This was a topic a while back, but I wanted to start fresh for a new discussion. The purpose of Space Expander cards is to be able to alter or augment a board space without permanently editing the spaces instructions. This allows permanent, temporary, and even rotated changes to board spaces while still keeping the standard board unchanged for regular play.

I will be putting up 2 or 3 of my creations a time for discussion and review. These have been play tested favorably in my own group and in one group in the Czech Republic. That doesn't mean they might not need a little more tweaking. Some replace instructions for a space; others add on new options for a space. Some are my own notions while others were inspired by other people or created collaboratively. There are three methods for use in testing as a way to spice up a game with a little change of pace now and then.

Standard Selection
All players agree upon which cards to use as the standard or for a one game change of pace. The selections are placed upon the referenced space noted on the cards (below their title). It is generally best not to use more than one Space Expander per designated space, but more than one designed for the same space doesn't create any problems. The game now begins.

Players Choice
After all players have chosen a character (by whatever method), and the player to go first has been determined, each player secretly chooses one Space Expander. Starting with the player who will go last in a round, and working backward (anticlockwise), each one chooses a card. Once everyone has a card, all cards are placed on the board appropriately and revealed to all other players. The game now begins.

Random Selection
After all players have chosen their characters, they must agree on how many Space Expander cards to put in play. The cards are them shuffle, and the chosen count of Space Expanders are dealt and placed one at a time. The game now begins.

All images here are presented at half of print resolution. To see the full resolution, right-click and select "View" or "Save" for a closer peek. And now, for the first cards to look over...

The Bunkroom and the Card Sharp were inspired by earlier alternative Tavern space edits by Dorian "Dth."

Nice work JC.

I don't wish to cloud the issue, but I was reminded of an expansion that is still in a folder awaiting a new cardback on my desktop from Ken Picklesimer which was based at the Tavern and used Purchase cards for the card front.

They are a similar colour to your efforts and already have a space where the Space attribute can go. I've just mocked up one to look at. Worth a thought...

...and don't worry, I've only pinched your artwork for this example, just to show people how it might look.

Hey, that works too! I only created the alternative front so that my cards while on the board were very visual clear as not affected by any standard game rules and mechanics related to cards... that they weren't cards, so to speak. But any motif works so long as everyone knows what it is about.

Also, some of your wording might be better than what I have on the Card Sharp.

Some minor changes were made to previous cards posted; you may have to do a hard refresh of the page to see these. Changes were made based on suggestions here and elsewhere. Here are the next three cards. Suggestions for these or even for additional cards (or variations) are welcome.

And three more... To clarify, for those who have asked by email, anything that does not say "this card replaces..." (or similar) is simply another option to choose for the space the card is placed on.

Cool idea - like it.

It was on my list of things I will never achieve to make a board with a flexi-plastic cover,

probably tiered that you would be able to slot

these types of cards into to replace the standard board squares.

Primarily to house-rule certain squares more effectively.

Anyway, if I could refer the honorable gentleman to an idea I had aaages ago for the Oasis square....

Raiders Camp - Oasis

If there are any cards in this space, draw only enough to take the total to 2.

Any objects or Gold found here can only be taken if you defeat the Raiders Camp (Strength 9)

(Yes - you can Evade them with a spell to help the craft-type chars)

The Oasis idea is certainly a good one, and others have wanted it that way too, but... I don't particularly care for a permanent encampment like that. We already have the Black Knight in the inner Region, though he has always needed work and is poorly executed concept.

Better that the Raiders card itself is re-written. Once someone draws it and is cleaned out, the Raiders card is placed in the Oasis with all the goods they stole. (NOTE: any gold they got would be spent before they went there, as there's nothing in the Oasis to spend it on; all gold lost is discarded.)

Anyone landing there still draws cards, but the Raiders count as one such since they came out of the deck. All cards are dealt with in order, and frankly I'd give the Raiders an order number of 6, so you have get through all other drawn cards before you find them. (They wouldn't be very good raiders if they were easy to get to.) Defeat them, discard them, and take what goodies are left over. With a card that comes and goes, its easier to determine what they are guarding vs what mayhave simply been dropped on the space.

On the third hand... I'll just have to make that Raiders card you described. You and others will then have something to spice up your Oasis the way you like it. Keep your eyes on this topic, and you'll see that new card pop up in a day or two.

