Yep I do this. The game can take 15 minutes to teach, but an hour for me to re-learn if I have to read the rules again. If I write my “teach” into a cheat sheet it’s so much easier to replay because it removes the mental barrier of having to read yet another 39 page manual.
Plus, there’s always some tricky rule that everyone gets wrong the first time I explain it. My notes help me ensure I teach it “right” the first time.
The problem is they aren’t comparing apples to apples. They asked each version of GPT a different pool of questions. (Edited my post to make this clear).
Once you ask them the same questions, it becomes clear that ChatGPT isn’t getting worse at math, because it has been terrible all along.
My understanding is this claim is basically entirely false. The tests done by these researchers had some glaring errors that when corrected, show gpt-4 is getting slightly better at math, if anything. See this video that describes some of the issues: https://youtu.be/YSokS2ivf7U
TL;DR The researchers gave new GPT questions from two different pools. It’s no surprise they got worse answers.
I’d still call it a legacy game. While legacy games usually involve physically, permanently, altering the pieces, it’s not required; just that previous sessions carry some impact over to the next. At least that’s what I’ve seen.
I would say simply adding and removing cards from the game counts as a legacy mechanic, since at any time my copy of Oath is going to play different than your copy based on our play history.
Maybe “legacy-lite”?
Edit: seems the term might be “Fable”? https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/44081/series-fable-game-system
This is really cool! My teach is usually a very similar order to what you list, but its nice to have something like this written down. I will probably steal this.
For the Woodland Alliance, I usually deacribe them as “playing Pandemic, as the disease”. You are spreading around everywhere, and can pop up suddenly to devastate someone’s clearing if they aren’t keeping you in check.