# Runebound vs. Talisman.  Go.



## Simon Atavax (Aug 22, 2009)

Sell me on one or the other.  

(On issue I'm interested in hearing about is the multi-player solitaire problem in Runebound and how that can, supposedly, be solved with various supplements).


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 23, 2009)

Talisman= Moving around a board at semi-random and doing what is mentioned on the cards.  You can find items and followers on those cards.  On a 10 scale the crunch level is a 3.  At the end you have to kill a big dragon.

Runebound=Moving around a board at semi-random and doing what is mentioned on the cards.  You can find items and followers by going to cities and looking at a second stack of cards.  On a 10 scale the crunch level is a 6.  At the end you have to kill a big dragon.

Ultimately...if you like the idea of more complexity, go with Runebound.  If you like to keep it simple, go with Talisman.

As to your specific question, both games allow attacking other players, but in my experience it rarely happens.  So, it really does boil down to a game with little player interaction.

Look into Warhammer Quest if you want a dungeon crawl boardgame with player cooperation.

DS


----------



## Asmor (Aug 23, 2009)

Never played Talisman, so can't comment on that.

I own Runebound, and it is a game I think I will never want to play. Incredibly long, huge amounts of downtime between turns, no character interaction whatsoever (and vestigial PvP rules which are pointless and neither encouraged nor rewarded don't count).

I'll go ahead and recommend Descent. Not a fan of that, either, but it succeeds as a multiplayer game on a level Runebound never could.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 23, 2009)

Note that the "kill the big dragon" is only true if you're talking about Talisman 3rd edition. Every other edition (1st, 2nd & 4th) has "get to crown of command and rule the world - first eliminating the other players".

Talisman's best features are its speed, its variety, and the fact that a lot of characters have abilities that interact with other characters. A player's turn won't take long, and you can speed around the table.

Where it is weak is that the encounters you face are random, and if you're unlucky you can get trapped in a long string of pointless encounters. 

Runebound's best features are its interest in combat and the occasional quest you get sent on, as well as being able to choose what difficulty encounters you would like to face (as well as being able to play it solo, which I've done quite a lot of ).

Where it is weak is that it is SLOW to go through each player's turn. Sitting waiting for ten minutes before your turn again is not uncommon. (For a 2-6 player game, almost everyone I've read has not recommended 4+, which is a weakness, I think). There is also practically no interaction, which makes between turns even worse. You don't even get to roll for the monsters. Oh, and if you fall behind, don't expect to catch up.

My friends will play Talisman with me, despite its flaws. They won't play Runebound. 

Cheers!


----------



## Thanee (Aug 23, 2009)

Have played both. Didn't really like either. They are not exactly bad, but also not good.

Now Warhammer Quest... that's a game you can spend countless hours playing and still have tons of fun. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Simon Atavax (Aug 23, 2009)

MerricB said:


> There is also practically no interaction, which makes between turns even worse. You don't even get to roll for the monsters. Oh, and if you fall behind, don't expect to catch up.




Merric, I'm glad you jumped in here.  (You don't know me, but your reputation proceeds you, sir. ).  

I wanted to ask you a question about the quote above.  You mention, as have many others in reviews and such (including this thread), that there is virtually no player interaction.  But I've heard that there are expansions (Character Decks, I think? ) that greatly increase character interaction.  Could you (or anyone else) comment on this?


----------



## Simon Atavax (Aug 23, 2009)

Oooops.  Double post.


----------



## Morpheus (Aug 24, 2009)

Runebound is great for solo play. My favorite board game is Arkham Horror-check it out...


----------



## Simon Atavax (Aug 24, 2009)

Morpheus said:


> Runebound is great for solo play. My favorite board game is Arkham Horror-check it out...




Got it. Love it. Except for one thing: set up and take down. Sometimes I'll think to myself, "Man, I'd like to break out Arkham Horror but I just don't have the energy to set up all that crap."   I'd rather just play a video game.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 24, 2009)

Simon Atavax said:


> Merric, I'm glad you jumped in here.  (You don't know me, but your reputation proceeds you, sir. ).
> 
> I wanted to ask you a question about the quote above.  You mention, as have many others in reviews and such (including this thread), that there is virtually no player interaction.  But I've heard that there are expansions (Character Decks, I think? ) that greatly increase character interaction.  Could you (or anyone else) comment on this?




Character decks increase character interaction. However, they apparently slow the game down even more - especially with new players. 

They may also have balance issues.

However, I've played lots and lots of Runebound solo, and about six games with other people (none of those was really a good experience). So, spending aus$40+ on the decks doesn't appeal to me for something I'm likely to only use once (you need one deck per player).

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Aug 24, 2009)

Simon Atavax said:


> Got it. Love it. Except for one thing: set up and take down. Sometimes I'll think to myself, "Man, I'd like to break out Arkham Horror but I just don't have the energy to set up all that crap."   I'd rather just play a video game.




Oh, my yes. Especially when you've got one or six expansions like myself...

Cheers!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 28, 2009)

I'd say neither one.

I'd suggest either Warhammer Quest (which may be a little hard to come by) or Prophecy by Z-Man games. In a nutshell, I'd describe Prophecy as "Talisman written by a Euro games company." The game is a lot less random (movement, for example is not random) but still gives you the sense of playing a Talisman like game. You still have a character with a class, can get items, learn spells and skills and so forth, all while having battles that lead up to a battle with the game's big bad. 

