In the first game we played, we decided to use the inheritance rule described in the book since we were all beginners and just learning, whereby if your character dies all objects and followers are passed to your late character's successor (of course, this doesn't apply to trophies or accumulated strength and craft tokens.) However, with this rule in place, there was no incentive for PvP combat since killing another character gains you nothing, (except for the final exciting three-way showdown at the Crown of Command, of course.)

My only reluctance to abandon inheritance, though, is if your character is killed, your new character has to begin again as a newbie and compete against experienced bad-ass characters. Nothing you have achieved in your previous incarnation counts for anything. While you are once more building up your character, the other characters are already making their run at the Crown, so you have no chance of winning. A game you have no chance of winning is not really that fun.

I was wondering if someone had developed a suitable house-rule compromise between complete inheritance of followers and objects, or complete looting by the victor of a corpse. Does anyone use an in-between rule, or does everyone either follow inheritance or looter's rights?

The Looter's rights rule is another loophole, IMHO, if all the rules are actually applied equally. If another Player kills you off, s/he has chosen to take your last Life as the victory condition; therefore s/he cannot take an object. This would logically include any objects left behind. Those objects are now on the space, and since the Player chose to encounter you and not the space, then again they cannot touch them. All objects are left where they lay for anyone else to come along and take what they can carry. Any other interpretation, official or not, circumvents these rules.

The inheritance rule is a "patch" for a problem with the game. In any type of game based on either the "king of hill" or "last one standing" approach will always have this problem (it's what almost all FPS video games are based on). Once a Player's character is bumped off, only two options exist: (1) they are out of the game or (2) they must start over. Neither is that great. Inheritance allows some possibility of starting over, which is more than you would get in and FPS deathmatch session. If the previously stated rule considerations are adherred to, it make's a little more sense.... well, sort of, if the Player enters the game with the same character and not a new one. (If a new character is chosen, everything lost should remain on the space.) There is no other option that will work well and not make the effort others applied to build a character into pointless effort.

In any game based on "last one standing" (irregardless that it makes Alignment a contradiction in the end for Talisman), this is how they all end up. Players become focused on wiping each other out... preferably before getting to the game's endgame or central opportunity to do so. Someone else might get there first, so you'd better chip away at as many others as possible before. The more players, the greater the need to do so earlier (and not wait) and the greater the opportunity to do so (since the size of the "arena" has not changed, and more contestants are now crowded into it).

I think you're now running into the insurmountable issue... the endgame predicts the way the game is played, if you are thinking about winning foremost. All other considerations become secondary (at best). I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, but that is the way the game is designed. The only way this changes is if (1) the endgame is slightly to completely changed, and/or (2) the sociology and psychology of the particular group of players is altered somehow.

For the latter, I've always found that specifically targeting Players who excessively treat Talisman as an FPS deathmatch is both personally satisfying and a deterant. I highly recommend it... including assisting the targets of their abuse. Most of these types of Players are rather self-absorbed. I love the "What the...?!" look on their face when I suddenly give aide to their victim. I may or may not justify myself by saying "Whatever hurts you helps me." But in reality, I just like to see the game continue as something more than a slaughterhouse for the sadistic. I'm hoping you're not dealing with those types of players. Then again, if you are seeing more than 1 adventurer die off in every game you play... open your eyes! The problem is not inheritance or any other optional rule in the game for those knocked out early or late in the game.

Since my original posting on this, I played a 2 player game. The other player died *twice*! He drew the Troll to start and was killed by a dragon, then drew the Prophetess and was killed by a ghost. He finally drew the Monk, raced through and beat my Sorceress to the Crown. Luckly I had a Temporal Warp spell and a number of turns later I managed to make my own way to the Crown. We battled it out and I only won by a fingernail - we were both down to one lifepoint each on the last turn, so that turn's die roll was going to determine the winner!

Before the game we agreed upon a lesser version of the inheritance rule - the deceased's successor can choose one follower and one item and all other items become subject to looters rights or are discarded on the place of death. In actual practice the rule didn't make much difference as Troll had nothing when he died. The Prophetess died with a Pixie following and no items. But I found it interesting that despite the enormous setback it was still possible for his third character to catch up with mine for a neck-on-neck finish (largely due to a large amount of ordinary luck after the Monk appeared.)

My particular gaming group didn't seem to be particularly aggressive, and we all actually found it a bit disapointing that there wasn't more PvP combat in the games we played. As you said it's important to bring down your opponents, but by attacking another player you are also forfitting the change to draw a cool Adventure card. This means that your victum is brought down a bit, your character remains static and all the other characters in the game have the chance of growing. It would therefore seem that the logical approach is to let the other players fight it out while you focus on gaining attributes and useful objects to help you in the Inner Region. The only real incentive there is to attack another player is if there is a good opportunity for loot.

Some characters are born to PvP. The Thief, Ghoul and Dark Cultist from Reaper (just got it...can't wait to play!).

Most Good characters do not benifit from PvP and some characters are opportunists, like the Sorceress.

The strategy in Talisman is based on the character you draw, not the board...that is risk assesment. You have to make the most of what you can do.

JC is correct as well, to kill another character you must opt to make them loose a life as your victory award, thus forfieting any other action.

Augustisimus said:

In our house, if you kill someone, you can take anything they had (excluding spells and warlock's quest cards). We play this way every time and enjoy it. Otherwise, why would anyone play as the assassin?

In any case, to keep things fun, we allow the "next" character to start with +1 to either Strength or Craft. A third character has +2 to Strength ro Craft (or 1 to each). I play with fun people so we aren't simply all committing suicide against the Sentinel for the first twelve turns to get a +3 bonus to our 4th character, but if your players aren't as well-mannered, you can always say "+1 for each non-Sentinel death."

Given the game's pacing, the +1 character is usually still at a disadvantage, but many second characters emerge victorious because of our character selection method. Each player gets dealt 3 (or more) characters and may select from those he/she was dealt. By picking a character whose ability is relevant and useful agains the other opponents, the "dead" character's player has a tactical advantage. Wizard with +1 Craft is a good pick against Troll and Warrior, for example, if both have good Strength items and a 2 or 3 craft.

From an in-game perspective, I can't imagine a possible explanation for how some new character just "happened by" exactly all of the unique magical items and followers you were carrying when you died. I mean, when a Thief kills you, do you really think he's going to leave 20 priceless artifacts on your corpse? And depending upon whether Good or Evil, followers can be seen to follow their liberator (The Knight who killed the wicked Ghoul who had enslaved them) or they now unwillingly follow the tyrant who slew their friend.

As for why characters joining later in the game are stronger/craftier, they weren't out adventuring, but they did spend that time exercising or studying at home, and are better prepared to embark now than they would have been ten or twenty turns earlier.

The official rules (page 12): "If the winner kills the loser by forcing him to lose his last remaining life, the winner may take any Objects, Followers, and gold from the loser to add to his own. Any Objects, Followers, and gold not taken are left on the space."

It looks like JC is using a house rule that tries to tone down the atmosphere of sadistic bloodlust that appears to permeate his group.

My group, however, tend to be cautious of attacking each other unless a) they have to or b) they stand to gain something without triggering a disproportional repercussion.

I'm therefore looking for ways to facilitate a little PvP in my group while also giving all players a reasonable hope of winning until the very end.

Library, the players in my group are very devious and any loopholes that can be exploited will be exploited. If you can think of an exploitation strategy (e.g. suiciding on the Sentinal), I'm sure they will be able to think of a strategy that is far more efficient.

I think we may stick with the one follower, one item rule for a while and see how well it works. I kind of like the idea of one loyal follower who refuses to accept the death of your character.

Distress and shock fill the heart of the Maiden as the wicked Monk bashes in the head of her beloved Troll with his eight-point metal-tiger attack. As the Assasin basks in his glory she is horrified as the Guide and the Alchamist slip into the Assasin's entourage. Trying to remain inconspicuous, she reaches into the Mule's packsadle and draws the Runesword. Hiding it in her bodice she slips away to find the Wizard - the one person in the realm she knows the Troll trusted.

Actually, the bloodlust in our group is at a minimum. After many earlier years of playing, by the time some of us returned to the 4th edition we already had a group interested in the (1) the adventurer, (2) a sense of what a real quest is, and (3) a few different concepts of endgames including the basic of the CoC making one King/Queen of that land (the end).

Any bloodlusters who happen along into one our games find that they don't last long. Reprisal and vengenance run high, and if someone makes him/herself into a noticable threat, well, there's nothing stupider than becoming more of threat than the rest of the game. Still, I see and hear about such here and elsewhere. I call it the FPS effect.

Any of the rulings I've seen herein would work just fine for providing an edge to players having to restart. But I have notice that almost all are focused on when one player kills off another, so... it's not just bloodlust in my group we're talking about, right?

And as to the Maiden being able to hide the Runesword (?!?!?) in her bodice... good grief, that would mean she couldn't even stand upright... without the sword!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. But what would the whole adventure game genre be, though, without a certain amount if incredulous activity?

The Runesword, as every adventure gamer knows, turns into a generic compartmentalised "item" when she picks it up, thereby easily stashable anywhere she wishes.

When she presents it to the Wizard, of course, he shakes his head in exasperation. Being a Wizard, the Runesword is beyond his use. He keeps it tucked away anyway to deny other players of its use, but because he doesn't have a mule yet he has to juggle it with his other three generic items.