I've been thinking once again of a new (ish) twist of combat, which was brought back to me over at BGG in a thread about levelling up.

There are many times in a game of Talisman where you can run through the Adventure deck picking up Enemies, and you are of sufficient Strength or Craft that you do not need to even roll a die to know that you have won a combat.

It would always be a long shot, but I think there should always (or more often than not anyway!) be the possibility of losing a combat, even to a itsy bitsy Boar.

I'd always thought in terms of changing the combat die to a d8, d12 or even d20, but after a conversation yesterday I would like to try it out using 3d6 instead. There are a couple of nice articles about what this means in terms of probability here and here . Not only does it give a nice spread of results, but everybody already has enough dice in their box to use this variant.

I would also add in the "critical" hits and misses rule, so rolling 3 would be an instant loss and rolling 18 would be an instant win, probably with no saving rolls for Armour allowed either.

You could even introduce some new abilities, such as being able to roll an extra die and take your pick of 3. You would also only be able to use Fate to reroll ONE of the dice.

If anyone has any thoughts on this or even wants to try it out, then let me know!

I have a thought on that matter, but it's probably not what you're looking for. If you want to intruduce a chance of winning or losing no matter how difficult a combat is, I have 2 proposals.

First, and simpler: whenever you roll 6 in combat, roll again and add the result. (some games call that mechanic "exploding dice")

Second, a little more complex. If one side rolls 6 and the other rolls 1, 2 or 3, the 6 side always wins (8.33% chance of that happening).

3D6 flattens the range of difference too much between too opposing rolls. We've already tried it in couple multi-roll combat games, and at 3D6 we found that average difference between two opposing 3d6 rolls wasn't much different than an automatic kill by 1D6 standard rules. And an experiment of 1D6 with 1 being always a lose and 6 being always a win really didn't work. However, 2D6 turned into a nice compromize where everyone always rolls the same type / number of dice... with a couple of additional rules.

• A natural 12 is always a win
• A natural 2 is always a loss

We also reasoned Fate use pretty much the same way. We chose not to disallow Armour on a natural 12 (at halfway through the first test game), as it was making things too annoying (and that's not how Armor works, though it would be how a Shield was overcome). The obvious problems are with ties in the rolls, such as two 2's or two 12's. Honestly, we haven't seen such yet, but we anticipated.

Character vs Enemy.

• Double Loss: standoff as per normal rules
• Double Win: Character loses a life, suffers any other effects as if the Enemy defeated it, but gets to keep the trophy anyway.

Character vs Character

• Double Loss: standoff as per normal rules
• Double Win: both lose a Life and may not choose any other option for victory.

Nice to see that someone has already given this a go. I'd still like to try it out and see how it works in practice though. 2d6 still sounds reasonable, and once again, everyone has enough of them in the box!

It wasn't favored by all. Most of those who've played FRPG past or present liked it. Pure boardgamers weren't so thrilled, prefering the games original simplicity.

My Experience.

We played progressive dice a few times for Talisman 3rd edition. We used different sized dice, depending on what "realm" the player was in. Here is what we rolled for battles/combats.

Outer region=Roll 1D6 for all fights.

Add-ons, like forest, dungeon, city, etc=Roll 1D8 for all fights.

Middle region=Roll 1D10 for all fights.

Center region=Roll 1D12 for all fights.

Final fight with Dragon king=was a D20.

Worked out fairly well.

For 4th edition, we always have the 1vs6 rule in play. One player(enemy) gets a 1, the other gets a 6, the 6 wins regardless of totals.

I have thought about the different sided dice in different regions. Since Hallowknight has given it a go I am inclined to try it.

I also like the exploding d6 for its simplicity, it would also reduce the auto-kill rate in the game...spicey!

If you wanted to improve variety a smaller bit, you could simply decrease the Strength/Craft on every Character and Enemy by 1, then roll d8s instead of d6s (or even a d10, but that's awfully variable). I think d8s might actually be more fun for average combats, and you still have to roll unless you're 8 points higher (1 vs 9) or more, a significant increase from 6 points higher. A Boar shouldn't really be able to drop a Miser Dragon under the best of circumstances, right?

