One other thing to consider, which has been mentioned before, is what if FFG could come up with a board based expansion never done before. That would be something to distinguish 4ER as more than a remake or upgrade from previous editions. That would be something to keep sales stronger longer. Especially if it were released in the middle of other scheduled releases already being discussed instead of after all other remakes of known board based expansions for any edition. But personally, I just not sure what there is one that could be done wholly new that would have wide appeal. The past boards, between a mix of 2E and 3E already cover the most feasible and broadly appealing concepts already.

I have heard of notions to expand other spaces into regions... oops, I mean "realms." And based on several differing fan expansions there were notions metioned for a ring of "seas" around the board. But beyond these and the previous realms, I'm hard pressed to think of anything else? Has Talisman, based on its FULL history of expansions, reached its FEASIBLE limit for expansion boards?

In addition, there's the physical space challenge. If the four realms are (re)created, where could one possibly put anything else? Overlays are another possibility, but that again is something Talisman has already seen. What do you see as possibilities that would (1) have a wide appeal, (2) not supercede other popular expansion boards waiting to be recreated, and (3) able to to interact compatibly with previous or future standard recreations?

JCHendee said:

The word "feasible" is the key. The more you spread the Characters on a big board with several realms, the less PvP you have. There's less focus on standard way to the Crown of Command. Talisman becomes a "fantasy adventure game", more than a "magical quest game" (because you don't focus on a quest, which is the run for the Crown, but start wandering in the land of fantasy adventure instead). There's no game planning at all: if you can draw 1000 different cards, you can't hope to draw exactly what you need, because decks never run out of cards like in the base game without expansions. Basically, the more expansions you add together, the less you stick to Talisman core game and spirit. Too many expansions may result in a wide mess if they don't plan them carefully.

The Dungeon is really well done in comparison to 2nd edition and I can't wait to see how FFG will restyle other popular Talisman expansions. I'm sure we'll have a definitely better gaming experience than ever before and that's more than enough to be satisfied.

JCHendee said:

You may plan to do more than 4 realms, considering that you can't play with more than 4 at once. That's good enough for me: give me a desert, give me a sea, give me a swamp and more exotic places to visit (jungle, barrens, steppes, savana, other dimensions if needed). Just remember to keep them strictly intertwined and give me more than enough chances to encounter other Characters. Give me side-quest to accomplish, force me to travel from one realm to the others, give me tasks and rewards and a lot of nasty cards that make things harder even for strong ones.

Overlays are an interesting add-on, especially for Middle and Inner Region. I must say I don't know anything of 3rd edition, I never played with Dragon Tower or something like that. FFG can take very nice ideas from its wide experience in game design; I'm sure they'll keep on doing well.

The_Warlock said:

Yeah, this is something that i am hoping for.

Overlays can change some spaces into wildernis maybe ( draw 2 spaces)

FFG use the best ideas from both expansions.

i am already happy if i have all the 4 regions+ tower.

I don't need more actually, because i have no space for it on the table..

But every expansion is welcome off course.

Warlock - The Rune Gates were a brilliant way to keep the characters in range of each other whilst spread out on a big board with several realms. Expect to see Rune Gates in every board expansion! The Reaper adds a little PvP regardless of distance between characters too, and so will dark fate whenever that becomes official.

In my opinion FFG is doing a fantastic job at increasing PvP in Talisman (I always found it lacking in 2nd edition). I expect them to keep it up! I won't be surprised if we see another NPC soon, maybe that moves when you roll a six?

JC - While we'll almost surely get four realms around the corners, they may or may not be the same as in 3rd. One or more might well be a never-done-before board based expansion. Everyone seems to assume they'll be the same as in 3rd. Maybe they know something I don't?

I also wouldn't be surprised if we get a centre board that isn't the Dragon Tower. Though I've never actually played 3rd, my impression is that fighting the Dragon isn't that different than fighting the Frost Queen. They might well just expand the CoC into it's own tower (like the tower pictured on the main board) with the crown (or whatever ending you're using) waiting on top.

If FFG releases Timescape, I expect it will be so radically different as to almost constitute a never-done-before expansion (they might even rename it). I only think this because most of the Talisman fans with whom I interact say they didn't like Timescape in 2nd edition.

