I've been trying to develop a new gameboard for Talisman that would allow for more flexibility of movement, and a less linear design, while still using all or most of the existing game cards. One of the ideas comes from Runeboard: a hexagonal landmass board. I've been experiment with this concept, and created a very rough and very early thumbnail design. See the image attached.

• Green spaces would be 'the outer region', and you would draw one adventure card if you land on a green space.
• Brown spaces would be the 'middle region', and you would draw two cards if you land on a brown space.
• Yellow spaces are desert spaces, and you draw one card and lose a life point, or expend one water bottle.
• Red spaces are the 'inner region' spaces, and you move through them one space at a time.
• Gray spaces are special spaces, and you cannot pass through them without stopping.
• Blue spaces are water, black are impenetrable mountains. You can't move through mountains, and you can move through water one hex per turn on the raft.

This is just to get our creativity flowing. I think there are real possibilities here, but much needs to be considered, which is why I'm opening up the idea to discussion at this early stage. I still need to incorporate several important lands, like forests and woods, crags, the chasm and the Glade.

The movement system might have to change as well, with certain types of terrain reducing movement in half (counting as two spaces). I intentionally created several narrow pathways in order to spur player v. player interaction.

What do you think? Do you see where I'm going with this?

img121.imageshack.us/img121/6518/talismanhexboard.jpg

I think you are doing a great job. The very idea of a hex board is excellent. It can allow a number of new mehanics to be implemented into the game and it may increase the number of players playing it. Nevertheless, you may encounter problems with putting some nice graphic design on the board. Have you already thought about it? "I'll be watching this thread to see how it's developing

Thanks for the comments Erester! Much appreciated.

I've revised and added more elements, and thought about new rules for movement:

PRELIMINARY MAP KEY

• All Gray Spaces - Special Rules Apply, player can not move through grey spaces, must stop and take action
• Black Spaces - Impenetrable Mountains, no movement
• Blue Spaces: Water - Players can only cross blue spaces with raft, one space per turn
• Light Green Spaces: Plains - Move as normal - Draw one Adventure Card
• Dark Green Spaces : Woods - Move half speed - Draw one Adventure Card (Elf can teleport to any dark green space & move normal speed)
• Orange Spaces: Hills - Move half-speed - Draw two Adventure Cards (Dwarf can teleport to any orange space & move normal speed)
• Brown Spaces: Middle Region - Move normal speed, Draw two cards. Add +2 to any enemies encountered
• Yellow Spaces: Desert - Move normal Speed, draw 1 card and suffer lose of 1 life or expend water bottle
• Red Spaces: Inner Region - Move one space per turn, do as instructed

You'll not that this greatly improves the Dwarf and the Elf, since they will be able to bounce around the outer region.

New Movement Rule: player can not cross the same space twice in 1 turn or he is automatically 'lost' and misses his next turn.

(I apologize about the quality of the image, click link for enlarged image)

img9.imageshack.us/img9/6518/talismanhexboard.jpg

Hi Lars Gnomish,

I applaud your effort for trying to find new ways to provide more freedom of mouvement and bring more PVP interaction

I will be watching this tread to see where your project is going and to provide ideas or feedback to help you along.

I really like the idea of using water bottle only once and will talk to my regular Talisman players to implement it as a house rule.

Cheers,

Very intriguing. I'm assuming that cards would not be placed on the board when drawn. Don't know whether you would use a token and rack system for undefeated enemies (somewhat like in Runebound), or simply make it a full discard after encounter... personally I'd do the latter to force more risky adventuring rather than just plunder what gets left on the board.

I'm not sure about that +2 on the Middle Region. I'd be inclined to make it +1, then for any "Runes" add another standard +2 on top to make them seriously deadly... but perhaps with something worth the risk. At present, I don't see any reason for anyone to go all the way through those brown hexes and hit a Rune space by choice.

I can see how you have the Temple and Tavern still positioned for a boatman. But I'd put another brown next NW of the temple. Not sure I care for the only direct access to it requiring going through two desert spaces.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad that my idea is being received well. Ideally, what I would like to do is inspire the folks at FFG, convince them that this concept could work with a little effort, and produce an official expansion using this concept.

JC Hendree, I thank you in particular for taking the time to look at how I've arranged things so far, and for providing feedback. I will try to address some of the points you raised.

CARDS

Cards are probably the biggest issue that needs to be worked out. The board would have to be huge in order to accomidate cards on the spaces. I'm keen on Runebound's approach: have numbered counters that you place a space, which correspond to cards which are arranged to the side. A maximum of 10 counters should be sufficient. Once you have cycled through all 10 counters, you start to eliminate the oldest card in play (counter 1, then 2, and so on). This might actually improve the game, as players will want to race to pick up a dropped magic item, or slay a big trophy beast.

I don't like the idea of disposing cards right away. The whole basis of Talisman is watching the way the board develops over the course of the game, and it would undermine a lot of the rules if places and monsters didn't stay on the board.

It might be interesting to rule that you can't move through a space occupied by a monster unless you stop to fight it. That could force players to move into spaces they don't want go to. The narrow landmass on the south end of the board could become treacherous. As could the middle region, where there is less space to move around.

ENCOUNTERING ENEMIES IN THE MIDDLE REGION

+1 might work... I don't know. It's worth a test.

