Discussion on RPGGeek with another player of the game, led me to thoughts for this week's post on the rich potential for Non-combat options in Combat in the Talisman RPG. Here were the key points leading to this consideration:
- Leather armour is rubbish. It can take 3 hits in the first combat (probably only slightly reducing the first blow that lands), 2 hits in the second, 1 in the third then it is scrap until you pay more than the cost of the armour to repair.
- Priests (generally) cannot attack. They can fight in Psychic combat, but only against Insubstantial foes - they can't psychic blast a Goblin.
So with the armour restrictions, Scout, Thieves and Minstrels can be very fragile in a fight (while the Sprite Warrior cheerfully charges into the midst of countless foes). And unless Turning Undead, the Priest stands about wringing her hands and waiting to cast Heal on the bloodied Scout.
The armour rules in Talisman were one of the biggest changes between the playtest and full versions of the rules. This has been explained as arising because the previous rules (wherein armour always reduces damage by a certain number points) had the effect that warriors were hardly ever receiving injuries at all. So, as per rules as published, armour now 'ablates' - it adds a number of Armour Points to a hero's Life Point total, those points get reduced by damage until the armour is gone, then damage is taken against Life. And one point of damage each combat is (semi) permanently reduced from the armour's effectiveness - until the armour is useless, or the hero gets it repaired.
Leather armour provides just 3 Armour points - typically halving the first blow a hero suffers in a fight, and having no effect thereafter in that combat, and very little effect at all in the next two combats after which it is usually written-off for the session.
Now, there could be all kinds of ways to fix leather armour in the rules (that's fix as in fix the rules, not repair the armour...), but that does lead one to consider whether there is any actual need to do so - i.e. is it actually a problem if leather armour is only of limited effectiveness? For one thing, it's surely the case in most other games that leather armour is of limited effectiveness - i.e. in D&D your thief's Armour Class will mean that regardless of their awesome Dexterity modifier, in a fight they will be hit more often (and take more damage) than the slow-moving tank in plate mail.
Other game systems allow a thief to Hide in Shadows, maybe to strike from afar completely safe in the carefully measured distance from combat. Your archer who lurks in Talisman is running almost as much risk as the warrior who has heedlessly charged into the midst of the fray - a Failure or Standard Success is still a threat to them, whatever the distance to the Enemy.
But what the risk for the leather-clad and the lack of direct attack options for the Priest both emphasise is that in the Talisman RPG, it often behooves a player to think of something else to do during combat.
The basic Test system makes resolving any kind of action very straightforward, and pattern of outcomes makes it easy to fit these into a combat situation.
For an illustration, let's see what happens when four heroes (a Warrior, Minstrel, Scout and a Wizard) are attacked by 8 Goblins.
The Warrior cheerfully leaps into the fray. Rolls a Great Success, and handily decapitates a Goblin. Our Wizard zaps a second gobbo with a Lightning Bolt, though as it was only a Standard Success, they have to expend a further Spell Point. Simple enough following rules as written so far, and neither hero has taken any damage. The Scout decides to make a Ranged Attack from a distance (let's say they're about 15 metres away, but both players and GM are happy to consider the Ranger as having placed himself close but not quite amidst the combat, and with a large boulder to hand to duck behind for cover). The attack fails. In this case, the GM decides that although some of the goblins have bows and slings, it makes more sense for one of the 6 unoccupied goblins to get to inflict melee damage on the Warrior. Gobbo hits, rolls 9 damage, and the Warrior's chain mail (having stopped the blow) is now hanging useless.
Now the Minstrel is up. Minstrel thinks: "If I attack, even if I hit I'm unlikely to take a Goblin out like the mighty Warrior and Wizard, and will probably take some damage. Then me and the Warrior will have to make Defence Tests against the remaining enemies - and this might easily finish me off, could even be a problem for the over-confident Warrior now their armour is gone. It'd be humiliating to get wiped out by a bunch of Goblins..."
The player asks the GM if their Minstrel can sing a song to distract the remaining Goblins. The GM considers, and agrees that the Minstrel can try this. If the outcome is a Great Success, they will completely distract the remaining four Goblins. If a Standard Success, they will distract two goblins completely, but will need to defend (with a +2 bonus) against one attack (and the warrior against another). If they Fail, the Minstrel and Warrior will just have to make the four defense tests: hard lines, but not much worse than if they hadn't attempted the stunt (and better than if they'd simply Failed in an attack and taken automatic damage). An Extraordinary Success might win the whole group of Goblins over, making them happy to throw down their weapons and join in a song and dance...
If GMs encourage players to take these kind of actions, the possibilities in play are endless, and ought to be entertaining and rewarding for everyone concerned. There's lots of things in the rules that lend themselves to this kind of play - the fact that there isn't an initiative order, that players are allowed to take their actions in the order they prefer, for example.
Priests should not consider themselves useless to a party if they can't attack and there's no Undead to repel or isn't a (leather armour wearing) hero to Heal yet. They could harangue a group of enemies with a theological screed, to similar effect as the Minstrel's action above perhaps.
When there are fewer Enemies, such that defending against unoccupied foes is not a concern, heroes might generally be well-advised to consider making an Assist action to help one of their fighting allies rather than seeking to take a full action of any kind - but if this feels less fun or involved for the player, then they need to get their thinking hat on and come up with something to do other than hitting an Enemy... Once players are in the habit, it ought to be something that they are eager to do.
If the players get stuck in a rut - always trying the same stunt, perhaps to the extent that the heroes are facing less challenge than desired, it'll be for the GM to reign them back in, perhaps following the outcome of a Failed roll or Standard Success. In such situations, the GM needs to draw on their ingenuity to keep the game challenging but also to take the story forward in novel and interesting ways. Shame if the Minstrel loses his voice, or if the Priest experiences a Crisis of Faith...