I am excited to see what the future holds for Talisman!

crimhead said:

No, i am just hoping that we get the same realms asThird edition.

Now that the Frostmarch expansion is coming, it's sounds like they will make the Mountain expansion too. Snow exist there.

It would be nice if it will become the next board expansion, but the Forest or City is also good.

-

The Dragonking and Frost Queen are both cool.

But i like the combination of dragon tower + dragon expansion (from 2th)

It would be the first time that they are both together in one edition of talisman !

Anyway, they can also make a expansion called the Ice Queen Tower.Or castle

Everything is possible

I think the four known realms will have to be done... well, maybe at least the Forest and Mountains. Next to Timescape, the City in both 2E and 3E received the most criticism from players. There is also the fact that 4E® has changed things a bit, and likely FFG will not want to lose the "old guard" of the Talisman community buy not doing at least some of those old realms. Best guess, we get the Mountains and Forest to go with the Dungeon... then maybe something different (or not) in place of the City. Part of me would like them to take at crack at a City variation just to see if it can be done right this time without all of that "master" or "second level" freebie character nonsense.

For me, I prefer CvC (character vs character) more than PvP. Some people consider it the same thing; I don't. And a lot of the newer dimensions of PvP introduced have less to do with the characters. Throwing the Reaper at each other is one example. A character may be its target, but isn't about character vs character.

I like the notion of an overlay for part of the board. The Tower was somewhat that in a way, though one wonders about the price tag of an overlay for anywhere else on such a large main board. But overlays were successful (at a guess) for Runebound.

Another space that has always attracted me for an expansion was the Hidden Valley. Imagine a more fantastical take off on the Land of the Lost or a similar prehistoric realm. I've even considered a special expansion deck just for that theme but haven't have time to work on it. The problem is... obviously... where the heck would you put a board for a middle regions space?

JCHendee said:

Well, you don't necessarily need a board when expanding a space. When I made Mystic Brews for 2nd Edition it was just a deck of cards that sat on the Tavern space. I used to have a spare copy of the Talisman 3rd Edition base set with a deck of City cards in it. These were just placed on the City space and you had the option of drawing from the deck or visiting the space.

Yes, in the old days we tried something similar with the 2E city deck, but it just didn't work well. It was all purely encounter in the streets with no real sense of place within the city itself. I think a deck might work for an open land space like the Hidden Valley; I'm just not sure about a place like the City, where adventurers would want to seek destinations inside of it beside those listed on the space itself.

I some ways, I wonder if the four known realm boards wouldn't have been better as just straight line board to go on one side of the board... then imagine just simple microboards with small spaces (no cards left on such boards) for some of those corner squares. Just a notion, places to go, and I know some fan boards were done somewhat this way... but back to notions for wishful commercial expansions.

Anyone have notions on an overlay for the middle and or inner regions? I was surprise a bit that Frost March wasn't exploited more for this. Would've been at least thematically interesting to see a small new overlay for the inner region down Ice Age style. Ah, shades of Fire and Ice to flip between for playing Talisman!

JCHendee said:

In third edition, there is a chance that you can earn the high wizard card or the sheriff in the city expansion.

For me, they may skip that part.

The City is nice to have, but they must make it a interesting place. It was always a boring place.

I really hope that more different objects will be available there, so that people can spend they money there.

Yeah, the Hidden Valley has a image that gives a prehistoric feeling. That means that also dinosaurs exist in that world?

Land of the lost was very nice to watch when i was little. I have good memories of it

Agreed on all counts, V. I never played 3E, but 2E had some similar "master" level characters (or whatever they were called from edition to editions). Hated them!

Yeah, LotL was one of my favs as a kid too. It might be just a little too juvenile to do literally for Talisman, but the prehistoric thing has got me thinking now.

The_Warlock said:

I'm not sure about this - I expect a corner realm would not be as apealing if it means droping a previous corner realm. On the other hand, this could work very well for centre inlays. A particular centre board could come with it's own ending card. Use that board only with that ending. I would like to see a (modified) Timesacpe as an alternate ending.

Images of 3rd edition with all it's realms appear to have a space between corner realms. You could put a 'T' shaped baordin that space extending along the edges of the corner realms on that side. We could also see board like the old Timescape and 2nd edition Dungeon that are not connected to any spot on the main board (and can simply be placed off to the side).

