Subject: Re: Talisman (2nd Ed): Can it be fixed? From: Trevor_Dewey@acml.com Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:01:56 -0600 Message-ID: <867700520.21435@dejanews.com> In article <5p873q$hir@badger.wmin.ac.uk>, bucklen@westminster.ac.uk (Nigel Buckle) wrote: > > Trevor_Dewey@acml.com wrote: > : Can Talisman (2nd Ed) be fixed? This question has been buzzzing around > : mY feeble brain for the last month or so ever since the recent > : public mauling of the game on this forum. > > [Various fixes snipped] > > What I tried was this (I'd welcome comments, as my gaming group then got > into DungeonQuest, and Talisman just collected dust): Heh. DungeonQuest was another game with a random engine problem :-> unlike Talisman though they're weren't characters that could abuse said engine. A fun game, though when I think about it, I can't remember ever getting out alive before the sun set. My greed invariably killed me :-> Good solo too (also unlike Talisman). > > Split the cards into 'items' and 'non-items' (ie. spells, creatures, > events etc ...), whenever you have to draw cards draw 1 less card than > normal (to a minimum of 1) and make the missing card up from the 'item' > cards. > > It helped with the 'randomness' a bit. Yep, this is a good basic solution to the engine problem. > 1. Only have ONE talisman in the game Interesting. Though I'd probably try a variant of this and have N-1 or N-2 (N=Number of Players) Talismans. Alternatively, get rid of the Talismans in the Adventure Deck and force em to use the Warlock. > > 2. Getting to the Crown of Command is a win Yes another good simple solution. This makes an early run a real strategic possibility. Though ultimately its going to depend on the dice at the Portal and various inner squares. > 4. Introduce QUEST Cards (we planned to make these using 3x5 cards), > Quests would have a creature type you had to kill, or location you > had to visit, or item/gold you had to find - completing the quest > and returning back gave a benefit (we were thinking of 2 types > of quest, Good & Evil). Unfortunately the idea never developed > futher than this. Interesting that you all came up with a similar theme (Questing). Ultimately, Talisman becomes dull when you discover that for most of the game there's really no "purpose" save moving around and trying to draw some good cards. I think that quest variations should be explored. As you mentioned (and what I forgot) is that classic quests are composed of three parts: A Place to Go, An Enemy to Defeat, and an Item (or Person) to win. One could (reasonable quickly) develop a table with the following: Places Enemies: Items/followers(Mostly Magic+Good Non Magic): 1.Cave 2.Dragon 1. Runesword ... ... ... N. (Place) N. (enemy) N. (Item/followers) A player deciding to go on a quest rolls and must accomplish the rolled quest. Accomplishing three quests wins you the game (or some such). Of course this specific version is still random. But perhaps its a step in the right direction. Other alternatives to Talisman: 1) 6-Card Setup. Each player has N number of optional setup phases. A player can declare (at the end of his turn) that he wishes to use one of these phases. He looks at the top six cards and rearranges them in any order. 2) Talisman Master: Quest variant. Treats Talisman as an actual RPG (which it isn't :-> ). Prior to startup the TM seeds all possible board locations with adventure cards. As cards are used the TM replaces them. The TM can assign quests if asked (using cards that are currently on the board but not yet revealed and acts as the monster in all combats). Anyhow just thoughts, Trevor P.S. Yes I know. This all begs the question: Is it worth the bother to attempt to fix Talisman? I don't know. I'd like to think so. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet