Explain Talisman to me

I'm fairly young—late twenties—and never gamed much growing up. My dad has a pathological inability to accept losing, so family game nights never really happened. Once I hit my teens, my free time went to girls and Diablo 2 and having my friends come over to play console games. So I never really got into board games until junior year of college when I made a friend who introduced me to Arkham Horror.

That long introduction leads me to the question I'd like to ask in this thread: What's the deal with Talisman? I saw quite a few people put it on their top 10 list in the comments to San's article. What's the appeal? It's more or less roll-and-move, right? What makes it not just Candyland with a fantasy theme?

I know there are a few editions, and (as is typical) the FFG one has like 10 expansions. Let's say I want to try it out: which one do I get? My group enjoys both goofy fun and games best played while drinking and hanging out, but we usually just play Cosmic or Wiz-War if we want to do that. None of us will have any nostalgia for it, so would we be left scratching our heads wondering what all the fuss is about?

We discussed Talisman a bit several years ago:

Let's Talk Talisman

Since that initial post, I have sold off the FFG version and re-acquired the GW 2nd edition. I vastly prefer the art, smaller footprint, and quirky-ness of the 2nd edition. I should also note that I bought a cheap copy of Talisman 3rd to pillage the cones and plastic coins, so my 2nd edition uses those instead of the cheap paper chits.

The only drawback to 2nd is the lack of female characters. I think there's like 4-5 total across all expansions.

EDIT: You may be interested to Nate's response if he posts here. He's the author of that front page article of 10 games and he's a big Talisman fan who came to the game somewhat recently. That is, he's got fresh eyes on it and not nostalgia.

If you prefer a sci-fi theme, there's also Relic, which is based in the Warhammer 40,000 setting. Character progression makes more sense (you won't start with a magic user and end up with a beefy warrior), and the Nemesis expansion makes the game competitive. It's less generic fantasy than Talisman, but it helps if you're into 40K.

Talisman takes the RPG concepts of character development, loot and quest narrative and applies them to a very simple roll-and-move mechanic. The overhead is extremely low. You can teach the basic concept in like five minutes to a full table. There are some unique elements. The track is three-tiered, and some of the development/narrative has to do with being able to move up into the inner tiers and to the middle of the board, which is almost always the goal.

So you wander around, have random encounters while both getting better at things and picking up treasures, followers, spells, etc. that make you more powerful.

Risk is a big factor in the game. Flipping a card is always a risk. It could be a sack of gold. or it could be a Pit Demon. There is actually some strategy to the game, choosing which space to move to and which items to use, which spells to cast and what special abilities to leverage gives the game just a light dusting of strategy.

It is a GREAT game for drinking and casual play. If you want something that everyone is going to hunker down over for four hours, completely engaged in mechanics and process...this isn't it. The game is more in what happens, how the players react and the jokes...not in the "roll a die, move" mechanics.

You might find yourself just getting owned over and over again by a shitty monster. But it turns into a pride issue, so you keep fighting it. Then you quit, go find a sword, and then go on a stupid ass quest to get revenge. Even though it's out of the way and not the goal of the game.

The last game I played (on IOS), there was a fucking Nightmare that I just could not beat even though I had high stats. Bad roll after bad roll. I did just what it says above. I gave up, found the Runesword, and went back and beat him. Now, he also lets you take him on as a follower (you tame him, effectively),so I did. When I got to the Vampire's lair in the middle of the board, one of the things he does is to eat followers. So you're damn straight I fed that motherfucker to the vampire. So you see, that's how the game sort of generates story and creates investment in the events even though there really isn't much there in terms of spinnin' wheels and crankin' cogs. It is NOT a mechanical game. "Candyland" is a lazy way for folks that don't like the random elements to describe it. There's lots more fun here to be had.

The FFG edition is fine, I wouldn't worry about getting the older ones. 2nd is the one EVERYBODY loves, but I'm plenty happy with my FFG set.

I would recommend the main game and the Reaper to start with. You really want the Reaper. I think that may be the best thing FFG brought to the game. Nine times out of ten, he doesn't do anything. But on the tenth, somebody gets eliminated and it's a hoot.

As Mr. White said, I came to the game just in the last couple of years, and yes it is one of my favorite game. I own the fourth edition and about a half-dozen expansions, and I'd very much like to get more of them.

Talisman basically doesn't work on the modern hobbyist level, because at its heart it's a two-headed lovechild of D&D and Monopoly. What strategic elements there are (and they are there) are not particularly overt, and really it's more of an elaborate goof-off. Not only is it a random game, it's quite a simple one as well. I've heard it called primitive, but I think there's a timeless quality to it. To me it feels like a necessary step in board game design. Of course SOMEONE needed to create it at some point.

You basically just roll, move left or right, and draw a card. The card might have an item, a special location on the board, a monster that needs fighting, etc. Your character gets stronger as it defeats monsters, and as the game goes on you work your way toward the Crown of Command in the middle, where you then cast a spell to defeat the other characters.

There are a few things that make it a hard sell to some people. The decision is basically always binary, and not usually very difficult. You can be hit hard by something that wasn't anyone's fault. Probably biggest is that there is nothing forcing the characters to move toward the center, which means you need to actually try to end the game.

So you can see where someone might find it a bit old-fashioned. But there are some really good qualities caused by its old-fashioned nature. First of all, while the game can take a few hours the turns go very quickly. It's basically downtime proof. It's capricious nature means that the game actually feels dangerous. You can almost never afford to wait until you can DEFINITELY defeat something, since the game is basically a race. And crucially, the game is very easy to pick up and explain.

Whether those are advantages or not depends on your point of view I guess. I play games first and foremost to enjoy the company of others, so Talisman is intoxicating to me. It allows you entrance into a world that has its own rules and tendencies, and because a lot of what happens is beyond your control it feels like it exists apart from you, like you are kind of visiting the game. The expansions only amplify that, since they create new corners of the world to explore. They add to the length of the game some, but as far as I'm concerned it's just more of a good thing.

Don't misread me, it's not a game for everyone. You don't have much control over what happens, and it's mainly a game of risk assessment. It's not a short one either, and it's very simply. But it is a game for a lot more people than it gets credit for, especially for those outside of the hobby. There are very few games that I wish I had discovered when I was younger, but Talisman is definitely one.

As to what you should buy, base game and the Reaper are must-owns. I like the big expansions with corner boards, but they do spread out the players. If PvP is a big deal to you, and you typically play with fewer people, those might be less interesting. But I think the only one no one really cares for is the Dragon. FFG did a good job of not overthinking the expansions like they tend to. Mostly they are just more of everything. That means you can pick the ones you like thematically, or get them all and use them without too much in the way of extra rules.

To me, this game is just a social excuse to hang out with friends. I never found the game itself engaging, and often it seems like a solitaire experience that can seem like it takes forever to resolve if you're not really in the mood for it.

But I will always play it if a good friend asks. As long as we can play a game or two if wiz-war afterwords. Not really willing to play this with strangers unless its someone from here whom I imagine could be an interesting player.

The GW versions are the best, but that's true of most games. Dungeonquest, fury of dracula, etc. GW used to have real soul in their aesthetic style during the mid to late 80's. I still get shivers of excitement when reading my rogue trader book. The best thing produced for 40K. Ever.

Do you know the reactions of the non-book-readers when they see what happens to Ned Stark at the end of the first season? Or the Red Wedding?

That's Talisman for me.

Really, the GoT first season's what made me pick Talisman (over several other adventure games). And I've never played it as child or teenager.

Most adventure games try to fence you into "levels", green encounter, blue encounter etc... not Talisman. First turn dragon. Other games try to add "game" and "meaningful decision". But that turns the game to efficiency practice or accounting, not adventure.

Cambyses wrote: Once I hit my teens, my free time went to girls . . .

That was a quality choice. I really enjoy Talisman but . . .

Cambyses wrote: . . . and Diablo 2

Ok you just lost me.

It's true, the FFG edition is just fine. Thankfully, much like Cosmic, the FFG edition of the game is only slightly modified, and the two big changes (Fate and The Reaper) are fantastic. In fact, I've retrofitted both back to my second edition game (but 'Chaos Warrior' instead of 'Reaper'). Great update there.

FFG has turned some classics into dogs, but that's not the case here.

I went back to 2nd for mainly nostalgic reasons.

This is the best defense of Talisman's mechanics I've read. Well done, Sevej.

Sevej wrote: Other games try to add "game" and "meaningful decision". But that turns the game to efficiency practice or accounting, not adventure.

Also, Nate's Talisman review from a few years back.

fortressat.com/reviews-toc/3596-stupider...-fox-talisman-review

I'm clearly in the extreme minority (perhaps a minority of one), but Talisman is 1-2 hours too long for me. It could just be that I'm getting severely wrinkled (yes) and counting down the hours until my death (also yes), but something as random and goofy as Talisman shouldn't last longer than 75 minutes.

But don't get me wrong. I love random and goofy, as long as it's in small- to medium-length doses. We Didn't Playtest This At All is perfectly random and perfectly short, and it lasts 2-3 minutes at most. (Was this the original microgame?) I also like much, much longer games (4-6 hours), as long as the gameplay supports the length.

In the fantasy category, I strongly prefer two games over Talisman: Dungeonquest and Legend of the Moonsword. Dungeonquest falls into the 60-90 minute range, which is perfect. Legend can go short or long, and is more of a "special occasion" game, since you'll run through the entire events deck in a single session. But it's a blast to play twice a year, since I personally find it funnier and more player-abusive than Talisman.

One of the reasons why I don't mind the card combat in 3rd edition Dungeonquest is that the player who gets eliminated on turn 1 (me, usually) has something to do for the rest of the game: play cards for the monsters.

I did play Relic recently, and I remember liking it more than Talisman.

The greatest blasphemy is that I like the World of Warcraft Adventure game better than Talisman, but that's not a short game either. Ravenloft is a much shorter alternative (shortest of the three D&D games).

Anyway, to the OP, I suggest trying before buying. Or, instead, heed the mass wisdom of F:AT, ignore everything I've said above, and enjoy the game.

Mr. White, I absolutely agree that 2nd edition is the best. So it's not just nostalgia. Back then in 2008-ish or so, I encountered Talisman in Vassal. I downloaded the complete 2nd edition module and the four of us played for the first time. The board art is definitely better in 2nd. I mean, technically, yes, it's ancient. But the rolling fields and hills and trees are way muuuch better than 4th edition top down view approach.

Said game lasted 7 hours over 3 sessions, with 2 people died twice and another died once. One guy was whirlwind-ed twice. These days we never play more than 2 hours of Talisman.

I can completely see how some people come to hate Talisman, so, yeah, try before you buy.

I am not the biggest talisman fan around. I play it probably about once every couple of months but appreciate it for what it is.

The appeal is not really that different to Tales of Arabian Nights or Arkham Horror perhaps. Arkham is more effort and arguably is a coop puzzle, but in reality is so random it ends up being similar to Talisman. Tales probably has even less strategy than Talisman but is often lauded as being a great narrative game (and rightly so). All three are essentially games of move to a space, flip a card, make some simple decision possibly spending some resources, roll a die, see what happens. There are decision on what space to move too and when to switch from just trucking around to running for the win but the real charm of these games is in the random encounters. Talisman is the lowest effort and that is a huge bonus. It can drag a little but this is partly a consequence of inexperienced play. You often want to run on the middle of the board to win a bit earlier than you think you do. Also you want to take smart risks. Talisman goes long when players keep dying due to taking stupid risks and when they won't go for the win until they have maxed their characters stats to a silly level.

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Greatly appreciated. It sounds like something I'll have to find a way to try, unless FFG puts up some copies on the winter sale for cheap.

I sold mine for $15 to a guy who wanted the revised box. I may get some raised eyebrows on this, but for me, Firefly replaced this game as that fairly relaxed, pass-time kind of game that you can get through in a couple of hours (usually less with that one, but there are longer stories to play.)

I had bought it in the US in a fit of nostalgia, because I'd scored the 3rd ed I think (cones!) for a steal at The Works in Middlesbrough when I lived in England. Anyone from the UK might know the deals you could get in that store from time to time. I got the base game, every corner expansion and the dragon tower for I think 25 quid the lot.

I keep holding off on the new edition of Dungeonquest now, because I have a hunch that this, too, won't be as awesome as my old GW copy with Heroes of Dungeonquest, which may only be awesome to me, because of the rose-tinted glasses.