Bantha (and everyone)... here is a starting point for the card you suggested (which includes some wider scope details of my own). I chose not to title it as "Raiders" so that card would still operate normally - and even in conjunction with this one. (If you like, think of him as the Raiders tribal leader.) Feel free to make suggestions for further refinement.

I left out reference to drawing cards; he only comes into play when something is left on the space, as drawn cards are something the adventurer encounters directly. Players groups are open to interpret him as optional to drawing cards, or in addition to drawing cards. Because he represents a group of opponents, and in the Middle Region, I raised the Stength one notch.

The things you make JC, is very beatifull - great work

Thanks... I might also add that I'm not completely satisfied with the card back I created. I'm considering losing the map background, replacing it with a basic texture, and then keeping the colorization zones as seen. Any comments or other notions, anyone?

Well, actually, I really like the card back you've made

Great work JC. I am especially found of the Fount, very innovative!

I feel compelled to write something about my current project. Once again it seems that JC and I are working parallel on the same basic idea (the last time it was alternative quest cards)... but that does not necessarily have to be a bad thing.

I don't remember where the inspiration came from but it was probably from the old thread dealing with the same subject.

Let me present my approach on this:
Instead of adding cards as options to the existing space instructions, I have made cards for every option already available (e.g. the enchantress and blacksmith) plus adding cards for new options. For the Village and City I have made 6 different cards each. At the beginning of the game draw 3 cards each and place them on the respective space. These are now the available options a character have when visiting the space. After a character has chosen one of the available cards, the card is discarded and the deck is shuffled and then replace the discarded card with a new card. So everything is not available all the time. It brings a lot of dynamic into the game.

This will make the current space instructions obsolete, but hey, FFG made the space instructions on Warlock's Cave obsolete when they introduced the Warlock Quest Cards so I don't see much of a problem.

I have made cards for all spaces which I call urban spaces. That is: City, Village, Castle, Chapel, Temple and Graveyard. Though graveyard is not very "urban", I wanted it to function in the same way as chapel.

But I have difficulties finding time to work on the expansion so it is probably is months away anyway.

Erestor said:

Seconded!

This looks like a really cool idea. If I can find a half-decent way to make my own cards I might just look into making these for my game.

One question though: Is "card sharp" a term I'm simply unfamiliar with (perhaps from across the pond), or did you mean "card shark?"

Steve-O said:

Actually, the term "card shark" came about through mis-use and error. The correct term is "card sharp" as in "to be sharp (quick, cunning) with the cards". I don't have links to give for word history, but you can find this implied in most online dictionaries by the way the two terms are linked.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/card+sharp?o=100074

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/card+shark?o=100074

As to making cards, it is real easy. Buy some cards sleeves, print you fronts and backs (separately) on photo stock, trim them out and slip them back to back into a sleeve. Print lots of extra card backs if you do this for home made cards that will mix with commercial ones. Put your commercial cards in a sleeve, then slip a printed back in behind it, so when draw cards are stacked up, it is harder to tell which ones are from where. Dth taught me this last trick.

If anyone would like to contribute to the Space Expanders, please feel free to write up a card herein and I will try to produce it for review. I don't want to step on toes or steal people's projects, but I would like to make this deck grow; currently it has thirteen cards in it, which is generally enough a couple of the play options that opened this topic. For a more random approach, I need to add a few more cards at least.

If anyone has suggestions on those already posted, please feel free. I'd like to make these as widely appealing as possible, though in the mix of suggestions I have to be judicial. (I have some standard people who actually "lurk" here and prefer not to post, so I'm already considering some notes.)

Of course, another option is that once I release my cards, I may release the template thereafter (perhaps for Jon New to include in SE). If it appeals to anyone, then anyone can make their own Space Expanders. I know others have actually produced this concept using somewhat altered standard Talisman card fronts, but I prefer a front that looks a little more like a space rather than a play card; so far the approach has been positively received in play testing, though not by all.

Hmm... my mistake according to the dictionary. It seens "card shark" may be the first and "card sharp" the second, though that isn't what came up in my old etymology course.

Here's the last four cards created so far. Again, not all notions are purely mine; some were suggested by others, and cards like "The Port" have been played as a game option, past and present, through other home made rules...

