This is just an idea to kick around based on something I tried and put aside in the past. I know some fan card makers have played with it before. The idea is for a character to be able to buy something

• cheaper than a mule
• to help carry around extra Objects
• without the need and limitations of pack animal or like follower
• that isn't magical in nature.

Backpacks are pretty much an ignored notion now that carrying Followers can go anywhere. That wasn't always the case in the past. I know of quite a few groups that have gone back to the "no equines" in the Dungeon rule. So again, the backpack notion is even more conditional that in previous Talisman editions. But so what.

Obviously there should be limitations for this shortcut of the standard Object Limit. The trick of course is to make it

• something that can be understood in short order, implicity and/or explicitly
• with some limitations or deficits for this breach of a character's personal Object Limit.

Here's the considerations that have occured to me so far.

Size Limit - Perhaps only objects smaller than a shield or equal to it (hence the proposed title with "lashing" implying your could strap something on to it). Then again maybe size has to be ignored. The problem is that Talisman ignores "size" concepts entirely. Even criteria discussed by players for what qualifies as a "Trinket" is stated terms of value or use instead of size. It is a "player" mechanics perspective rather than a "character" environment perspective, and this lean has exaggerated from one edition to the next over the years. Part of the Munchkins syndrome, a game that pushes this concept to its ultimate.

Capacity - Likely only 3 extra objects, perhaps, so it isn't equal to a Mule. If objects are limited by size, perhaps 4 is okay then. Don't really know which way would be the best compromise to appeal broadly for groups using additional usage limits for carrying followers.

Accessibility - The way the game works now, a Mule is a walking bag of holding. A character can whip out / swap out anything it wants in an instant, even when jumped / attacked suddenly. Something stored in a backpack by standard rules would be treated this way. Some groups put limits on this; they have rules for when stored equipment can be swapped out and "readied." Perhaps whether or not one could do so in an instant is something best left to house rules used by individual groups.

Deficits - The obvious ones might be penalties on combat, movement, or even Strength (and Craft) test rolls for the bulk on the character's back. Movement is questionalble; a pack probably shouldn't slow down foot travel noticeably. Penalties for combat might be conditional, if a group is working with an attacked vs attacking approach to Enemies and creatures, but there could be maybe simple -1 if the pack contains anything. Strength/Craft test might have a penalty for the burden, maybe. Obviously a messy consideration.

And of course the pack itself counts against the direct object limit of the character while what it carries does not. So for using up 1 in your Object limit, you carry 3 extra Objects, for a net total of 6 objects. I figure by Talisman's price standards a pack should cost maybe 1G if it has suitable limits and deficits. If it's handled the same as Mule and/or carries as much as Mule, then maybe 2G.

Feel free to jump in with ideas, points, and counterpoints. Raise previous attempts by other fan card makers if you like, though the ones I've seen never quite suited me. Have at it, as for now this is just playing around with a notion.

Hi there JC!

I have also thought about introducing a backpack. In fact I am going to do so in a coming expansion of mine. There it functions like a mule except that it is an object and you extend your carrying capacity by one (or rather by two but effectively by one since you need to carry the backpack also). In addition I needed to add a statement that says that you cannot use more than 1 backpack at once.

Its limitation would be that it cost gold (1G).

I wouldn't bother with combat penalties or similar - they are not as realistic as you would think. A warrior would never fight with a backpack on except in the most extreme of situations.

Also, in my opinion, the whole issue of whether you have a sword ready equipped but not the axe you keep on your mule/in your backpack is like straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Talisman has a very high level of abstraction and so many other issues should be addressed first if you want it to be as realistic as possible (or better still - leave it be and keep it simple as it is).

Hinnyboy said:

You're right - so long as the group in question does not distinguished between "attacking" and "attacked." But wait... Talisman already does! Well, at least where characters are concerned. If we ignore this, a pack then becomes another excuse for a Neutral character to, say, haul around the Holy Lance and Runesword and switch them out in an instant. Most strict by-the-rules players wouldn't care; a fair number of hardcore HR and fan card players might.

