by Shirtripper
While I wouldn't consider myself an avid board gamer, I have played and greatly enjoyed them off and on over the years. I've dabbled in all the classics like Chess, Monopoly, Risk, and probably my all time favorite Axis and Allies.Having played for the better part of the last six months Risk Legacy, it has changed how I view and understand the concept of boardgames. After playing a few games of RL, I now feel like board gaming and probably table top gaming in general has evolved to a new level of customization and permanence.
That is not to say that I feel every board game from now on should have permanent stickers or hidden packages, but rather that the idea of transforming a game based around the way it is played and that the game reflects the actions of those that play it is something that should be pursued by future designers.
Having said all of that I would like to discuss the pros and cons of such a type of game, how Risk Legacy did it, and how in general this concept would be best suited and utilized.
Pros:
This type of game eliminates the stagnate "never changing design" of the out of the box product. Every game something new can happened that never occurred previously. The very fact that a board game that has already been played once can still have spoilers is a novel concept unto itself.
What you do matters beyond one play through! This one kind of goes hand in hand with the first, but is important enough unto itself to be viewed as separate pro in my opinion. The idea that my actions have a lasting impact and the game itself is changed forever by my participation is one of the most rewarding things I've ever experienced in a board game. Risk Legacy does a great job of showing how this type of game can produce wonderful strategic considerations and the implications beyond just that one game, which traditional board games cannot.
Builds a sense of community among the players. Now not every game of this type is going to create this, but a game that remembers the players actions, victories and losses, is going to bond the gaming group together in ways that just spending the next couple of weeks playing Risk or Life is not. Using Risk Legacy as an example players are going to remember when Bob used that third missile and opened that 3 missiles packet! It just really brings players together in ways I've never seen before, even among cooperative games, like A&A.
Giving the players something beyond just winning to work towards. While there are other game types that also play with the concept of just going for the win, this type of game really encourages an out of the box thinking about what is really important this particular game. Using Risk Legacy as an example again, maybe you are ahead on the victory list, and you want to try and achieve something in the game that is more important than getting another "W". It makes perfect sense to consider this option and others.
Cons:
The game constantly changing can't last forever. Putting aside expansion or booster packs or fan made items and just looking at the out of the box product, the game will eventually run out of changeable content. Once this happens it could be viewed that the game is finished. Risk Legacy chooses not to ignore this but rather puts a cap on it, and stops most things at game 15. Does this mean that this type of game would require a infinite ending point, or be conceptually tied to being campaign style games rather than a traditional game that can be played forever? I am not sure I know the answer to this but on the surface it seems to almost require a final play.
Your decisions matter beyond just one game, so what if you make a mistake? Being that the game keeps decisions forever for the most part, really could be an overwhelming element for some players. In Risk Legacy they try to address this with one of the winner rewards being a remove scar card. But this of course only affects scars, and really does not allow you to undo another bad choice, especially earlier if not all of the finer concepts of the game are clear to you. These all important strategic decisions could come back to haunt in ways a traditional game never would.
Makes the game unfriendly to new players joining in. Now there maybe ways around this with this type of game, but again using Risk Legacy as an example it really seems to need to be played by a dedicated group, at least for the first 15 games. This means the game will be less desirable to people who don't have a steady group of gaming friends, or that long periods of time may have to go between the game in order to keep the same group.
So this just off the top of my head, what are some of your pros and cons to this concept?