JCHendee said:

I understand, it will deplete the spell deck.

I think you must keep him that way then, otherwise he is more powerful than the stranger/wizard card.

i see that you have change the selling of spells from 3 to 2 gold.

Maybe a good choice. I don't think that players want to buy useless spells that other players sell to Jac. 2 gold is good i think

Hi JC,

Thanks for the cards. They look really good. Being an incredible nitpicker, here are my comments

Lioness – Maybe should be reworded slightly for clarity. Might be an idea just to list the total strength of the card for each roll and clarify that you roll each time you encounter the card.

Steer – Clarify if the card is discarded or ditched at the Fields or Village.

Poltergeist – Consider renaming as we already have a poltergeist. Remove the word Magic as it will make people think it only applies to magic objects. Most people know magic objects are objects too. In England we tend to use the word anticlockwise rather than counterclockwise. As the rest of the cards are in English English this may be a consideration.

Aurora – Do followers and objects regain their spells?

Minor Ifrit – I tend to keep my purchase cards in alphabetical order. It may be a pain to have to draw random cards.

General
While I have nothing against the addition of extra terminology, I’m not sure if it is a good idea to use alternate terminology rather than the official terminology. I personally preferred “Starting Strength” to “Strength Value” but I do think it would be better to stick to “Value” as it would only confuse the issue further.

The same, and even more so would apply to your usage of “Physical Combat” rather than the official “Batlle”. To me, the new terminology for “Battle”, “Psychic Combat” and “Attack” makes the intention of the cards a lot clearer.

I’m not sure about the added terminology used in some of your Object cards and how this would work with the existing cards which don’t have the terminology without some sort of refernce sheet, it could get messy.

Cheers

Geoff
 

Hi JC Hendee,

If you are adding custom cards to the deck, how are you balancing talisman.

If i am adding cards to my deck, i think i want to keep the balance from the reaper.

Otherwise i put to much cards from the same type in the deck and then it will destroy the balance.

Right now, i am too short on items and magic objects. The problem is that most people make it too powerful.

I am also looking for nice enemies to put into my deck. The art is for me the most important thing. If i don't like it, i don't put it into my deck

Velhart said:

Hi again, V (and I'll get to you CV in a following post).

The series on my log... meaning blog... called Balancing the Talisman covers and examination, analysis, and self-suggestions for dealing with balancing all the subdeck (Followers, Enemies, Strangers, etc) in the Adventure deck. Each on post is a very long article that takes a look at one subdeck with an eye to creating additional cards for it... either as whole matching count or as a 1/4th count.

They are long, convoluted, and not for everyone. (And riddled with typos as well, considering I sneak in those posts in minimal spare time around writing and working on the house and property).  You might take a look and see if there's anything there for you.

Each subdeck should be examined for count, average of attributes on cards, areas of effects, type of deficits and benefits, alignment slant (the standard deck is not balance for Alignments), etc.  It's not something I can easily tell you how I do it... and other designers around here probably have there own approach as well.  That's the best I can do for the moment.

As to the Reaper, I can't help you there.  The more that I and my group learned about it, the less interested we were.  Eventually one of use will buy it, but we will only be using some cards for careful addition to our decks.  Most of us played the old 2nd edition and are just getting back to Talisman (4th ed. rev.) as of a few months passed.  We remember most cards being stuck helterskelter into the Reaper.  We don't care for that... and we don't care for the Reaper itself. 

However, we are waiting anxiously to see how the new Dungeon turns out. We are praying that its design only is taken from 3rd edition and that most of its better intent is based in 2nd edition.  So far we do have some concerns that it will just be a pipeline into the CoC (the weakest aspect of the 2nd ed. version).

Balancing against another expansion isn't something you want to get into.  Balance any expansion against just the standard deck.  Then you know you've done your job.  To do so versus another expansion will just lead you astray... since often you'll be balancing against something that has not innate balance standard.  Even the standard Adventure deck isn't perfect, but is the game standard to follow (and make minor adjustments for).

Hi, CV!  And thanks MUCH for the feedback.  Never worry about the nitpicking, since that's you're option to add in with all others who take precious time to provide input.

Cidervampire said:

Yes, I see your point for precision and concision in these.  I'll take another look at those cards before re-releasing them.

Cidervampire said:

"English" English, eh?  Well, at least "anticlockwise" would save me a few letters of card space! 