Yes, this is a rare example... but there are others. Just like Special Abilities sometimes are limited to "attacking", it's maybe something to think about where the pack is concerned. There is precedent in the game itself. But maybe that's best left to be handled by whatever house rules any one group uses.

The balancing factor you've used may be enough: the pack only allows adding 1 to the character's Object Limit. That's a worthy angle, and I like it! Sometimes I just make things too complicated. Do you think a pack adding +2 to Object Limit would be too much? I've inserted a new version of my card and instead of stating the amount of Objects it carries it shows a modifier to Object Limit for better simplicity. Do you think this works better or worse than other cards that have a "capacity"?

ASIDE: we do use rules for what a character can and cannot use among its hauled equipment, and we have very simple rules for how to implement this. These aren't our rules but again ones that go back to the 2E days among groups that wanted to plug a few holes in Talisman.

Come to think of it, raising the O.L. by 1 doesn't work. That just means the character is carrying the pack and its standard four objects. Hmmm... my math is really off today.

I've decided to try a slight variation on your idea, as I have another form of baggage, the Sachel, that I may try out. I'll put it into play testing with my group over the coming month.

JCHendee said:

Just because the Assassin can assassinate another character it doesn't mean that all attacks in the game are ambushes. A character might as well challenge the other character in a duel or the attacked character sees the attacker minutes before the actual fight and therefore have plenty of time preparing (since a turn is a quite undefined period of time you don't know). On the other hand a character can be attacked during the night while only wearing underpants or while extremely hungry (or even when in great need of going to the toilet) but you don't take that into account either so why focus so on what goes where in the baggage.

JCHendee said:

I definitely think that raising the capacity with 1 would work as well (though I haven't playtested either yet). I don't get the last part however - it suggests that you are using some rules I am unfamiliar with. My advice again is to skip all the detailed "pack lists" and keep it simple.

I think it is a good idea to keyword the backpack as you did with "baggage". I assume it will mean that you can only use one baggage at once. Right?

Hinnyboy said:

Pardon another long post... but I've always felt being thorough is worth the time. I don't "tweet" when I "post"

For the official rules, you are correct. But varied house rules over 20 years show that me and mine are not in the minority over this concern. I agree that the attack/attacked shouldn't be part of the card and left to house rules by individual groups. If you're curious, HERE is a rules card combining details from variations encountered over two decades. I haven't released it yet because the wording needs work. Eventually it will be part of a Rules Pack like one already at TalismanIsland.com. Maybe this one card should be a checklist of separate rules to pick from instead of a set to be used all together.

The P&L also disregards another longstanding HR about what some call "readied" equipment. This is what a character can use when taken unaware (not just surprised). I won't go into it other than to say it isn't as complicated as it sounds; and it isn't as uncommon as some think. When playing with irregulars, newbies, or younger players, we stick closer to the official rules. When its the hardcore, longtimers, we get tough!

Here is the simplified core of the approach that avoids specific things my group uses. There are only two conditions:

1. A character can only use what it has on it that is not in baggage (with the exception of "resource" objects that can be used regardless of where stored, such as the Orb of Prophecy or a Water Bottle).
2. At the end and the beginning of a character's turn, it may swap out what it personally carries for what it has in baggage or on a Follower.

That's it. Simple, light, and straightforward. It's not perfect, but it solves almost all exploitation of the official rules by both hoarders and guaders. It puts thought and consideration into how players run their characters but not to an excessive degree. I've played with 9 year olds you caught on to the tactical choices in their first game. It eliminates the video-game mentality of having 5, 10, 20 items vailable at the click of a keyboard.

Hinnyboy said:

If you dig through FAQs from all editions, you'll know what that last sentence is about. There's a loophole in every Talisman edition where by (in the official rules) players have done bizarre things... and still do. In 2E, the Mule was an Object, not a Follower. No rule blocked players from loading up one Mule with Objects, then putting that Mule onto another Mule with 3 more Objects... because the first Mule was an Object. Yes, it happen in more than one group I ran into. It had to be fixed with an FAQ. (NOTE: well before 4E/4ER, whether in my own territory or someone else's, I'd played with players from up to 17 states and 5 countries at one time or another.)

