Jump to content



Photo

The new fate rule


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
79 replies to this topic

#61 Bijan

Bijan

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 December 2008 - 08:39 PM












Bijan said:


Use fate only when you don’t have any experience, item, followers and spells. //this give players a good start, and help players that have died but is not so interesting idea since you don’t have the resources for long.

When you use a fate counter, lose all your experience counters. give those experience counters to a player of your choice . //this effect will give rearrange player resources (experience), the weakest player would get a experience boost, since it makes most sense to give your lost experience to the weakest player.

The ideas above are not well thought through, but hopefully someone else can whit the insight of my (rather other great boardgame designers before me) come up whit a better solution.

Summary


  • The luck factor in talisman is its game balance. Alter it and the player who has the best character from start wins more easily.

  • Adding player recourses and control are a great idea and needed, but as it is now implemented is on the cost of game balance.

  • What the game "really needs" now is a way for the underdog to turn the game around. So that the tension of ”who will win" will last until someone wins.


Chers.

 










Thank you for posting these suggestions Bijan. Its nice to see some well reasoned discussions instead of knee jerk reactions that this, that, and the other thing is totally broken and ruins the games and sucks out every ounce of fun and makes little puppies cry....etc....etc....

You mentioned that you are a game designer. May I ask which games you made or whether they are board games or computer games? I am an avid gamer and it would interesting if I played something you worked on. Have you made any talisman expansions perhaps?

Getting back to business, some questions came to mind after looking over the article again.

"Use fate only when you don’t have any experience, item, followers and spells."

What about characters that start the game with items or spells? Characters that always have a spell like the wizard and prophetess can never use fate with this rule.

"When you use a fate counter, lose all your experience counters. give those experience counters to a player of your choice ."

This if anything, sounds like it would be even more unbalanced since people would just play favorites. My wife would kill me if I gave someone else my XP.  I know some players that would probably give the leader all their stuff just to end the game faster and put them out of their misery.

"The luck factor in talisman is its game balance. Alter it and the player who has the best character from start wins more easily."

Sorry if I misunderstand your point here, but if you're saying that luck is the game's balance, would not increasing a player's luck with fate increase the game's balance then?

"Adding player recourses and control are a great idea and needed, but as it is now implemented is on the cost of game balance."

This is such a broad statement that it kind of went right over my head. How exactly does adding recourses and control cost game balance? If the game is easier or harder to win I don't really see that as a balance issue, it is just a choice made by the game designer. Some alternative ending cards are much harder to win than others, but that doesn't mean they are unbalanced if they effect all other players equally. Maybe I'm missing the point so if you can elaborate on this it might finally sink in.

"What the game "really needs" now is a way for the underdog to turn the game around. So that the tension of ”who will win" will last until someone wins."

That sounds like a great idea! How about if the cost to gain additional craft and strength points increased the more a character gains. So the first counter might cost 3 points of killed enemies, then the next one would cost 4, then the next one would cost 5, etc. Players would gain levels fast earlier in the game and then steady out to give players lagging behind a chance to catch up. Thoughts?

Another idea is that if a player gets an object and has the most objects, he must give it to the player with the least number of objects. The same for followers, strenghth/craft points, gold, and maybe even fate.

 

I was thinking that if players really want to nerf fate, then the simplest solution might be that players can never reroll a 1. Anyone that rolls a 1 will always suffer the worst outcome on cards like getting toaded by the enchantress.

All comments are welcome just please don't use the term BROKEN unless you actually knows what it means!

 












I am glad that my morning thoughts before I got to drink some coffee are interesting=) "Carrion Prince" ha ha you nailed all my unclearness in the reply totally. Design and "user needs" are what interests me since I studied Cognitive science (psychology, neurology, AI, game design, interaction design.). I started as a Industrial designer but  now I work for the dark side of gaming, i.e. betting computer games and try to use that knowledge to force people in to deprivation. Talisman second edition was the first game i got at the age of 13 and what triggered my interest in RPG/Magic the gathering/Warhammer and fantasy in general. That the reason why I love the game. What this tread is turning into is very interesting and shows the power of forums, 1000 small ideas can merge together and bring a new understanding!



 

"The luck factor in talisman is its game balance. Alter it and the player who has the best character from start wins more easily."

What I had in mind was that the game balance is total randomness. If the random factor don’t decide who wins, getting a significantly better character from start greatly affects your chances of winning.

