by mfaulk80
Yes. That's one of the main reasons to get that ability...↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Flexible upgrade question - no spoilers all info discussed is on components visible upon box opening.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by DavidT
pmbrill77 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
kbrigan wrote:
getdafunkout wrote:
I hope that Rob and Matt continue to make the games they are passionate about making.
Agreed. I think that's one of the reasons the artificial imposition of component destruction interrupts the game so much for me. It feels like they decided to go with a single-use version without really thinking about other possibilities, i.e. assuming that since Risk Legacy was single use so P:L must be, too.
It's difficult to swallow the double-standard here. When people suggest playing the game as-designed is the optimal way to play the game, you take great offense because you believe people should be able to play the game however they want (which, aside from the indignation, is a premise I agree with).
But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
She did not say the designers were not thinking.
She said "without really thinking about other possibilities". Her use implies, to me, that she believes they were only thinking of one possibility: a close duplication of Risk: Legacy.
If you suggest game designers are so narrowly focused that they designed a game without thinking of any other way it could possibly be designed, that's essentially suggesting they were not thinking about the design. To design something requires a consideration of all the various ways it could be designed.
I believe I responded to her post in context.
pmbrill77 wrote:
I do not believe she is correct, but I do not believe she is trying to insult the gods of Pandemic: Legacy that must be obeyed or the mountains shall shake.
I don't think she is trying to insult anyone, either. I never said she was.
As for gods and shaking mountains, misplaced sarcasm noted.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by DavidT
gmc14 wrote:
mournful wrote:
...I'm not sure if anyone has answered the OP's
question.
The answer is: it is not difficult to do. It will just slow playtime a bit. However, having finished the game after a marathon session, I will be playing the next version with a notebook.
Here's how.
Get a notebook. Most changes that occur can be written down and checked in between games. If you sleeve the cards, you can put little pieces of paper in there as notes, instead of putting stickers on them.
Change "Destroy" to "put back in the box." and you're good to go.
question.
The answer is: it is not difficult to do. It will just slow playtime a bit. However, having finished the game after a marathon session, I will be playing the next version with a notebook.
Here's how.
Get a notebook. Most changes that occur can be written down and checked in between games. If you sleeve the cards, you can put little pieces of paper in there as notes, instead of putting stickers on them.
Change "Destroy" to "put back in the box." and you're good to go.
It feels pertinent to refer back to this every few pages, in case someone stumbles in here actually looking for an answer to the question posed in the Thread title.
Good grief, you're a bit premature then. That post is just one page back (~10 posts before yours), and it was neither the first nor the most helpful post directly addressing the OP's original question.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by kbrigan
DavidT wrote:
...But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
My point is (and, since Z-man et al. are pretending these conversations don't exist, we can't know what their thinking is or has been for certain) that there's never been any explanation for why they went with a single-use version, other than that they're invoking the Risk: Legacy "tradition" associated with Daviau. Why Daviau went with a single-use version for Risk: Legacy probably has to do with the rip-up-the-card buzz some people experience when playing a single-use game. There's been no discussion about that aspect of Pandemic: Legacy from Z-man or Matt Leacock. They've emphasized the campaign aspects and branching results throughout the series of games, but said very little about the destruction of the components or why that's happening. I've been trying to not assume the worse (i.e. they did it to try to sell more games), but that may be the case. Or, they may be in the ~half of board gamers who "get" the ripped-up-card-buzz. I don't know. It does seem from out here that the regular players of Pandemic, i.e. who are familiar with the expansions, are "replayers," who want more than 24 plays of this format. But, I don't have the cash or time to launch a marketing study, so who can say for sure. I do hope someone does a panel discussion or interview with the designers/producers where these questions are asked.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by pmbrill77
DavidT wrote:
pmbrill77 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
kbrigan wrote:
getdafunkout wrote:
I hope that Rob and Matt continue to make the games they are passionate about making.