One thing I have experimented with are characters who roll a d8 in psychic or regular combat. That works nicely when balanced.

I also made a "mouse knight" character with a 0 Strength who rolls 2 dice in combat, keeping both (also novel, but a real beyotch to balance).

We used to have combat with 2d6 in the v2 Edition from GW. Some characters needed a few house rules (like the Warrior), but otherwise, that worked fine for us. And we also used the above suggestion that snake eyes is always a lost combat while box cars automatically wins. Haven't tried the new version yet...

I think part of our original concept was to find an alternative approach that:

1. did not alter components much (such as changing attributes on characters or use alternative dice)
2. step away from flat probability ranges (single die rolls of any kind) into bell-curve probabilities (multiple dice)

The first requires too much to remember contrary to what's on cards. The second reflects early slow advancement in skill and late minimal improvement at high levels... which is the way it really works if you've ever fought with hand weapons. 2d6 produces a a very reasonable curve range that's not too wide and allows low skill to occasionally overcome high skill. With other simple rules there's a continued possibility of failure irregardless of skill level.

Basing difficulty of opponents upon region doesn't make much sense. The Inner and Middle Regions already have some well-placed difficulty (except for the Black Knight which has never made any sense).

ASIDE: Much as altering the board and cards isn't recommended, the Black Knight (on horseback) could be rated at Strength 12. Pay it or fight it.

Multiple die-rollers

This applies to some characters that get to roll extra die in combat. Converting this to an alternative single die is highly problematic.

Even when only 1 die is chosen among multiple dice rolled, there is a bell curve in the probabilities. Due to this, even when this character is allowed to roll a higher range die (D8, D12, etc), it will never produce more than flat probabilities. This changes chances versus choosing between multiple die, and there is no way to reconcile a flat range against a bell curve no matter how big a die is used. Alternative single die usage ultimately weakens characters with multi die choices (yes, do the math and you'll see it) unless you give them a ridiculously large range die... which then increases its success range at the high end by far too much.

On a 2d6 system, you simply count how many dice it rolls and add one. It then chooses which 2 to use. The Warrior would roll 3D6 and choose the best 2D6 in combat. It still has a better bell probability than other characters, but perhaps not so amplified versus normal characters who originally rolled only one. When Fate is used by the Warrior to re-roll one of those die, his advantage gets even worse. Under a two die system, with a bell curve involved, his use of Fate (essentially re-rolling for a fourth die) is muted down a bit. (Again, do the math and you'll see it.)

True Shields

One other addition some might consider is a simplified approach to true use of shields. Shields are not armor. They are parrying "weapons" and a shield can also be deadly in combat. Throwing aside its use as a weapon (too complicated for a game)...

If a character loses a battle and has a shield ready, it may attempt a second roll using the shield. No outside modifiers (such as Followers) are allowed, and the Shield's 2 points of armour are converted to a +2. (Note: other forms of shields, such as bucklers, have come in with different armor ratings).

The loser then tries to roll over the winner's original roll in combat (the one that won). Again, the only other modifiers would be the (1) Character's Current Strength, and (2) any Strength (not combat) modifying equipment (magic objects) it has on itself.

Success means no life lost, just as with armor, but it is an active defense instead of a passive one. Since it is modifier based, it is reasonably compatible with most die roll combat system alternatives... as well as the standard one. It's possible that on a 2d6 system, a +3 instead of a +2 might be more balance. Only play testing will determine this.

Armour plus Parrying Shield

It might be a bit unbalancing, and provide too many escapes. And armor should continue to be based on 1D6 to avoid too many additional notes on altered usage. There are two options:

1. Both Allowed: if Shield parry fails, armor is rolled as per normal. Of course this provides a much higher rate of escaping lost Lives, giving characters based in Strength skill (by game mechanics, not reality) a slight advantage in retaining Lives. In real combat, that would be the case.
2. One only: the player must choose. If a shield attempt is made, and fails, armor may not be rolled.

I am beginning to see the merit of this 2d6(+1) system. The using and counting of 3d6 is really not necessary as if a Boar needs to roll 3 sixes in order to beat a character, I feel that character should already have been up at the Crown of Command!

Even with the use of Fate for one of the rolls, I think it may still make a beefed up character think twice before attacking something that could actually do him some damage. Imagine the shame of rolling low against a poor little Boar... giggles aplenty!

I also like the idea of choosing which 2 rolls to include as it gives back some "choice" the the player, which is one of the things that people slate Talisman for.

Another reason, as I think I mentioned originally and that is reaffirmed by JC, is that you already have 6 dice around the table and do not need to add more components to the game.

We've often discussed the problem of "Autokill". We considered many different variants but none of which we were really happy with.

The reason we play Talisman so much is that our respective partners can join in with us and not feel overwhelmed or uninterested (such as if we were playing Cosmic Encounter or Arkham Asylum etc). Plus the "crunch" doesn't melt our brains, which is perfect after a hellish week at work.

If you do get a point where you start autokilling things, most of the time its because you are ready for the Inner Region but are going all out to prepare. We've got players in our troupe who are more interested in maxing out, than actually finishing the game... which can be really frustrating, especially if you are having a very unlucky game.

2d6 sounds interesting, though and I'd be interested in trying this out. I've played a LOT of Heroclix in my time and it isn't too different from playing that.

I'll suggest this and give a report back.

Some sound social observations, Dth! Which brings in the issue of ideology for how to implement any alternative combat system. In testing the 2D6 approach most non-RPGers in my social network didn't care for it much (a few did). There's something to be said for not alienating those players, as Talisman is a great "place" for Fantasy enthusiasts of any ilk to gather. Perhaps, as Jon has previously mentioned, there's a limit to how far a new combat system should go... or maybe just with whom. I certainly wouldn't introduce my "shield parry" option to non-RPGers new to the game. (In fact, it was 50/50 among all types of players for who liked and who hated it... a very divisive rule it turned out!)

At the same time, you point out another problem with Talisman... its end-game. Talisman boils down to a "race" rather than a true "quest" (no matter what it says on the box). And we can ignore the third faction of players attracted to the game - those in it purely for slaughtering other adventurers... FPS / death-matchers. Concerning the end-game, you're observation about auto-kills is entirely correct. Autokills coming too often are a sign that one is (more than) ready to face the Inner Region.

ASIDE: Maybe why they don't just go for it isn't always about trying to be ultra ready... maybe some are just enjoying the adventure(?!)

What we're talking about here addresses players with different (or additional) goal or focus, who are into the adventure more than the "race." What we're discussing may be "outside" for some boardgamers, who want clear criteria for "winning." But some of those also come to it for the fantasy... for the adventure. For most of FPS/death-match gang, even those who like their FPS fantasy based, its not the same; I ignore such when considering alternative ways to play.

So (after another long winded post)... Any new combat system should be built in graduate steps, starting with a simple foundation. Additional rules "units" should be defined in a ready to use order. How many levels are applied in any particular game should be according to particular mix of players. Possible ordering could be...

1. The basic level with simple to remember rules for the outcomes on 2d6 (or whatever); plus a blanket rule for characters that normally roll more than 1D6 for any standard dice activity.
2. Second level is dealing with auto-success and auto-failure rolls (2 and 12 for 2D6), plus resolution of ties in such, versus a basic draw for other tied results.
3. Anything more that further complicates combat.

Level 1 might appeal to some pure boardgamers, but shouldn't be thrown at newbies. Level 2 would possibly lose them unless they first get comfortable with Level 1. Level 3 would likely not interest them at all and should be saved for long-timers or ex-patriates of RPG.

JCHendee said:

Well that is rather annoying. I made a long and detailed post and then it threw a wobbly on me. I'll have to re-post later.

You're not alone, Dth... can't count the times I've lost one around here.

Attempt #2...

JCHendee said:

Thanks. Our usual group is normally three players (Player A, B and myself, C) plus two others (D and E) who are girlfriends who sometimes play. There are many others who, depending on availability, play semi-regularly but I really don't want to make this an exercise in alphabet recital

Player A is a former high school chess champion who tends to approach every game with a defensive, "plan ever move" posture. Yes, this extends even to Talisman, where chance is the ultimate winner It is because of Player A's game style that we implemented the house rule "You may only increase your Strength or Craft by a maximum of 10".

