# Runebound: Your Opinions?



## Gentlegamer (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm quite a fan of Talisman and I've been recently looking for other fantasy board games suitable for two or more competing players. Since the new revised fourth edition of Talisman is by Fantasy Flight Games, I've been browsing their catalog, and Runebound has caught my eye. 

What's your opinion on the game? Also, recommend any other fantasy adventure games (that are in print).


----------



## The Prophet (Dec 22, 2008)

There is a lot of people that like this game but I would vote NO on Runebound.  Played twice & did not liked it very much.

The problem?  The first combats are very, very, VERY tough. The combat mechanic goes like this: Each side roll a D20 & add the relevant bonus.  Now, players' stats at the start are between 2 & I think 5, maybe one has a 6 & the firts quests have enemies that starts at 9 & can go up to 12...

So, to win your 1st few combats & progress in the game, you have to roll a high # on your D20 & hope the baddie will roll low, since the strength difference can be up to +10 in favor of the monster. 

So I find it way too much luck dependent at the begining for my taste & it's hard to come back from behind once you start loosing battles.

Also, there is an item that felt way overpowered, Mirror of Reflection I think it's called, that cause the monster to take a wound everytime it hits you.  The player that find that treasure has IMHO a huge advantage for the rest of the game.

YMMV but it has been a bad experience for me.

Other suggestions:

*Prophecy*: I haven't played this one but it's suppose to be similar to Talisman.

A bit different but still games that you have to visit locations to get items, clues, experience, in the hope of defeating the big nasty at the end, I would check either *Arkham Horror* (if you like Cthulhu) or the less expensive *A touch of Evil* (Classic horror).  I own both & they are a blast.

If money is no object, I hear lots of good things about *Descent: Journey into the dark* but haven't played it.

Hope it helps


----------



## Melba Toast (Dec 22, 2008)

The Prophet said:


> There is a lot of people that like this game but I would vote NO on Runebound.  Played twice & did not liked it very much.
> 
> The problem?  The first combats are very, very, VERY tough. The combat mechanic goes like this: Each side roll a D20 & add the relevant bonus.  Now, players' stats at the start are between 2 & I think 5, maybe one has a 6 & the firts quests have enemies that starts at 9 & can go up to 12...
> 
> Hope it helps




The Prophet is slightly incorrect here. The first edition of Runebound used a D20, but that was quickly pulled from the shelves and replaced with Runebound 2nd edition, which used 2D10 to produce a cleaner bell curve.

I personally think Talisman is the far superior game because there's a lot of player interaction. 

Runebound is overly complicated and requires almost no interaction with the other players except when the inevitable rules argument comes up. The way the game plays, it's essentially a solo game with multiple players. 

In Talisman, a player rolls for his hit roll, and then the player opposite rolls for the monster. This means that even with 6 players, you're actively participating every 3 turns. And the limited number of spaces on the board means players are always crossing paths.

In Runebound, you are trying to roll higher than the numbers of the encounter card. There are three numbers: ranged attack, melee attack, and magic attack. Each "round" the player has to roll for all three attacks. The combat continues uninterupted until you or the monster is defeated, which typically takes between 2 and 3 rounds. That means a single player might make 9+ rolls during one turn. Add to that a movement system which, while interesting, is itself a rather slow process, and you have an average player's turn taking 5+ minutes to complete. Meanwhile, the rest of the group has nothing to do but watch you roll. Yawn. 

There is also a huge disparity between the 2nd level challenges (yellow) and the 3rd level challenges (blue). Most of the player characters can tackle yellow challenges at the outset of the game (albeit, with some risk), whereas blue challenges still pose a serious threat after several hours of game play. I find this disparity stalls the game's progress considerably at a point where everyone is beginning to get restless.

I find Runebound is a fine solo game, and an ok 2 player game. But it a terrible game for groups of 3 and up.

I will say, however, that the Al-Kalim expansion is a far superior game. Here's hoping FFG makes an additional expansion deck for Al-Kalim cards.


----------



## Masquerade (Dec 22, 2008)

Melba Toast said:


> Runebound...requires almost no interaction with the other players except when the inevitable rules argument comes up. The way the game plays, it's essentially a solo game with multiple players.