True, too many realms will really cramp ones table, but based on the size of the current boards, I don't think table space management has been a leading design factor for 4th revised!

JC,

CvC is my favorite kind of PvP too. But previous editions lacked enough of any sort of PvP (for my liking). Adventure games in general tend to be light on PvP (compared to war games, anyway). So I'm happy - delighted - to see any sort of PvP added to Talisman.

One of the reasons I like the standard ending is that it brings more PvP (CvC infact) than the other endings. When nobody else is close it doesn't matter either way. But, if another player is close behind than their life count directly affects your chances of winning before they catch up. Fighting the Frost Queen will not have that element of CvC.

What do you think of the Rune Gates? Essentially portals between realms, these increase the potential for direct CvC interaction despite a vast game board! I think they are brilliant. I'm grateful FFG is making efforts to increase CvC (and other PvP).

I'm gonna put my intervention in brackets because 1) it has not a lot to do with the current thread BUT i'm not gonna create one for that - that'd be pure trolling and 2) because I only know talisman since 4R edition, so I couldn't talk about previous ones, but I always had fun reading about the fear from a lot and the hope from a few about the time travel expansion... well, when I look at some cards like the digger robot in the dungeon, or the magician taking a rabbit (or was it a dove ?) from his hat in front of an audience, well, I don't know if this is a big contextual error but if not, man you can be sure we will have this goddamn time travel sh...... er, expansion, sorry end of the brackets

crimhead said:

Now that's an option I hadn't heard of or thought of before. It think it's a little unweildy, but it does present some possibilities that would fit the current greater design pattern of expansion boards.

crimhead said:

Oh yeah... that's another can of worms, and at least around my place. When my wife and I play, which happens frequently for our remote location, that huge board requires some getting up an moving around at times. I can only image when it comes to more expansions.

crimhead said:

Huh, okay, though we had plenty of CvC in our group during 2E, and even put limits on some of the ludicrous PvP beyond working through characters. Then again, its hard to quantify what each of us considers enough, too much, or too little. There's also the problem that with fewer characters on the board (and hence fewer players around the board), that CvC is less... and that may be why then PvP seems more (too) dominant a replacement for it.

crimhead said:

Again... huh? The ending shouldn't be what governs PvP and doesn't govern CvC. No matter what the ending is, the majority of character interaction shouldn't be reserved to the latter part of the game or the final run to the endgame. To me, that's an indication of poor design. If it's not happening throughout the game, then the main part of the game needs work, and no endgame will ever fix that, make it better... or worse. But that's another topic.

crimhead said:

I see them as a push, and maybe in some way that's best. They certainly do offer the potential for more CvC, but we don't have enough realms yet to see how they might work out in that area. Certainly that part could be interesting even beyond the CvC element, since getting to a gate or other "bridge" between realms and/or the main board would be an interesting occasional twist. But they can bypass and make moot some of the originally designed challenge of getting from one "region" to another, making it too easy at times. I guess we'll have to wait and see on the realms, once we have more of them. And it would depend on whether a gate card is in a realm's deck and not just on the main board.

OFF TOPIC ADDENDUM: Maybe its just me, but I'm thinking there ought to be more options in CvC than just attacks (through Strength, Craft, and Special Abilities). During 2E, we did come up with another option inspired by "Market Day". Any character meeting another could opt for "Trade/Barter". If you knew of something the other character had and you thought you had something they might want, you could opt to offer trades or purchases when you met them in person. Are there other possibilities for CvC encounters? Or is that pretty much it for the limits of the games play?

Another option that has come up in home brew for expansion "boards" are board space overlays. Two variations come to mind. The first is a premanent change where an overlay (rather than editing the board directly) is used to change one or more critical spaces for a particular game. Another way is a card drawn with instructions for its placement on a particular space, so that in changes (alters, increases, decreases) options available on that space. This might be another approach to the overlay expansion option, though I can see that some groups would consider it too fussy or complicated.

An oversimplifed example might be says, more spaces on the board be themed by Alignment influences. Let's take the cliche of a Greater Demon having ceased the CoC as the end "boss" to be killed to win the game... or maybe some other additional / optional conditions for winning might available as well. The end "boss's" influence could not only be reflected in expansion Adventure cards to match it, but in overlays of certain spaces upon the main board. Both cards and spaces could possibly be rigged to affect how the game might be won outside of killing the boss, in conjunction with killing the boss, or as an alternative to killing the boss?