Changing the Mule to a Follower in 3E didn't solve the problem. Some players got their hands on variations of "baggage" (a bag of holding/carrying being only one). One baggage (Object) was kept by the character; the other was loaded up and put on a Mule (Follower) to increase its capacity. Another FAQ entry was needed... and it didn't have to be.

The FAQs still are (need to be) growing in 4ER. FAQs should be limited to rare oddities and not things that could be cleared up with thorough pre-consideration. A good component implicitly or explicitly avoids the need for running to a convoluted rulebook... and helps avoid FAQs. If there's comfortable room on a component, use it; it makes the game easier to learn as well. An extra line on a card is only read once; when the same card is encountered later, the extra is simply remembered and ignore. Players do not even read Enemy cards word for word except upon encountering a new one the first time. Extra wording having to be read every time is a misconception; don't assume otherwise for the sake of assumed simplicity.

The phrasing "Object Limit" does work better, but players will still interpret the object capacity of a follower or baggage as an "object limit" for it - I guarentee this. Therefore, the P&L carried by a Mule could be considered to increase the Mule's "object limit." An extra line on the card teaches the rule during play; it is read once when encountered the first time and then ignored.... just like seasoned players all know a Sword is +1 in Battle only (not +1 to Strength) and they don't read the whole card each time it is drawn and/or used.

The "baggage" subtype doesn't directly address this nor indicate you can have only one. There's an additional problem when other forms of baggage (so labeled or not) come into play from the base game, expansions, or multiple fan expansions. Those that exist unlabeled in the game have already raised causes for additional FAQ entries. This is a case where I don't care to leave that longstanding known glitch to another FAQ... or further rules to read.

I took out the P&L and another baggage from my first version of In the Balance. An outsider in one of our games tried to fill a "backpack" and then stuff it into a bag of carrying. Forcing a ruling in the middle of a game creates a toxic environment at times; that is to be avoided as well. Hence why I'm wording things as I do should I choose to reintroduce the P&L to my group's games.

Players may willingly accept or ignore FAQs for commercial components; when it comes to fan components, FAQs for such just make them walk away. They already have to face that fuss with the official game. There's a difference between simplicity and leaving holes in the rules when introducing something that bends the standard rules.

I labeled my backpack as "Pack & Lashings" to justify carrying objects that wouldn't fit inside it but could be "lashed" to it. A word trick produced a zone of satisfaction between players who didn't care about verisimilitude and those who did. An extra carefully chosen word or more can make all the difference for smooth play, and the players don't even know it happened to them... unless they're players doing your play testing. (A writer's old trick at work here.)

Here's the other "baggage" item that got cut from ITB 1.0. As you can see, it is a warp of the Object Limit rule in another way. But with the low price of a Mule, and then a backpack, and the Sachel's implied size limit for what it could carry, it got troublesome. It probably just isn't worth the trouble even now, and some would call it too "fussy".

With the new Trinket category of objects, it could be simpler. The satchel etc. could be designated "Trinket: Baggage", and not count toward the object limit.

Except that trinkets don't count against Object Limit at all, so there's no need to have something in which to carry them. Our group generally assumes their so small they fit into one's gold pouch... well, most of them.

Sorry; no; I meant that the satchel itself could be categorised as a "trinket", and not a real "object". I took trinkets to mean things that you either carry in your gold pouch or on your person: like a ring, an article of clothing or a backpack?

I'm hesitant to call it a Trinket by subtype. The "Sachel" only gets used in relation to other Objects, while Trinkets get used unto themselves, hence the subtype of Baggage. Baggage has been and is implemented by other fan card makers in different methods, and it has always had this issue.

