In the setup for Tales of the Arabian Nights, each player secretly chooses a victory condition: a number of Destiny points and a number of Story points that together add up to 20. When you have enough points, you can return to Baghdad, reveal the numbers you picked, and attempt to claim victory.

I don't have any problem with this mechanic—Tales isn't exactly hyper-competitive, so one way of deciding that the game is over is as good as another. But it seems arbitrary and complicated, in a way that's somewhat out of character with the rest of the rules. I've never felt any need to change it, but I always mutter: why do they do it this way?

Has the designer made any statements about the rationale for these rules? Failing that, is it demonstrable that less complicated rules wouldn't serve the game as well as the printed version?

1 Answer 1


Other games, such as Careers, also have this mechanic. Such Victory Conditions have the effect of increasing replay value, by increasing the number of possible strategies for victory.

Considering that such a mechanic is easily understood by children as young as 10, perhaps even a bright 8 or 9, the additional complexity is truly minimal.

  • 1
    The precedent in Careers is sufficient explanation, although it implies another question: How the heck are you supposed to employ a strategy in Tales? Commented Dec 26, 2017 at 19:48
  • @RyanVeeder Some skills lend to story rewards more than destiny rewards, some do the reverse, so picking higher story or destiny when you pick your starting talents is strategy.
    – Andrew
    Commented Dec 27, 2017 at 18:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .