I've only played Talisman once (4th edition revised) with 5 players. After about the first 40 minutes, the game becomes tedious and an excruciating wait for your turn to come around again. I had no further interest in the game after that experience...

...until now. It has occured to me that this could be a game as great Runebound, which is an awesome adventure game... unless you play with more than three players, in which case it's a waste of at least half your day. Is Talisman like this as well, where it becomes a great game as long as you cut out excess players? What would be the magic number? Is it three like in Runebound.

Also, I've heard that the expansions do much to tame the monotony. Do the expansions really help? Do they increase the number of players you can play with and still maintain your sanity?

Finally, I've heard that the large, square expansions are based on expansions from previous editions, while the smaller expansions were completely new ideas. If this is the case, what prior edition expansion(s) is the Highlands based off of?

Thanks for all information/suggestions.

I suggest you to start with 3-4 player sessions and allow everyone to get acquainted with the Rules,the basic card contents and the game mechanics, which are not too difficult but the more you know, the more you appreciate the twists and turns of each different game.

When your group has got a little experience, you will have wonderful 5-6 player sessions. Talisman is a perfect game for 5-6 players, because a single Turn is never long as in Runebound. I agree that Runebound plays better with 3 and max 4 players (5-6 to be avoided).

Ditto on players counts... but...

The small expansions for Talisman 4ER are mostly a mixed selection of cards from 2E and 3E small and large expansions. Into these were sometimes added a few new cards. The board expansions as well have new cards... and some cards taken from other past 2E and 3E expansions. If you have no familiarity with the previous editions, this won't matter to you - don't give it another thought. The cards are all new to you, and you won't have the baggage some of us do in going "huh? what's that doing over here?"

Also, the speed of a game isn't just a measure of time... it's perceptual. Time flies when you're having fun, but that also depends on what you consider to be fun. I never give a thought to length of a Runebound game because me and mine enjoy the adventure along the way. However, Runebound offers a bit more choice in how to accomplish something than Talisman does. Less choice often equals a need to keep things moving, since you are leaning harder on luck to accomplish anything.

Once you get Talisman's mechanics down, it will play faster for you, trust me. Then you and yours will hit your proper stride... but by the individual game and not a generic outside time limit. The more I play Runebound (having some 20 years familiarity with Talisman) the less I consider them to have anything in common but general theme... and simple end game until your step up to some alternatives in RB that don't exist in T.

Talisman and Runebound provide diversity of gaming diet in my group. They each have the best time and place to be served for consumption.

I've found that Talisman can be just as enjoyable playing with three players as it can be with five or six. Your dilemma (your very, very familiar dilemma) is twofold. The contributors are:

1.) The familiarity to the game that the players possess.

2.) The amount of enthusiasm with which the players participate.

These two golden rules are true with nearly every game of any substance.

If I play a game with five or six regular players who know the core rules and mechanics of the game, turns will be smoother, cards - the twin storyteller to dice rolls in a game of Talisman - will be revealed faster, and rule-explaining will be cut to a minimum. I am by no means suggesting that the game be "executed", as it were, in as fast a manner as possible. However, Talisman can be fully enjoyed in one, fluid, story-like game. Players wont have to wait eternities for their turns, cards will be revealed nearly as soon as they are drawn so the excitement is shared simultaneously by the players (this is due to regulars knowing the text of a card upon sight of its artwork), and the absence of rule-explaining will grant more time for its far more noble cousin, "rule-arguing-over" or "rule-debating" as it is known in certain sects.

Secondly, players who require waking when their turn has come are simply no fun to play with. It ruins the game. The only upside to trudging through a game with one of these types is gaining the future knowledge of who not to invite to the next game!

So I submit to you that it is quality and not quantity that matters. Get yourself an amount of players equal to the amount of character cards you have; as long as each player makes everyone else as interested in their own turn as they themselves are, you'll have fun.

-M. Destroyo

MegaDestroyo said:

Very good point! And applicable to any game. Which is why me and mine are very careful about who we let in at our table. And Talisman has been the most problematic of our fantasy games in this area.

To risk the arrows of outrage, I have found that Talisman fanatics (not just enthusiasts) are a bit short in this area, as are some always looking for a "faster" game. Sometimes (not always) faster is just shorthand for "my turn, my turn, my turn... when is it my turn?!"

JCHendee said:

Yep, had too many game with this type of players over the years than I care to remember, not great for socialising unless it is to argue or nitpick about some rule.

I can say that one player in my group was of the "faster game" type and got converted to our more adventurous and lenghty game of Talisman.

His motto now is "the longer the game, the more beer we take without been drunk"

Cheers

Heh heh... beer and Talisman can be a good or bad combination, but as long as everyone is seeing to it that everyone is having fun... suds up!

As long as drinks are kept away from the board !!!!!

God forbid spillage

I like it best with 4 players. Three's too predictable while 5 makes too slow flow for my taste.

95% of the time I play a 2 player game with the wife. I can say that for an engaging game, we stopped bringing out the big-board expansion sets. It became too much like solo play with two people.

Our solution, which we are going to try out during winter break, is to play a game with two characters each, like teams. We'll see how that goes.

My wife and me used to play Chinese Checkers like that, 3 colours a piece, it got pretty epic. I like a 3 person game, max 4. I'm happy to play a 5 or 6 player game, but if everyone is experienced, which never seems to be the case when you have that many people. Waiting 10-20 in between turns is a drag, so we encourage everyone to do their 'paperwork' in between their turns, counting trophies, adding up their Strength/Craft, how many items they have and where they are. That speeds things up a lot!