Agreed. I think that's one of the reasons the artificial imposition of component destruction interrupts the game so much for me. It feels like they decided to go with a single-use version without really thinking about other possibilities, i.e. assuming that since Risk Legacy was single use so P:L must be, too.
It's difficult to swallow the double-standard here. When people suggest playing the game as-designed is the optimal way to play the game, you take great offense because you believe people should be able to play the game however they want (which, aside from the indignation, is a premise I agree with).
But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
She did not say the designers were not thinking.
She said "without really thinking about other possibilities". Her use implies, to me, that she believes they were only thinking of one possibility: a close duplication of Risk: Legacy.
If you suggest game designers are so narrowly focused that they designed a game without thinking of any other way it could possibly be designed, that's essentially suggesting they were not thinking about the design. To design something requires a consideration of all the various ways it could be designed.
I believe I responded to her post in context.
pmbrill77 wrote:
I do not believe she is correct, but I do not believe she is trying to insult the gods of Pandemic: Legacy that must be obeyed or the mountains shall shake.
I don't think she is trying to insult anyone, either. I never said she was.
As for gods and shaking mountains, misplaced sarcasm noted.
Lastly, I would wonder why rules errata, clarifications and changes would be necessary in this world of "design covers all possible ways to have designed" not to mention 2nd editions and 3rd editions where they tightened up a couple of loose rules or added new mechanics. Apparently original Pandemic was poorly designed as they did not consider the destruction of game components as a design consideration back in the dawn of the century.
If "not thinking of all possibilities" = "not thinking" and "thinking" = "thinking of everything" are the only two options, then we are certainly done here and my sarcasm is then not misplaced. If my sarcasm was over the top, misplaced or not, I apologize and will hold my tongue in the future.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Feb question- placing disease markers and a particular role ability - SPOILERS
by RoccoTerrier
Where do you place the Quarantine instruction sticker that explains the quarantine rule? It is a peel off sticker but there didn't seem to be any directions as to where to put it. Does it go in the upper left box on the game board?↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by DavidT
kbrigan wrote:
DavidT wrote:
...But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
My point is (and, since Z-man et al. are pretending these conversations don't exist, we can't know what their thinking is or has been for certain) that there's never been any explanation for why they went with a single-use version, other than that they're invoking the Risk: Legacy "tradition" associated with Daviau. Why Daviau went with a single-use version for Risk: Legacy probably has to do with the rip-up-the-card buzz some people experience when playing a single-use game. There's been no discussion about that aspect of Pandemic: Legacy from Z-man or Matt Leacock. They've emphasized the campaign aspects and branching results throughout the series of games, but said very little about the destruction of the components or why that's happening. I've been trying to not assume the worse (i.e. they did it to try to sell more games), but that may be the case. Or, they may be in the ~half of board gamers who "get" the ripped-up-card-buzz. I don't know. It does seem from out here that the regular players of Pandemic, i.e. who are familiar with the expansions, are "replayers," who want more than 24 plays of this format. But, I don't have the cash or time to launch a marketing study, so who can say for sure. I do hope someone does a panel discussion or interview with the designers/producers where these questions are asked.
Hmm. I think if you read interviews and commentary from Daviau, he makes it very clear why he designed "Legacy" the way that he did. He had a very specific type of game experience in mind, and we've all spent the last 17 pages trying to discuss the relative merit of that experience.
As for Z-Man and Leacock, I think I've also read something online in the past (or heard from interviews) giving insight into how/why Leacock and Daviau came together to make Pandemic Legacy. Whatever the specifics are, the idea from the beginning was create a Legacy version of Pandemic. And that includes all of the design features that a Legacy game entails. It's not a conspiracy to sell more games by making people buy multiple copies--it's a transparent attempt to sell more games by melding two very popular franchises together.
If the goal were to create a resettable Pandemic campaign, the Legacy format would not have been chosen in the first place. You think it's a mystery why Pandemic Legacy is designed to play like a Legacy game (and all that entails), but it seems self-evident to me. The name is right there on the box.