Player B is a very cut-throat, competitive player who seems to enjoy actually exploiting the rules, instead of working with them. It is because of Player B's game style that we implemented the house rule "You may only cast one spell a turn and abilities that mean you always have a spell do not refresh until the beginning of your turn".

Myself, as a long time gamer and would-be designer, I am interested in the game mechanics/dynamics and have tendency to want to "fix" things. Even if they aren't really that broken. Mea culpa

Player's D and E enjoy Talisman but couldn't really care less if you can auto-kill things or not. They are more interested in just taking part with the rest of the group. I would say their primary requisite is speed (any longer than 1.5 hours and they hit the boredom threshold).

At the same time, you point out another problem with Talisman... its end-game. Talisman boils down to a "race" rather than a true "quest" (no matter what it says on the box).

Indeed The end-game, as printed, is rather uneventful and certainly largely irrelevant to a group of players that sees nothing wrong with amassing 16 or 17 Strength/Craft before heading toward the Inner Region. This is one of the reasons why we introduced the "leveling cap" (base stat +10), so that players were forced to make the run for the Crown.

We tinkered with the Werewolf and Pit Fiends space and then added in a new enemy at the Valley of Fire. We play with the Sudden Death rule (instant win once you reach the Crown) and trade on 5 instead of 7. This means our game probably tops out at 2.5 hours (depending on how focused people are) and the Inner Region encounters are always relevant.

ASIDE: Maybe why they don't just go for it isn't always about trying to be ultra ready... maybe some are just enjoying the adventure(?!)

Oh definitely, that is a factor. I know that Player A, his chess championship aside, would prefer to actually play Talisman than win it. Its the act of storytelling he enjoys. Of course, chopping fellow players up is just a side bonus ....

So (after another long winded post)... Any new combat system should be built in graduate steps, starting with a simple foundation. Additional rules "units" should be defined in a ready to use order. How many levels are applied in any particular game should be according to particular mix of players. Possible ordering could be...

1. The basic level with simple to remember rules for the outcomes on 2d6 (or whatever); plus a blanket rule for characters that normally roll more than 1D6 for any standard dice activity.
2. Second level is dealing with auto-success and auto-failure rolls (2 and 12 for 2D6), plus resolution of ties in such, versus a basic draw for other tied results.
3. Anything more that further complicates combat.

Level 1 might appeal to some pure boardgamers, but shouldn't be thrown at newbies. Level 2 would possibly lose them unless they first get comfortable with Level 1. Level 3 would likely not interest them at all and should be saved for long-timers or ex-patriates of RPG.

I wholly agree with you. I think you pretty much summed up the whole issues here.

My CCG/wargaming/RPGing compatriots (Player's A and B) probably wouldn't mind the introduction of THAC0 and, dare I say it, Saving Throws However, this not only alienates players like D and E but also completely destroys one of the fine points of Talisman, i.e. to NOT destroy one's mind looking at endless charts or statistics (I'm looking at you Rolemaster)

There are a number of problems with rolling multiple dice but I believe the benefits outweight the difficulties. I'm definitely keen to test out 2d6. Having played more than my fair share of Heroclix over the years, I can see the probabilty benefits of 2 dice over 1. However, how do you handle beneficial multiple die powers (.e.g. Warrior) or negative multiple die powers (e.g. the trapper IIRC). Though rare, they are still very relevant?

My solution, while far from perfect (I hate having to tinker with "as written" special abilities...I believe everything a character can do should be written on their card and not require an FAQ ), it is a solution;

1. EXTRA DIE, SELECT HIGHEST = allow a free reroll of the lowest die

2. EXTRA DIE, SELECT LOWEST = mandatory reroll of the highest die

This would be in addition to any other powers/fate they have.

The benefit of this is that it allows multiple die rolls AND for you to be subject to both power 1 AND power 2.

Grrr - why doesn't this board use BBCode like every other board! Hopefully you can make sense of my post above.