It also finishes up much faster than either of the other games, which has been a real winner with my board game group too.

--Steve


----------



## MerricB (Sep 28, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I'd say neither one.
> 
> I'd suggest either Warhammer Quest (which may be a little hard to come by) or Prophecy by Z-Man games. In a nutshell, I'd describe Prophecy as "Talisman written by a Euro games company." The game is a lot less random (movement, for example is not random) but still gives you the sense of playing a Talisman like game. You still have a character with a class, can get items, learn spells and skills and so forth, all while having battles that lead up to a battle with the game's big bad.
> 
> It also finishes up much faster than either of the other games, which has been a real winner with my board game group too.




I'm glad to hear that; my own experiences haven't been that positive with Prophecy the two times I played it: each game just took way too long, but that may be misunderstanding how strong you have to be to take on the end guys. Do you change the victory conditions at all?

(I've recently learnt that Prophecy is the design of Vlaada Chvatil, who has designed some of my favourite games: Through the Ages, Space Alert and Galaxy Trucker. I should drag out my copy again).

Just by way of comparison: I play Talisman so that reaching the centre will end the game. Played that way, a 3-player game this weekend took under an hour to complete; and a 5-player game the weekend previous was under 2 hours.

Cheers!


----------



## Thanee (Sep 28, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I'd suggest either Warhammer Quest (which may be a little hard to come by)




I really hope that GW will - after the success they currently have with Space Hulk - also make a new version of WHQ (which is by far and wide the best game of this type; it's not really like Talisman or Runebound, though, more like HeroQuest or Descent). 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## MerricB (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanee said:


> I really hope that GW will - after the success they currently have with Space Hulk - also make a new version of WHQ (which is by far and wide the best game of this type; it's not really like Talisman or Runebound, though, more like HeroQuest or Descent).




Trouble is - GW will make it a limited release so you can't get it. Like they did with Space Hulk.

Cheers!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanee said:


> I really hope that GW will - after the success they currently have with Space Hulk - also make a new version of WHQ (which is by far and wide the best game of this type; it's not really like Talisman or Runebound, though, more like HeroQuest or Descent).
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



A few years ago the Games Workshop guys at Gen Con knew me well enough to tell me on sight "nope, we're not re-releasing Warhammer Quest." I was a serious pest to them. I think you're right: they will re-release it in the next couple of years. And Merric: assuming my FLGS gets the same number of copies of any new WQ as they did of Space Hulk and you'll pay me for it, I'll get you a copy. I think they may even still have a copy of Space Hulk...

--Steve


----------



## Thanee (Sep 29, 2009)

Yeah, around here, it was really no problem to get Space Hulk (if you wanted to).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## talwynor (Oct 1, 2009)

*No love for Runebound?*

I played my first game of Runebound this evening (well, actually haven't finished yet).  I'd been looking at it for a couple years and held of from pulling the trigger as there seemed to be alot of people who had concerns with the downtime between turns among other complaints.

I'm very happy I made the purchase.  I play mostly 2 player games with my son and our first RB game was a blast.  The rules are not overly complex, but neither are they so simple as to be boring, and the game is dripping theme which we love.  The downtime is not an issue for us because we like reading each others cards and it is just the 2 of us.  Unless your regular group is on the 4+ side, I'd whole-heartedly recommend Runebound.

(I also own Talisman and enjoy that as well, but there is much more variety in RB in my opinion.)


----------



## MerricB (Oct 1, 2009)

talwynor said:


> I played my first game of Runebound this evening (well, actually haven't finished yet).  I'd been looking at it for a couple years and held of from pulling the trigger as there seemed to be alot of people who had concerns with the downtime between turns among other complaints.
> 
> I'm very happy I made the purchase.  I play mostly 2 player games with my son and our first RB game was a blast.




I'm very glad to hear it. I hope you and your son have a lot more great games! 



> (I also own Talisman and enjoy that as well, but there is much more variety in RB in my opinion.)




It's different sorts of variety, as I see it. Mind you, my stack of Adventure Cards for Talisman has reached a dizzyingly high level... although if I put all my encounter decks for Runebound together, I have a very large number of cards there as well!

Cheers!


----------



## Thanee (Oct 1, 2009)

talwynor said:


> The downtime is not an issue for us because we like reading each others cards and it is just the 2 of us.




That's just circumventing the problem, though. It's still there (in general).

But if it is no problem for you, that's great and good that you got your own picture. 


BTW, the World of Warcraft Adventure Game is said to be quite similar to Runebound, but with less downtime issues. Anyone here who knows both of them? I actually have it, but havn't played it yet (or even looked at it in detail). 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## MerricB (Oct 1, 2009)

Thanee said:


> BTW, the World of Warcraft Adventure Game is said to be quite similar to Runebound, but with less downtime issues. Anyone here who knows both of them? I actually have it, but havn't played it yet (or even looked at it in detail).




I've played it three times, but with new players each time, so I really don't have a feel for it yet. Definitely more character interaction that Runebound (a big plus) and less downtime, but somewhat grindy so far... although I think that would lessen a lot with familiarity.

Cheers!


----------



## Thanee (Oct 2, 2009)

Thanks, Merric. 

I really have to give it a try eventually. 

Bye
Thanee


----------