As for whether only half of all gamers "get" the Legacy concept, that's an assertion without any real data to back it up. I realize there have been polls on BGG where approximately half the people who played one campaign said they would play it again, but that is not the same thing as half of them saying they don't "get" the concept. A better reference point would be how adding Legacy to existing games seems to take the world by storm and creates a feeding frenzy.
Pandemic has been around for ages, and campaign games have been around for ages. Yet Pandemic Legacy is rocketing toward the Top 10 at an unprecedented pace and consistently sells out at retail. It's average rating trounces Pandemic and most campaign games. That seems like proof-positive that the majority of gamers "get" Legacy and are very excited by it.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by DavidT
pmbrill77 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
pmbrill77 wrote:
DavidT wrote:
kbrigan wrote:
getdafunkout wrote:
I hope that Rob and Matt continue to make the games they are passionate about making.
Agreed. I think that's one of the reasons the artificial imposition of component destruction interrupts the game so much for me. It feels like they decided to go with a single-use version without really thinking about other possibilities, i.e. assuming that since Risk Legacy was single use so P:L must be, too.
It's difficult to swallow the double-standard here. When people suggest playing the game as-designed is the optimal way to play the game, you take great offense because you believe people should be able to play the game however they want (which, aside from the indignation, is a premise I agree with).
But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
She did not say the designers were not thinking.
She said "without really thinking about other possibilities". Her use implies, to me, that she believes they were only thinking of one possibility: a close duplication of Risk: Legacy.
If you suggest game designers are so narrowly focused that they designed a game without thinking of any other way it could possibly be designed, that's essentially suggesting they were not thinking about the design. To design something requires a consideration of all the various ways it could be designed.
I believe I responded to her post in context.
pmbrill77 wrote:
I do not believe she is correct, but I do not believe she is trying to insult the gods of Pandemic: Legacy that must be obeyed or the mountains shall shake.
I don't think she is trying to insult anyone, either. I never said she was.
As for gods and shaking mountains, misplaced sarcasm noted.
She suggested it; not you.
pmbrill77 wrote:
If "not thinking of all possibilities" = "not thinking" and "thinking" = "thinking of everything" are the only two options, then we are certainly done here and my sarcasm is then not misplaced.
That was not my proposition.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Feb question- placing disease markers and a particular role ability - SPOILERS
by mkrajew
RoccoTerrier wrote:
Where do you place the Quarantine instruction sticker that explains the quarantine rule? It is a peel off sticker but there didn't seem to be any directions as to where to put it. Does it go in the upper left box on the game board?
What number/letter was it? It should go in the Rules manual in the spot matching that flap you opened. Moving forward then all the rules will be in the rulebook.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by kbrigan
DavidT wrote:
Pandemic has been around for ages, and campaign games have been around for ages. Yet Pandemic Legacy is rocketing toward the Top 10 at an unprecedented pace and consistently sells out at retail. It's average rating trounces Pandemic and most campaign games. That seems like proof-positive that the majority of gamers "get" Legacy and are very excited by it.
Again, we'll have to see the numbers (if I still care by then). At any rate, you are agreeing that the regular, repeat, ongoing, more-than-15-plays Pandemic fans are likely different from many/most?/some? of the people who want Legacy in their collection, even if they only own the base Pandemic game, or not even that. One of my points is that there is a difference between people who play games dozens of times and those who play games about 15 times max. Many "repeat" players are drawn to Pandemic because of the expansions and the high learning curve. You can get better at the game with repeat plays. And, personally, I feel let down by Z-man and the designers for not even discussing these issues.