"Adding player recourses and control are a great idea and needed, but as it is now implemented is on the cost of game balance."

The designers gave the players a way to avoid total randomness. Having partly randomness and a way to only the benefits of randomness is indeed strange. So what happens is that player that has fate only gets "good adventure cards" since they can avoid their bad odds through fate. Its turning every character whit fate into new Prophetess:P And as we all now the old Prophetess won games!

"What the game "really needs" now is a way for the underdog to turn the game around. So that the tension of ”who will win" will last until someone wins."

I thought on this more. In games like Risk that players that are underdog can band together and attack the strongest player. Can’t that be implemented in Talisman to? If players where able to join in parties and get benefits, two weaker players could whit combined effort attack the greatest player and make him weak. Pherhaps there can be a new expansion named Talisman parties=)










 



#62 igfa_277

igfa_277

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:46 AM

I'm note sure how everyone else plays this game but my group plays it very aggressively, player on player.  If a player is getting ahead everyone else gangs up on them.  I find it hard to believe that a 5 fate dwarf running back and forth between the graveyard and the enchantress can survive being on the wrong end of every negative spell and every character who is trying to attack him using fate to land on his space.  I'm looking forward to fate as it will allow for PvP action far more often, the best part of the game.  How much more powerful will the assassin and thief be when they can roll twice to land on another character.  I'm pumped to play with fate, I think characters are going to be dieing early far more often, or burning their fate just to stay alive and not to get more fate. 

If you think the dwarf is too powerful, imagine this:  The Dwarf who got lucky and is evil running between the graveyard and the enchantress and the Assassin hunting him down.  I'm pretty sure the Dwarf will lose.

 



#63 Caliban

Caliban

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 12 December 2008 - 05:50 AM

Roy said:

They have also changed the bandits event... now he only takes your gold.

It looks like the theme of this edition is to keep negative effects to a minimum, which for me is really the enjoyment of Talisman.  Anyway we'll see...

 

After looking through the new set, this definitely seems to be the case. More socialism in gaming. This trend began with MMORPG's when many non-traditional gamers began playing fantasy adventure games, has reached even into old stand bys like D & D, and is going to be implemented into all of our old classic games that still had some level of difficulty and challenge. "Oh no! People won't want to play a game if anything bad can actually happen to them!".

Ok, I know I'm not being very open minded but, it is frustrating to see every game being watered down. I actually like a bit of a challenge.



#64 JCHendee

JCHendee

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,811 posts

Posted 13 December 2008 - 03:42 AM

igfa_277 said:

I'm note sure how everyone else plays this game but my group plays it very aggressively, player on player.  If a player is getting ahead everyone else gangs up on them.

So you essentially play it like a FPS (First Person Shooter) in Arena or Death Match mode rather than a board game as intended. Of course, since the whole Alignment issue has been whimpy since the 1st edition, there are no consequences for repeatedly assaulting a character of the same alignment (especially those of GOOD). Not many of us would find that interesting, even when ultimately seeking an end-game that again disregards the weak Alignment stat.

Fate won't change this kind of play in any notable manner. Those who play this way might note a slightly higher rotation of characters on the board. Fewer characters would get anywhere in development, which in turn increases the length of the game... and gets boring for most other (the majority) of board game players.  All guesswork of course, but based on your desciption and assumptions, this is what would result.



#65 Mattr0polis

Mattr0polis

    Member

  • Members
  • 822 posts

Posted 13 December 2008 - 05:53 AM

Caliban said:

After looking through the new set, this definitely seems to be the case. More socialism in gaming. This trend began with MMORPG's when many non-traditional gamers began playing fantasy adventure games, has reached even into old stand bys like D & D, and is going to be implemented into all of our old classic games that still had some level of difficulty and challenge. "Oh no! People won't want to play a game if anything bad can actually happen to them!".

Ok, I know I'm not being very open minded but, it is frustrating to see every game being watered down. I actually like a bit of a challenge.

x2



#66 Zadok13

Zadok13

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 13 December 2008 - 07:37 AM

JCHendee said:

 

igfa_277 said:

I'm note sure how everyone else plays this game but my group plays it very aggressively, player on player.  If a player is getting ahead everyone else gangs up on them.

 

So you essentially play it like a FPS (First Person Shooter) in Arena or Death Match mode rather than a board game as intended.

