Haulers are Followers who carry more objects for you. Hoarders are obviously players looking to hoard as many objects and magic objects as they can. And gauders are ones trying to use, wear, and swap out objects in the moment faster than a stage magician. We've all seen these later two types of players. So I'm wondering if other players (or groups) have ever come up with any house rules to deal with such.

Our group plays slightly different with Hauling followers (Mule, Horse and Cart, etc.) Objects and Magic Objects must be designated to Haulers. Anything not carried / worn personally by the Character cannot be used where weapons, armor, jewelry, adornments are concerned. Such "need to carry" items (for them to have effect or be used) can only be changed out at the beginning or end of one's own turn. General purpose items such as the Orb or Knowledge (reasoned to be used before encounters) or the Wand (only used when a spell is needed) do not need to be carried by the Character for such uses.

BUT... any objects on a Hauler are lost if that follower (or other) is suddenly "lost," such as being destroyed utterly by a spell or stolen (NOTE: losing a Hauler in the Chasm means losing everything it is carrying; yes the space says "killed" but it died by falling into the Chasm.) If it is just killed (by normal means that would not remove its presence), the objects fall to the ground and a final swamp out can be done if there's something the character has to have. Makes players have to think about more than just hoarding goodies, like most do when multiple expansions build up the number Objects and Magic Objects. It's an extension of the standard carrying capacity rules without altering them.

Simply requires some common sense application versus players who just want to get away with anything, anytime, with all they have collected... like some Neutral character swapping out the Runesword for the Holy Lance when it draws (is ambushed by) a sudden Dragon. That specific instance was one of two that occured that inspired this house rule's creation. Another player in another game was attempting to claim she could wear a crown, circlet, and helmet all at the same time. When she picked up a magical mask as well was when we finally cried foul!)

To be honest, I never experienced this kind of problem. I play with people who are not big boardgame fans and play it for fun once or twice a month. Games last not more than 3 hours, and everybody tends to go ahead for victory if they could. There's no time to hoard objects and use them as you say. I wish I could play Talisman and other boardgames more often, but I'm trying to find some new mates right now to suit the purpose of continuous play (at least once or twice a week).

The house rule of item "equipping" is a good solution. It's realistic and discourages hoarding. If a Character has a Mule (or Horse and Cart) and has a Sword, the Ring, the Wand, Solomon's Crown, a Helmet, the Magic Belt and the Amulet, he must choose which 4 Object he's equipping. He can choose to wield Sword, Ring, Solomon's Crown and Magic Belt, but if Wand, Amulet and Helmet stay with the Mule, they give no bonus. By all means, this is right. It will also solve the problem with the Concealed Pouch. You keep the Runesword in the Concealed Pouch and nobody could steal it, but you still use it for combat... inside the Pouch? Nonsense.

You say the Wand can be used even if it's on the Mule... I won't say so. It's not a sort of "spell caller", even if the game made it look that way. If you make it realistic, you use the Wand to cast Spells. Perhaps this is the reason why some people claim that the Wand grants Spells also to Characters with Craft 2 or less.

I also like the rule of Item loss when you lose the Hauler in the Chasm. What do you do when another player or Hag makes you lose the Follower? Items are dropped, lost or stolen along with the Hauler?

The current rules about using and having Objects etc are supposed to be kept simple for the purposes of gameplay.

Equipping is something that I've always thought should be more regulated in the game though. I'm very much in the camp for using 4 slots for your character.

I can see a point where you encounter a Dragon and think "Ah, I think I will use the Sword, currently on my Mule, to attack it!"` However, you would then have to put something ELSE on the Mule so you couldn't have use of 8 Objects. Also, if you lose a carrier, you lose whatever he/she/it was carrying AT THAT TIME! No swapping out. If it was using my Mule to carry my Talisman and it slips into the Chasm, then I've lost my Talisman.

However, this is not how the game is played out according to the rules, but if you play at my house it's likely that you'll be playing that way (and with one or two other little touches re Fate etc.)

The_Warlock said:

Now that's a good point, and a little embarassing that our crew hadn't considered it. I think under those circumstances, it might actually be more fun if the items were dropped and the Character had to chose and leaves some behind on the board. A more complicated approach (for if and when we get Bearers and similar intelligent Haulers) would be that animals fun off with what they're carrying, but intelligent Haulers would drop what they have. Again, that's leaving simplicity behind. But overall, I would be reluctant to have the Hag cause wanton loss of objects, since that's not really what she's designed for. When possible, I like to avoid changing intention of cards when working with a bit more verisimilitude.

talismanisland said:

Very true indeed... though I think there's something to be said for the two different types of House Rules categories: those that change the standard rules... and those that plug loopholes.

