I know I've popped a topic like this before, but obviously with Frostmarch bringing us some new endgames... I've been thinking a lot lately about the underlying schema, structure, paradigm of possible endgames in Talisman.

One way of thinking of them is equating them (very loosely) to types of Adventure cards: Enemy, Event, Stranger, etc. Of course with the Warlock Quests we have something outside of that box. It leaves me wondering what other possibilities there are by other perspectives, classification ones or not. Essentially, what structures are there (that would work in Talisman) to then "fill in the blanks" to create an endgame?

In some ways, WQ is like looking for the pieces of something that is then exchanged for one other thing necessary to gain access to the win condition of the game. Let's face it, those Quests are in one way or another about acquiring things on a multipart shopping list... and everyone's list is different and randomly determined. It's sort of a seek and assemble for a reward that allows one access to the win condition. That in itself could be pushed further in some ways, maybe even designed to be more literally, like finding the pieces of a Talisman (maybe more than one) that have to be gathered and assembled. (That probably wouldn't appeal to most players of the game's current edition, but to some it might).

But what other structures are truly possible... aside from an end-Boss or uber-Enemy (which even I still like as one variation among others)? Are there endgame structures that actually can be drawn from other Adventure types? Hopefully not just another unvoidable "Event" like the Black Void. Or are there other outside the box ("deck") structures to be sought?

Hola

Each Endgame should be unique and I think trying to establish "trains of thought" or Endgame Types is a bad idea. Ultimately, the purpose of having different Endgame cards is to add variety (which is the point of every expansion, no?): having variations on a theme for Endgames doesn't achieve that.

The Reaper character was a new type of game feature let's call "Meta Villain": it is a character that fundamentally adds a new rule which changes the game. Jon made the Ice Queen which is another Meta Villain and I'm surprised no one has done something similar for the baddie at the end of the Dungeon. The problem with just adding more "Meta Villains" is that each one doesn't really add anything new. Jon's Ice Queen is great and I really like it but at what point does that innovation stop and just become variation on a theme?

All I'm suggesting is that I think Endgames are another nice idea and SHOULD fundamentally alter the victory conditions of the game. However, each one should be unique. I certainly wouldn't want to see an endless stream of different Uber Bosses or different "Collect 3 dragons/strangers/whatever".

So, I'm against codifying Endgames in this fashion.

Best Regards

Dorian

Got it... and that's worthy argument; there is a point where more of the same becomes less in total. I don't care for meta villains as they have been conceived. They aren't villains as much as just big cannons people get to aim at each other. It just slows the game down and for me diminishes the game; I'm not the only one who feels this way, though we may be the minority.

Jon's is better than the Reaper by leaps and bounds. It has triggers based on cards drawn, and actually begins to conjure a legitimate USE of theme that Frostmarch was missing. It operates more autonomously in that, and that way it is less of a container for players to pop another pill to become a momentary demigod. Repear is just that, and not to my taste.

Well... maybe all this isn't going to lead anywhere. But aside from endgames at the end of the game, it still leaves me wondering about other win condition scenarios like the WQ. I just can't think of any at the moment. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Glad you're feeling well enough to drop by.

You guys!

Thanks for the comments. I agree that it would be dull to have the same old bad guys and that there needs to be variety in endgames. There will obviously be similarities with a few as time goes on, but as long as they have their own twist, I think we will cope.

"My" Ice Queen is what I would have preferred for the Reaper, where you end up with no choice about encountering her. The Reaper should be similar really as players will tend to move him AWAY from their own character and towards others. This is a bit odd in my view, as if you were the one who attracted his attention, then it's you he should be coming for!

Your Ice Queen also share a little bit more with WQ paradigm; it is tied into the playing of the game, giving a slight lean towards "scenario." The Reaper doesn't do this either, though neither is as much scenario as the WQ.

And on that, as much as I would like more scenario oriented "(not) endgames", I'm not sure I see many others that would fit the game's mechanics. Team play is one that has been tried by some groups using various guiding criteria and endgame / win requirements. But that takes at least 4 if not 6 (should one use Alignment for grouping). Others have to be awaiting discovery, I hope.

I like the notion of theme as well, though it shouldn't be the only thing to define a scenario. If so, it's not a scenario, unlike the direction your took. Fingers crossed for the future, I guess.

I have to admit, I *hate* the Reaper: I think it is a great idea completely wasted.

One of the fixes I had in mind while I was working on my two own expansions was the Event Die (which another homebrewer has used in their game). The Event Die was a separate die with symbols on it, one of which was the Reaper. If you rolled the Reaper, he came and visited you and you HAD to encounter him. You were much less likely to forget about the Reaper then!

I think we're all the same page, actually. I had considered having different victory conditions before (or, at the very least, "Side Quests" which JC's Talisman Tasks nicely handles).

I'm very much of the opinion that more things to do that are less random is the way forward. I like the idea that the game (and the road to victory) are generally random. But you can do specific things which are less random to help you along.

dth said:

I think I know this one too, and I believe Jon did work with this mechanic as well at some point. And you're starting to spark some things in my head. I'll get to that in a moment.

My problem is that such a flat roll, even if there is only one event attached like the Reaper, it happens too often and generates an overly random effect to no true purpose. It is not really a part of a "story" ... which is always where all games begin development when they use a thematic environment. The one's that don't often don't last. And such a random introduction outside of the game's central story becomes a distraction; only those playing for no purpose but to get each other and win are into that. Even some of those will get tired of it.

This does work for a business model begin on boredom and the need to buy the next expansion. It doesn't work for the longevity of replaying an expansion over the long term by a majority of players. The best non-story expansions... the longest lasting... were the ones that either offered a change of actual story or integrated completely into Talisman's standard story. Frostmarch is an example of the latter, though the WQ actually changes the story itself. Amazing, isn't it, that for all the cards in Frostmarch... the WQ as a single component has a more profound effect that all of the others put together. Back to where I was...

One side on a die is a 16.7% occurrence; too much for my taste for the same thing to happen over and over - especially if that something is only a random chance machine unto itself that shows no true purpose in what it generates or in what its influence could accomplish for story.

You may dislike the way the Reaper encounters are generated, which is in the external game mechanics, and I agree. I also dislike its engineering, or internal mechanics, and its lack of truly designed purpose. Not only is it a big cannon for blinks of godhood given to players; it doesn't really have anything to do with any of a dozen different myths and legends about the Reaper. In other words, it has not true purpose to the story of the game; the concept development was very very poor, and likely it was just someone's notion of mindless chaos. The game already has enough of that, and no description on the Reaper actually changes what it is by that false veneer.

It could have brought so much more. I think the Ice Queen does step away from this serious mistake, and that's why it succeeds. Jon put some story into the mechanics rather than just in the veneer... the packaging... but maybe there's something more.

I've considered an event die myself, though I didn't find a satisfying use for it... because I couldn't think of satisfying purpose. Maybe that was part of the problem. The mechanic itself wasn't organized for a purpose, aside from not being able to think of a satisfying scenario with a real story element for its use. But as to the roll itself, there was another way the mechanic might be worked. Its effects... or events... might be tied to the movement roll total more strictly, more purposefully.

The singular event die would have to roll a number that matches the total rolled movement (not just die) of the adventurere. Hence, if one moves faster (farther) than just a die result rolled, one can outrun the possible influences of the scenario. But there also has to be a price for such advantage over others, and thereby being a potentially greater threat to the senario's center element. And we all know that control over ones movement roll result can be potent for bulking and building up faster than other adventurers. And so...

The number on the event dice could also indicate the danger factor of the event generate, with event influences designed to serve the scenarios purpose by its theme (superficial or otherwise) in opposing all of the adventurers succeeding in whatever endgame win condition is sought.

On two separate die rolled for a match between them, the chance of match is 16.7%, same as for any 1 to 6 on one die. That might seem like the same as encountering the Reaper. The difference would be what happens according to the number matched. And there's the catch. If an adventurer modifies its movement roll - through ability, objects, spells, board influences, etc. - it is harder to catch by the scenario's central influence (it would never roll a 1 per se if it could add +1). If it can manage to modify to 7+ plus, it can outrun the scenario's potential trigger of an event 1 out of 6 times. But the danger factor would go up if something was triggered.

Instead of another random roll to determine the event, the danger of event is linked in escalating fashion to the match between the event roll and adventurer's total movement (rolled plus modifier). For example influences...

1 = Minor annoyance
2 = A little more troublesome
3 = A more commonly encountered extra deficit in game challenges
4 = some form of loss that might be overcome
5 = a serious, dangerous threat
6 = something overwhelming but not utterly impossible to overcome

The average "danger" factor here is 3.5, so the effects would have to balance so that 3 and 4 are moderate to hampering but not devastating.

In this way, the power an adventurer has to get to potential advantages in building up over its competitors attracts more attention, as it is possibly a higher threat to the scenario's own goals. It is harder to catch, but when it is caught by a match between event roll and movement total, it would mean more danger as the scenarios central influence tries to stop it or slow it down.

Example:

• Character A can modify its movement roll by +1 optionally (or maybe automatically). This means if it does, it will never roll a 1, but it might roll a 7. It has a chance to escape the possibility of one matched event roll and movement total.
• It's possibility of an event being triggered is now reduced from 16.7% to 13.92%
• BUT it's possible "danger" factor average has risen from 3.5 to 4

Similarly, if the optional or forced +2 is used...

• It's possibility of an event triggered is reduced from 16.7% to 11.13%
• BUT it's average "danger" factor generated has risen from 3.5 to 4.5

The explanation of how it works looks far more complicated than it is in implementation. A simple rules card, like one that Jon used for the Ice Queen, would list the possible events by matched event roll and movement total. Some of these could included standard effects (any Enemy encountered gains +1, etc.), or it could include conditionals (landing on a non-draw space, but all of its options are close and unavailable) or it could even include a random roll to generate the specific effect for a particular danger factor.

Again, the description is far more complicated that the actuality, so don't confuse them. In actual play, the chance of an event is still only 1 in 6, just like the Repear, but it is not put into the hands of the players (let alone the actual characters... adventurers).

And of course, it doesn't solve the problem of worthwhile themed scenario with and actual purpose and not just an additional danger factor. Personally, it think adding extra danger factors unto themselves is just because too much the game's inherent dangers are so nerfed.

In addtion to the event roll, there could also be cards in the scenario that are added to the Adventure deck (or even others) the do more than just match the theme of the scenario. Instructions included might recommend that some scenarios be played with only the base game and the scenarios additions if win conditions are dependant upon some of them... to keep the game from becoming too long... or to keep the danger factor from wearing down adventurers before win factors are achieved. But that's a whole separate snarl to consider later.

So.... any thoughts... anyone?

The reason I raise all of this, is that these are the necessary mechanics needed to make a scenario work. In this case, looking at one possibly mechanic for making a scenario active in a fashion that is different each time it is used but with more stable effects that might have an actual purpose. THE REAPER HAS NONE OF THIS. In game design, there's an inspiration for a game, a notion of story that comes first. It will build or allow players to build in that story in play in different ways. But is always has to be build through the mechanics. Talisman does have something of story, though the only thing that really changes is the end. The WQ did something to change the middle of the story in a small way.

Its time that paradigm was followed more, but with mechanics that have a better balance between random and purposeful... and with the story and not the mechanics in the hands of the characters more than the players. The best stories are driven by characters.

Just some sparked notions from what you mentioned...

Good Evening

I guess really what we're discussing now is DESIGN PARADIGMS, as opposed to merely Endgame Paradigms.

Without this turning into the "I agree with JC Club", I agree with your comments

JCHendee said:

The situation really is that anyone creating cards/expansions for Talisman should really be doing so with theme being the first consideration and everything else is secondary. And if you can't fit things to your theme, then you've failed.

I mean, Talisman is a simple game of random events which build up a narrative. It isn't a competitive game as there is no skill involved. So the fun involved is the narrative itself. If something doesn't flow with the narrative (I'm looking at you, The Reaper, if it is your real name), then it doesn't work.

I want to comment more fully but I have family commitments. So off I go to prep myself for my mum's Church thing (she's joined the local Church of Zion for something to do...she's not religious but she says its fun ... go figure). I'll try and give a full response later.