DESERT

IMHO the two desert spaces in the base Talisman game are lame. The only time anyone ever goes to the desert is if their only other choice is the Chasm (which nobody EVER goes to). The board I created makes crossing the desert almost essential. You only have 2 options to reach the Portal Of Power: through the desert or through the Black Knight. With this board, the Black Knight can afford to be more powerful since you won't be forced to land on him: therefore the Black Knight will demand 1-6 gold, or you will need to fight him with a 10 strength. So, the desert could potentially become a more appealing option.

I also wanted to put spaces of interest on the far sides of the desert, to encourage players to take the risk to cross it. Therefore, I added a Mystic space, where you could potentially gain more strength, craft or spells, and I put the Temple in the desert.

OTHER STUFF

I was also thinking of eliminated the talismans from the Adventure Card Deck and requiring all players to take on a Warlock Quest. However, I would re-write the warlock quests so that players are forced to travel around the board. For instance: the warlock instructs you to deliver a package to someone in the City or the Graveyard. Or the Warlock tells you to seek the talisman in the Glade or the Ruins, etc.

I might actually switch the current locations of the Warlock's Cave with the Mystic.

A maximum of 10 counters should be sufficient. Once you have cycled through all 10 counters, you start to eliminate the oldest card in play (counter 1, then 2, and so on). This might actually improve the game, as players will want to race to pick up a dropped magic item, or slay a big trophy beast.

I think 10 would not be enough unfortunately. Especially, if you take Places into consideration. There is no reason why these should disappear.

The whole basis of Talisman is watching the way the board develops over the course of the game, and it would undermine a lot of the rules if places and monsters didn't stay on the board

Agreed

It might be interesting to rule that you can't move through a space occupied by a monster unless you stop to fight it.

Great idea for the reasons you've mentioned and additionally it reflects the real conditions more accurately

It might be interesting to rule that you can't move through a space occupied by a monster unless you stop to fight it.

Good idea. i use it myself to force players to visit different boards in the original Talisman

What appeals to me most in this idea it that it actually starts to look like a real world, not like some artificial rings around the Crown of Command

P.S. What's wrong with the BBCode on the forums?

Lars Gnomish said:

Very good. To some, Runebound's approach is a bit too much upkeep/accountingt. I'm okay with it because it is scenario based (Talisman is not so). Therefor some encounter cards need to be tracked so that players compete in completeling the scenario vs. just foraging for advantages. BUT... the idea that everyone in the land suddenly knows where something is waiting is definitely out of sorts. But it's a game afterall.

Talisman is not the same; it has only one real goal... aside from its varied endgame cards, which are not scenarios. Warlock Quests is the exception (a good one) as a half-scenario. The goal of play (not the endgame) is changed. Using markers may be the best way to avoid having a board too large just for cards. But that system is not serving the same purpose in Talisman, the purpose it was designed for. Still, it is the best solution for what you are facing in the new board's design and limitations.

I would say go with 7 markers instead of 10. That is more than enough if you want to avoid having all encounter cards discarded immediately after an encounter. It is an acceptable trade off, decreasing adventurers constantly going after what is "magically" seen all over the land from anywhere, yet some things reamain for a while. At this same time, keeping the markers to less increases them having to "adventure" on their own for what they might discover that no one else has as yet.

Also, with Runebound, one has to go to a gem marker to really draw an encounter card. In Talisman, not so; cards are being drawn all of the time, mostly. The accounting of markers will be about 5x that of Runebound, if not more. It might seem that having 10 vs 7 markers would be better, but it really wouldn't change the amount of upkeep. After the first 7 or 10 markers are used, the amount of upkeep levels out to the same.

Additionally, only one encounter card is marked in Runebound most of the time. In Talisman, for later parts of the game as adventurers head in to more dangerous areas, you will often be placing a marker for more than one card grouped together, as drawn on multi-draw spaces.... a lot more of them than on the standard board. The Adventure deck will be depleted more quickly, depending on how many cards any one deck has. (And not everyone plays every game with every card from every expansion all of the time.)

There is another complication in using the Runebound marker system in Talisman. Places and Strangers stay on the standard board sometimes throughout a whole game. In the marker approach, they would come and go very fast if treated the same way as Enemies, Objects, etc. This is problematic for Places especially, from a logical point of view. But I do not see a ready solution for this that would not require even more accounting. The only thing that comes to mind is a second "track" for those cards. Places and Strangers would rotate out as well as new ones were drawn, but at a slightly slower rate than the first track for other cards. Still, this may be way too much upkeep and accounting for a simple game like Talisman.

Lars Gnomish said:

I can see you point, though I remember (correctly or not) there being multiple reasons in 2E games for getting to the Oasis. My main point on this was that the Temple would never be completely isolated by desert. It makes no sense for a place dedicated to all of the Powers of the Alignments. I could see the Mystic living such an isolated life, but not the all those serving the temple (yes, temple, not shrine, and therefor a populated place). On the other hand, I don't like the new Temple with its overload benefits.... with inequal deficits by probability.

Lars Gnomish said:

Not to promote myself, but you might take a look at my Talisman Tasks expansion at TalismanIsland.com for notions in this exact vein. I'm currently working on an expanded version of this one, with more tasks. Perhaps you'll get some ideas for your own take on this approach. My group and several others are now using it extensively and have put aside the commercial ones.

Lars Gnomish said:

I think both of those work in isolation, especially if you use different paradigm for quests. On the other hand, most players used to the easier quests and easier ways of getting them would be less invited to try your board as an occasional alternative.