I played Runebound (1st ed) 4 or 5 times and this was my impression as well.  It wasn't a bad game, but there is nothing to do unless it is your turn.


----------



## Dog Moon (Dec 22, 2008)

Agreed with the solo game feeling.  What they NEED is either a way to force more pvp or more of a cooperative feeling to the game.  I think they came out with class decks for the players that involved some pvp, but I think cooperative would be more interesting and enjoyable, but that's sort of the person I am.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 22, 2008)

I hate, hate, hate(!!!) Runebound with more than one player. I enjoy playing it solo, but 2-3 players doesn't work well. No interaction, and a *lot* of waiting around for the other players. Pretty much everyone agrees (including Runebound fans) that 4+ is awful beyond belief.

Prophecy is another low-interaction game. I have it, but it hasn't grabbed me or my friends. Tends to be a bit repetitive and boring - the encounters don't have the interest of either Talisman or Runebound.

Return of the Heroes is a game I hoped would be better, but it's really not that great.

Arkham Horror is long, but a lot of fun; Descent likewise. I really enjoy both.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Dec 22, 2008)

World of Warcraft: the Adventure game is a better game than Runebound, Prophecy or Return of the Heroes. It's got a few problems, but has good interaction and a fair bit of variety - although the monster encounters are a bit samey.

WoW: The Board Game is a game I enjoy, but takes too long IMO. We had one game that lasted 6+ hours... which is more than I want to play with a boardgame. Limited interaction.

Cheers!


----------



## The Prophet (Dec 22, 2008)

Melba Toast said:


> The Prophet is slightly incorrect here. The first edition of Runebound used a D20, but that was quickly pulled from the shelves and replaced with Runebound 2nd edition, which used 2D10 to produce a cleaner bell curve.




Went back & read the new rules on FFG & you're right. Now the PC rolls 2D10 vs. a TN.  Much easier than the version I've played.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 22, 2008)

MerricB said:


> No interaction, and a *lot* of waiting around for the other players.




Yep, that's the big problem with that game.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 24, 2008)

A good solo game you say eh? Reminds me of how I used to love those old choose your own adventure books by Ivan Livingstone. Some of them were a bitch. Might have to check this out for the solo play potential.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Dec 24, 2008)

Well I'll go against the grain and say that I love Runebound.  Love it!  Usually we play with 4 people but never more than 6.  Once you know the rules turns are fast (like every other game in existance) and we have a lot of fun even on the other player's turns mocking and cheering them on.  One thing I have done is triple the number of market cards in each city to start and all market steps bring 2 new cards into the market for sale.  We also use the 'fast play' XP charts under optional rules.  A full game of Runebound for us from start to finish is about 2.5 hours.  Are there better games out there?  Of course!  There are always better games but Runebound fills a much needed niche in my gaming library.

One thing I will say; Descent with the Road to Legend campaign rules is freaking awesome - possibly the best game + expansion I own - if I had to choose between the two Runebound or Descent w/ RtL the Descent bundle gets the nod.  Descent by itself I find slightly irritating.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 24, 2008)

MerricB said:


> I hate, hate, hate(!!!) Runebound with more than one player. I enjoy playing it solo, but 2-3 players doesn't work well. No interaction, and a *lot* of waiting around for the other players. Pretty much everyone agrees (including Runebound fans) that 4+ is awful beyond belief.




Couldn't say it better my self. I own the game but I refuse to play it. Too much lag in between turns (take a nap). Very little player interaction


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 19, 2009)

For those doing solo play, are you playing as written using the doom counter or Mr Skeletors Guide to playing Runebound Solo | Runebound Second Edition | BoardGameGeek ?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Jan 19, 2009)

I love the game, it really captures a fantasy adventure feel and transfers it to the board game medium.  Loads of fun, and gorgeous components.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 19, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> For those doing solo play, are you playing as written using the doom counter or Mr Skeletors Guide to playing Runebound Solo | Runebound Second Edition | BoardGameGeek ?




Yes. Definitely use that variant. 

Cheers!


----------