Best Regards

DTH

Okay, Dorian, hope you had fun.

And Jon, I agree, triggering the Reaper should have brought it towards one and not given one the power to send it after someone else. But even that change wouldn't have been enough.

Some people are still enjoying it. I've only seen one group though beyond my own; my group used the Reaper only once. At a small genre convention in Salem, OR, I dropped by the game room and they were playing Talisman with the Reaper and the Dungeon (this was a while back and Frostmarch wasn't on the horizon yet). All seven were having a good time, though game banter had less to do with the game who was going to get who for whatever back stab... the who of course meaning players vs players. The characters were utterly forgotten beyond bookkeeping needs.... so was the Land itself. At one point, amid a confusing foray, someone asked "whose using the dwarf" and pointed to the piece on the board. Ummm... it took almost 5 seconds before someone said "me!"

I just watched for a little while until i had to go do my next panel and then walked away. No need to step any closer or be noticed.

dth said:

Ok. Now I have some time to discuss what I was going to discuss earlier

The Event Die is a nice idea to add a random activation for new game elements. As it has become apparent, a number of people have tango'd with the idea but never actually followed through with it. The reasons for this are many. But it is generally agreed that an Event Die could be a great addition to the game.

JC's idea of implementing an Event Die based on not only the Event Die's score but also the score of the movement die (dice).

Ultimately, one of the principle reasons to introduce the an Event Die is to avoid the "Activate on a X die result for movement", where X can be be 1 (for the Reaper) or 6 for teleportation etc becomes an issue when rolling multiple dice for movement.

Plus, you can actually have multiple things trigger from an Event Die + Movement Die where Movement Die alone presents the problem of there just being a single die (i.e. result from 1 - 6).

So. Here are the proposals:

1. Introduce a second die which is rolled alongside movement. This is the Event Die. You should ensure that this die is a different kind to the movement die you are rolling.

2. Your movement die (or dice) works exactly as normal. You must roll the Event Die in addition to your movement die (dice).

3. When all dice are rolled, compare the result:

The Event Die can trigger various effects as determined by what expansions/cards you have at your disposal. The score of the Event Die is compared to the result of the Movement Die to determine what exactly is triggered.

ASIDE: I propose to standardise the triggers of the Movement Die compared to the Event Die:

HIGH/LOW - if the Movement Die is 1-3 it is LOW. If the Movement Die is 4-6.

ODDS/EVEN - if the Movement Die is 1, 3 or 5, it is ODD. If the Movement Die is 2, 4 or 6, it is EVEN.

You can also have HIGH EVEN (4 or 6) or LOW EVEN (2) or HIGH ODD (5) or LOW ODD (1 or 3).

This gives a number of quick results without having to make calculations/having difficulty making comparitors.

EXAMPLE

Say we have the Reaper expansion and we want to utilise it in a different manner. We can set the trigger as 1 on the Event Die and the secondary trigger on the Movement Die as LOW.

So if you roll a 1 on the Event Die and score either 1, 2 or 3 on the Movement Die, you trigger a REAPER EVENT (dun dun dur!). The Reaper immediately moves to the triggering character and they must roll.

The above is merely an example (and a rather rushed one at that) but you get the giste of a possible implementation.

I've actually had another idea for the Reaper but I'll start a separate thread.

Best Regards

DTH

Very interesting! I haven't taken time to look at variance in probabilities, and certainly one wouldn't want to use more than 1 or 2 of mechanics mentioned. But you have pointed to more unrecognized diversity in possible mechanics for just one extra die... which could simply be a different color.

Lots to think about in there... though for the Reaper, or some better mobile Stranger/Enemy/NPC (Villain?), I would still stick with matching rolls for when it jumps the character rolling. That's still a base of 16.7% chance, as standard to the that Villain, but with other game mechanics adventurers can apply to lessen that through doing something or acquire something in the game. If we're going to have Death in the game, we might as well extend that cliche to some chance to "cheat Death." Then I would attach some other event mechanic that you've described above to another secondary effect of the Villain. But I would never put the Villain in the hands of player "decision" processes... but only to act for it in rolling dice, casting spells, etc. as needed to finish an encounter with it.