And, again, we have to make clear what is a "Legacy" game. I wonder how many people buying and enjoying P:L would like it just as much if it were rebootable, i.e. who bought it for the campaign play, the Advent calendar features and the overall complexity, not because of the permanently altered components. There is more than enough in the game to make it attractive to people who don't get the whole single-use idea, and the "Advent Calendar" mechanic does not require destroying components. I bought P:L for the campaign features, the possibilities of branching game plots, and the new modifications. Destroying components had absolutely nothing to do with my buying decision. There was never any question that I would be playing a rebootable version of the game. If my researches had revealed that making a reboot wasn't possible, I would not have bought it, period. We'll never know, for Season One at least, whether or not a rebootable, but otherwise identical game would have done as well. I think it would have sold even better because it would not have left so many existing Pandemic fans (i.e. those of us drawn to analysis and replayability) out in the cold.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by GrWr
I've been following the discussion on Pandemic Legacy with interest, and the connection made here regarding art is a good one. It helped me understand exactly where I take issue with the Legacy concept. I understand many people are die-hard proponents of this system, and the following is, of course, only my opinion.Be it music, painting, stand-up comedy, cooking, acting, or boardgame design, I would consider all of these things artistic expression. Individual acts are members of a certain tradition. Good art, generally, is faithful to its tradition, while bringing something to the table that is its own. Most art is attempting to do that. Pandemic Legacy is attempting to do that.
When art fails to be sufficiently original, or is simply weak in some standard field of its medium, gimmicks are often used to mask weaknesses or garner attention despite the mediocrity of the work. Bad novels are full of plot contrivances used to keep a reader interested despite poorly developed characters or a lack of talent with sentence structure and word choice. People constantly complain about the lazy choices made by producers of television series or movies, be it endless repetetive sequels, or substituting special effects and action for decent characters and an interesting story. Popular music is similarly maligned by many.
In that context, I feel that the Legacy system is a gimmick to artifically create visceral, emotional responses in the players without having to do the heavy-lifting of writing a strong-enough storyline for the campaign. If all choices have real permanent results and lost components are destroyed, you are certainly more invested in the game. But you can create that investment with good enough writing in the campaign. I think most RPG players would agree with me. Write a campaign that people will remember, that touches them emotionally, and you don't have to force them to tear up a card in order to get a reaction. I fully believe that someone could write such a campaign for a game like Pandemic, but it would be hard work.
People have likened paying the cost of the game to other finite forms of entertainment, like a meal or a concert. But for those, part of the experience is that those artists are actively plying their trade for you in those other instances. This game is not being designed in front of me each time I play (some arguments are that it is, but then, I, the player, am the artist. Why am I paying to create?)
The point is that boardgames are an established artistic tradition. Paying this much for components that you are going to willfully destroy has not ever been a part of the idea of a boardgame. Campaign games have existed before and did not have to resort to this. This game could have been made resettable, and the fact that it isn't is difficult to read as anything but a way to make money. Videogames do not erase themselves when you finish them, novels do not burn at the end, and movies do not cease to be after a screening. Nor do they force you to buy a new copy or else use your existing copy in the specific, limited subset that you have played your copy into. I enjoy reusing my favorite videogames, movies and novels all the way over again. Same with games.
Again, this is all only my opinion, but this is what has bothered me all along about Legacy games: it strikes me as at best, a fad, and at worst, a trend of disposibility as a way toward lazier game development and a way to gain more profit from consumers without any benefit to them. Thanks for reading.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?
by getdafunkout
kbrigan wrote:
getdafunkout wrote:
I hope that Rob and Matt continue to make the games they are passionate about making.
Agreed. I think that's one of the reasons the artificial imposition of component destruction interrupts the game so much for me. It feels like they decided to go with a single-use version without really thinking about other possibilities, i.e. assuming that since Risk Legacy was single use so P:L must be, too.
I think they thought about it quite a lot (like, waaaaayyyyyyyy more than you have thought about this) and then made purposeful design decisions. It just so happens that you (and a small minority of gamers) do not agree with their decisions. That is fine. It is unrealistic to try to please everyone all of the time.
