Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
154 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: To Legacy or not to Legacy rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Open world adventure game. Do you prefere to have the whole experience in three hours or to have a Legacy style game?

You see, I understand the appeal of both, and I'm trying to home in on which to pursue design-wise.

So leveling up and completing your goals over one session. Or prolonged over multiple sessions? Think adventure games suchs as Merchants & Marauders, Seafall, The Witcher, etc.

Poll
Do you prefere an adventure game to be Legacy?
Yes, I prefere a Legacy type game
No, I would rather have a complete adventure per session
      311 answers
Poll created by marqzen
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It depends. If you're playing for a short period of time like three hours, then you might as well do it all in one go. If it's going to take 15+ hours and you're unlikely to do it all in a day anyway, then a legacy format makes more sense.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pater Absurdus
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
There's really no wrong way to use a margarita pool
badge
"What is best in Life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't like the following things that seem to be a requirement for legacy games:
Keeping track of info from game to game
Playing with the same people each game
Changing/harming the game components
Messing up the resale value
Having to buy the game new

26 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
If the whole adventure is designed to be finished in 3 hours total, then I would prefer to just commit to a 3 hour game session. That gets harder and harder the older I get, but it would still be my preference.

That being said, an open world sandbox-style game is one of the game types I'd be really interested in seeing a Legacy game about. But I would expect the Legacy aspect to be more about the hero characters and the world around them being modified over the course of multiple adventures.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Redward wrote:
I don't like the following things that seem to be a requirement for legacy games:
Keeping track of info from game to game
Playing with the same people each game
Changing/harming the game components
Messing up the resale value
Having to buy the game new



Indeed. Especially the keeping track in an elegamt way, bothers be alot.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C B
United States
Twin Cities
Minnesota
flag msg tools
flying
badge
dutchman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An open world adventure game does not have to be one session, nor a legacy game. The more successful games in this category combine stand alone scenarios with the ability to have a grand campaign that plays out over multiple sessions, all while NOT being a legacy game.

Legacy games don't make any sense to me.
* They are more expensive than regular games.
* The components are cheaper than regular games, so they're not any good to re-use in other games.
* They are one shot, play it, then throw it away because it's permanently changed.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregory Baker
msg tools
I think it is important to make the distinction between campaign games and legacy games. Something like Arkham Horror the Card Game has you keep track of players from game to game in a campaign and has the story altered based on your decisions and successes. However, it is not a legacy game where you mark the game (Pandemic Legacy) or extremely limited replay value. I appreciate enjoying a complete game in one session, but I think you can have games with campaign character building that also have some sense of replayability.
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am in the scenario driven campaign camp on this one. I personally don't like the legacy format while appreciating others do but most of the love for legacy comes from one game and could be a risky area to get involved in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
flag msg tools
The statement below is false.
badge
The statement above is correct.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love the idea of legacy games, but I rarely play the same game over and over with the same people, and thus I've put off buying any of them so far.

Thus my answer to your poll is "I won't vote because neither of those two options is right for me"

That being said, Mechs vs. Minions appears to do something I could possibly absolutely fall in love with: They've got legacy like stuff with components that you unlock while playing, but it's not a problem to go back and re-play the earliest scenarios even with all the additional stuff mixed in (or you could remove it easily, too). That appears to be a great hybrid, as far as I can tell from hearsay and reviews.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Haakon Gaarder
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd rather have a 3 hour game with varied gameplay. I play with lots of different people so a legacy game is not practial at all for me. Would not mind it lasting 4 hours or so, we usually game that long anyway.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Andersson
Sweden
Rimbo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer legacy, but I want them both.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Campaign games and legacy games are two separate things and I think when you design your game it will lend itself naturally to one style or another. If you try to shoe horn a legacy component to your game because that is the cool new thing (or worse, a money grab) it will be awkward, people will notice and it will fail.

This thread has got me wondering, are legacy games even necessary? Could they be reworked as a campaign game? where changes are tracked on a pad of paper? If it works then no need for a legacy game. If it would be to awkward then a legacy game might just be the thing.


I agree completely, which is why I would never shoehorn anything in. It requires a certain kind of thinking early in the design process.

But I too wonder if maybe I'm thinking wrongly about it, in terms of Legacy vs Campaign. Perhaps there are conceptual things to a legacy game, that I'm not even interested in.

What is in my mind is a game world, where players can do all kind of things, and the choices they make affect the next game. I guess it would be fun even without an actual campaign, but you start a fresh game that is different due to the previous one - even if they are not connected in terms of story. Just as a fun change.