The Odds or Evens would probably not be needed; there are equivalent probabilities that can done on one die using just stated numbers (1-2, 1-3, etc.)... unless one were rolling for an event/encounter generated by a list on a card and it was desirable to mix the results (1 bad, 2 good, 3 so-so, etc.) so that other modifiers that might come out aren't going to always be to benefit. That's probably going too far with it though. But the notion of 1 isolated potential event (the event die only) and 1 potential interactive event (event die and movement die, or event die and movement result) is still probably the limit for as far as a Villain should impede on the game.

Another consideration springs up, though it gets finicky. What if the chance of triggering the Villain or other main scenario element was less in the Outer Region, average in the Middle Region, and high in the Inner Region... with the central scenario influence being stationed at the CoC? (Unless some trigger brings it elsewhere momentarily.) Sort of what's going on with the Jon's IQ but more. It wouldn't be something for a random draw ending, but might be a little more interesting than just knowing what uber-Enemy you'll be fighing in the end. It's influence is felt through out the game, and in each game its used, the "story" along the way would be different. It would be generated partly randomly (the event die) and partly by the players (event and movement). Thoughts?

Good evening

JCHendee said:

I really like this idea.

Let me offer some examples as to what I am taking from your idea;

Say we have 3 End Games (that I just completely made up for the purpose of example, so dont' read too much into them);

Curse of the Harlequin

The Old King was poisoned and his Harlequin swore a vengeance that would only end when the Old King was revenged. Shuffle the Poison Ring card into the Adventure Deck. Whoever takes the Poison Ring to the Crown of Command wins the game.

The Harlequin stalks the land until the curse is broken. Roll the Event Die whenever you roll for movement.

On a roll of 1 or 2 for Movement and the Event Die rolls 1 in the Outer Region, 1 or 2 in the Middle Region and 1, 2 or 3 in the Inner Region, the Harlequin appears from the shadows.

Roll a die:

1 - You are accused of murdering the Old King before being struck from the shadows. Lose 1 Life.

2 - He howls in anger and attacks you in Psychic Combat (Craft 10).

3 - He screams with vengeance and attacks you Battle (Strength 10).

4 - He mocks you and steals (discard) a random object from you.

5 - He berates you for not solving the mystery but then departs.

6 - He weeps for his loss and begs you to revenge his liege. Gain 1 Fate.

That's just an idea.

Best Regards

DTH

Addendum

It occurs to me that multiple movement dice complicate the issue.

So, I think that the following logic should apply:

• The Event Die represents strange happenings and events which occur because of your travels/movement throughout the land. When events transpire at the same time as your movement, you just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time...Whenever the Event Die rolls the same number as your movement, this triggers an event.

E.g. you roll a die for movement and the event die. Your movement result is 3 and the event die rolls 3. This triggers an event.

• You only ever roll the Event Die when you roll a die for movement. If an effect requires you to move just 1 space or miss a turn, your presence in the land goes unnoticed (you do not roll the event die).
• The more you move around, the more you are noticed: if the result of the Event Die matches the score of ANY dice you roll for movement, this causes an event.

A modification to consider;

• Events are more momentous the closer you get to the Crown of Command: you roll 2 Event Dice in the Middle Region. If either die matches a movement dice, this also triggers an event.

E.g. you are in the Middle Region. You are riding a horse which gives you 2 dice for movement. You roll 2 Event Dice and score 2 and 4 for movement. You also roll 1 and 4 on the Event Dice. The 4 for movement and 4 on an Event Die match. This triggers an event.

I'm not 100% happy with roll more than 1 event dice. However, I can't think of a quicker/less complex way of increasing the chances of an event without adding more complexity/slowing the game down. Dropping the concept of High/Low/Odds/Evens and just looking for matches nicely gives a mechanic which is both CLEAR and SIMPLE. Adding more or less different Event Dice doesn't add more complexity, it just involves you rolling more dice

Anyway. To continue with my examples;

Rise of an Ancient Evil

From deep within the bowels of the realm, an ancient menace rises from amongst the cracks in the earth.

