Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 191980 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Translation errors in the Dutch version (no spoilers)

November 13, 2015, 2:47 pm
$
0
0

by Dutcher99

Bernaar wrote:

Dutcher99 wrote:

Another translation error:

*minor spoiler until start of February*

[o]
Relationship, co-worker:

In Dutch: you may share knowledge with a co-worker even if you are not in the same city. The city card must correspond with the city you are in (unless you are the researcher)
In English: "you may share knowledge with a co-worker as long as one of you is in the city of the card being passed (the researcher can pass any card)"

BTW the English sentence leaves room for multiple interpretation. The folks from the Dice Tower had trouble with it.

[/o]

Should I email Z-man games about this translation error, or do they read this too?

Last but not least:
Thank you so much all for the above posts, it helps me a lot and I will try to follow the English rules as soon as I know them. Lets do our best to find all translation errors together, although its hard because of the hidden rules and I dont have an English copy.


Rob said he gave the link to this thread to Z-man games.

By the way: how does the english sentence leaves room for multiple interpretation?


@Bernard:
[o]
With the English sentence it's not that clear (for me) if the researcher can pass any card to a co-worker no matter what, or that one of the two characters still need to be in the city(card) that is being traded.

I think it's the first, so the researcher can give cards extremely easy to it's co-worker.
[/o]
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 2:50 pm
$
0
0

by DavidT

kbrigan wrote:

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.


No, I don't agree with that. I believe the majority of people who are enjoying Pandemic Legacy are existing Pandemic fans and there is no evidence to suggest a significant portion of "hardcore" Pandemic fans are predisposed against Legacy mechanics. Your petition suggests that Z-Man is leaving behind its loyal fans who have made Pandemic the hit that it is. It may be true of you, but there is no indication it's true of many/most/all.

kbrigan wrote:

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.


Liking to play games multiple times (15+) and wanting to enjoy a singular, "one-shot" experience are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of games I've played 15+ times, including Pandemic, yet I still love the idea of the Legacy system. Are you saying that you think the only people who enjoy Legacy are the people who don't usually replay games? I think that's false.

Also, why do you think they didn't discuss these issues? What you are wanting in the game is just not the game they wanted to design. And they don't owe you, me, or anyone else the game we might want. If we don't like the game they choose to design, we can buy another game. In the future, they may decide to do a different kind of Pandemic campaign game, and maybe we'll all want that, too. That's the way making games works. They make 'em, and if we want 'em, we buy 'em.

kbrigan wrote:

And, again, we have to make clear what is a "Legacy" game.


At this point, a "Legacy" game is a game designed by Daviau, using his "Legacy" system. What you really want to make clear is how much you can remove from his system (because it is trivial or pointless to you) and still personally enjoy it. That's a valuable exercise for you, but it doesn't change what a "Legacy" game is.

kbrigan wrote:

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.


It would be a different game at that point, so who knows? I don't.

kbrigan wrote:

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.


Actually, it does require destroying (or, at least, permanently changing) components--they're just not the components you care about. The perforated boxes with new game pieces are also components, but you have to tear them open/break the seal to get inside. You also have to permanently alter the intangible game component of mystery--once you know what's in those boxes, you know. These things don't matter to you, but that's just your own arbitrary line. You're okay with some permanent change, just not all permanent change.

kbrigan wrote:

We'll never know, for Season One at least, whether or not a rebootable, but otherwise identical game would have done as well.


Oh, I think we know.

kbrigan wrote:

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.


I think you're in a much smaller group than you think you are (i.e., existing Pandemic fans who just can't fathom a single-campaign variant), and I think the completely unprecedented success of the game as-designed precludes any suggestion that a generic campaign version of Pandemic would have had the same (or more) success.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Translation errors in the Dutch version (no spoilers)

November 13, 2015, 2:52 pm
$
0
0

by MADG0BLIN

Can you maybe describe without spoilers what's it about so we can safely view it. ;)
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components

November 13, 2015, 3:02 pm
$
0
0

by xen911

GrWr wrote:

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.


Hey, I thought your post was well-written and made your thought process clear; thank you for that. I would encourage you to try a Legacy game- if not one on the market, then one that you are drawn to at some late time. Your recognition of the novelty and emotional buy-in of making a permanent change is correct. I contend that it's not cheap and it's certainly not hackneyed in this space.

More importantly, though, and what seems to be near universally missed among those who haven't played PL or RL, is that this is a TINY element of the games. The one thing everyone seems to cling to is that "cards will be torn!". There is actually very little tearing up of components. It's far more additive than subtractive.

It's much more akin to the crafting of characters and world in pen & paper RPGs. While I enjoyed a bunch of videogame RPGs when I was younger, my favorites have always been those played at a table with a small group of friends. Have you ever enjoyed a great, months long quest with friends, blanked your character sheets, gathered and replayed the campaign from scratch? That option is what the uninitiated are calling for with the Legacy games and it reflects an ignorance of the systems at play akin to a mom who asks how many touchdowns you've scored in that night's Forgotten Realms adventure. I'm not going to erase my character sheet; are you insane??

Finally, you mentioned a complaint that you don't want to have to design the game; the designers should do that. Well, they did; they designed games that allow us to have a hand in that process. This is INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. You seem to have a respect for art and games, so I'd encourage you to look into some video, audio, or text interviews with Rob Daviau. The effort that goes into creating a Legacy system (this is a misnomer as the two released games use very different mechanisms to achieve pretty distinct types of "permanence") is Herculean. It's like designing and balancing probably 10+ games or more. The longer they go, the more branched and difficult they are to contain. Anyway, cheers! :tankard:
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: What are you naming your diseases?

November 13, 2015, 3:15 pm
$
0
0

by darkstar952

We named ours

red - disco-fever
black - Blaxsploitation
blue - Eye-itus (can't remember exact spelling)
↧
↧

Reply: Betrayal at House on the Hill:: Rules:: Re: How many times can a room be used?

November 13, 2015, 3:25 pm
$
0
0

by Rimewisp

ALso rooms that have certain positive effects when you end your turn there (such as the gymnasium giving you + strength) can only be used once per game.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Reviews:: Re: Three months worth of humble pie - a brief review.

November 13, 2015, 3:42 pm
$
0
0

by kbrigan

farsidehobbes wrote:

...Both of our January games were loses since we had a few Epidemics really close together and most of the infection cities were our Coda disease that we couldn't do anything about.


Apologies if you already know this, but I just want to make sure. Make sure you're shuffling the Epidemic cards one each into a fifth of the player deck, not shuffling all five of them into the entire deck at the same time. This helps keep the Epidemics from happening too closely together. Theoretically, the most Epidemics that can happen close together is two, one at the "bottom" of a fifth of the deck and one at the "top" of the next fifth down. (The absolute farthest apart they can be spaced, depending upon funding level, is about 20 cards.)
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: *spoilers for end of January* Objectives/Role upgrade Q

November 13, 2015, 4:03 pm
$
0
0

by Deano2099

Having finished January, you've already seen how an objective expires and gets replaced.
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 4:14 pm
$
0
0

by kbrigan

[q="DavidT]Liking to play games multiple times (15+) and wanting to enjoy a singular, "one-shot" experience are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of games I've played 15+ times, including Pandemic, yet I still love the idea of the Legacy system. Are you saying that you think the only people who enjoy Legacy are the people who don't usually replay games? I think that's false...

Also, why do you think they didn't discuss these issues? What you are wanting in the game is just not the game they wanted to design. And they don't owe you, me, or anyone else the game we might want. If we don't like the game they choose to design, we can buy another game...

Oh, I think we know [whether or not a replayable version would have sold as well]...