So in one game a city is controlled by the Spanish. But due to events an missions, the next time you play, it is controlled by the english. Sometimes stuff like that happens in Merchants & Marauders, but it resets on the next game. What if it dident? Its a fun idea.

But also fun as an actual campaign. I'm just saying that the campaign thing isent even needed for it to be fun to have the world change from game to game.

Anyway, i'm just thinking out loud now.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orange Player
msg tools
My first experience was Pandemic Legacy which we enjoyed as a family. It was fun to be helped or hindered by our previous results. A big plus was being able to play with different people and roles each time.
More recently played Warhamner Quest the Adventure card game in campaign mode with my son. Great fun and again the equipment / foes we had in the latter stages dependent on earlier success or failure.
Bith games felt similar in terms of legacy vs campaign mode.
I suspect its the coop nature that I enjoy most.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamine Allen
United States
Grand Ledge
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't answer the poll because it depends on the game. Imperial assault is a campaign driven game that you just have to keep track of some info between games, but it doesn't permanently affect the game. Also, good games that are legacy games take a lot longer to develop than a regular game, because of the cascading effect. You can't have something affect gameplay in game one that has a game breaking affect in game 15. I think legacy works best for not dungeon crawl type games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
galad2003 wrote:

This thread has got me wondering, are legacy games even necessary? Could they be reworked as a campaign game? where changes are tracked on a pad of paper? If it works then no need for a legacy game. If it would be to awkward then a legacy game might just be the thing.


Yes, they absolutely could be reworked in this way, however, doing so means it's no longer a Legacy game. The whole idea behind Legacy games is that changes are permanent. You can not go back and undo them, you cannot reset. If there's even the possibility of resetting the game to its original state - whether or not you actually do it - then that's not Legacy, it's just a campaign game.

In order to make the changes truly permanent, you have to do something like destroying/modifying components, using stickers or pens or something, but not just tracking changes on a separate piece of paper. Obviously, this makes a great number of gamers uncomfortable (hence the recurring controversy), and I totally understand that. It makes me a little uncomfortable, too.

There's nothing wrong with saying you don't like Legacy games. But asking why a Legacy game can't just be a regular campaign game is sort of like asking why chocolate chip cookies can't just be plain cookies. No one is suggesting there's anything wrong with campaign games, but the designers who choose to make Legacy games are exploring something different. Not just the idea of things changing over time, but the idea that these changes cannot be undone and have permanent, lasting consequences.

haslo wrote:
I love the idea of legacy games, but I rarely play the same game over and over with the same people, and thus I've put off buying any of them so far.


This is another common complaint I hear levelled against Legacy games - the idea that you HAVE TO play every time with the same people. That's not true at all.

Consider RISK Legacy - the first to open this can of worms. Each time you play, you're playing a regular game of RISK. You need not be playing with the same group of people every time. The cards and boards will change forever with each play, but within the context of a single play session, the experience will be continuous whether or not the same people as last time are sitting around the table.

The idea that the same group of people MUST be present for every step of the process is a self-imposed limitation that was never part of the Legacy design. Maybe some groups want to play Legacy games that way, and that's their choice, but it's not by any means a requirement.

(If that were a requirement of a given Legacy game, then I would agree that's a terrible design decision.)
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Prewitt
United States
Albany
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Legacy games are the dumbest thing I've ever seen in board gaming. They are literally a plague on the hobby. Imagine CD's/records that self-destructed after you played them.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Taylor
United Kingdom
Staffordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
79strat wrote:
Legacy games are the dumbest thing I've ever seen in board gaming. They are literally a plague on the hobby. Imagine CD's/records that self-destructed after you played them.


Hyperbole much? Given the hundreds of board games released every year (how many was it at Essen this year? 700+?), how many legacy games have *ever* been released? Half a dozen? If that.

That's about as far from a "plague" as it's possible to get. They are literally the opposite of a plague.

Don't like me? Fine. But no need to be dumb about it.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
marqzen wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
Campaign games and legacy games are two separate things and I think when you design your game it will lend itself naturally to one style or another. If you try to shoe horn a legacy component to your game because that is the cool new thing (or worse, a money grab) it will be awkward, people will notice and it will fail.

This thread has got me wondering, are legacy games even necessary? Could they be reworked as a campaign game? where changes are tracked on a pad of paper? If it works then no need for a legacy game. If it would be to awkward then a legacy game might just be the thing.


I agree completely, which is why I would never shoehorn anything in. It requires a certain kind of thinking early in the design process.