• Whenever an event occurs from the Event Die, an ANCIENT SPAWN (Strength 3 Enemy) is placed on the board. Roll a die to see where it is placed;

1. Any space of your choice.
2. A RUNES space of your choice.
3. A HILLS space of your choice.
4. The CHASM.
5. The CRAGS.
6. The RUINS.

• The ANCIENT ONE is rising from the CROWN OF COMMAND. It is STRENGTH 10 but gains 1 STRENGTH for each ANCIENT SPAWN in play. If the ANCIENT ONE ever reaches 25 or greater STRENGTH, it grows to full power and all players immediately lose the game.
• The first player to defeat the ANCIENT ONE wins the game!

Well of Souls

A mad wizard has built a mystical Vault called the "Well of Souls". The wizard has bound the Reaper in servitude and seeks to collect a 1,000 souls to complete the dark ritual.

• Whenever an event occurs from the Event Die, you have garnered the attention of the Mad Wizard and he sends the Reaper to visit you! You encounter the Reaper (roll a die);

1. You are caught unaware: Lose 1 Life!
2. You are sapped of power: Lose 1 Craft.
3. You are drained of might: Lose 1 Strength.
4. The Reaper exerts some control over its actions and affords you a chance at escape: you must DICE WITH DEATH.
5. The Reaper declares your time will come but that time is not now. It leaves you in peace.
6. The Reaper sees you seek to defeat the Wizard and frees a soul. Remove a Life counter from the Crown of Command space.

• Whenever a player loses a Life, put a counter on the CROWN OF COMMAND space.
• The MAD WIZARD has built the Well on CROWN OF COMMAND space. It is CRAFT 10 but gains 1 CRAFT for each Life counter on that space. If the MAD WIZARD ever reaches 25 CRAFT or greater, the well of souls is complete and all players immediately lose the game.
• Any player may discard a Spell at the beginning of their turn to remove a Life counter from Well of Souls.
• The first player to defeat the MAD WIZARD wins the game.

Again, just some ideas of how you could use the Event Die to interact with the Endgame cards.

Best Regards

Dorian

Anyone else hate these forums?

Best Regards

DTH

I like the idea of only triggering an Event when you match die rolls and this will reduce the chances of it happening, making it a much more special "happening".

This can still be covered thematically with different icons matching the numbers though, to perhaps give it some more (albeit shoehorned in) flavour.

Hey Dth, just have moment for quick reply... I am reading fast and will comment more later. I like the Harlequin notion for its story flavour that doesn't fully change the structure of winning the game; it adds and additional condition. But I'm wondering about the Poisoned Ring. That one object coming up would instantly mean only one person could win, and it would be like an extra Talisman that only one person could use to win. Is there a way to put more uncertainty into the game end aside from having one object that everyone would battle over? As one rather simple (lame?) notion, could there be more than one Ring put into the deck? And then a mechanic for adventurers having to take a risk to figure out if it is the right one?

Back later.

JCHendee said:

As a random idea, I did later consider that a single special object might be TOO rare. Perhaps if there 6 distributed in the deck. I like the idea that you have to "test it". Perhaps take it to the Alchemist at the City and roll a die. On a 5 or a 6, it is the Poison Ring used to kill the King. Otherwise it is just a "normal" poison ring (I am thinking it is a Magic Object that allows you to win a tied roll in combat).

DTH

The Well of Souls in interesting as well... minus the Reaper, but that's just me. The one thing I see that modern players won't like is the possibility that no one wins the game. Still, that possibility is slim considering the requirement. And as much as I don't like forcing speed of play, it would certainly do that. Someone would want to get in there before the 25 is reached... or else!

JCHendee said:

I wanted to throw out a possible use of the Reaper that actually had a story behind it.

The "End the game at 25" might put some people off but I don't think it would actually come up that often. In the case of the "Well of Souls", all the players would need to lose a total of 15 Life throughout the course of the game. The chances of that aren't too high but it COULD happen and yes, it does force people to worry about it/provide a natural limit to the game.

I know some people really like the game to be open ended and go on. I myself like it be between 2 and 3 hours. Longer than that and members of my troupe lose interest...and as soon as one person's attention starts to wander, that instantly slows the game down ...