 

 

 

Actually its not uncommon at all for people to gang up on the leader in a board game, in fact in Talisman it's pretty much encouraged.  Boardgames can be very cutthroat in nature, and one of the best ways of winning is tearing down the guy currently in the lead. 



#67 vogless

vogless

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 13 December 2008 - 11:37 AM

I haven't read through the whole Topic, but I see character advancement tied directly to game speed. The one complaint I've ever had with Talisman, is there were too many turns spent with little going on. If Fate speeds it up, I'll take it.

 

I also like the fact that it is another way to help balance characters.

 

Don't forget, we were promised the dark side of the tokens would be fleshed out in future expansions. So, the shield may become the sword and give new, fun ways to ruin our friend's evening.

 

Overall, it looks pretty easy to house rule Fate right out.



#68 RiCHiE

RiCHiE

    Member

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 13 December 2008 - 12:31 PM

vogless said:

I haven't read through the whole Topic, but I see character advancement tied directly to game speed. The one complaint I've ever had with Talisman, is there were too many turns spent with little going on. If Fate speeds it up, I'll take it.

Character advancement does speed the game up, but not just add +x strength and Craft, its easier and doesn't negatyively impact the game.

vogless said:

Overall, it looks pretty easy to house rule Fate right out.

At this stage... but I am assuming you won't be able easily do it in Raper.  It would be to know of good ways to nerf it without impacting Raper, or whether we can just take out the whole grim reaper thing out of Raper and play with the 90 new cards to elimiate the impacts of Fate in that expansion.

I'll get the upgrade edition next week and I have bought a copy for a mates child  - last time he got the BI version he and the all kids down the street were playing it for weeks.  It might be easier for them to play.



#69 jadrax

jadrax

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 13 December 2008 - 12:39 PM

RiCHiE said:

 

 

At this stage... but I am assuming you won't be able easily do it in Raper.  It would be to know of good ways to nerf it without impacting Raper, or whether we can just take out the whole grim reaper thing out of Raper and play with the 90 new cards to elimiate the impacts of Fate in that expansion.

Please stop calling it that! Its Reaper, Raper is something quite different! ;o)



#70 talismanisland

talismanisland

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 03:14 AM

I think it is fair to say that the majority of the negative feeling towards Fate is coming from Talisman players of old who have yet to actually play a few games with the new "mechanic" in place.

I remember Ell and I were quite resistant to the change as we felt it would spoil the chances of Toading someone, though I think there are enough chances for someone to use up their Fate tokens before casting Random on them!

I would suggest that people simply give it a chance, as it will become much more as expansions are released. You might even come to like it!

If you don't like the frequency of being able to use Fate, then rather than discounting it completely, why not try ruling that it can only be used once per turn, and possibly not at all if it is not actually your turn?

The problem with Talisman is that EVERYONE has an opinion on what should have been done to make it better, myself included, but you have to just take the game as it is and run with it. You will find it more enjoyable, and less confusing for newcomers to your gaming group if you are all singing from the same sheet.

However, Talisman has always been a game where different interpretations of the rules have led to many, many house rules and that is another thing I love about it. People take the game, and make it their own.

Talisman is what it is. It has no agenda to speak of. It is simply a jaunt through a fantasy realm, meeting creatures of legend and a chance to have a good time with like minded people. You simply have to allow yourself to enjoy it and don't take it too seriously!


Harbourmaster at Talisman Island - 15 magical years and counting!

Sometimes I even update the Talisman Island Facebook Page!

#71 HallertauRogue

HallertauRogue

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 02:36 PM

talismanisland has some great points!

I've been playing the game all weekend (1 big run that hasn't ended yet).  I actually got my wife to play with me.  She loves games, but typically couldn't be bothered with anything like Talisman.  On the bright side she really enjoys the game!  On the not-so-bright side she cannot stand fate.  In fact I assumed she'd really like the fate feature since she wasn't familiar with the game and would want a little bit of help the first play through or so.  NOPE!  She'd rather get the smack-down early on from a dragon or demon.  So for now, house rules are allowing you to use your fate, but not replenish it.  We'll assess the situation once the expansion comes out with the added fate components, but as of now it isn't fully implemented.  The kicker for her was that I got out of being toaded by the witch and on my re-roll I was granted all my fate back.  She thought that was quite cheap...and although I was happy I wasn't a toad I completely share her sentiment.