I think you're in a much smaller group than you think you are (i.e., existing Pandemic fans who just can't fathom a single-campaign variant), and I think the completely unprecedented success of the game as-designed precludes any suggestion that a generic campaign version of Pandemic would have had the same (or more) success.

You're making a lot of claims with absolutely no data to back them up. I do not believe people are buying Pandemic: Legacy because you destroy the components. Many, perhaps most, are buying it despite that feature, because the intrinsic game play is attractive enough to keep that from being too much of a deterrent. At any rate, no one that I've seen reviews from is cheering over tearing up cards; they're excited about the play itself.

I'm arguing that people who like "Legacy" (component destruction) features are people who play most of their games fewer than ~15 times because that is one of the most frequent arguments pro-destruction people make to try to justify the expense of the single-play version. Over and over, "I only play most of the games I own 15 times anyway." They said it, not me.

As for what the designers should discuss with fans -- that depends upon what kind of relationship they want with us. MANY people are making jokes about this game being a rip-off (Look at any of those glowing reviews; half the comments are about it being a "rip off"), and not even briefly considering buying it because of the fact that it's made to be temporary. Even though Z-man sees me as the enemy (there have been some e-mails), the truth is I'm helping them sell games by making P:L available to people who don't want to invest that much cash in a temporary game. Z-man and the designers should address these points, for the sake of their reputations if nothing else. If they feel that the destruction of components is intrinsic despite what many people playing the game are saying (i.e. replayable is just fine, thanks), they should make their case. If they don't want to, yes, people are free to vote with their feet, and probably will. It's much more rewarding to buy stuff from designers who want to be part of the community and the culture than with those who only want to hear opinions they already agree with.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 4:19 pm
$
0
0

by Deano2099

kbrigan wrote:

Deano2099 wrote:

Season 2 is already in play testing and will have been designed with Legacy aspects in mind...


I thought about it, and while I appreciate your comment, I'm going to leave the petition as is. The legacy elements (i.e. Advent Calendar revelation of components) are only one aspect of game play, like branching progressions (which we have a bit of in Season One with [o]Box #8, and perhaps other elements[/o] or randomization. As we've been hashing here and elsewhere, some of us (including me) do not believe Legacy-style revelations require destruction of the components. (In my case, it's even a distraction from the game because it forces the game reality into literal reality in a petty way, which is not a plus for me. It feels tacked on and gratuitious.) As for what stage Season Two is in, the changes required to make a game replayable impact printing and component production, and would require tiny word changes in the rules -- all things that could be done if Z-man decided to do so.


Just to make something clear: the homebrew solutions for making the game reusable? Or the alternative methods people have suggested they put in the box? They would make the game too fiddly for me. They would negatively impact my game experience. And frankly there's no way Z-man would put out a game as fiddly as the variants some people are playing. They would change the design first. Nothing wrong with playing a reusable varient if it works for you, but the idea that a publisher like Z-Man would put out a game where you track city panic with small d6s, and have to write down the state of them all after each game. Wouldn't happen.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 4:37 pm
$
0
0

by Deano2099

kbrigan wrote:

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.


You know what Z-man and the designers are doing for people who want a replayable version of Pandemic? They're continuing to make Pandemic. And releasing new expansions.

As much as people talk about making Legacy replayable, they only address the destruction issues. They don't address the fact that if I play it again (Jan spoilers) [o]I'm keeping the scientist out of game one to make him rivals with the researcher, rushing mutations, and picking optimum upgrades[/o]. And yes, a second run to figure out just how much you can break the game with foreknowledge would be a different sort of fun. But that makes it at best a two-shot campaign.

There are enough expansion modules for regular Pandemic now to make the combinations almost infinite. Those players are well catered for already. If Z-man had announced the end of the line for regular Pandemic, rather than putting out another expansion, I'd understand your issue.

It does seem that Legacy is outselling State of Emergency quite significantly though.