By the by... to switch topics briefly, we too have some house rules for Fate that based in verisimilitude. We don't allow Fate to be used on anything even partially outside a Characters own influence (it is only applicable when they DO something, such as Pray, Fight, use a spell, but not when they are rolling for the choices and actions of card or space personae. We've also worked with alternatives for movement, but aren't quite satisfied with results.

So what Fate rules have you tested in your group(s)?

Nothing thoroughly tested as yet, but like a lot of people I was concerned that the use of Fate for ANY die roll that you make would result in a lack of Toadings and the like. I would think that simply limiting the use of Fate to once per Turn would speed things up a little and still be useful.

The are a number of things that I wanted to add to Talisman Island as suggested rules, possibly as a part of an Advanced Ruleset, but have not yet had a chance to get them all together. The first of these was to have been about the use of designated slots for Objects, then leading onto suggestions for Fate, Levelling, Movement and Combat. These would of course be totally optional rules but it would be something for those players that want to take the game a little further.

I had started to make a "load out" sheet for 4th Edition characters, which would show what they were carrying at any particular time, and therefore limiting what they could actually use.

Unfortunately I had saved my template as a very small file which was useless and had closed my graphics program before I had a chance to undo the change. I got a little disheartened after that and never went back to it. It is something I wanted to revisit though.

If anyone fancies chewing over some ideas then maybe the feature can see the light of day!

My opinion would be to completely ignore the "slots" and carried objects vs haulers.

Dont change anything, it just over complicates the game.

To many times, players are looking at their turn, as something that "Suddenly happens". I personaly feel that if you look at each turn as a "day" to the character, he should have plenty of time, to decide what to use for the fight. Remember that the character and followers are just carrying the objects. The fight roll you do during your turn, represents the final result of what took place that day. Many things may have happend, so A player should be allowed to use whatever objects were nessisary.

Example of Your Turn: You draw a card, and its a dragon. You cast psycic blast and you roll a dice, the dragon rolls the dice, and you win. You were also down to 1 life anyway, but get a healing spell from your wand, and cast it.

What could have taken place: You and your party hear the roar of a dragon in the woods heading your direction. The warrior drops his sword and grabs the lance and helmet from his mule. He grabs the potion of strength from the cart, and chugs it down. The dragon come into the clearing and attacks, crashing into things. Several rounds of Fire breathing, claw and tail attacks. Warriro makes several attacks with his lance, doing massive damage. While the dragon stumbles around getting ready to take off to attack from the sky, the warrior runs over to his warhorse and charges! His porter tosses him the wand and he casts a healing spell on himself and then holds his sword and shield in hand. The dragon slaps him off the horse with his tail and he falls to the ground. He raises his wand to the sky and summons a spycic blast to destroy the dragon.

All the flavor text is what is missing from the battle. (which is what would make the game a RPG if they did have it)

This is why I feel its unnessisary to worry about what item is where, or equiped items. Once you start doing that, you will start hitting problems everywhere. Is the weapon 1 handed or 2? can you wear a crown and a helm? how many potions could you carry? Is the weapon Piercing or slashing?...The questions will start comming up, and never end.

Well, as I said it is merely for those people that would like a little more in their game. I actually love the fact that Talisman is so simple, but sometimes I think it might need a little "something", though not too much.

I am not proposing a full "real life experience", just a few subtle changes that might make the play a little more interesting. We shall have to see how it all pans out.

TESTING... had some trouble with a long post... so wanted to see if that was the problem or if I'm blocked entirely.

Okay, it went through, so something else is happening... I'll try shorter pieces.

HallowKnight, remember, we're not talking about altering or modifying the rules for everyone; these are house rules. As to whether we should or shouldn't... well, since we're discussing house rules, we've already made that choice.

To many times, players are looking at their turn, as something that "Suddenly happens". I personaly feel that if you look at each turn as a "day" to the character, he should have plenty of time, to decide what to use for the fight.

This assumes all characters see everything coming at them, even when drawing an Adventure card. If so, why bother having the Orb of Knowledge or the Prophetess? The counter to your argument is already built into the game.