#72 Roy

Roy

    Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 03:32 PM

Very true it will have to be house ruled... but I hope it will not be so prominant in future expansions that it will be a lot of work.



#73 slabgar

slabgar

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 04:03 PM

Leaning towards a middle ground - fate only being used on combat, moves, and rolling against strength or craft.  (ie, usable with the Portal of Power, but not the Temple)

 

EDIT: 'compromise' changed to 'middle ground' for clarity of intent



#74 Carrion Prince

Carrion Prince

    Member

  • Members
  • 92 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 04:30 PM

HallertauRogue said:

talismanisland has some great points!

She'd rather get the smack-down early on from a dragon or demon.

The kicker for her was that I got out of being toaded by the witch and on my re-roll I was granted all my fate back.  She thought that was quite cheap...and although I was happy I wasn't a toad I completely share her sentiment.

Not sure why someone would rather get smacked around early by dragons and demons but whatever floats your boat!

This may be a little presumptuous but throwing away an entire game mechanic based on one encounter during the game sounds like you're overreacting just a wee bit. What are the chances that you'll even draw the witch card during the game, and then roll a one, and then happen to have a fate available to reroll, then just by pure dumb luck you happen to roll the best outcome of the card? That's like one in a thousand, or even one in a million?

So you will never use fate again because there is a one in thousand chance of rerolling a toad at the witch? Does sound reasonable to anyone?



#75 Carrion Prince

Carrion Prince

    Member

  • Members
  • 92 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 04:58 PM

HallertauRogue said:

talismanisland has some great points!

I've been playing the game all weekend (1 big run that hasn't ended yet).  I actually got my wife to play with me.  She loves games, but typically couldn't be bothered with anything like Talisman.  On the bright side she really enjoys the game!  On the not-so-bright side she cannot stand fate.  In fact I assumed she'd really like the fate feature since she wasn't familiar with the game and would want a little bit of help the first play through or so.  NOPE!  She'd rather get the smack-down early on from a dragon or demon.  So for now, house rules are allowing you to use your fate, but not replenish it.  We'll assess the situation once the expansion comes out with the added fate components, but as of now it isn't fully implemented.  The kicker for her was that I got out of being toaded by the witch and on my re-roll I was granted all my fate back.  She thought that was quite cheap...and although I was happy I wasn't a toad I completely share her sentiment.

 

I was going to reply to talismanisland's post but HallertauRogue's comment brings the issue into even greater focus.

Let me you a true story and don't worry, I will try to make it as short as possible.

During a game of Talisman, one of the players was struggling to catch up. Let's call him Monk because that was the character he was playing. Everyone else had a good mix of cards and experience points. Due to bad rolls, bad card draws, and overall bad luck the Monk was rapidly falling behind. He started to turn it around by getting some powerful items then WHAM! Raiders swooped in and stole away his only hope of winning. The player was so distraught that he quit the game and went home. Now he hates the game and calls before coming over just to ask "are you going to play Talisman." If the answer is yes then he waits until we bring out Arkham Horror or any other game before he will join us.

My point is that some people refuse to play a game, or in HallertauRogue's case a certain game feature, just because they have ONE bad experience. Sure bad things happen to you in Talisman, but you just laugh it off and have fun. What is even more baffling to me is why HallertauRogue had the same hateful reaction as my friend when his experience actually HELPED his character!

I do not think that it is fair to judge a game based off of a bad experience from one card, or one reroll, or even one encounter.



#76 Dietcokeofevil

Dietcokeofevil

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 14 December 2008 - 07:03 PM

I'm not sure how many of you are actually basing your opinions on in game experiences, but I've played several games of the new FFG Talisman, and my group really enjoys the Fate aspect.

First of all, Fate allows the game designers another level to help ensure the balance between characters. I think its important that players all feel they have relatively the same chance of winning as anyone else, and by introducing Fate designers were given another tool to help balance the characters out. What other option is there, besides changing the characters into bland, generic copies of each other?

Secondly, Fate has created a tangible difference between Good and Evil. A couple of players mentioned this in the few games that we played. Good characters can regain health a lot easier, while Evil players are able to replenish Fate points. Its a minor difference, but it can have a major impact on how the game is played.

