I've read from others on the forum about the notion of changing the LoD's defeat results. Some groups, mine included, are a little tired of the "backdoor" into the CoC. One reason (not just from me and mine) is that it undermine's the game's purpose found within its title... questing for a "Talisman." So a few groups have ruled that the highest destination result you can get for defeating the LoD in the Dungeon is to reach the Valley of Fire (VoF). But this exposes a further problem... what happens when you land on the VoF and don't have a Talisman? The Valley of Fire has never been what it is named for.

2E Vof: "Only if you have Talisman can you enter this space. If you do not have one, you must turn back. The Crown of Command can only be reached from this space."

But first, maybe some here don't know the history of dungeons in Talisman.

2E TC: "You must stop here. In your next move, roll 1 die to see where you come out: 1) Castle, 2) Temple, 3) Warlock's Cave, 4) Portal of Power, 5) Plain of Peril, 6) Crown of Command."

Aside from that final space not having anything to do with "treasure", it nyxed the need of a Talisman to reach the CoC. And that has always been the true goal for its use. But its utter randomness of exit was both benefit and detriment in this purpose. And it did not have a result destination for the Valley of Fire, and hence no need to address the problem with landing on that space.

3E didn't have an inner region but rather the Wizard's Tower cards in its place. It's short little Dungeon of Doom also ended in a ToC, but this time we meet the first incarnation of the LoD. (Yes, the 4ER Dungeon is a cross between the 3E DoD and 2E Dungeon in some respects).

3E DoD: "You must stop here and fight the Lord of Darkness (strength 6). If you win, you may take a Talisman and two gold. Win or lose, you exit the Dungeon on the Causeway space and may move normally from there. If you kill the Lord of Darkeness then the next player to land here will find that a new Lord of Darkeness has taken his place."

The Causeway was 3E's equivalent to 2E's Portal of Power but with out the Strength or Craft test to get in. So, even for 3E, the Dungeon was not a back door into the CoC, and a Talisman was still needed to win the game. But going back to something like either the 2E or 3E final space isn't going to sit well with many players used to the 4E Dungeon's CoC backdoor.

Still, what about the games namesake, a Talisman, and how to bring back its necessity? And what does this have to do with the VoF (which didn't exist in 3E)? Here's sort of what has been proposed by others.

The highest possible victory result in the 4ER Treasure Chamber would be changed from the CoC to the "Valley of Fire." Therein we encounter a problem. Like the 2E version, the 4ER VoF isn't really what it is called; rather its a giant trampoline.

4ER VoF: "You can only enter if you are carrying a Talisman. If you do not have one, you must turn back. The Crown of Command can only be reached from this space."

So essentially, why would anyone travel that far without a Talisman? And if it is a valley of "fire," what's the harm in doing so, even to try to catch another character with a Talisman and kill it before it achieves the CoC? No harm at all, as it reads. Maybe its not really a Valley of Fire at all? Here's some that was proposed to me by two other players.

"If you land here without a Talisman, you lose 1 Life, 1 Object, and 1 Follower. You lose the same again for each turn you remain here without a Talisman. You may only enter the Crown of Command if you have a Talisman."

Combined with making the LoD's highest defeat destination the VoF, the Dungeon still allows a character bypass the Inner Region. (Yeah, I know, big deal, since the Inner Region is no longer the threat that it once was.) But without that namesake of the Game, using the Dungeon as a semi-backdoor is a dangerous move. There's also some new tactics that should be obvious for chasing and being chased into the Inner Region if you don't have a Talisman. The second sentence in the description above should clue in those players who think about the possibilities.

Thoughts, anyone?

A far from unknown tactic is to cast Acquisition on a player as they reach the Pits / Werewolf's Den...

True, and all the more devastating if cast as a character lands in VoF while using the above proposed space changes. On the victim's following turn, as it tries to leave, someone could then hit it with an Immobility, and it suffers again. A bit of new PvP or CvC, depending on how one looks at it

JCHendee said:

My group had a similar penalty when playing 2E, but some thought it too harsh if by some chance roll of a 6 in the Dungeon you ended up at the CoC without a Talisman. So as a compromise, if you rolled a 6 at the Treasure Chamber & did not have a Talisman you could go to the CoC but not encounter it, then your next move would be to the Plain of Peril (similar to rolling a 1 at the Dragon King ending in 2E).