I've been following this thread with interest and I am also planning on trying the Space Expander cards. Regarding the Temple of Balance card. I'm just wondering how balanced the Temple actually is when you consider probabilites. I'm also not factoring in any Special Abilities or anything else that adds or subtracts when a Character prays. The probability follows a bell curve with the high point or average die rolls in the middle & the low points on the end.

When you roll 3d6, there are 216 possible combinations of numbers that can be generated. Here are some of the breakdowns.

• 18 - Probability of rolling a 18 is 1/216 or 0.463%. - Strength is gained on "18'.
• 17 - Probability of rolling a 17 is 3/216 or 1.389% - Life is gained on "17". .
• 16 - Probability of rolling a 16 is 6/216 or 2.778%. - Craft is gained on "16".
• 15 - Probability of rolling a 15 is 10/216 or 4.630%. - Fate is gained on "15".

You can probably see where I'm going with this. I am 10 times a likely to win a Fate as compared to winning a Strength. 6 times as likely to gain a Craft compared to a Strength and 3 times as likely to gain a Life compared to a Strength.

Based on the proposed card, I think the plus or minus for die roll totals of 7-14 are fair and reasonable. The plus and minus for scores 3-6 and 15-18 are the ones I think are unbalanced. One solution would be to group them and say

• 3-6 = lose 1 Str, Craft, Life, or Fate randomly chosen
• 15-18 = gain 1 Str, Craft, Life, or Fate randomly chosen.

Or the following chart with the results all randomly chosen.

• 3-4 = lose 1 Str or Craft
• 5-6 = lose 1 Life or Fate
• 15-16 = gain 1 Life or Fate
• 17-18 = gain 1 Str or Craft.

These are just suggestions for possible rewording. I'm sure there are other combinations that could be made. I'm just putting this out here for discussion.

I do see your point, and you are right, but only within the limit of the card alone. The balance issue also has to take into consideratin what's available in the game at larger, how many characters on average have easier access to a particular benefit elsewhere, what's easier to gain without resorting to freebies, what's most damaging to lose, etc.

For instance, Strength is easier to gain vs Craft and thereby not as damaging to lose; so by the Temple roll, Strength was made easier to lose and harder to gain by the roll. If it were the other way around, over even equal odds, Craft based characters would be flat out stupid or desperate to use the Temple... by the odds of the game as a whole. Like consideration was made for Fate vs Life, etc., though there was no way to compensate for Alignment inequities (which has never made any sense to any players I know. Why in the world would Evil have more access to Fate than Good? The only answer is dumb one: because Good has always have more access to Lives than Evil.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, but balance isn't just what's in one card nor the odds of gain vs a loss being equal. That roll table was actually a pain in the butt, because I didn't come up with it myself. It was hashed out by three other people as well, with a lot of spitting and fuming and grudging compromise between 1) fast players who want more freebies for the fast win and 2) old schoolers who expect a tougher game beyond exaggerated randoms. n the end we told the fast player to "bite us" and go back to using what was on the board. And so, I'm at a loss how that card will ever satisfy a majority of just the alternative players.

But you've still made me second (third, fourth...) guess the way that card came out. It's a reminder of what I've though for a while now; maybe that's just an impossible card to do right, for it has to be more than just equal gain and lose, by a random roll. Otherwise it isn't balance against the game, only against itself. On the other hand, the Temple has never been very satisfying as is.

You make some very good points. I myself was wondering the relative values of Str, Craft , Life, and Fate and how they relate to each other and the difficulty in gaining vs losing them. I'm glad to see that was also a consideration. Thanks for explaining. I now have a greater understanding of the thought process that went into the card design. I can see how this was a difficult card to design. I guess once the card has been used by players that there will be some feedback as to it's relative merits or faults. I'll have to try the card and see how it affects game play and report back.

I guess once the card has been used by players that there will be some feedback as to it's relative merits or faults. I'll have to try the card and see how it affects game play and report back.

ADDENDUM: Just caught your post while I was re-editing mine. So the one herein is obviously my erratic attempt to address your points. The cards have actually been play tested in some ways by two groups in the Czech Rep., one in Germany, and one in Australia. The ones I posted here were versions altered after feedback. Feedback was minimal, some of it only about getting more benefits, others about alternatives to tone up or down different cards. Strangely enough, there wasn't a lot said about the ToB, but that doesn't mean you have not hit on something critical. You have. And I've found it helps to get some opinions from others who do think a little deeper into the mechanics... in other words, those who actually post and talk about this stuff.