****... I just lost another post... and now I have to run... and I'll try again later.

How about increasing die sizes?

Strength 1: 1d4
Strength 2: 1d4+1
Strength 3: 1d6
Strength 4: 1d6+1
Strength 5: 1d8
Strength 6: 1d8+1
Strength 7: 1d10
Strength 8: 1d10+1
Strength 9: 1d12
Strength 10+: 1d12+1 (per point over 9)

That way it takes a Strength of 13 to guarantee a win against a Strength of 1 (which should be a gimme in any case).

I still like sixes add and roll again (SARA). Using two dice and doubles add and roll again (DARA) is an interesting idea however.

I think keeping with d6s is important. How about...Outer region SARA, Middle Region DARA other boards 2d6 (multi-die combat characters will roll that extra die and choose the two best).

Making combat more difficult will reward those that like to max out their stats and, thus, make the game last longer. If they arent sure of success then they will grind longer.

With more expansions will come more opportunities for more stat increases and longer games.

Some people, myself included, don't mind a long session sometimes. I am hoping some of my friends get hooked on the game, have loads of expansions, and we can play a mega-Talisman session from time to time.

I think any of the possible die / dice combinations are valid if you want to go with them. Certainly alternative or graduate die type increments work for the most part, still allowing the possibility of low skill defeating high skill. And varied multiples (2D6, 3D6, etc) work as well so long as an automatic win or loss is added for lowest and highest roll. It's essentially a matter of preference. But there are some differences in probability... some small, some large. And there's also the convenience problems.

Graduated die (D4, D6, etc.) have some advantage of not needing an auto-win/loss rule as much as other systems. But it requires extra equipment not included in the game.

Multiples (2D6, 3D6) mean more dice are rolled for each combat. No biggy except that's a lot of dice being thrown (4 dice, 6 dice, etc) for an contest between two or more opponents (sometimes on a very crowded board).

As to probabilities, graduated dice means lesser chance of any win/loss than with base dice with auto-win/loss rules the larger the difference between the die types. The advantage is that the lower skilled win is based on the superior opponent slipping up (rolling low), and in that, this is the more realistic option.

For multiple dice rolls, the more that are rolled and counted together (2D6, 3d6) the sharper the bell curve at the Median, meaning that by pure chance, more rolls will be toward the center of the range, actually decreasing (1) the variance between opposing rolls and (2) the chance of auto-wins/losses as well as ties under those conditions. With skill modifiers are added, with greater and greater number of dice driving more base rolls toward the median, this also becomes more realistic for the chance of low skill defeating high skill.

The problem with all of this is of course that Talisman doesn't have real combats via RPG, when the fight continues until one combatant goes down or escapes. It's all or nothing, one roll, and a Life is lost and its over. So pushing die rolls too far toward RPG doesn't work. Especially in looking at Critical hits.

On Critical Hits versus Auto-Wins, they shouldn't be equated. There is a difference between finding an opening against a superior opponent and additional reaching a critical or targeted area for a quick finish versus a general successful strike. And without a true hit/life point system or body area system (as in varied RPGs), I don't think Talisman is suited to this... especially not when the whole fight is done on one roll. There's an example that can help illustrate at least the first part.

• Combatant A is a 2; Combatant B is a 12; both roll 2D6
• A rolls a 12 (for Total of 14); B rolls a 7 (for a Total of 19); both have a win, because 12 is auto-win
• Both lose a life, but would A really get a Critical?
• That means on top of an Auto-win, slipping into an opening, versus B of exceptionally superior skill, who would have trounced A in a straight up fight, somehow A manages a Critical for possible taking an Extra Life

It doesn't quite make sense. And having fought with hand weapons, the possibility is so slim I never saw it happen in my weapon sparring day... though I did see some amateurs (myself included), slip by an advanced student once or twice to tag them real good (which isn't the same as a critical hit that ends the match).

I tend to agree with JCHendee.

If you use a combat varient, don't look at making combat more 'realistic'. It is more about keeping an element of risk, thus excitement, for the powerful characters.

I have some experience with weapons combat as well and as the experience gapm widens there is very little chance of a newbie socring a hit on a vet in a competative contest.