I don't think there's too much problem in having a P as an Enemy as well as a follower. There is precedent in previous editions for certain titles popping up on different types of cards. And the follower version isn't really accurate for what "noisy ghost" really is.  I tried to find some alternatives that were too the point, but there just aren't any that are correct for what it does/is.

The whole "magic" thing was just trying to be precise in limited space, as I'm not sure I agree that all players thinks Object also implies Magic Object, but I'll see what I can work out to make that clearer/better.

Cidervampire said:

Yes, followers and objects regain. Another edit is in order for that card.

As to randomly chosen Purchase, it's necessary in a way.  The "Marid" and possibly a "Major Ifrit" will allow choosing a Purshase as one option.  The minor one needs to be weaker and less certain for being a weaker Enemy to overcome.  And traditional, objects of some kind are often part of what Djinn of all types present for wishes.  Yes, I'm putting the Purchase deck to a new use (and yes, I have additions - standard and new - coming for the purchase deck... some day in the near future.)

Cidervampire said:

I see your points all around on this, and certainly if I were producing this work for inclusion in a commercial release for 4th revised (by contract), I would have to adher to editorial standards.  That is not the case.  And there are other considerations I looked at which gave me reasons for the choices I made, particularly in the difference between "word" and "meaning"... or more importantly in precision and clarity.  We do not communicate in words; we communicate in meaning.  It is meaning that matters most.  I wish to relate meaning to people, not words.

The changes made to terminology in 4th "revised" were almost all bad ones that created obfuscation rather than enhancing precision and clarity.  I know this as a writer, a sometime contract editor, a past college English teacher (Prose, Research, Essay, etc.), and a number of other pursuits involving language (including an IT firm partner and specialist in e-document / data storage, management, and retrieval, and intranet / extranet development).  If I had made such term substitutions in any books my wife and I write, our editor would have jumped on us and rightly so. Because what matters above all else is the precision of meaning, not terminology standards.

The terms "Combat" and "Psychic Combat" I believe were the ones used in 2nd edition; they remain in the 4th unrevised edition.  Likely they existed in 3rd as well, though I never bothered with that version.  My addition of "Physical" Combat provides further precision.  That's what terminology choices should be about - clarity and precisions of "meaning," not the "word."  Battle is not synonymous with Combat; by that I mean it is of similar meaning but not the same meaning.  People often mistake synonym as "same" based on the word's roots; that is not the case.

"Battle" predominantly refers, first and foremost, to physical conflict between sides or groups; "Combat" (or fight, less precise) takes place between individuals. The term "battle" applied to individual combat has been used in legend and myth (and mistakenly in fiction), but as poetic license only. That isn't suitable to a rules systems from what I see. Rules, guidelines, operating manuals (even for games) are not about creative choices to distinguishing by word instead of meaning... at least not foremost.

The term "Attack" has similar problems as it always has in Talisman. Continued additions through FAQs came about to clarify who is attack(ing) who and who is attacking first. (The proper terms are "attack" for the one who initiates, and "defend" or "counterattack" for the one who responds.)

Additionally, it's my intention to eventually transfer the completed In the Balance expansions (Adventure, Spells, etc) to 2nd edition format. There are still many who play this version.  I may also do a 4th unrevised version as well.  I may or may not do 3rd edtion.  Since 4th revised is the only deviation in terminology (that I know of), I made my choices (with minor clarification) based upon the majority of versions and their almost common terminological choicse (the better choices). I would like to make such transfers of format with as few manual revisions as possible. There are or maybe ways to set up "actions" or scripting to do most of the work automatically in Photoshop CS4. Time for passtime pursuits is limited for me.

So there you have it (another long-winded post from JC ).  Again, your reasoning is sound, CV.  I have just based my choice on considerations you didn't mention.  I still think they are the overriding ones, but I'm open to any additional counterpoints you'd like me to consider.

Oh... and the document included with the cards is only a starting point.  It needs more for players to understand how to use these cards (1) according to normal game rules, ignoring sub-(sub-)classifications, or (2) having such only affect or expansion cards, or (3) interpreting some standard cards as being including in some of my new sub-sub-classifications (such as the Prince and Pincess obviously being included in "Noble" Followers).  Once cards are settled, I'll dive back into finishing that instructions document.

Aloha

First off, I have to say that I like your angle on this. Balancing things out and approaching from a logical viewpoint is interesting and I've been following your rather thought provoking blog.

My first impression of your cards was "There are some great ideas here". Particularly, Jak and the Battlements stand out as unique additions. Don't be surprised if that gets purloined by someone in the future (not me!).

After a closer review, however, I was a bit perturbed. The cards are very wordy and while the average gamer wouldn't have a problem with that, periphery or casual gamers would struggle greatly. Indeed, after playing Cosmic Encounter with a friend's significant other, I was quite shocked to see how anxious and upset she was getting just struggling to read the cards! I dread to think what her reaction would be to your cards ;) So from that perspective, I think you have alienated a group of players.

That said, having read your prevous posts, I completely understand that this expansion isn't about that group anyway. And, as you say, if it were a more official thing, you wouldn't even consider this balancing.

Secondly, I feel there is a certain level of unnecessary over complication on your part, i.e. its just plain fiddly! :D I think you have been very logical in your application but the more you add, the less it is Talisman. If you get my drift. For my troupe and I, Talisman is our "lowest common denominator" game: it doesn't tax the players too much and can be enjoyed by pretty much anyone. It requires less thought than say, Catan or Carcassone and can occupy an afternoon without too much repetition. By introducing more elements that have to be accounted, you require greater processing power... it is one of the reasons why I think the implementation of the Reaper mechanic is a bit of a missed opportunity (but I'm not going to go in to that).

Thirdly, after all that, I don't actually have any issue with any of your cards :) They are interesting and add something, so that's all good.

I would comment that your argument over the use of language is valid but a bit moot, in so far as the majority are concerned: most wouldn't notice and probably less would even care ;) But I see your point and if that's what works for your group then, again, it's all good.

Good stuff all round and I look forward to seeing your next lot!

Hi JC,

Thanks for the feedback on my feedback. I certainly see a lot of sense in what you have said. The term “Battle” was introduced in the 3rd edition and while as you state, it was hardly the best terminology, it at least made the cards clearer. I know there were some 2nd edition cards that used the term “combat” to mean strength combat and on other cards when referring to both strength and craft combats. I was quite happy personaly to see the introduction of the term "Battle" to make the difference clearer.  As you quite rightly say, the term “Attack” has been used in a muddling manner especially when it comes to the Assassin who probably logically shouldn’t be able to assassinate enemies as they attack him not vice versa.

I’ve gone through the incredibly lengthy process of converting all the 2nd edition expansions into revised 4th and generally found the new terminology useful in making the cards clearer. I’m pretty sure my group may be a thrown a bit by using cards with alternate terminology, especially newbies. I still love the 2nd edition but I probably won’t play it again as I now have all the cards in 4th edition format minus the various bugs. Because of copyright etc I probably wouldn’t really be able to share my hard work publicly which is a bit of a shame but there you go.

Fair enough on the naming of the Poltergeist, not sure of the logic of giving the original one that title come to think of it! Your usage of the word “magic” is the same as that used on the Cyclops in 2nd edition and I know that threw a lot of people I played against.

Bit surprised that you don’t play with the Reaper set. When I first saw him I was initially a bit shocked as to how lethal he looked but after several games and doing the maths, I realised that he isn’t such a major factor to the game and does actually add to the enjoyment. Quite liked the new cards and the tweaks to the 2nd edition versions. 2nd edition contained several cards which let you manipulate your movement eg. Horse, horse and cart, jet pack, which as a consequence allowed stronger players to continually pick on weaker characters which took the fun out the game quite a bit.

That’s the end of my griping, but again, thanks for the cards and I certainly look forward to seeing the rest of the set! It’s always an uphill struggle to include flavour and clarity to the cards in such a small space.

Cheers
Geoff
 

Cidervampire said:

Hi Geoff,

 Are you making the cards with new artwork too?. In the style of 4th revised edition.

I would like to see the wildernis cards from talisman island with updated artwork in revised format.

That goes the same for the dragon expansion from 2th,or other cards from 2th edition.

greetz,

Velhart

Hi,

No, I decided to use all the origanl art.  It took a long, long time to do all the scanning, cropping, a little stretching and retyping and rewording of all the cards but I got there in the end!

Geoff

dth said:

Hmm... well, that is definitely something to consider where possible. The "audience" for basic board games aren't usually people coming to do a lot of "reading" per se.  At the same time, once a new card has been encountered two or three times, the familiarity factor also comes into play, so long as the text itself is clearly understood.  And Talisman has never exactly been for people looking for a basic boardgame.  If that were true, not so many would be concerned with interpretation of cards versus cards and versus the rules.  Let's face it, that rule book has grown a little with every edition, so reading the cards is rather simply compared to running back to that rule book... or the growing FAQs.  Playing Talisman now means you need to be willing to face some study now and then... and even then, once something new is learned, you don't continue going back to re-read.  (Well... maybe a few times.)

Unlike a fiction, where every word counts every time, I see in game cards a more building process of recognition where the text becomes only a reminder as needed.  But your point is still taken.  So, can you pick out one worst case example where the newness presented by a card isn't enough, per se, in the balance against its wordiness?

dth said:

Understood, though other than some expansions simply offering new titles and art (and base mechanics that aren't really additions underneath), most fan expansions are looking to add some new complications.  That's part of the sub-audience I'm going after.  Mind you, you are right in that I am somewhat catering to those interested in the "adventure" (the playing) rather than the endgame (the winning).  Personally, I got bored with the winning part a long time ago.

But again... can you pick out (among the cards) what you think might be a worst case example?

dth said:

Point taken, admittedly... see more below.

Cidervampire said:

Hmm... I see now. And it makes sense that is bad terminology ocurred when someone tried to assimilate Talisman into the Warhammer world (when it already had a world of its own).  I'm not sure I agree that it was clearer... or rather that clarity was rightly served in the best choice of words.  I think it was just an accident a mind trying to make Talisman and extension of Warhammer and its base terminology.  You will note that when BI made the original faulted 4th, it reverted back to the orignal terminology.

Cidervampire said:

That's something more valid to consider, as it is audience based - audience is important to me as a writer. The counter-counterpoint is that most groups would not be using a fan expansion until a well after having learned the base game ... and to some degree have become bored with the same ol' same old. That's why people buy commercial epansions.  But the audience issue still provides a strong consideration.

I am concerned about a few of my cards, should I now go standard 4er terminology (which I am now leaning towards). The Old Battlements might actually get wordier ... but maybe not.  I'll have to try it out and see.

One the issue of wordiness and complexity, I'm wondering what any of you thought about the "Dry Spring"?  The objective with "Challenge" cards was to put a true micro-adventure into the came in the correct way (versus the Cave, where gain goes up only when you face nothing in challenge).

In the next back of cards are two more Challenges, each with a different approach to figuring out what one games for success. But with Dth's concerns with wordiness (and the strange variations on those coming two cards), I'm now leaning toward all Challenges having that clearer "table" of results... if it works adequately by those reviewing it.

Cidervampire said:

Indeed, that card will somehow be reworded.  I still want to avoid the "challenges" that I have seen come up when a card does not explicitly say Objects AND Magic Objects.  Hoarders (and even Gauders) will very commonly go for this kind of wording loophole.

Cidervampire said:

I see your point that some people would really like that element.  I'm just not one of them, and those in my group range from the same to the ambivalent. I think we consider it more of an interferrence that anything.  An certainly in small ways it can lenghten time per round without players actually doing more with their own characters.  That's the most predominant reason we haven't cared for it.  Also that it is nothing more than large cannon of randomness being pushed around the board as if adventurers on roll of 1 suddenly became demigods.

But again, different strokes, as they say.  That it has an enthusiastic faction among Talisman players shows it struck true for those like other dimensions of the game beyond what I'm interested in. And there's nothing wrong with that. Talisman's diversity (through differing expansions) has always been one of its strengths (its greatest weakness has always been poor or poorly thought out diversity in endgame).

Cidervampire said:

And the new versions do not?  Hmm... perhaps as a side line you could explain or illuminate how the horse (and perhaps magic carpet) differ between 2nd and 4th rev.?  It may be important for one or two cards I have in mind (which weren't in this first preview release.)  From what I heard of these cards in 4th play, they allowed adventurers to get around the board far too much beyond normal movement.  Attacks weren't as much of an issue as getting to resources and encouraging more hoarding.

ADDENDUM

Lastly, and foremost, I want you both to know how much I appreciate your willingness to debate with and challenge me.  It's a relief that someone is willing to do that.  It's important in "balancing" the theory and analysis against the reality built during gameplay by the players... the audience.  That's one thing I can't calculate, since I am only part of one small group of players.

