What is your opinion on MLC's (Master Level Characters)?

In case you have forgotten, 2nd Ed had the Templar, the Herald, the Mystic, & the Champion of Chaos. 3rd Ed had the Sheriff, the King's Champion, the Master Thief, & the High Mage.

Did these characters make Talisman better or worse for you/your group?

Please share your thoughts and ideas…

Bonus question…does ANYONE play their 2nd or 3rd Editions anymore?

My 2nd Edition Talisman is in the basement, untouched for years. I seriously doubt it will ever see the light of day again.

And it's been a while, but I remember completely despising the Master Class characters (and not being too fond of the City in general). I thought they were overpowered, and diverted attention away from the central game.

Thumbs neither up or down; didn't hate them, didn't think they were that great. In a two player game 'balance' is more of an issue, but it just wasn't worth the bother overall.

Since that the 4th revised edition has been released, i have never play the third edition again.

I have never use the sheriff, high mage, master thief or kings champion in our games.

To be honest, i don´t want to see those special cards again.

So i will choose for thumbs down:)

Thumbs down for 2nd edition MLC's, Thumbs up a little for 3rd edition MLC's, Thumbs up for the revised 4th edition MLC's in the City Expansion?!

Ell.

Do you think objections to MLC's are mostly a case of "if I can't have it, no-one can"?

No they are really poorly designed in the 2nd edition!

Ell.

Jimmythecritic said:

We actually don´t need master level characters from second edition.

I want to play with the character that i started the game with.

It´s better if FFG will not add them to the game. Maybe that FFG can create a new idea, that you can buy abilities or something in the city.

Thumbs down. They brought nothing to the game in 2E or 3E except imbalance when I played them. I didn't even like them when I was the only one lucky enough to get my hands on one early and first. I'll have to wait and see a bit more about what's been done in 4ER with MLCs, but likely they won't appeal to me and mine, as it is considered a flawed concept from the start by more than just myself in my circles.

I passed off my 2E to my daughter many years ago, and she and hers don't play it anymore; the 3E I played briefly was owned by a friend and that too went by the wayside. Didn't come back T until the 4E and upgrade came along. It's now our intermission game between other games played more often… when we have time for such. We prefer the core game with additions that fit into that and rarely pull out and use one expansion board at at time; those tend to dilute parts of the game's core play, which is what we prefer.

I say thumbs down, that being said, if FFG implements them, I'm sure they will work fine.

I haven't played 2nd in about 10 years (never owned it) and I haven't touched third since I opened up 4th.

Thumbs down.

I prefer to play one character only, from the beginning till the end. Plus, Ghoul who becomes the King's Champion? It's totally crazy

If FFG did do something like a MLC expansion, I think I'd like to see the ability to 'level up' in fighting ability or magic. For example, a card in the city that reveals some sort of trainer or mentor that for a substantial price, or ability check or something, will improve a player's ability in a certain area. I like the thought of being able to be trained to use 2 weapons (or maybe doubling the effects of weapons so that the Warrior can benefit), or being trained in magic and adding +1 spell at all times (eg the Dwarf or Elf will always have a spell, the Prophetess 2 spells, the Warlock 3).

Or

How about some realm-specific benefit? By that I mean a player coud spend some time/money becoming a 'mountaineer', or a 'dungeon master', or a 'ranger' (though it'd be called something different as we will probably see a ranger sooner or later)!

Of course, there would have to be enough of each of these so that every character could earn their new ranks if they choose to.

Thumbs up from me, but they need to be more balanced. The 3rd edition were better only gave a minor boost whereas the 2nd edition were way over the top. High Mage with a Kite Shield and a Warhorse due to Bank Loans, anyone?

Still wish FFG published the forest before the city. It's rarer!

I think the best way for the MLCs would be to buy new abilities to the normal characters for gold. Another option is change system: You can have this (new) ability if you sacrifice a current one and complete a quest.

Has anyone mentioned that these qualities or abilities could belong to Followers you may be able to obtain in the City?

I also like the idea of a bank for loans (and possible robberies?).

0beron said:

Hmm, actually, i don´t want to see a bank for loans in this game.

Velhart said:

Well, I don't think it should be a big part of the game, but there was lending of money, financial type institutions in Renaissance-ian times

0beron said:

I think that the characters must collect the money for themselves, by travelling to the highlands for example.

If characters can easily get money from the bank, then it will result in a early powerboost in the game, by buying weapons, mules etc

And i think that a bank should be no part of the game:)

Velhart said:

Just because a bank loans money, doesn't mean its easy… to pay back. There are high interest loans. In Talisman, maybe the bank really does break your legs if you don't pay back. We have a turn cycle, day/night. If not that, some way of tracking the time to pay back a loan and an immediate consequence if you don't in time - the Sheriff or similar.

I guess its a fantasy, so banks/loans shouldn't be a the main thing, but hey, having a City, at all, implies business and commerce of some sort. Do all those people in the City go out and find gold to pay for their livelihoods?

without getting too "real", they say 2 things make the world go round - -

Money and sex (but in what order, is the oft heard retort).

Which is more likely to be represented in this game? Give me a bank or give me a brothel! (I'm kidding Velhart!)

0beron said:

It's indeed not easy to pay it back, especially if there is a rule that you may not leave the city if you have loan money from the bank.

But i think it will break the game.

People work for the money, but keep it at home or into their pockets..

I can't imagine that a elf is going to the bank to store all his money.

Unless the city has sucked into the timescape portal:)

Velhart said:

Well, of course I won't die if they don't have it, but I guess it begs the question, so what kind of things *do* make up a City's environs?

Everyone of us could have some 'bone' over what should be or not be in a City.

There are posters here who think the Dragon expansion 'breaks' the game for them. Each to their own.

perhaps its because we're thinking of banks, the way they are in modern times. Who says a Talisman bank would be a direct corollary to modern banks?

Maybe it is tied into the criminal element, for certainly there was much corruption in any age of money/goods handling.

Mafias are not banks per se, but loan money and have enforcement for non-payments. Cities imply commerce, therefore some attempt at portraying this is valid, and without seems a little shortsighted to me.

The bank in 2e allowed you to take out a loan for 3G. If you didn't pay back 4G before leaving town you were turned into a toad. the high mage could not be turned into a toad so could quite easily nab 3 gold from the bank.

Neutral / Evil characters could also rob it.

Triple "A" said:

Does that mean that you are looking to get rid of it? Let me know if you are. I miss the old thing.