So JC...did you fight a formal martial art or one of the recreationist type groups? I fought SCA for longer than my soul cares to remember and now I do the Dagorhir battle games.

I have been a martial arts "bum" on and off all of my life. In my younger days, I spent 2-3 years overlapped for 9 years in Shotokan, Savate, Hung-Gar, and Aikijutsu (one term applied to the emtpy hand side of Ninjutsu). I also spent 6 months learning the basic of fighting with dual shortswords and dual handaxes, but with with real weapons, in a small group that split off one of California "kingdoms" (?) of the SCA. I walked away from martial arts by the 80s when everyone was "kung fu fighting" and the community became corrupt and the "heart" of martial practice was replaced with blind viciousness that spread widely. Even I wasn't immune.

Combined with other sports, amateur motocross, and illegal "suicide" slalom and downhill racing, I racked up 30 bone injuries and other patch ups by the time I was 25. (My motocross days end at 35 miles an hour in mid-air against a very large tall tree sheered off tree that surprised me over the top of a steep embankment.) I'm now approaching 50, and I feel every old injure on a cold morning.

Currently, I'm a parttime practitioner of Chen Shi Taijiquan for 8+ years, the last 3 studying by myself (or through email with teachers in China) in the late life practices of the late GM Chen Fake (after he was past 55), founder of Chen "New Frame." Fake taught (or his son taught) all current GM of the Chen family (the four Buddhas, previously four Tigers, of the Chen clan worldwide). In intense seminars (8-10 hours a day, 3-4 days straight), I've had chances to study with one GM and one current generation Tiger (those masters or grandmaster next in line to become one of the Buddhas, the four selected Chen family representatives). Usually after one of those seminars, I was a wreck for a week.

Just the same, I don't consider myself a "martial artist." I do not have that level of skill, and never will because of time and certain physical limitations (arthritis is one new one). My practice is about health, maintaining altered body mechanics for longer function in life, staving off arthritic deterioration, and the basics of self-defense (not the same as martial art) through "internal force/energy."

I know a little about non-military combat. Enough to know how little I know. Now back to the real topic...

Indeed, as curent or past RPGers (I'm guessing most of us are), we don't want to push a boardgame too far that way, but enough to satisfy ourselves and others. Talisman will never work if approach as a full RPG; it doesn't have the complete mechanics necessary, and inserting them would mean it would eventually cease to be Talisman... and we'd lose some members of our respective groups.

Oh, and I did take another crack at "shield parries" in demo with some non-RPG Talisman players. They hated it at first, thinking a straight roll was less complicated and let them get on with gathering goodies. Laid our some mock situations with Enemies, then had one person fight the same ones, each time elevating the character as if it were moving through an actual game. In each combat I had the player(s) go ahead and roll that flat shield roll, and the reroll the lost combat with a shield parry. They got very quiet towards the end, when a shield parry was saving a Life much more often (at lower levels it doesn't, and the flat roll is better).

This taught me two things: (1) sometimes just understanding rules isn't really understanding, and (2) some rules would just take too much for most people to understand, and its not their fault. Even when we create a rule that's clean and straight forward... and has more verisimilitude by our own game or life experience... that doesn't mean it will ever make sense to someone else who is just as intelligent as we are.

Any changes we make, if we want others of all ilk to join us, need to not only within the nature, spirit, and structure of the game itself, but also produce as little disruption in someone else's perception of the game. Once again I re-taught myself what I stated before concerning potential use of a graduate system of rules changes. It would also keep us from going to far. It keeping the first stage both simple AND self-contained, it helps to limit going too far astray in subsequent stages.

Feldrik said:

However, in the game it is quite possible that an "experienced" fighter (read higher Strength) without a weapon can be attacked by a less experienced one with a Sword or an Axe. I am sure I might place my wager with the weapon wielding character!

I realise that Talisman is not supposed to be ultra realistic, but I think that merely using a d6 with modifiers is a little basic and could do with tweaking, though not much. That's why the suggestion of using 2d6 or 2d6-1 appealed to me. It's something I will try out and see if it is a mechanic I would like to adopt.