It may be as lame as a three legged dog, but it did pacify most people. It's been played ever since (more than 10 years now) without comment. JC, I'd be interested in what final conclusions you draw on the VoF/CoC square issues.

Hi there... I think you had / have a perfectly workable solution hailing back to 2E days if it made everyone happy and got them back to playing. I don't think there really is a universal answer that would satisfy everyone. For me and mine, we still think expansions that make the main board's instructions and play suddenly moot are questionable or outright lame :

You can only enter if you are carrying a Talisman. If you do not have one, you must turn back. The Crown of Command can only be reached from this space [VoF].

That's the 4ER VoF, so what gives with the 4ER Dungeon? Ah well... this kind of thing is also seen in characters, spells, etc. It leads to FAQs where the answer given is an official decree that ignores the problem (created by those who are writing the FAQ). My group prefers a fix over a ruling. Admittedly, we like things a little tougher than most, with a balance of a bit more control. We're into the play and not looking for the next shortcut to the fastest win. We like a long night's hard slog that makes a win actually mean something. We know were not alone in that, but likely we're in the minority.

As to the VoF, after 20 years maybe it's about time it actually became its namesake... though we have not yet tried it that way.

I think the simplest solution is to not allow any character to pass beyond the portal of power unless they have a Talisman. So in essence you may not be inside the inner region without a Talisman.

The sole exception would be is if (I believe) the hermit is inside the inner region with a Talisman to the first to visit him.

I am too busy to see if he is the one who can be found in the inner region, plain of peril, with a Talisman. Someone can correct me if I erred.

If you get a result from the LoD, that sends you to the inner region, and you don't have a Talisman, the furthest you may go is to the portal of power.

when defeating LoD by 8 point or more, you are able to teleport yourself on the Valley of Fire. Anyway, you must have a Talisman to enter the CoC. Otherwise you can choose to be teleported in any outer & middle region space.

So you need to find a talisman first, then you can go in the dungeon if you're strong enough (or lucky enough!!). But if you haven't it, you can teleport everywhere (if you win to 8+ you're still powerful, so probably your next destination will be the warlock cave, or a card wich gives you the possibility to obtain one of them).

Never think about it, and I like it! maybe I'll ask my group to try this way.

JCHendee said:

No, you're not alone. On the opposite hemisphere I've had a group that is pretty similar. We've always played that the character is more important than the individual. It's still working after 20 years.

JCHendee said:

I hope you try it soon. I'd love to see the mechanics that you've used in ITB in action with the VoF.

Here are "space expander" cards that will be used when some of my group actually get to testing these changes. If you're not familiar with this new kind of card, you can go to talismanisland.com and download the Space Expanders package to see what they're about. They're general used should be obvious, but the package has some other ways to use them.

I don't anticipate these will have any serious direct effect. They're indirect effect upon play as whole is what they're really about. With two separate ones they can used separately or together. Right-Click and Save/View to access the 300ppi versions.

It just occurred to me that if anyone else wanted to use these they might like to stick to the original fully enforced randomness of one these. Here is such a version of the Portal of Darkness should anyone else prefer it closer to the original intent.

I may start another topic for additional Space Expander card discussions, perhaps this time related to expansion boards.

One game of three players was played with the above two cards. As suspected, it didn't affected basic play at all, though it did affect game tactics.

At no point was someone caught by the "Passage of Fire" because the "Portal of Darkness" with the choice of destination allowed one character to avoid it upon exiting the Dungeon. At no point was someone in a position to try to force another into the "Passage of Fire", and Talismans once more became a more vigorously sought item. The choice factor on the "Portal of Darkness" has seen some wide approval from others lurking here. The issue of that choice is still something I need to consider, for it weakens the danger factor, and Talisman is pretty wimpy as it stands.

Visits to the dungeon were actually more frequent rather than as a just a run for the CoC. Two characters went through it twice as place to muscle up more quickly than than on the main board. That downside might have been that the choice factor for their second trips with higher wins against the LoD allowed them both to target the Temple upon leaving. And the Temple is pretty much a power up factory with little real risk at all.

Conclusion:

For general use, those modifications for the Valley of Fire and the LoD seem to work pretty well. Whether anyone uses the cards or chooses features from them for group house rules, there shouldn't be any concern. Obviously more play testing should be done as well.

Hi.