Any thoughts or expansions on this notion? Ideas about how it might work or problems that need to be overcome?

I think I wasn't clear about my opinion on the ending. I do not want the majority of the player interaction to occur at the end. Certainly not. But I don't want PvP to stop during the endgame either. CoC is an interactive ending, while the Frost Queen is not. I prefer some interaction to none.

When one character is miles ahead of everyone and on route to the CoC the game is not very interesting regardless of the ending. When a second player is close behind the endgame is more fun, and the ending matters more. If we are playing CoC, then my characters actions, objects, and statistics will directly effect my ability to catch you in the centre before the command spell kills me. If you are fighting the Queen than the state of my character has nothing to do with your chances of killing her before I catch up.

I do not feel that CoC provides much more PvP than the Frost Queen. But the small fact that you can gain life to delay the Command spell provides some interaction. Granted there are spells that can delay each ending. Counter or reverse spell works on the command spell. I think there's a spell which can turn any combat into a draw. I still think there is more PvP in the standar ending than the Frost Queen, and I'm disinclined to replace the former with the latter for that reason. **

Most of the PvP in Talsiman comes from an accumulation of little things. Occasionally you encounter another character. Occasionally you get to move the Reaper onto somebody (or chase them). Occasionally you can use a Rune Gate to reach a far away opponent. Occasionally you can cast a spell on somebody. And occasionally you can get extra time to catch up because your high life total and/or easy healing delays the command spell.

Regarding PvP in 2nd, note that two of the above occasional opportunities for interaction are new to 4th, or at least weren't present in 2nd. For me I still don't think there is enough in 4th (though I'm pleased with what's been done), I eagerly await dark fate! The most drastic interactions I recall in 2nd where being hit by twenty spells a turn sometimes (which was annoying) and having five plus objects stolen at once with mules and carts (which was also annoying). That doesn't happen in 4th, but I don't miss it.

There were also more PvP fights in 2nd I recall because you could encounter somebody and the space in the same turn. Combat is not my favorite sort of interaction in an adventure game because it usually amounts to stronger players taking all the good stuff from weaker players. This makes it very hard to catch up in what essentially is a race. So now that I think of it, maybe 2nd didn't have less PvP, but PvP that I enjoyed less.

(Have you ever played Sword & Skull? Two rules it had that I like are that each die has a crap out result, giving a minimum of 1/7 chance for a weak player to beat a stronger player in combat. The other is you can't steal a crew from the player you beat unless they have more crew than you have. This helps facilitate CvC without totally raunching the little guy).

Talisman (2nd) was the first adventure style game I'd ever played. I was used to games like Axis and Allies, Diplomacy, and Bridge wherein everything you do is either interacting with another player or preparing to do so. In comparison I really missed the level of PvP those games had to offer. Having not played Talisman for years (until 4th revised), maybe my memory exaggerates the lack of PvP in (2nd) Talisman.

In contrast, I may have come into 4th (which already had the Reaper expansion by the time I bought it) expecting said exaggerated lack of PvP. Either way I'm glad to see efforts like the Reaper, Rune Gates, and dark fate adding interesting PvP to 4th edition.

**Not PvP so much, but there is the interesting factor that an opponent can reach the Frost Queen and die there - not possible with CoC (they can die on the way in either ending, but that's less frequent I think). So if you are racing through the inner realm towards the Frost queen, more often I will have the dilemma of chasing you vs waiting to get stronger on the hope that you'll fail. I'll want to play with Frost Queen sometimes for that reason.

crimhead said:

I disagree. If the F.Q. is the way to win the game, then certainly other players would want to stop you from doing so first. If one player is far ahead in getting to the CoC, that's no different than with any endgame... unless the end game has an element of its achievement that does or could involve winning criteria linked to other areas of the board. But that's a totally other ball of yarn.

crimhead said:

Unless you do something from afar that helps the F.Q. against your opponent. In the old set of endgames, the Dragon King (?) was just like the F.Q. in this. It was not unheard of for two adventurers to be on the central space at the same time. Aside from any forced rulings in expansions that deny access to the central space when one adventurer is already there, the complications of battle, psychic combat, special abilities, spells, etc. would sometimes get quite wild. In general, I'm not a big fan of the end "boss" monster as taken from video games, but there were both pluses and minuses over the CoC standard, if all players involved were smart enough to play the odds and options of there characters. We had one game where there were two adventures on the CoC with D.K. and two others in the Inner Region. Nobody won until all but one were dead, and strangely is was still the one who got there first. And the number of spells and various metaphoric backstabbing too complicated to even remember well.