But yes, these ideas I just threw out there to demonstrate some possibilities.

Best Regards

DTH

dth said:

Okay, as another option considering 6 rings, each time one is exposed as false it is discarded and placed next to the board in open view (as illogical as that is that everyone would know). All players know how many are left. If only 5 rings end up on the side of the board, the 6th is automatically known to be the One.

The alchemist is a good option, but maybe some others would be good to give more options to check out a ring. Here's some ideas based off of what you have so far.... and in each case it is the roll of a dice on a 5 or 6, but the testing method is different by what you have to do.

1. Visit the Alchemist and pay him 2 Gold to test a ring.
2. Visit the Enchantress and roll for her; regardless of the result, you may roll to test your ring. (Ha! Imagine if you get toaded, and you still find out your have the right one!)
3. Put on the ring, and then roll to test it. It if is the one, you will know it by losing a Life
4. Others? Or is that enough or too much?

dth said:

That depends on the number of players. The more their are, the more the probability of lost life increases per round. What about the base 10 plus 10 plus the number of players in the game? Or something like that. The amount of lives needed to end the game with out a winner increases by the number of players, so somewhat keeping it from that bad ending coming too soon if lots of players are in a game.

I think for the Ancient Spawn option I would want the triggering player to risk having to face it. I take it that these would be cards to place on the board, some type Enemy that isn't drawn. (Oh boy, I'm even imagining how to illustrate and format them now.) Instead of just standard places, maybe something like the following reference from the triggering adventurer's current location.

1. On your current space; face the spawn immediately before you can do anything else there. If it survives, it will combine its Strength with any other Strength base Enemy encountered next.
2. Place the spawn 1 space from you anticlockwise
3. Place the spawn 2 spaces from you clockwise.
4. Roll a die and move the Spawn that many spaces away, anticlockwise.
5. Roll 2 die and move the Spawn that many spaces away, clockwise.
6. Place the Spawn on the Crown of Command; its Strength now adds directly to the Ancient One when it is encountered

In this scenario, I might actually remove the auto lose condition and whoever goes to the crown has to face it anyway. If it gets immense, and the players aren't all halfwits, they might actually have to form tentative alliances to get rid of it. Of course then comes the inevitable backstabbing to see who seizes the actual Crown... just some thoughts.

Dorian, one small question to clarify a theme. I think it is obvious, but... do you intend your Ancient One (well of souls) scenario to be cthonic or cthulhu based?

JCHendee said:

When the Stars are right...the more tentacles the better!

Nice work going on there Dorian!

I realise that the examples are just in the design phase but I would like to comment on your suggested endgame cards if I may.

As you suggested in your first post in this thread you don't want to have too similar endgame cards. I think the "Rise of an Ancient Evil" and "Well of Souls" are perhaps too similar in approach (though I realise that the two "bosses" gain power through different methods). Also be careful to exclude the choice for players to concentrate on one of main attributes (strength/craft) as it will put some characters at a serious disadvantage.

"Rise of an Ancient Evil" ending card is very cool idea. To counter the fact that not all character are suited to pursue the "Path of Strength" you could perhaps introduce another type of spawn that uses Craft instead of Strength and will also add 1 Craft to the Ancient One (which also starts with 10 in Craft). If a player can choose which spawn to summon there will be "battle between the attributes" as craft character probably would summon Strength spawns and vice versa.

I really like that you are doing an "Ending Card" to mend the flaws introduced with the Grim Reaper.
However, I would also like to see a more significant use of the miniature (since we already have a miniature and it is kind of cool-looking).

The Concept of the death incarnated in a skeleton-like being should, in my opinion, not be taken literary.

The Grim Reaper is, of cause, a metaphor for death and I find it difficult to imagine him an actual being (even in a fantasy realm). Perhaps as an god of death but not as an being walking the lands and killing (or do whatever with) anyone he encounters. Maybe the Grim Reaper in Talisman is an old and immensely powerful demon that has gone mad over the millennia and now believes that he is the death incarnated. This appeals more to me than a Wizard having taken control over death (which is rather abstract).

Just my thoughts...