I think you're in a smaller group than you realise. You want a story-driven linear Pandemic campaign with hidden information, that can be replayed. It's quite specific.

If you just want a Pandemic campaign, adopt the funding system from legacy, pick two random expansion modules per game, and see how many wins in a row you can get.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 4:50 pm
$
0
0

by Deano2099

kbrigan wrote:




I'm arguing that people who like "Legacy" (component destruction) features are people who play most of their games fewer than ~15 times because that is one of the most frequent arguments pro-destruction people make to try to justify the expense of the single-play version. Over and over, "I only play most of the games I own 15 times anyway." They said it, not me.
e


To take a more cynical point of view, if you're really interested in helping z-man sell more games, you should be able to see why they'd be more interested in engaging with an audience that buys tonnes of games and only plays them a few times, rather than those who buy one or two and play them to death...

In terms of figures, we know it did 52k in the first week of pre-orders. Which is pretty huge. Some people are liking it.

And much as you say people will vote with their feet... Will they? You still bought the game, mate. And since you've been able to make it replayable and have said it only needs minor changes, then I struggle to see what the problem is? You've made it work for you, and it also works for those who get a thrill from the legacy system itself.

Is it really worth it for Z-man to change the game so that they can sell to people like you (who bought it anyway) and lose out on selling to those who bought it on the Legacy brand (don't underestimate the number of Risk Legacy fans who came to it that way, rather than by Pandemic) and of course, lose out on all the free publicity from such a controversial system, and the ability to sit at the top of the hotness for months fuelled by ongoing arguments like this one!
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components

November 13, 2015, 5:04 pm
$
0
0

by Deano2099

GrWr wrote:

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.
Agree 100%. Without the Legacy aspect of Pandemic Legacy, we're just left with Pandemic.


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.


Right. Surprises and plot twists. Those are core to it. But even if the game was replayable, you can't wipe your mind. Those plot twists and surprises are gone. And therein is the issue. It's a game designed to be played through once. After which much of what makes it interesting is gone. In that context, you might as well make permanent changes to the components because you won't be playing it a second time anyway.

Some forms of art are designed as one-shots, single experiences you're not meant to repeat. Films that hinge on twists, interactive theatre and so on. This is one of those.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 5:12 pm
$
0
0

by DavidT

kbrigan wrote:



You're making a lot of claims with absolutely no data to back them up.


Never without specifying it's just my opinion.

kbrigan wrote:

I do not believe people are buying Pandemic: Legacy because you destroy the components.


I don't think you understand what I consider the defining aspects of the Legacy system to be (it's all in this thread, if you care to review). Destruction of cards is such a small part of it, but it's all you talk about. I can't see much point discussing it further when we so fundamentally disagree about what we're discussing in the first place.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: In Defense of Destroying Components

November 13, 2015, 5:15 pm
$
0
0

by GrWr

Deano2099 wrote:

GrWr wrote:

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.
Agree 100%. Without the Legacy aspect of Pandemic Legacy, we're just left with Pandemic.


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.


Right. Surprises and plot twists. Those are core to it. But even if the game was replayable, you can't wipe your mind. Those plot twists and surprises are gone. And therein is the issue. It's a game designed to be played through once. After which much of what makes it interesting is gone. In that context, you might as well make permanent changes to the components because you won't be playing it a second time anyway.

Some forms of art are designed as one-shots, single experiences you're not meant to repeat. Films that hinge on twists, interactive theatre and so on. This is one of those.


But you don't get the entire experience in one playthrough. You get one subset, and are left with a game that is a subset, a result of your one course taken through the game. You don't get the chance to see how other choices might play out without buying the game again.