Looking at things from an end-of-the-day prespective is looking at the day's encounters backwards, as if you have constant foresight to be ready for anything... even a card you haven't drawn or seen yet. It doesn't work logically, nor even by the games innate mechanics.

Some of us want the relative quickness of a board game mixed with a bit more verisimilitude from FRPG. Drawing an Adventure deck is a "surprise" in stumbling upon something unexpected - unlike and upturned card (which we then must assume as characters that everyone somehow heard a rumor about it). Using the rules of changing objects only at the beginning or end of a turn makes the character/player decide... If I'm going after that dragon on the Woods to get an extra Strength point, I'd better be ready." That's all we're really doing here... putting in a little verisimilitude for the adventure rather than just the endgame.

Example of Your Turn: You draw a card, and its a dragon. You cast psycic blast and you roll a dice, the dragon rolls the dice, and you win. You were also down to 1 life anyway, but get a healing spell from your wand, and cast it.

Spells are not the same thing as objects. Casting a spell before / during / after the fight is fine, even under the house rules I mentioned. And as you mentioned in your ordering, you used the Wand after the fight (end of turn). Spells don't have a location for carrying. They are always with you.

What could have taken place: You and your party hear the roar of a dragon in the woods
heading your direction.

Umm... it depends on whether the dragon is intelligent or not. Most in fantasy are. It's not going betray its presence until necessary, if it's out to get you (such as when freshly drawn). It's going land on you like a ton of bricks and squash you to a tasty pudding before you see it coming... or at least until the last moment when you can't do anything you mentioned. If I were the dragon with a brain, I'd keep quiet. If I can't get the advantage as mentioned, I'll at least be looking to open you up like can of sardines... and I'm not going to let you got for that can opener of your own strapped (yes, lashed down, so it doesn't fall off) on your mule.

And of course it's all a matter of perspective, based on how we choose to imagine the encounter beyond pure game mechanics. Which is what we all do, or why bother having it all laid out in a high/epic fantasy motif?

Jon, the sheet you made was a great idea. Simple enough for a general game and certainly fitting to the object limits of the standard rules. But simply putting objects under or on top of Haulers would probably work as well (just stagger them like in solitaire so you can see the titles). Table space of course would be the only trick. And certainly positioning Object / Follower by labels on the Character Cards is abandoned by any experienced player. That never works / worked. Who has the space for even a layered row of such below the Character Card?

The only optional Fate use rules we've stablized are the ones mentioned for what rolls can be affected. No more re-rolling the Enchantress, Mystic, or other personae's choices beyond the character's control!!! It's not only illogical, and certainly not how individual Fate works... this change also levels the playing field in certain ways.

We too limit Fate use to one per turn. The only other house rule of Fate we've gone back to repeatedly (but still aren't certain of) is optional use of a Fate BEFORE a movement role. You then have the option to modify the roll's result by 1, up or down, with a max./min. of 6/1. (We don't let Fate alter the natural range.) This gives characters a better (but not perfect) chance to hit a desperately needed / wanted space - if they are wiling to sacrifice a hard won Fate point. But it doesn't guarentee the needed result, and if you've used the Fate beforehand, you've nothing left to face something bad for the rest of that turn.

I'm quite interested in breaking out that template again actually. You will notice that I added a Backpack to the mix, which is where I feel the character would hold his 4 items. The Armour and Weapons would not necessarily be part of his carrying limitation and would probably be "freebies". I'd have to play that through to see if that would unbalance things at all. I guess not if everyone can do it...

I figured someone would "quote" my post to death..

The whole point of the post, was to show that the battle you fight in a turn, is the outcome. Not how it came to be. Just to prevent the arguments of ... "sorry, you cant roll for your armour save becasue it was on your mule" With each new expansion, house rules will become harder to maintain.

But yes, I understand it is YOUR house rule, and if thats how you roll, then have fun. I have had experience trying to encorporate that before, and the game gets slowed way down, as people argue over wether or not a power comes into play from a card, not directly on you.

Mabey there should be a Talisman "X" that makes the game more RPG, complex, etc. ( like having slots that Talismanisland showed) I know I would enjoy playing both versions.

Things could be seperated into more catigores. like instead of just "weapon" you could have 1 handed, two handed, hidden, piercing, slashing, bludening, simple, complex.

