Shannon Appelcline: However Improbable, Part One: A Look at Classic Deduction Games

Next week, Days of Wonder is releasing their newest deduction game, Mystery Express. Not only did I enjoy it enough to give it a glowing review, but it also got me thinking on the whole theme of deduction games. Thus, I’ve decided to write about the genre a bit, starting in this week’s article with a look at the three games which founded the genre, and which continue to define it, 50+ years later.

This isn’t strictly a historical list of earliest games, as I’ve excluded at least one (Sleuth) which was published in this timeframe, but which isn’t as foundational. I’ll talk about that one when I cover the Clue derivatives. I’ve also probably excluded some lesser-known games, like What’s On My Head?

Battleship (1931)

I’m sure there were earlier parlor games that fit into the “deduction” category, but Battleship is the first mass-produced game which really strikes me as a classic of the genre.
To a certain extent, there’s not much to it. You place battleships on a map, then try to guess where your opponent’s ships are. You’re told if you miss or hit, and also when you’ve sunk a ship. The first one to sink all of an opponent’s ships wins. However, from that limited ruleset comes a game which is truly deductive: starting with a very limited palette of information (the size and allowed orientations of your opponent’s ships) you try and gain more information, in a timed competition against your opponent.

The Good. The core mechanic is original. Overall, this game offers a deft model for including hidden geography in a game, tough one that’s largely limited to two gamers due to the need for maps that can’t be seen by other players. (The idea is easier to model online, and it’s the core of a game my company runs called Galactic Emperor: Hegemony, where each player gets their own view of the galaxy. Most other online multiplayer games use the same model, though few really consider it an element of game.)

The Bad. Battleship is not terribly strategic. The skill of zeroing in on ships really isn’t that tough to acquire, and as a result the game doesn’t feel like it’s playable by anyone but kids.

Overall. Not worth consideration by a serious gamer, but I’d really like designers to take a look at this game, and consider how like mechanics might be used in a more strategic deduction game. It’s still pretty good for kids too. And, it’s got nice bits.

Clue (1948)

The game that most think of when you mention deduction games, and also the basis for many later games (including next week’s Mystery Express) is ultimately Clue (or Cluedo as it’s called in England, playing off of the Latin word, “Ludo”, meaning “I play"). At the start of the game, three cards (Who? Where? How) are taken out of the game from decks on those topics. The rest of the cards are then shuffled up and given out to their players. On his turn a player moves around (via a random die roll) and when he gets into a room he can make a suggestion for those three topics. Other players will then show one of those cards if they have them. Finally, when someone thinks he knows all three elements, he can make a full accusation.

The Good. Clue offers a basis for deduction games that was so good that almost every other major deduction game uses it. It puts forth a real opportunity to solve a mystery. There’s even some opportunity for misleading other players by asking questions that imply certain cards are missing when they actually aren’t.

The Bad. Random movement really underlines the basis of the game in the family genre. The methods for looking at cards aren’t that terribly interesting. You can engage in some strategy by carefully making suggestions that let you look for certain cards, based on what’s in your hand and what you know other people have, but it’s not enough strategy to actually be interesting. You have to sit around and just answer questions if you accuse incorrectly, because you’re otherwise out of the game.

Overall. I’m very thankful that this game exists, because it’s allowed for the creation of much better games. If forced on me at a family gathering, I’d probably be willing to play it.

Mastermind (1971)

The last of my “foundational” games is another one that many of us may have played as kids: Mastermind. But, maybe that just reveals when I was a kid (in the 1970s). It’s most widely called a “code breaking” game. Like Battleship it’s for two players and like Battleship it depends on the geography of two players to maintain some hidden information--though here it’s just a set of four pegs. One player choose a set of four colored pegs, placed in a certain order. The other player then tries to guess them by putting out sequences of four pegs. Each time the code-maker tells him how many of his pegs had both the right position and color and how many just had the right color. Theoretically the two players trade back and forth, scoring based on how fast they guessed the “code”, but practically I remember this game being played in single rounds, where you either got the code or didn’t.

The Good. This is one of the most logical of the deduction games. A limited language is used to good effect to provide enough information to make the game fun, but not enough to give things away. Generally, I think limiting language like this is a great way to build a deduction game. Mechanics of this sort have also been little duplicated in modern games (though I think Reiner Knizia’s Res Publica offers a great example of limiting language in a game; many of the hidden role games like Shadows Over Camelot do the same, but to less good effect because they seem too artificial).

The Bad. Though very analytical, the game is short and light. There’s not a lot to it. It’s been traditionally sold as a kids’ or family game, and a lot of that’s due to depth. The puzzle is also solvable. Various algorithms over the years have pulled the solution to the original puzzle down to five moves or less (though I’m not sure how well a person does with these algorithms, which depend on computers).

Overall. Of all the games I’ve listed this week, this is the one I’d be most likely to play again, though I wouldn’t expect it to have much depth. I also think it, like the core mechanic of Battleship, is just begging to be exploited in newer games.

Around the Corner

I’ve got at least two more articles planned for this series, one focusing on Clue-like games and another focusing on hidden-role games. I’d love to hear your thoughts on top deduction games that should go in those articles, or in other ones that I’ve missed, and of course your thoughts on these three classics as well. I may also write an article on “Forgotten Classics” (like the aforementioned What’s On My Head?) if I get enough suggestions for those.

You can find my article on Mystery Express, the game that got me thinking, over at RPGnet. You may also want to take a look at last week’s review of Terra Prime (the other game by newcomer Tasty Minstrel Games, also the publisher of Homesteaders).

In the meantime I’ll see you back here in 14 days. It’ll be April First, so don’t believe a thing I say.

Comments: