Risk legacy setting

I'm currently working my way through risk legacy with my friends, I took notes of what happened in the first game turn by turn, because I think I want to make a setting based on the game. Using the wars, interesting turns of battles, and how the games go to write a history and narrative for the setting.
Does this sound reasonable or interesting to anyone?

>You MUST physically destroy cards and put permanent stickers on the board.
>You're not buying a product which you own and can reuse at your leisure, you're buying the EXPERIENCE of a product one time!
>If you like it enough to want to start over from the beginning, you can just buy a whole new copy.

Better options coming soon. Watch this space.

/pol/ please go and stay go

Do they expect people to actually do this?

What percentage of games on your shelf can you honestly say you've played more than 10 times?

Virtually none. I own something like 60 board games and have never played more than half and only played the others once. Aside from cards against humanity, zombies, and ticket to ride, most of my games are play once.

You know you can continue to play on that board after 15 games, right? Or are you just spewing what you read someone else say about the game?

I think your idea has merit. The factions are different enough to make a somewhat diverse setting, the Tec levels are at interesting points. As long as you fill in the gaps when you actually write the setting, like how the fuck the best Vikings are able to travel around just like people with planes. Maybe include magic through them if that's something you wanna do?

I've got a copy of risk that comes out every Christmas must have had it sine I was 13. Its one of those anniversary editions in the wooden box. Its perfect for the annual family argument.

>You know you can continue to play on that board after 15 games, right?
Yes, I do. The board will not be new after the first time. It will have permanent alterations. It will be missing physical pieces. In a sense it will never be quite the same game it once was.

Arkham Horror, Age of Empires III (no idea why but we played the hell out of it), Settlers of Catan, Mare Nostrum, Princes of the Renaissance, Axis and Allies, Cosmic Encounter, probably a few others I can't think of right now

Yes, this is the WHOLE point of risk legacy.
If the point was to play it the same way every time with the same rules and the same pieces then you wouldn't and shouldn't buy a game that specifically says that you will be removing pieces from it and altering the board.

Well I feel "the whole point" of that game is unnecessary, or at least it's implemented in an inconvenient way.
If I wanted to stop a board game and play it again where I left off, I was fine with simply recording the board state on a piece of paper. No physical component of the game had to be permanently expended.

Son, what kinda ducked up are you?
You aren't picking up where you left off in the next game. The factions are re-chosen each game and each game is used to form additional rules for the next game.

Twilight Imperium, Risk:Legacy, Risk, Evolution, Axis and Allies: Europe/Axis and Allies: Pacific, Twilight Struggle

This could work. I've always been a fan of running games to determine the setting history and plot for future games, this isn't terribly different.

You fail at reading comprehension.
Is there any mechanical reason why the permanent changes in Risk Legacy COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE by writing on a piece of paper instead of defacing the game board itself?

because that's pretty lame desu

That's not a mechanical reason, it's an emotional reason. Try again kid :^)

Because then you couldn't laugh at poorfags bitching about it. That alone increases the entertainment value immensely.

Because what you stated, "If I wanted to stop a board game and play it again where I left off"
Is distinctly different from playing the game again from the start with new mechanics and additional rules, along with new factions.

100% actually, and almost all of them are in decent condition with no missing parts.
I can play them all exactly the same way I played them when they were brand new.

If I wanted to play the game again from the start with new mechanics and additional rules, along with new factions, I would write those things on a piece of paper, instead of permanently destroying cards and altering the board. There's no mechanical reason why that would be impossible.

While that's true, it ultimately is supposed to culminate in a final world that is formed by the players and their motives.

You're right, there is no reason you couldn't do this. But your shitposting has taken up enough of the thread. Let's talk about OP's idea instead of hating on a game because we don't like how it implements things? Yeah?

The plan OP has could be very interesting. With a diverse enough list of factions and good note taking you could make an interesting world. But let me ask you, do you so really WANT to take notes of each game? Sounds Like you're gonna slow down the game a lot. Also you're gonna have to fill in gaps like crazy.

In the flip side, you have interesting opportunities to create heroes and such. Did one unit hold off an entire army through virtue of good rolls? Name him, make him a heroic figure in that setting you're working on.

If i was one of the people that was gonna play in the setting at the end of it, I would be thrilled to play through 15 games of risk to create a new world. It would feel super personal.

>oy vey ill have to pay for something that can only be used limitedly
>what is live entertainment
>what are amusment parks
>what is gas
>what is fucking food
>what are the tons of other things we purchase in life that are temporary
Its like a 40$ game that gives you like what? 15 plays? Thats less than 3 dollars a play. Looks like your the jew here bud.

Other board games don't have this limitation.

Jesus Christ, just dont fucking buy it man! The absolute best thing you can do if you NEED to hate this game so much is not buy it and not talk about it. You're making me want to go buy this game just to spite you.

I'm with , when you go to an amusement park or see a movie, or fuck, go to a play or concert, do you insist that it's stupid because you can only see it once or be there for so long?
>why go to a concert when I could buy their music?
>why see a play when I could read the script?
>why go to an amusement park when i could just imagine being on rides?
>why go see a movie in theaters when I could pirate it and watch it forever?
Nigga, not only do you sound like a cheap cunt, but you also sound boring as fuck. I am glad to know you aren't in my circle of friends.

Herein lies the wonders of living in a capitalist society: You can let the developers and manufacturers know your opinion by not buying it. You can also stop participating in discussions so as to deny them free advertising.
If you don't buy it enough, they will eventually see that it is not a worthwhile investment and they will stop manufacturing the product.

I think that's a really fun idea, *especially* if the people you're playing the boardgame with are going to be the people playing in the resulting setting. They'll likely feel more involved and like they have partial ownership of its history, opening up different ways of drawing them.

Simply writing it down or shifting a token on a tracker is not equitable from a UX perspective even if you can nominally achieve the same thing within the raw mechanics.
In other words, "the medium is the message," and how something is consumed or experienced imparts meaning into what is consumed or experienced.

Battleship

That's not equivalent because we are comparing one board game to other board games.
If all those things had been, for all human history, a physical object which could be used again and again in the same state, and we came to expect that, wouldn't making them perishable be considered a flaw rather than a feature?

A better analogy would be a tabletop RPG: you can develop an ongoing campaign with permanent consequences for actions, you can change the player characters partway through, even introduce new rules as the story progresses, and yet nowhere in the rulebook will it ever be demanded that you physically destroy pages of it. You always have the physical object in your possession and the option to start a new campaign from scratch.

>That's not equivalent because I can't dispute it.
Fixed for you.

>demand
>bowing to the whims of a piece of paper with words printed on it
You are weak user. The weakest I've ever seen. Perhaps instead of destroying things and placing stickers you can place them aside or place sticky notes. But user, if you are not a strong enough man to do your own thing and play the game in a way that works for you, then I truly feel sorry for you.

If it were possible to literally eat a cake and still have it afterward, you bet your ass I'd pay good money for that option. I wouldn't claim the brevity of the experience makes it more special.

If there was a way to make live entertainment last longer, it would be strictly better than not.
If there was a way to make amusment parks last longer, it would be strictly better than not.
If there was a way to make gas last longer, it would be strictly better than not.
If there was a way to make fucking food last longer, it would be strictly better than not.
If there was a way to make the tons of other things we purchase in life that are temporary last longer, it would be strictly better than not.
How do you not get this? We purchase a lot of things that are temporary, and we ALSO purchase a lot of things that are persistent. Board games have, with the exception of Risk Legacy, always fallen into the latter category.

>I am a Luddite who cannot accept that people can change certain aspects of certain products, such as their temporality, and still manage to have fun. In fact I think anyone having fun in this way is a fool and that changing aspects of products should be outlawed. All things should stagnate and remain the same since I do not approve of a single example of a product not conforming to features found in the rest of its ilk. I have no idea what an experience is, am not willing to pay for an experience and I buy dvds instead of seeing films in cinemas because "it is strictly better [...] [since] it lasts longer".
>I am user and these are my words: Stop Having Fun I Don't Like It

This is literally what that user is saying.

Have fun how you want OP, your plan sounds interesting, just take crazy good notes

What's so bad about buying DVDs? If I watch a movie at home, I have still *experienced* it.

It's not the same experience has having it watched in a theater, though. Unless you are one of those guys that have a literal home cinema, in which case I envy you.
There's nothibg wrong with watching DVDs or listening to MP3s and in most cases it's cheaper than a ticket to a concert or theater. But being cost effective isn't the point here. The fact that the game is transient and irrevocably changed is part of the experience getting sold here. It's like eating a well prepared 30, 40 bucks steak at a nice restaurant vs shopping smart and cooking a good meal at home. You are buying similar things with different values attached to them.