Don't count the F.Q. out just yet as far as CvC or PvP.

crimhead said:

True, but only two of those are CvC.

crimhead said:

No. You are not remembering 2E fully. There were gates or similar mechanics. There were cards on the board you could send at other players; they just were more in theme with a fantasy "land" than the Reaper. I don't consider the Reaper to really be fully PvP let alone CvC. It only happens on a chance roll, so it's not like any adventurer does (or should) have actually control over such an mechanic, like they do in using special abilities, certain followers of old with reach to afar, or spells. As to dark Fate... that's more player "godhood" that breaks the ambiance of the game in order to find cheat for more PvP. It's lazy mechanics. Spells are enough for that kind of affect from afar.

crimhead said:

Sounds like someone wasn't paying enough attention to spell rules. And in general, one could not steal a bearer Follower (or Mule as an Object) and get everything it was carrying. That's not how it worked even in the days when Mules were Objects instead of Followers. Again, some rules were being missed or misinterpreted, possibly.

As to stuff being lost because an adventurer loaded up a hoard and couldn't defend it, well, I like that part... its part of real adventuring, just like death. And if an adventurer is concentrating on toys and equipment more than real Strength and Craft, it deserves to find itself suddenly "whimped" when its toys are gone. That's also potential PvP (and hopefully sometimes CvC) at any time in the game. CvC is (should be) more than just pounding on each other... which is the low brainer form. Nerfing aspects of the game that make it hard to shortcut one's way to superiority should not have been taken out.

crimhead said:

I don't get the latter part of what you're saying, but if you mean the chance for anyone to take a Follower from anyone else... then no. That's turning Followers into Objects. There is a reason they have been classed separately. There are enough problems in the game where personae (npc, whatever) aren't even given a nod as being "someone."

As to the crap out, you should look in the Home Brew section. There are alternative systems of Combat and approaches to critical failures for other types of rolls that go all the way back to Talisman 1E. They've been around for more than 20 years as house rules. Much as part of me might want to see some of them as standard, I think they are better off as options. Not everyone would want those extra complications; many just want a basic game of set core rules. Such options are probably better left "aside" for those of us who play with a special set of comrades who occassionally want more challenge. And not even all the varied people I play with want those all the time. The 2D6 combat system that I prefer, with autowin and autolose rules, doesn't even get played in all of our games.

ADDENDUM: C.H., as to the "corner" boards I mentioned vs what others have talked about, I wasn't talking about replacing the ones already planned like the Dungeon. I was thinking way outside of that. The notion was... what if those realm boards were straight and ran fully along one side of the board. That would leave the "corners" of the main board open for four more smaller boards (maybe little square ones) to expand the main four corners of the Outer Regions. Just wanted to clarify, but of course this is completely outside of the current commercial design paradigm and will obviously not ever happen now.

When I first posted this the entire text was in quotations. I couldn't fix it. I will attempt to repost the data.

JCHendee said:

Yes, but that is true in CoC too.

JCHendee said:

Also true with CoC. Do the FQ rules modify interaction between two players in the centre?

JCHendee said:

That's what I meant to say. In this case there is not much you can do i any ending.

But if you are actually close behind, you have more influence on your catch up time if your opponent is trying to kill you with the command spell than if they are fighting FQ.

JCHendee said:

Rune Gates facilitate CvC.

JCHendee said:

You call it concentration, I call it bad luck. You get what you can in Talisman.

JCHendee said:

Could well me - I never owned the game is those days and I played how I was taught. I definitely recall attacking eachother and taking a mule along with everything attached to it. I didn't like that.

JCHendee said:

In S&S it works backwards. You can steal crew or gold but not objetcs. the point was I liked how that game limits the extent to which the big guy ***** the little guy.