Risk: Legacy...

robdaviau wrote: I guess it depends on how you define broken. Will it stay perfectly balanced where every person starts every game with an equal chance to win? No. That was on purpose. Is it possible to manipulate the system so that one person gains an unfair advantage where other people can't win or the gameboard is so awful that no one wants to play on it? I really think you'd have to try to do that. Like set out trying to make sure it was unplayable. Even then it would be effort.

A game where the starting conditions become asymmetrical as the campaign evolves? Sounds good. I also have zero problems with games where it's up to the players to balance the game. (Cosmic, Dune, CitOW). However if it can evolve into a state that is seriously unbalanced, I might have some reservations. If it's easy to do, then it's a problem. If it's because I and the other players were morons, then we deserve our fate. Should we manage to get out of the mess we made, victory will be all the sweeter.

There's nothing wrong with a reset button. Just like there's nothing wrong with permanent stickers. They are different approaches. I guess I really wanted to explore the idea of a game becoming a living memento of every game that was played on it. So the mistakes, victories, good decisions, and bad decisions, all shape the game itself. The game becomes a victim and reflection of the people who played it. It was a design exploration that proved to resonate with the groups it was tested with. We knew that this is radical, even heretical to some.

This decision has certainly caused discussion in and of itself and that is probably a good thing in our hobby.

I think so, and I'm glad you're trying to push the envelope with this design. Thank you for taking the time to post some answers here Rob. My biggest question at this point is what is the projected MSRP? I think that will have a big impact on how people will view the whole permanent alteration aspect.

-Will

Oy. I say I can understand your reservations, but don't get the language, and that gets me labeled as a True Believer?

Here's the thing; I like to swear and argue. It doesn't mean I'm angry and thumping my chest, I'm using rude words because that's how I talk. If I was just wantonly trashing the game for the sake of it and swearing, then you'd have a point. I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm mistaken if somebody wants to try and persuade me, because I actually do like the idea. I don't know if you or wdgrant noticed, but I did say "it sounds awesome" in my very first post.

Simply complaining about my language and saying "We don't know enough yet" just distracts from the topic at hand. If we don't know enough about the game to question or criticize the premise that inspired it, you certainly don't have any basis for praising it, and we might as well just end the discussion now.

Is it possible to manipulate the system so that one person gains an unfair advantage where other people can't win or the gameboard is so awful that no one wants to play on it? I really think you'd have to try to do that. Like set out trying to make sure it was unplayable. Even then it would be effort.

So then what are we actually talking about here in terms of meaningful consequences for your decisions? Is the game going to play appreciably differently after game 10 than it did before, or are we mostly talking about changes in setup or the availability of troops and whatnot. Obviously, you can't give too much away, but when all's said and done, just how much differently can I expect my copy to be from Mr. Bistro's? I don't just mean in terms of balance, but in how the game itself is played.

I guess I really wanted to explore the idea of a game becoming a living memento of every game that was played on it. So the mistakes, victories, good decisions, and bad decisions, all shape the game itself. The game becomes a victim and reflection of the people who played it. It was a design exploration that proved to resonate with the groups it was tested with.

And this is all well and good unless the game is shaped into something that just doesn't play very well. I've yet to play any game where the rules or setup can be changed dramatically from one game to the next that doesn't at least occasionally result in sessions that are just plain bad from the start. Anyone who's ever played Cosmic Encounter, or any sort of collectible game knows what I'm talking about.

If you're saying we can all be reasonably confident that our games won't end up being duds forever and ever, and that we're going to end up with games that are truly unique, fine. You're a remarkable fellow if you managed to design such a thing, but that's one hell of a bold claim you're making, and one that runs contrary to what we've come to expect from experience with similar design ideas.

I'm stoked. This is going to be a hoot. Releasing a game that is never the same after you play it - that takes balls. If nobody was upset, it wouldn't be as ballsy. The fact that people are scared of damaging their investment says to me that Rob and Chris are doing it right. But if people quit thinking of their games as investments and start thinking of their games as fucking GAMES, something you're doing to have a good time, something that does not come with a guarantee or a promise or a resale value, maybe they could sit back and actually just be excited to do something they've never been able to do before.

You want a reboot button? If you play the game enough that you need one, go buy another copy.

And for the record, I have lots of tattoos.

madwookiee wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: disposable

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I am pretty sure that it means exactly what he thinks it means. At some point, due to component restrictions, the game will be done. I am not necessarily against that if it really is good and lasts a good number of plays (20 or 30). If it turns out to be a GREAT game, then this is definitely disappointing --- I am still playing Magic Realm, Merchant of Venus, and others that I have had for more than two decades --- and that is my hesitancy not to want to permanently alter it, not some OCD gamer/investment ridiculousness. Is it a game that where building the world is so compelling my group will want to play every week? Seems a shame to limit the replayability of something that is, on its face, so innovative.


Questions:

1. What is the price?

2. How many games can be expected to be played from one copy before nothing new happens in terms of permanently altering the game world?

3. How long was this playtested and with how many groups? I am a little skeptical of the claims that it can't be broken while simultaneously creating meaningful different experiences between groups. mj's point is spot on about the need for crappy outcomes to make the good ones actually being meaningful choices; otherwise, they are merely different choices without much of the consequence.

4. Are any of the secret events that are revealed after multiple play catch-up or rebalancing events? I hope not (or that is just a built-in reset button).

5. Is there a log of somesorts included with the game to record why the world state is as it is? Would be cool if you coul go back and see the "history of the game world".

Sounds great! It seems to be taking a role playing element out of the Nerd arena and putting it in the main stream with a continuing story line. Brilliant!

Space Ghost wrote:

madwookiee wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: disposable

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I am pretty sure that it means exactly what he thinks it means. At some point, due to component restrictions, the game will be done.

No, it won't. The world will be finalized. You can continue to play games in that world until you're 93 and beyond. There is nothing "disposable" about it. It will go at some point from dynamic to static, but that doesn't mean that it's now garbage and can be thrown out. That's just bullshit, and to insist so is to either be utterly obtuse or willfully antagonistic.

That's a spectacular point, Wookie. Just because the game is done changing does not mean you can't play it any more. It's not like you go, 'well, I changed everything that can change. Guess I throw it away now.' At some point, you just play the same thing again. If you're still playing other games after 20 years, and they haven't changed any, this shouldn't even faze you.

MichaelPalin wrote: It's not dead it's resting.

Once the game stabilizes you'll have Risk with some house rules. That's a fair point.

S.

This is reminds me of some of the old Tunnels and Trolls solo adventures. If you got a unique item you'd cross it out of the book, or if the vampire in City of Terrors killed you, you made an encounter card for your leprechaun/whatever-turned-vampire, to torment future players.