Surprises and plot twists are novel, and you cannot remove the knowledge from your experience, but a good story will be worth experiencing again, even if you know what is going to happen. Timeless art (or entertainment) deepens on repeat experience, rather than relying on the surprise to carry the entire emotional load for the audience.
↧
Search

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Feb question- placing disease markers and a particular role ability - SPOILERS

November 13, 2015, 5:17 pm
$
0
0

by RoccoTerrier

Of course! It goes in the rulebook. Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious. I was so excited by the new rules that I didn't make the connection.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 5:23 pm
$
0
0

by kbrigan

Deano2099 wrote:

...Mate...


Uh, no. "Lass," maybe?

Anyway, I'm using reusuable vinyl square for putting on the stickers. No notes required.

The biggest problems are the continual put-downs for playing replayable, the constant declarations from people who aren't doing it that it's impossible, not being able to talk about reality (The game can be made replayable. It's not a big deal.) without setting off fireworks, seeing people who might like the game write it off because of the expense:game factor, and seeing no small degree of cynicism in the fact that Z-man is pretending no one's talking about this or looking for hacks to (in our opinions) improve the game. This last bit, more than anything else, will determine whether I buy anything from Z-man again. I am really, really disappointed in their behavior. I know for a fact they're not in denial; they're just pretending to be.

And, if you go back over the discussion, you'll see we're talking much more about making Season Two replayable that any revisions by the publishers to Season One. (Although, come to think of it, they could issue a supplementary packet or some such for people who want a replayable version. Might not be economically feasible, but it could be done.)

I do think they're trying to appeal more to the Risk: Legacy fan base than Pandemic's. That's part of the problem.
↧
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 5:36 pm
$
0
0

by getdafunkout

kbrigan wrote:



Anyway, I'm using reusuable vinyl square for putting on the stickers. No notes required.

The biggest problems are the continual put-downs for playing replayable,


I hope that you have an awesome and enjoyable gaming experience. Honestly, it is great that there are resources for people who wish to adapt/hack the design.

As for for your quibble with Z-man, I am sure his head will rest easy on his pile of Pandemic Legacy checks and fan mail.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

November 13, 2015, 7:10 pm
$
0
0

by Daybreak

kbrigan wrote:

I do not believe people are buying Pandemic: Legacy because you destroy the components. Many, perhaps most, are buying it despite that feature, because the intrinsic game play is attractive enough to keep that from being too much of a deterrent.


I just want to jump in and add my own experience here. I bought PL because of the Legacy features (the stickers, the destruction, the permanence). Our group finished Risk Legacy, and at the end of it all we have a completely unique board that (i) is still perfectly playable and (ii) is the product of our campaign play. When we heard about Pandemic Legacy, we wanted the same features, and we got them. When we're done (just finished April), we will have a perfectly playable copy of Pandemic that is the unique product of our campaign play.

A regular, campaign version of Pandemic would be interesting, but it wouldn't have been as big of a draw. We like Pandemic just fine, but haven't played it in years. We don't really like regular campaign games - Pathfinder, Descent, etc. But knowing that our campaign in Pandemic will be part of the creative process, that it will be filled with surprises, and significant, lasting decisions... well, that sold us on it.

So yes, we bought it because it was Legacy, not in spite of it.
↧

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: For those who have finished.

November 13, 2015, 7:56 pm
$
0
0

by Charsi

12-1 (lost early December)

Score: 977

Details in spoiler just in case.

[o]
The only city above 1 was Chennai, which we let pop in September or October to search for the Immunologist. Permanent roadblocks out of Jakarta prevented the spread of COdA out of black cities.

Max score is impossible because you must have a rioting city or Bravo team. If my math is right best case scenario 997 which we would have got if we'd pulled the first December game out of the bag but we spent a bit too long searching.

I'd found this thread earlier so I did know there was a score, but not the specifics. We guessed military bases might be involved so we burned them all to be safe so there is that. We also interpreted the "or" on the November card about box 6 and 7 literally, and we mistakenly applied a relationship to our characters in February even though they were carried over from January (didn't have any effect until very late because we switched to Quarantine until the betrayal).
[/o]
↧
Viewing all 191980 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>