Objects borken down into, body position, possetion, or worn item, magic, non-magic, Heavy,

Follower classes, Humanoid, animal, magical,

Spells could have classes, FIre, poison, ice, electric, necromance, enchant, curse, heal,

CHaracters themselves, should be more broken down (talisman currently only uses alignment) they could specify, race, sex, class, etc.

talismanisland said:

Yes, I was wondering about the backpack. Is that something that all "venturers" would automatically have... or is it based on a piece of new equipment that must be acquired? And by armour, weapons, etc. being freebies, do you mean not counted against his object limit (encumberance)? Hmmm... so the character actually can sort of carry 9 items? Or am I reading to much into it?

Okay, having more posing problems again with edited or manually inserted quote tags... hopefully the below it still comprehensible.

[Maby there should be a Talisman "X" that makes the game more RPG, complex, etc. ( like having slots that Talismanisland showed) I know I would enjoy playing both versions.]

I wouldn't mind that, though as you've suggested, things can go too far in either direction. Some options we've talked about still try something to work within the games mechanics (or rules, and that's not exactly the same thing).

[Objects borken down into, body position, possetion, or worn item, magic, non-magic, Heavy... Follower classes, Humanoid, animal, magical... ]

I'm toying a bit with similar notions (simplified) in the expansion I'm building. But I'm trying to be careful to do it in a way where all cards can still be used by the standard rules, regardless of limited additional attributes and subtypes.

One thing on the negative side that does mess with mechanics (as even seen in commercial expansions) is when a new subtype of Enemy card comes into the deck. It changes the value of other cards, like Magic Objects; they become less potent (if targeted to a particular subtype) or more potent (if targeted to all but one or more subtypes noted). I had to switch out description on one Magic Object coming so that it described what it wouldn't work against... so any new subtypes would still be included.

Obviously, it gets messy when building with alternative ways of play in mind... or just in compensating of later official additions to the standard game... but I do believe that anything added should still be usable without any house rules. At least until we get that Talisman X.

Yes, the formatting of quotes with this forum software is terrible, so I will not bother trying this time!

Regarding the character sheet, the slots were intended to add a little realism, without breaking anything with the game. Or at least that is the idea!

The backpack "Object" would be a freebie that everyone has to store 4 Objects in.

I am not sure whether it should available to be stolen or not, as wearing two backpacks would not be overly comfortable/practical. Perhaps people would be able to "swap" them though...

Weapons and Armour would ordinarily be carried on the person in the slots marked as that shouldn't affect anyone's ability to carry a backpack also.

Weapons stored in the backpack would not be able to be used in Combat (Battle!).

You would still only be able to use one type of Armour for defence, but with the limitations of the human body. You would not (as a Warrior for instance) be able to use two Weapons AND a Shield.

Things like Solomon's Crown could not be worn in conjunction with a Helmet. In actual fact, it is possible to wear both in real life (see Henry V), but for ease of play I would say not.

You could take the character sheet to the "nth" degree by adding slots for neck, fingers, wrists etc, but really speaking, you would need a HUGE one for that!

There was an article written (I'll have to find it) about encumberance and the true cost of carrying different items based on size,

Well... at least that's a few more ideas to chew over

AH, now I see! And I agree on a lot of the problems with taking things too far. One thing I've considered adding with the In the Balance expansion is simply stating on a card where an object is worn (hand, head, body, etc.) Similar to whats on currect objects (Armour, Weapon, etc.) Of course this doesn't account for standard cards, but most are rather obvious once the cards I introduce are seen (plus a brief optional house rules explanation). The new cards can still be played normally and the optional "adornment" rules ignored.

I just orderd my copy of Talisman but I am a fan from the '80s.

I have been visiting Talisman Island's site and enjoying the various 2nd edition expansions folks have posted.

My plan is to get my friends where I now live into this very fun game.

I like the character sheet. Rather than 'helmet', 'sword'...I would use 'head', 'body', 'right hand', 'left hand'. This opens up possabilities for other types of items to be introduced.

I wonder if allowing 6 items would be too much for this varient.. Add in something like 2 slots for 'jewlry', or 'other'. Then you use the rules for objects carried by the character vs, those carried by other things. It makes it more coplicated but with a house rule its your game.

For fear of derailing the thread...we always just let the player choose what they thought was most effective for the encounter. The game is geared for a fun evening with the family and friends. If your mule takes a plunge I guess you have to make some tough choices...just don't laugh to hard at their misfortune. Karama is a witch...and she will turn you into a toad.