I think Fate also added a bit of a tactics and reduced the luck factor, just a bit. Its not a huge impact, but players now have a new level of decision making in the game. Do I lose this fight against the dragon, or do I reroll hoping for a 6? Stuff like that makes the game a little more interactive. In my experience, Fate was primarily used in player vs player conflicts. Having that edge against another player curtailed people from spending fate on every bad roll.

Fate also adds another mechanic that game designers can tap into later on in the game, helping keep replayability alive. There's already mention of negative or dark sided fate. What about spells that drain fate, or monsters that do Fate damage instead of life damage? Items/spells/character abilities powered by Fate points? I know the addition of these mechanics would make it harder for players to remove the Fate system from their game, but I think the possiblities for expansion could help balance out people's dislike for Fate.



#77 BanthaFodder

BanthaFodder

    Member

  • Members
  • 259 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 03:26 AM

 

I have not read all posts as don't have enough time and quite a few posters use serif fonts. Seriously guys, lay off that, makes my eyes hurt.

 

To give some idea of where I come from, I have played 1st/2nd edition but a long time ago. 3ed online. Never played 4ed

Anyway, my 2p worth of house rules:

Mentioned before that I think are good

  • You cannot use fate in the inner region
  • You cannot use fate if you roll a 1 (I think there was something similar in 3ed that broke your sword/armour and made a 1 a really bad roll)
     

Ones I just thought up

  • If you re-roll the same number after using a fate token, the gods are angry at wasting their time and they take one life from you.
  • A fate token can be negated by another player using one of their fate tokens, in the same way as counterspell.
    Must be declared before the die is re-rolled.

 

This last one could make things quite nasty...

Would you use up a fate token that could save you later to stitch up someone else now?

Even better with more than 2 players, do you sit back and hope someone else steps in to block a re-roll ? You could leave it too late..

Part of the joy of Talisman was creating your own game via house rules.
Not played with it yet of course but I think it opens up the game for a more intersting alternate ways of playing. Looking forward to it.

 



#78 HallertauRogue

HallertauRogue

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 03:45 AM

Carrion Prince said:

HallertauRogue said:

 

talismanisland has some great points!

She'd rather get the smack-down early on from a dragon or demon.

The kicker for her was that I got out of being toaded by the witch and on my re-roll I was granted all my fate back.  She thought that was quite cheap...and although I was happy I wasn't a toad I completely share her sentiment.

 

 

Not sure why someone would rather get smacked around early by dragons and demons but whatever floats your boat!

This may be a little presumptuous but throwing away an entire game mechanic based on one encounter during the game sounds like you're overreacting just a wee bit. What are the chances that you'll even draw the witch card during the game, and then roll a one, and then happen to have a fate available to reroll, then just by pure dumb luck you happen to roll the best outcome of the card? That's like one in a thousand, or even one in a million?

So you will never use fate again because there is a one in thousand chance of rerolling a toad at the witch? Does sound reasonable to anyone?

Presumptuous indeed.  So, I'm overreacting by not liking the new mechanics 100%?  Seriously, I'm not the one getting all fussy and bothered by the fact that a stranger and his wife prefer more of a challenge and classic Talisman rules.  Who's really overreacting here?

Remember, to each their own.  Your comments are exactly what talismanisland was speaking to.  No one here should feel the need to criticize or get all worked up over another person having house rules or not.  Talisman has ALWAYS been about tweaking the game to your liking and customizing the experience.  There is nothing wrong with that and no one here should feel so high and mighty that they feel Talisman should be played their way or the high way.

It also seems to be overlooked by you that we are in fact using fate and have played with it fully thus far.

FYI, I never said my wife preferred getting smacked around by dragons, etc.  I was saying that she was OK with the fact that if you happened to get into a difficult situation early on it was simply part of the game and one shouldn't try to weasel out of it with fate.  That's just our take on life in general...so I'm not surprised she felt this way about the game come to think of it.

You also completely misunderstand the reason why fate feels "too easy" at something like the witch.  (Probably why it sounds unreasonable to you...you got it backwards).  It is BECAUSE the chance of re-rolling the toad again is so rare that it feels sophomoric.  When someone gets toaded you WANT them to be the toad.  Not reroll and get out of it.  The chances of being toaded again on a fate are so slim, like you explained, that it essentially destroys the chances of bad things happening to you.

Besides, the full fate rule goes against a simple concept that MOST board games have had since the invention of baord games...you don't re-roll because you got screwed.  It is part of the majority of games out there that employ dice rolls...that's why it is being met with some resistance by many players.

