Pulp Detective and Pulp Invasion are complete, so there is little chance of Mr. Sanders doing anything for these two games to add in the agency I am speaking of. I believe he is currently working on the next in the series, Pulp Romance. Maybe he can put it into that one (crosses fingers). That said, let us assume that we have the Wayback Machine and could help with the design of these games as they were being developed.

I think that Pulp Detective should have leaned into the fact that it has four symbols on six-sided dice, and made it such that some of those icons were harder to get to than others. Then, on the challenge lines, do not set those by the time of day, but instead allow the player to choose a line to work with — with the lower lines needing those rarer icons. If I go lower, I get more control over the types of rewards that I am going to receive if I am successful. Give me some control over the flow of the game.

I think that Pulp Invasion should have leaned into the various mechanics that other bag management games have used (think The Quacks of Quedlinburg) so that I, as the player, could have more control over what goes into that bag. Heck, if you were to do this, you could start the bag with fewer yellow cubes, with the player needing to do certain actions on various planets in order to put the remaining super-weapons into play. Do not just make me *feel* like I have some control, give me some control!

I like Pulp Detective. I like Pulp Invasion. It was work, but I have everything for both of those games. And I played them a lot! Since I started working on my most recent four articles, I have played both of them again. They are good, they are fun, they are engaging. Mr. Sanders did a good job! Agency is desired by me, but (obviously) not a requirement.

Again, thanks for the comment. I truly appreciate it.

That’s a really good idea, Ralf. We knew battle was an essential part of the game but, like you, were dissatisfied with the results for the loser. Weakening one player frequently meant the other players would start attacking them, which wasn’t fun for the losing player. A four point bonus seems like a good alternative to losing members of the tribe.

Speaking of which, if you’re not playing with tribes, how are you building your deck of actions other than by end of round choices?

The Strategic Action cards of TI4- pick a great action for your round, but only have access to a less powerful version of actions selected by your opponents (or perhaps no access at all if that card is not picked);

Multi-use cards, like in Luke Laurie’s Cryo, Holek’s new SETI and a growing number pop other titles. This is a really engaging mechanism because it allows the player to prioritize what’s important to them “right now”;

Various deck-builders (I’m looking at you Dune: Imperium) that allow the player to optimize a particular strategy via card filtering

What kind of mechanisms do you think these Pulp games could employ to enhance the player decision space?

Thanks for sharing. 🖖

Erin, thanks for the note. Nothing explicit with the dialogue here, but there are a few very funny hints at adult themes throughout some of the missions. I tell other parents it is best to preview some of the content if there are serious concerns, but that shouldn’t stop you from picking up the game. My 10-year-old still asks to play the game from time to time, even a year later!

Joey — I respectfully disagree. The Wingspan egg issue was “somewhat mitigated” with the updated boards; it was most certainly not fixed in my humble opinion. The issue is far more multifaceted that just how many eggs are given out in the early and late game.

Eggs being worth points creates issues like the fact that playing a bird is worth 1 or 2 points less than the printed value in the late game due to egg costs.

Laying eggs in the end game is always worth points. No other action can say that (not even playing a bird!). Gathering food and drawing cards are not worth points unless a round goal says so. If you just have the base game (or are playing on BGA, for example), then the mitigation of those new boards does not apply.

But this is just my opinion.

Rainwing — I am sorry you feel the way you do. I did not want (nor have I ever wanted) Wyrmspan to be a reskin of Wingspan. That was my fear when this game was first announced, and I am glad that it is not. I do not think that anything about Wingspan needs to be fixed (other than the fact that I feel eggs should not be worth points at the end of the game). Thus, I was not expecting or hoping for Wyrmspan to fix anything. What I was hoping for was a game that was interesting and unique; a game that created the feeling of a world beyond the cards — the same way that every other game in the Stonemaier library does. This one, in my opinion, does not.

I asked a question above: Suppose I have a dragon with two pieces of meat and a bottle of milk cached on it. Why? Why that dragon? Why those resources?

I go on to explain that there is no rhyme or reason. Dragons often cache “any resource” onto “any dragon.” It is not like dragons with X characteristic will want to hoard milk or meat. It is just “please put a marker on a dragon to remind you to get one bonus point at the end of the game.”

Those bullet points are simply more examples of where you have a mechanic but nothing that drives home the theme within the execution of that mechanic. The costs for the dragons are seemingly random; could cost Y be associated with characteristic X? Sure. But it isn’t, best I can tell.

It is true that I expected more. I expected more because Stonemaier Games has produced some of my favorite games. I expect more *from them*. But no, the last thing I wanted was Wingspan: The Dragons Expansion. And I never said the game was bad; just not as thematic, not as inviting, not as engaging as the game it was attempting to mimic (improve upon?).

You might not remember reading this review in a month, but I hope you remember this exchange. I appreciate your feedback and I will attempt to improve my writing and my reviews in the future. I hope with all sincerity that you will read this review again in the light of this conversation, and perhaps try to understand what it is I am (and was) attempting to convey.