Most Trinkets seen so far are small, sometimes contradicting older "small" objects which do count against Object Limit. Discussions by mainstream players (here and elsewhere) has turned to interpreting items in that subtype by what they are used for rather than their size. It's become about what "players" can do with such. Some discussions have tried to define Trinkets as items temporary or limited in power or effect, which is a mechanics view that has nothing to do with what the term means.

But I can see what you mean in general, an item too small to affect a character's object limit, and I've had my own take on that for a long time. The concept of items that do not count against Object Limit (at all or conditionally) is as old as the game itself. That part is not a new invention by FFG.

I'm now leaning back to my original concept based on that, though it still has problems. Baggage, like Mules and carrying Followers have been abused one way or another, even more so in 4ER, so they can be tricky to describe in their mechanics. These types of Objects simply may not work well in modern Talisman context. 4ER has lost even the scant considerations of size and space that 2E once had (which didn't allow Mules or other equines in the Dungeon).

I've posted another version of both the Sachel and my take on a Pack over the ITB 2.0: Purchase Cards topic. See what you think.

Those are pretty cool! I really like the idea of having followers able to carry certain objects: do you have house rules for how many/how big those can be? The balancing with the strength roll and backpack is nice, too. Also, the graphics are really mighty: do you produce them yourself, or where do you get them? Last question: when you print these out, how do you make sure they're not immediately recognisable as different because of the card stock? I was in my very early teens when I used to play the 2nd edition; we made all sorts of expansions in pencil on orange card...I love that other people (clearly very imaginative and dedicated gamers) have done similar things and taken it to entirely new levels. Thanks for helping me rediscover some very fun times from my halcyon days!

Zozimus said:

Nope, just special objects so labeled, otherwise this small deviation gets out of control. If you remember the old Porter card, who carried 4 Objects for a gold, we will likely not see him again. That's because Mules were hobbled in 4ER to carrying no more than a character. The old 2E Mule was originally unlimited, then came the Horse & Cart (which should've been a Mule & Cart). It became the unlimited hauler, and the Mule was limited to 8 Objects. Ours cuts inbetween: it carries 6 Objects or 1 Follower and 2 Objects (we have rules about Followers keeping up with a character riding a Horse). Several alternative Mules will be in the coming ITB 2.0... as well as some other alternatives for standard cards. Not that it matters much since there's few places to buy them.

By the by... do you think the Pack being limited to just 2 Objects is acceptable. It's the same count as the Sachel, though the Sachel has a size limit (which is a little hinky for 4ER). The fact that they are both the same price is another issue, but increasing the Pack's price (2G?) would make me wonder about increasing its capacity... that leads to more problems.

Zozimus said:

I use copyright free sources, some in my archives and some off the net. I do use promotional / advertising graphics from 3D model problems. And some like the pack and sachel are actually from photos off the web. All acquired graphics are cut up, masked, layered and arranged, and have special effects applied. I use Photoshop CS5 Extended with multiple layers, filters, and effects, as well as a long list of plugins. I use Topaz Labs plugins extensively.

Both the Sachel and Pack required three layers spliced from a single images with some 7 filters and effects, plus plugin manipulators, to turn two photographed objects into "artsy" images. The Elven Everlight is similar, but a mix of pieces from photos, 3D ad images, clip art, etc. It has 13 layers and 9 effects after manipulating individual graphics pieces. I never steal artwork from professional arts who make a living on their work if a card is to be release to the public.

Zozimus said:

The best / easiest way to make fan cards was taught to me here by others, particularly Dorian (alias Dth). Buy card sleeves of the appropriate type, print card fronts on photo paper (not photo stock), and then print card backs on the same or perhaps just bright white card stock. Cut up your cards and slip a front and back into a sleeve... BUT... print lots of extra backs. When you sleeve your commercial cards, slip an extra printed back in behind them. Works perfectly!

Oh, and for goodness sake do not try to round the corners of those sleeved cards! Squared corners are just fine once you use those extra cards backs.

I was in college late, in my mid 20s, when I stumbled on Talisman 2E.