Player feedback only gets you so far, and you have to filter it for what its intention really is. Not ignore it, just be judicious about its use. One 'bloak' suggested a choice option as well... but with escalating gain and loss up and down the scale (up to -/+3!!!) with the player choosing which attribute takes the loss or gain. I could see some groups liking, but I'm not into that.

====================

Here's another potential take on the ToB based on jondee986 notes (the table might be tricky now to get on a card). I still think there needs to be a little inequity on the Str/Crft, Life/Fate for lose and gain to counterbalance inequities in other elements of the game. Additional Possibilites might included:

• Doubled-up gains/losses would be a choice rather than a second random. It gives the adventurer some choice vs. a continuously expanding list of randoms in the game.
• Allow sacrifices (discards) as per the "Altar of Powers" so that one may add 1 after the roll.

3-4) -1 Craft/Fate
5-6) -1 Strength/LIfe
7) -1 Object
8) -1 Spell
9) -1 Turn
10) -11 Ignored
12) +1 Turn
13) +1 Spell
14) Talisman
15-16) -1 Craft/Fate
17-18) +1 Strength/LIfe

On the first hand, The original objective was to spread gains and losses out to include more and eliminate excessive ones. (By the time an adventurer enters the Middle Region, it shouldn't need excessive gains as freebies; if it does, it should tuck its tail and run back to the Outer Region!) Stretching out to include additional results required a higher range roll. Sticking to standard dice, the more dice for increased range, the more remote the odds are at either end (as jondee986 showed).

On the second hand, returning to 2D6 is another option, though again with other limits. I'm not crazy about it, but it might solve some odds issues and its deficits of function might be less than those pointed out for 3D6. Whether or not to add a "sacrifice" option on this lower range is another matter as well. I'll leave it here for now and see what others think.

2) -1 Craft/Fate
3) -1 Strength/LIfe
4) -1 Object/Spell
5) -1 Turn
6-8) Ignored
9) +1 Turn
10) +1 Talisman/Spell
11) +1 Craft/Fate
12) +1 Strength/Life

On the third hand, explaining either of these tables and "choice" methods now requires more space on a card. Again, the temple card may be a losing battle to accomplish to reasonable satisfaction for all. The two other cards for additional options to that space rather than the ToB replacement as well might be enough for most groups (who like additional options more, in the balance so to speak).

JCHendee said:

I think you might be right about this card but I still think it's also worth a second look and tryout.

That's what great about this game. There's room for discussion and if a particular game mechanic or card doesn't work with your group of players you can decide not to use the card or make a House Rule to satisfy your group.

True, and choice of what cards to use is always there. I'm just not certain which version to go with at this point. I think you're right about the odds in the one I posted. Much as gaining freebies should be more difficult in the mid-game region, its odds are too thin whereas the standard Temple is just too much. Oh well, guess I'll have to let it stew for a while longer before I decide.

JCHendee said:

Disclaimer = My wife tells me I’m the master at rationalizing arbitrary TV show and movie plot points, so take that under advisement. (I just think EVERYTHING is arbitrary, so I try to find out the reason behind things)

Good gets Life because as per generic movie heroes, they take a beating, and they rarely avoid that beating. But, then, at the end, they recover despite all their wounds and beat the bad guy Cf John McClane in Die Hard. Sometimes they just smooth out their suit once or twice and they’re back to looking pristine, like classic James Bond. Oh, but don’t forget, they shrug off the blows in the final fight, but they still recoil when the love interest applies antiseptic post fight.

Evil gets Fate because, despite how well deserved the death (or, in this case, Toading, losing followers, or whatever the table says) a generic movie villain deserves, once the sequel hits, s/he has miraculously avoided death and comes back armed with a cheesy story as to why they are back. Ming the Merciless can be dropped in lava, impaled by a ship, disintegrated by a blaster, sent back through time with no way to come back, etc… by the next Flash Gordon episode, the “surprise” bad guy is… the return of Ming the Merciless.

Voila.

Or, the less fun way… “cuz the makers of the game said so?” But I prefer any classic Bond reference I can do, but that’s just me, heh.