that you know; in these cases, you may assume that the opponent in question does NOT have the other cards.) Using the information given, you'll have to determine the missing gem.

If there is enough interest in this puzzle, I'll make up more, increasing the difficulty along the way. (If anyone else is inspired to follow suit, I would welcome the opportunity to solve others' puzzles.)

Key:

Bl = Blue
Gr = Green
Rd = Red
Yl = Yellow
Dia = Diamond
Opl = Opal
Prl = Pearl
Sol = Solitaire
Pair = Pair
Clus = Cluster

Puzzle #3 (Difficulty: Medium)

5-player game (You, 'Al', 'Bert', 'Charlie', 'Duggie')

Your Cards:
Bl Dia Sol
Yl Dia Pair
Rd Opl Sol
Yl Opl Clus
Gr Prl Pair
Rd Prl Pair
Bl Prl Clus

Clues from Al:
1 Bl Prl (Pair)
2 Gr Sol
1 Dia
2 Rd
1 Gr Clus (Pearl)
3 Pair
1 Opl Pair
1 Prl Clus
0 Opl Clus
2 Gr Opl

Clues from Bert:
1 Sol
0 Prl Pair
3 Yl
2 Bl
1 Yl Clus
1 Yl Dia (Solitaire)
0 Dia Pair
1 Bl Pair
1 Dia Clus
1 Opl Clus (Red)

Clues from Charlie:
0 Opl Sol
0 Bl Clus
1 Prl Sol (Blue)
2 Prl
2 Gr
2 Gr Dia
1 Rd Opl (Pair)
1 Rd Dia
1 Yl Pair
1 Rd Clus

Clues from Duggie:
0 Gr Prl
4 Opl
3 Clus
0 Rd Pair
0 Grn Pair
1 Yl Prl
0 Rd Prl
0 Bl Dia
1 Bl Sol
1 Dia Sol

From these clues, you can now deduce all the cards in two opponents' hands, four out of seven cards from a third opponent's hand, and five out of seven cards from the remaining opponent's hand. There are now SIX remaining possible solutions.

Of these six gems, three could theoretically appear in either of the two remaining opponents' hands. Of these three, two are the same color; the third of these is the missing gem.

For full credit, identify (a) the missing gem, and (b) the characteristic that all six of the remaining gems shared.

As was the case with the previous puzzle, I was given a kind tip of 1 GG from Spielfreak; I am happy to 'pay it forward' to the first person who can successfully solve this puzzle. Simply reply to this post (perhaps in invisible type, so others may enjoy solving), and the first person to correctly identify the answers to parts (a) and (b) will receive this tip. (If Spielfreak himself is the first, then congrats again!)

Enjoy!

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #2

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-02T21:26:07+00:00

Well done, Mr. Werner (aka: louper). You are absolutely correct.

And thank you, Spielfreak, for the tip. Guess I got incentive to make up another puzzle in the near future.

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #2

Spielfreak — 2005-09-02T21:15:12+00:00

louper wrote:
Thanks for an entertaining diversion!

Highlight below for solution:

[o]The 3 possible gems are:

Blue Opal Pair
Red Diamond Solitaire
Red Opal Solitaire

All of Al's hand is known, so the only one of these that could be in Bert's or Charlie's hands is the Red Diamond Solitaire, so that must be the missing gem.[/o]

Yep, looks good to me. Congratulations!

Thanks again, Mike, for another wonderful puzzle!!

Thread: Re: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #2

louper — 2005-09-02T20:36:05+00:00

Thanks for an entertaining diversion!

Highlight below for solution:

The 3 possible gems are:

Blue Opal Pair
Red Diamond Solitaire
Red Opal Solitaire

All of Al's hand is known, so the only one of these that could be in Bert's or Charlie's hands is the Red Diamond Solitaire, so that must be the missing gem.

Thread: New Sleuth puzzle, with 1 GG for the first solver.

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-02T19:44:26+00:00

It's been awhile since I posted my first-ever Solitaire Sleuth puzzle; as I only recently checked my Inbox (and found over 200 replies to posts), I only now found that there were many who enjoyed solving my little puzzle.

Thus, I posted a new puzzle in the 'Variants' portion of the 'Sleuth' section of BGG:

http://boardgamegeek.com/geekforum.php3?action=viewthread&th...

In addition, as I was tipped by Spielfreak for my troubles, I am passing on the GG to the first person who correctly solves the new challenge.

Enjoy!

Thread: Solitaire Sleuth, Puzzle #2

Coyotek4 — 2005-09-02T19:35:04+00:00

I received some very nice positive feedback from my last puzzle (though it took me this long to check my Inbox), so I decided to create a new, slightly more difficult one. Hope you enjoy!

What follows is a stand-alone, solitaire version of the game. You'll be told your own cards (as well as any shown to all), and clues as to the cards of your 'opponents'. (Clues with parentheses after them indicate specific cards that you know; in these cases, you may assume that the opponent in question does NOT have the other cards.) Using the information given, you'll have to determine the missing gem.

If there is enough interest in this puzzle, I'll make up more, increasing the difficulty along the way. (If anyone else is inspired to follow suit, I would welcome the opportunity to solve others' puzzles.)

Key:

Bl = Blue
Gr = Green
Rd = Red
Yl = Yellow
Dia = Diamond
Opl = Opal
Prl = Pearl
Sol = Solitaire
Pair = Pair
Clus = Cluster

Puzzle #2 (Difficulty: Medium)

4-player game (You, 'Al', 'Bert', 'Charlie')

Face-up Cards:
Rd Opl Pair
Yl Opl Pair
Rd Prl Pair

Your Cards:
Bl Dia Sol
Rd Dia Pair
Bl Dia Clus
Gr Dia Clus
Yl Opl Sol
Bl Opl Clus
Rd Prl Sol
Yl Prl Clus

Clues from Al:
2 Bl
6 Prl
3 Prl Clus
0 Opl
2 Yl
4 Clus
1 Gr Sol
1 Gr Pair
0 Prl Sol

Clues from Bert:
1 Rd Clus
1 Gr Clus (Opal)
3 Pair
1 Yl
2 Gr Opl (Pair, Cluster)
2 Rd
1 Bl Dia
0 Yl Dia
1 Prl
1 Bl Pair

Clues from Charlie:
1 Gr
0 Yl Clus
0 Rd Opl
1 Clus
2 Yl Sol
0 Prl Pair
1 Dia Pair
0 Gr Prl
2 Opl Sol
1 Bl Prl

From these clues, you can now deduce all the cards in ONE opponent's hand, and seven out of eight cards from each of the other two players' hands.

Now, as it turns out, exactly ONE of the remaining THREE possible gems could theoretically be in the hand of EITHER of the two remaining opponents. THIS, it turns out, is the missing gem!

For full credit, identify (a) the missing gem, and (b) the other two gems that could solve the puzzle, before the final piece of information given above.

I was given a kind tip of 1 GG from Spielfreak; I am happy to 'pay it forward' to the first person who can successfully solve this puzzle. Simply reply to this post (perhaps in invisible type, so others may enjoy solving), and the first person to correctly identify the answers to parts (a) and (b) will receive this tip. (If Spielfreak himself is the first, then congrats again!)

Enjoy!