by Dumon
1. One of the aspects of what players were looking for in such a game is the invention (or creation) of stuff. Tools, shelter, etc. That's what the designer said in one of his diary videos (or was it in written form somewhere?). At least that was what the people where answering when he asked. Exploration was not THE main theme, but was ONE OF THE main themes. So leaving out the invention aspect would kill a very specific, and important part of the game.Now, if you have cards on the table, and you sit around the table (I reckon that is where you are coming from with your argumentation), there will always be situations where someone will not be able to read said cards. No matter where you put them. And I, for one, actually find the space where you place them very nicely designed, thematically fitting, and also a good idea - you only have to look in ONE place, not in several, to get where and how the game is going. Or at least more or less so...
That said, you could, of course, save money on production if you'd cut the board. But the benefit of getting closer to it would come with the cost of game component scattery (all over the table)...
2.You already have that. Sort of. In the Event card deck.
But I take it you would like it more if they actually, physically, roamed the island. I can relate to that. It's more pleasing, and more tactical. On the other hand, maybe too tactical, then. And less thematic - if you are NOT in this or that part of the island, then how can you KNOW what animals actually are there at present. If they are not there as colonies - a fact that is mirrored by the "birds" ressource. This island is dangerous, and you cannot control it. That is basically why most of these informations are hidden in Event and Mystery cards, etc. Or at least that's what I reckon.
3. Each scenario is already pretty specific, due to different requirements, different Mystery Icon usage (and "Book" icon usage, and the four special Exploration marker usage, and the different items you can or have to build, and the special rules, and the different wheather dice, etc.). But I also get where you are coming from with this - you would rather have sets of cards for each scenario. Kinda like in Mansions of Madness, and the like.
The problem with this approach is lack of replayability. Due to cost reasons, you could not create huge event decks for each scenario, so the specific Events would be in smaller numbers. This would, however, mean that situations could (and would) repeat when playing a specific scenario multiple times. Or at least would repeat more often (or likely) than with an overall deck. And that's not a good - you would agree, would you not (see what I did there? Rhetorical trap...)?
However, there is a good idea there that can be taken up, I guess. And that is A FEW specific event cards for scenarios - at least those in the box, and those in possible future expansion boxes. A need for such cards, however, would preclude the possibility of, say, publishing new scenarios as pdf on the web. Something that the designer said he would want to do - even before christmas.
Also, it would heighten the chance of PoD expansions coming out ever so often, the way that Mansions of Madness produces them like rats. Now, I like MoM, even though I curse the prices of those PoDs (still, gotta have them all). But would you really want that for Robinson Crusoe?
So I rather opt for an increase of generic event cards and the like, to increase replayability in general (kinda like with Arkham Horror, partially) than specific card sets for use only in specific circumstances...