But I too wonder if maybe I'm thinking wrongly about it, in terms of Legacy vs Campaign. Perhaps there are conceptual things to a legacy game, that I'm not even interested in.

What is in my mind is a game world, where players can do all kind of things, and the choices they make affect the next game. I guess it would be fun even without an actual campaign, but you start a fresh game that is different due to the previous one - even if they are not connected in terms of story. Just as a fun change.

So in one game a city is controlled by the Spanish. But due to events an missions, the next time you play, it is controlled by the english. Sometimes stuff like that happens in Merchants & Marauders, but it resets on the next game. What if it dident? Its a fun idea.

But also fun as an actual campaign. I'm just saying that the campaign thing isent even needed for it to be fun to have the world change from game to game.

Anyway, i'm just thinking out loud now.


I didn't vote Christian because my opinion is that I'd like to have campaign style play where the game can change from session to session, but I don't want a permanently altered game. Cards for optional rules and such the way Legends of Andor introduces things is the way I would prefer. You can hide future elements in boxes, just don't permanently mark anything.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Bowie
United Kingdom
Crewe
Cheshire
flag msg tools
mb
Campaigns are a great idea. Legacy is not.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems I had a little too broad an interpretation of Legacy.

So lets say campaign vs single session in an adventure game. Has anyone even attempted that in any big way. An adventure game where the sessions have world changing effects carrying in to the next?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
matheus cohen
Brazil
flag msg tools
marqzen wrote:
Seems I had a little too broad an interpretation of Legacy.

So lets say campaign vs single session in an adventure game. Has anyone even attempted that in any big way. An adventure game where the sessions have world changing effects carrying in to the next?


Isn't Seafall like that?

Haven't played yet, and i'm sure is not the only thing or maybe even the focus, but exploring is a option.

But to me all legacy games are single sessions that change the game, you are just playing exactly the same game over and over + 1 extra mechanic. While campaing change the 'scenario' and 'objective' each session without changing the mechanics much, you may get a new character or weapon or level up, but the game mechanics are the same.

The best example of that is that the rulebook changes in a legacy game and not in a campaign.

Of course it's just my opnion and i'm sure there are exceptions to everything.

In Pandemic legacy you do:
G1: Pandemic
G2: Pandemic + new mechanic1
G3: pandemic + mec1 + mec2

In most campaigns:
G1: game
G2: game + new map
G3: game + another map
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Hillier
Canada
St. Albert
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
79strat wrote:
Imagine CD's/records that self-destructed after you played them.


Like going to a concert?
34 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C B
United States
Twin Cities
Minnesota
flag msg tools
flying
badge
dutchman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stewi wrote:
galad2003 wrote:

This thread has got me wondering, are legacy games even necessary? Could they be reworked as a campaign game? where changes are tracked on a pad of paper? If it works then no need for a legacy game. If it would be to awkward then a legacy game might just be the thing.


Yes, they absolutely could be reworked in this way, however, doing so means it's no longer a Legacy game. The whole idea behind Legacy games is that changes are permanent. You can not go back and undo them, you cannot reset. If there's even the possibility of resetting the game to its original state - whether or not you actually do it - then that's not Legacy, it's just a campaign game.

In order to make the changes truly permanent, you have to do something like destroying/modifying components, using stickers or pens or something, but not just tracking changes on a separate piece of paper. Obviously, this makes a great number of gamers uncomfortable (hence the recurring controversy), and I totally understand that. It makes me a little uncomfortable, too.

There's nothing wrong with saying you don't like Legacy games. But asking why a Legacy game can't just be a regular campaign game is sort of like asking why chocolate chip cookies can't just be plain cookies. No one is suggesting there's anything wrong with campaign games, but the designers who choose to make Legacy games are exploring something different. Not just the idea of things changing over time, but the idea that these changes cannot be undone and have permanent, lasting consequences.

I disagree with this argument completely. There's no reason the 'permanent' changes to the game world cannot be tracked in a way which is non-damaging. Legacy games are a blatant money grab almost as heinous as CCGs are.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
flag msg tools
The statement below is false.
badge
The statement above is correct.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ampoliros wrote:
There's no reason the 'permanent' changes to the game world cannot be tracked in a way which is non-damaging.

It's certainly possible. But is it convenient? And does it hold the thrill of tearing up a card, or writing your name on the map?

I certainly see the attraction of legacy games, given the right people.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Marcussen
Denmark
Odense C
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why is Legacy considered a money grab to some of you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.