Designers shouldn't have to pander to all different gamer likes and dislikes and it is not their job to design game variations to accommodate all various gamer preferences. They should aim to design the games they are passionate about and market a successful product (because hey, they have to make a living). If THEY WANT to make a reusable campaign mode, fine, they should fill their boots. But I don't think gamers should feel entitled to it though because these game designers are not our personal design servants.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with asking for what you want, but you might not get it because that may not be what they want to do.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by eviljelloman
GrWr wrote:
a way to gain more profit from consumers without any benefit to them.
Pandemic Legacy is one of the most engrossing, enjoyable gaming experiences I've ever had, in any medium. No benefit to me? Please.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Strategy:: Re: Game breaking combo (mild Spoilers)
by croloris
We have the Dispatcher with the pilot upgrade. [sp] and later the veteran upgrade [/sp]It is fundamentally broken but certainly helped us get to 12-1. Our one loss had 3 epidemics in the first 18 cards in one of the later months.
Our most potent relationship was that of rivals. Lots of ways to move cards around once you get to 7, and with the dispatcher moving you around you keep a lot of cards.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by GrWr
I meant specifically having to re-buy the game in order to replay vs. an intrinsically resettable game. That difference offers no value for the additional cost in my opinion. I'm sorry if I was unclear.↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by eviljelloman
GrWr wrote:
I meant specifically having to re-buy the game in order to replay vs. an intrinsically resettable game. That difference offers no value for the additional cost in my opinion. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Except that it fundamentally changes the experience in a way that, quite obviously, people enjoy and find valuable.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by Kerrin2
Off topic: I keep expecting your avatar to subtly jiggle once in a while.↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by clydeiii
eviljelloman wrote:
GrWr wrote:
I meant specifically having to re-buy the game in order to replay vs. an intrinsically resettable game. That difference offers no value for the additional cost in my opinion. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Except that it fundamentally changes the experience in a way that, quite obviously, people enjoy and find valuable.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by Tomcat1304
atonaltensor wrote:
"All Art of the past must be destroyed" - Pierre Boulez
"Must be destroyed" is pushing it a bit. But I accept that not all things last forever. Sooner or later a coffee mug will break, a good book drops in the bathtub, the favourite shirt wears out and fades to grey. Things break or get used up - so why argue about a playing card that's supposed to be torn?
If you want to keep things in pristine condition, keep them shrinkwrapped on the shelf. But where's the fun in that? I want to use and experience things I like and am totally aware that there's a risk of damaging or wearing them down. So what? If it's really that valuable to me, there are ways to replace it.
A few years ago my mother reminded me there were still some bottles of wine in the cellar of my parents home from the year I graduated from school. We had designed "Abi 1993" labels for these bottles and every graduate got some of this wine. So I dug up wine that was stored for 20 years.
My options were a) keep it or b) open and drink it. I decided to drink the wine, because it seemed quite useless to keep a bottle of liquid for another 10, 20, 50 years. It would have made no difference if they were filled with water. Only by opening them I was able to experience the contents.
And it was a mixed experience. Not many of them were still drinkable after such a long time. Some went down the drain after just sipping at a glass of them. Some tasted old but were acceptable (far from good, but ok). One was really fascinating - coloured like amber, smelled like honey and was completely tasteless.
Now the wine is gone, it's irreplacable but tasting it was more worthwhile than storing it for another decade - after all it was intended for drinking.
Like Pandemic Legacy is intended for playing. :)
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components
by GrWr
clydeiii wrote:
eviljelloman wrote:
GrWr wrote:
I meant specifically having to re-buy the game in order to replay vs. an intrinsically resettable game. That difference offers no value for the additional cost in my opinion. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Except that it fundamentally changes the experience in a way that, quite obviously, people enjoy and find valuable.
Not really. Pandemic does not have any type of campaign of continuous scenarios with surprises and plot twists. Those, to me, are the interesting part of Pandemic Legacy.
↧