I think you also misunderstood something else.  I never said I'm completely tossing the mechanic out like you said I did (although anyone who wants to should not be subjected to criticism by you or others).  In fact we will use it, but limit how it is replenished.  Like I said before, if the expansion fleshes fate out a bit more, we'll revisit hwo it works and quite possibly reincorporate it compeltely.

 

 



#79 Cidervampire

Cidervampire

    Member

  • Members
  • 155 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:13 AM

Like others, I was a little dubious about fate but after playing a couple of games I am perfectly happy with it as were the others I played with.  Gave me quite a laugh when my girlfriend did reroll a toaded and still got toaded.  There are other bad results with the Witch and Random so its still a hard call whether to take a bad roll or not.

I've been playing the game for 20 odd years and I'm glad FFG is trying something new rather than just rehash the old sets

Geoff



#80 HallertauRogue

HallertauRogue

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:16 AM

Carrion Prince said:

 

HallertauRogue said:

 

talismanisland has some great points!

I've been playing the game all weekend (1 big run that hasn't ended yet).  I actually got my wife to play with me.  She loves games, but typically couldn't be bothered with anything like Talisman.  On the bright side she really enjoys the game!  On the not-so-bright side she cannot stand fate.  In fact I assumed she'd really like the fate feature since she wasn't familiar with the game and would want a little bit of help the first play through or so.  NOPE!  She'd rather get the smack-down early on from a dragon or demon.  So for now, house rules are allowing you to use your fate, but not replenish it.  We'll assess the situation once the expansion comes out with the added fate components, but as of now it isn't fully implemented.  The kicker for her was that I got out of being toaded by the witch and on my re-roll I was granted all my fate back.  She thought that was quite cheap...and although I was happy I wasn't a toad I completely share her sentiment.

 

I was going to reply to talismanisland's post but HallertauRogue's comment brings the issue into even greater focus.

Let me you a true story and don't worry, I will try to make it as short as possible.

During a game of Talisman, one of the players was struggling to catch up. Let's call him Monk because that was the character he was playing. Everyone else had a good mix of cards and experience points. Due to bad rolls, bad card draws, and overall bad luck the Monk was rapidly falling behind. He started to turn it around by getting some powerful items then WHAM! Raiders swooped in and stole away his only hope of winning. The player was so distraught that he quit the game and went home. Now he hates the game and calls before coming over just to ask "are you going to play Talisman." If the answer is yes then he waits until we bring out Arkham Horror or any other game before he will join us.

My point is that some people refuse to play a game, or in HallertauRogue's case a certain game feature, just because they have ONE bad experience. Sure bad things happen to you in Talisman, but you just laugh it off and have fun. What is even more baffling to me is why HallertauRogue had the same hateful reaction as my friend when his experience actually HELPED his character!

I do not think that it is fair to judge a game based off of a bad experience from one card, or one reroll, or even one encounter.

 

 

Seriously, what is your problem with me (and in general)?  Two personally aggressive and attacking posts towards me (a complete stranger) simply because I feel fate makes the game a little easier.  Why do you even care how someone who you'll never meet plays a game?  You are also COMPLETELY wrong in saying tossed it out.  I HAVE NOT tossed the mechanic out.  I've played every game WITH IT 100%.  It also wasn't from one "bad experience".  In fact there were no "bad experiences" at all.  Just multiple times where players easily got out of a sticky situation because they used fate.  I merely gave an anecdote from 1 game by a new player who thought that the mechanic made things too easy.  My intent here was that most supporters of fate say it helps new players deal with the hard parts of the game.  I thought it interesting that a complete newb, who was helped in some cases by fate, still felt it made things a little too easy.  My comments were observational...that's all.

You also seem to be confusing the point of fate.  You said, "Sure bad things happen to you in Talisman, but you just laugh it off and have fun."  THAT IS EXACTLY my POINT!  Fate takes something bad that should just be laughed off and makes it go away.  Where's the fun in that?  It is fun when someone gets toaded.  It keeps things interesting.  If you can jsut get rid of them pretty easily with fate...it sucks some of the original dynamics out.

I also have no "HATEFUL reaction".  Relax man, take a deep breath and chill.  You are reading things into my completely bland comment on how even a new player thought fate made things a little too easy.  No hate here for anything, especially a freaking board game.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS