I've previously written about the innovative test system at the heart of Talisman Adventures, but in doing so have barely scratched the surface of the subject. Motivated by a question on RPGGeek, I recently put together a 2-page reference sheet showing all the suggested outcomes for tests found in the Talisman Adventures rulebook - the Talisman Adventures Test Outcome Reference Sheet (TATORS).
Writing up the tables made me appreciate the sometimes subtle differences between different types of tests - clearly illustrated by the results for different type of combat action. A Standard Success (rolling sufficient to pass the test but not rolling doubles or triples) should usually be a somewhat mixed outcome - the character achieves what they are trying to do, but there is also a negative effect. For a Melee Attack, this means that the hero hits and inflicts damage on their Enemy, but the Enemy also inflicts half normal damage on the attacking hero. Pretty straight forward. With a Ranged Attack, the hero hits, but a range of possible negative side effects includes that an Enemy inflicts half their ranged damage against the attacking hero OR that an Enemy inflicts full melee damage OR that an ally must make a Defence Test against an Enemy ranged attack. OR that the attacking hero loses an additional 1d3 ammo.
Why all these different outcomes for ranged attacks? In melee, we can picture a pretty straightforward situation - the hero is out there, in the fray, swinging their sword and facing direct confrontation from the foe - so a straightforward roll for half damage makes sense as the usual outcome. Ranged attacks could really vary. One assumes that for a ranged attack the hero would often be standing in some kind of sheltered position - but if they are standing in the fray themselves, it makes sense that they have to take full damage from a melee attack owing to their increased exposure. If enemies have ranged weapons, and the hero is standing back or behind cover, it makes more sense for them to take only half damage. But maybe the GM feels that it would make more sense for the enemy to target another hero - in this case, that character does get to make a Defence roll - hopefully giving allies less reason to curse their shot-slinging companion. And if the attack was made in such a way that the GM does not feel that the enemy would actually get a responding attack (firing from up on a city wall at an unarmed enemy) then expending more ammo to get their shot.
For Spell-casting outcomes, Failure and Standard Success do not result in any automatic ENemy action - but rather loss of additional spell points or (combined with rolling a [1] on the Kismet die) forgetting the cast spell. Depending on the spell type and situation, you might sometimes want to apply a similar result to a failed or standard Ranged Attack (for example, if casting a direct attacking spell), but the outcomes allow consideration that the spellcaster may well have put themselves out of harm's way, or that the spell is being cast to buff another character (and having the Enemy inflict damage as a result lessen its usefulness).
Psychic Assault outcomes lie somewhere between a Ranged Attack and Spellcasting in terms of the type of result. The result of becoming "strained" (and having a cumulative penalty to further attacks of this type) features strongly, which is an important balancing element on what might otherwise become an unlimited source of devastating brain-bolts. It gives a very different, and thematically appropriate, flavour to this type of attack.
I referred earlier to suggested outcomes, and I think its important that the GM not feel bound to only give the listed results - the rules themselves frequently refer to given outcomes as suggested. It's good to follow them closely just to be consistent for players, but varying the outcome might often be more appropriate depending on circumstances. Perhaps a hero launches a melee attack on Enemy who has just attacked their friend - maybe the outcome of a standard success should be that the friend makes a Defence Test against a further melee attack, rather than the attacking hero taking half damage. Or maybe for a change you might want the axe-swinger to pull a muscle and experience a similar "strain" as a Psychic Assault, or to blunt their weapon (reduced damage until repaired).
The options are endless, and GMs will find many suggest themselves during play. Best of all, you can sometimes find that players might come up with outcome suggestions themselves, and if these make sense, fit the situation, and/or add to the fun it's a good idea to go with them - but important to avoid a set-piece becoming exploited to the detriment of the game. When that happens you might want to get a little more punitive on the Standard Successes or when a [1] is rolled on the Kismet die to 'encourage' players to rethink their approach...
You can get your TATORS at the Talisman Island resource page here, or download from RPGGeek. I hope its a useful reference - but also that it encourages GMs to come up with novel outcomes that fit their game and entertain the players.