No worries, JC. Always happy to help.

I'm going to go through your cards now and review them individually, see if that helps;

LIONESS: Interesting card. Should work fine.

STEER: Really like this card. Anything which adds kind of "side quests" is good for me.

GUIVRE: I interpret this card to mean "When you attack or are attacked by Guivre, roll 1d6+1 versus your base Strength (i.e. unmodified by objects and followers). If you roll over, you are poisoned: whenever you roll 5 or 6 for movement, you lose 1 Life until you can visit a Doctor, Healer, Physician or any "witch"". This is really wordy and very fiddly. I really like the idea behind it but in so far as Talisman cards go, I can definitely see peripheral players going "Huh? Someone explain that to me".

DISPOSSESSED: I interpret this to mean "When you are in the same space as this card, if you roll a die and roll a 1, you may not use any Magic Objects until the start of your next turn". The whole "If you roll a 1 when in the same space"... it is fiddly. For me, I think Talisman cards should be straight forward, this card has this effect and shouldn't have too many conditions.

GOLDEN SCORPION: I like this card. It is just on the borderline for complication. It has a bit of meat to it but that's ok.

MAGOG: I like this card :)

TROLL: Good card.

MARID: Cool :)

MINOR IFRIT: I interpret this card to mean "You may choose to attack the Ifrit in Psychic combat or enslave it. If the latter, you may not use any Followers during this combat. If you enslave it, the Ifrit becomes a follower whom you can discard at any time to gain 1 Gold, 1 Spell or any random purchase card." Its an interesting card and that's really the point of adding new cards (as you have said yourself). Yet, the text is very clipped. You may want  to consider using the smaller picture card...

POLTERGEIST: I see what you are doing with this card and that's very cool. But it is very fiddly: rolling a die for each object after the fight, calculating how much you lose by and then adding that to the die roll and then comparing that to your chart... I feel there are too many conditions involved in the effect.

AURORA: Good card.

BRISG-SHI: Very cool.

PURE DAWN: Also cool. I'd like to see a number of cards that represent the time of day.

VERDANT SURGE: Again, cool card.

I will continue when I get the chance.

The Guivre is fine by me.

The only thing what can be changed is. If you roll 5 or higher, you lose a life, or etc

Remember that you can also have a horse, then you roll higher than 6
 

Good input, people!  Some re-wording to consider, though I may not go as far with some of them.  Velhart is also partially correct about the Guivre (by the way, it is a traditional though little known form of dragon that lives in fetid water, and a possible origin of the gargoyle.)  The wording may be a bit to subtle. It is not about a movement "roll" but any movement, as worded. It's easier than the Poltergeist to get to a cure but more deadly, obviously. 

I'll get back you on others, possibly with some questions.  Right  now I need to put some time in reviewing Dth's expansion (as i"ve been promising)... and there's a large oak tree in my yard I have to attend to... people coming in to continue taking it down.

I may or may not get to releasing revisions and additional cards this weekend. But hopefully by Monday evening. In the meantime, please feel free to throw out more comments to consider if you're into that.

Hi JC,

I can't wait to see your new expansions.

Are you making more magical objects or normal objects too? ( because if i want to put the cards that you made into my deck, then i need items too..

i see that you can make nice cards. Is it possible that you can make the wildernis custom cards from talisman island with better artwork.

I would be so happy  to put those cards into my deck.  But i don't want to ask too much from you

Velhart said:

Yes, there will be more magic objects and objects.  Once I'm done with the Adventure deck, likely I'll do the Purchase deck next (I'm saving the Spell deck for last as that will be the most troublesome). And of course, characters MAY follow as well.

Later on, I have in mind a character "generator system" for creating not standard characters but ones "on the fly," where attributes and abilities are chosen by spending a standard amount "points" to add such to a character for the present game. Don't know if it will appeal to people, but its a notion I'd like to experiment with just the same.

Velhart said:

Hmmm... I'm not 100% certain what you mean.  If you mean re-do the cards, then perhaps yes... but later on. I will try to drop over there, download the ones you mean, and have a look later on.  All the artwork I use has to come from royalty free, copyright free, public domain and / or not for commercial use sources.  So it can be hard to find enough to go around.  I'm already have that trouble with my own expansion.