I would appreciate the possibility of a (egg.) .pdf file with space instructions to alter those two spaces. Personnaly, I dislike an idea of space expanders in form of cards (for strictly aestetic reasons). I've found an upgrade file (4E to 4RE) on Talismanisland and I used them for my BI board.

There's another issue, which we found problematic about Dungeon expansion (maybe this fits into another topic better): to be able to defeat LoD, one has to be strong enough, so his/her quest is nearly over. In this situation, there's little chance of (otherwise really wonderfully powerful) treasure items to be put into any real use. Usually, with strength of 12 or more, I'm not interested in acquiring most (or any) items available in there. I'm just running for the CoC and that's it. Treasure items would be of much more use to players if they would be able to get them sooner, while still underpowered to beat LoD.

The result for our group is, that dungeon became unpopular place to enter, since, apart from giving you an opportunity to reach CoC via back door (which we don't like), it doesn't offre you any special (useful) reward (except for new adventure, of course, which is main point of Talisman). This became more evident since Highland exp. introduction, which is more popular (with trinkets, rewards and more spaces with option to draw more than 1 adventure card).

I'm thinking to overcome this by 'sending' characters into dungeon as a punishment (I've read some posts with house rules that allow this), so that characters are forced to 'fall' down there due to bad dice roll or any other kind of bad luck. In addition to that, I really like an idea to limit oversized followers to enter the dungeon, which makes it an even less popular. (and an even less desireable punishment)

Thanks for reading my first post.

Mora

Hi More, nice of you to drop by. My group plays a variety of house options (on and off), so the cards are good for temporary changes. If you go to TalismanIsland.com, you will find the original pack of many Space Expander cards (a collaborative project by a number of people who used to hang out in the brew subforum). There are different ways to use them from game to game. A lot of people are reluctant to deface their board with other than official changes, so the cards were another option that was a trade off.

I hadn't thought anyone would want to permanently alter their board for non-commercial options, but I suppose some would (obviously).

As to over-sized followers (mainly equines), in the 2E Dungeon they were not allowed. But that Dungeon was used A LOT just the same. 4ER players are now used to more lax (non-existent) limitations, and are loath to enter the Dungeon using such a rule. Its all a matter of what people are used to OR what they feel they should be allowed to do. Don't know which way you are playing, but forcing them into the Dungeon wouldn't change anything other than to make 4ER commercial players to like the Dungeon even less. Making Treasure cards more likely therein is the better answer.

There is the commercial game option to get Treasure cards through completed Quests that many groups play. My group doesn't care for it for when used with the commercial quest cards / rules, but I won't bore you with the details on why. Easier (?) access to Treasure cards through the Dungeon might help draw players back to it if you've plugged the backdoor from the Dungeon in the CoC. Perhaps a simple House Rule to make the LoD 10/10 instead of 12/12 would help. Personally, I wouldn't lower him anymore than that.

All of this aside, since you're probably interested in just something for your group, I'm not sure what I can help you with. The only option beyond Space Expander cards (and I could make you one to your own specifications) is a printed sticker of some kind. You'd have to scan the space, clean up the stone panel to remove old text. Photoshop or Gimp (freeware) would allow you to use a "stamp" brush to copy not text area and stamp (paint) them over text to remove it. Then you go to TalismanIsland and download the Talisman fonts to use in your system (and the graphics program) to enter you new text. Applying the result would be just like you patched your BI board to match the FFG version. You'd only need to do the instruction area, not the whole space.

Again, I don't recommend this approach, but if you need some assistance we can talk further. Right now I'm a bit wrapped up in doing final edits on a novel but should have some free time within the coming week.

Thanks a lot.

Weakening the guy to S10 would probably do the trick. I'll try to do it myself, since I love to alter the game on my own. And I will consider your advice about leaving the original board unchanged. I read everything you posted on Talismanisland. I want to point out that your suggestion about implementing this 'retro' 2E (house) rule concerning limitations for entering the dungeon sounds great. In addition to expansion of baggage-carrying followers (egg. Donkey), that interact differently with the rule.

I will wait for SP to come out and see the four legged friends there first. After that, I plan to rethink (and change) equestrian followers, probably in a way you suggested. ...and I will implement dungeon entering limitations for them.

Mora said:

Ditto... but don't expect FFG to go back to what was done with equines in 2E (for movement). I'd be quite surprised if they did, considering the lean to more randomness in movement based cards that has been evident so far.