Descent/Runebound

[klofft]

I realize this is a little off-topic, but I know both of these games have been discussed here before...

I'm interested in trying out one of these two FFG games (they're too expensive for me to try both!).

I was wondering who here has played both of them. Which is the better game? How long is the game? Which is a better in the "price-to-fun" ratio (in your opinion)? How good are either of them at solitaire play?

Any help you could offer would be great! Thanks in advance!

C

 

[Lockridge]

I've played both a little but may be able to help.

If you are going to play a board game as opposed to D&D I would strongly suggest Runebound.
Descent, although a good game, is basically D&D on a board with a lighter set of rules. Its always a dungeoncrawl. The "DM" is actually a player who plays against the other players and is bound by game rules (unlike a D&D DM who can do pretty much anything). Typical game = 4-6 hours.

Runebound is a boardgame in the spirit of Talisman. You play by moving along a map/board and drawing cards for encounters. What I like about Runebound is the fact that there actually is a loose story in that the cards do reference one another as they build a story. Typical game = 3-4 hours.

An advantage that Descent has over Runebound is the fact that Descent allows for more player interaction. With the Runebound expansions however, there is some more interaction. Runebound can't allow for players assisting other players against monsters. Descent does allow this.

As for solitary play - Runebound does allow for this but Descent does not. In Descent there must be one "DM" and at least one player.

My own preference is Runebound for a boardgame because, as I said, Descent is too much like D&D.

I hope that helps.

 

[Gundark]

I own Runebound and my friend owns Descent, and I have played both quite often. I agree with the above poster on a lot of accounts. Runbound is an "outside" game as the characters move along on the continent rather than the dungeon. There are expansions to Runebound which change the game dynamics (ie. one expansion deals with an invasion by giants rather than killing off the dragon lords). Runebound is more of a versus game rather than a co-op game. I might add that going last is a bit of a disadvantage with Runebound. Going last can mean you're behind for the rest of the game without a hope of catching up. The reason for this is that the players that go first will grab all of the close adventure sites before you do. Some adventure sites do can "respawn" however this is a "luck of the draw" thing rather than a for sure thing. The players roll movement dice to see how far they can go and what terrain they can go on. Bad rolls can be frustrating.

Descent is in a dungeon crawl, much more of a co-op game, more characters to choose from. The game is huge and so setting up/taking down can take some time. The rulebook was put together VERY poorly so looking up rules can be a total pain. The orders you give your characters every turn was a bit confusing for new players. The game runs a lot longer than runebound (sometimes hard to sqeeze into an evening, you'll need at least 4 hours). The game is the party Versus the "DM", what that means is that the DM is TRYING to kill you. Some people I played with got upset at this as they were expecting a more traditional RPG (one without a killer DM). So the DM will "pick on" the weaker party members etc. etc. However the longer the game of Descent goes the more unstopable the Party gets, so it's very hard for the DM to win as the game progresses, the DM has to be nasty and early on.

Overall it's kinda what you're looking for, if you want more of a co-op system go descent, if you want more of a "versus" style game go Runebound. Runebound has many more expansions, some which really add to the game. Descent as an expansion that is soon to be released (can't comment on it) Descent has much more strategy with fights than Runebound. Runebound is really killing monsters taking their gold until you get strong enough to face the BBEG. I would say that Runebound with expansions is > Core Descent. Core Descent > Core Runebound

 

[Warbringer]

Plus..the "Midnight" expansion for Runebound is a blast, and a great tie in to a 3e product.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I just got Runebound but haven't had a chance to play. I plan on getting Descent, too, at some point, and probaly Twilight Imperiium. With my gaming group on more or less permanent hiatus, I figure these will give us a chance to play on short notice, and won't require the continuity of an RPG.

Runebound was kind of a compromise; one wanted that, one preferred Descent, and I wanted TI. So I figured I'd get Runebound first as it didn't require someone to play 'DM' and it looked more manageable than TI for starting out.

I saw people playing Descent and TI at last GenCon, and it really re-awakened my inner grognard. I used to have most every AH game back in the day.

 

[philreed]

Doom is also an excellent choice (same mechanics as Descent). I recently ordered the D&D board game (and two expansions) from England and I'm hoping that will be a fun, dungeon crawl board game. (It sounds as if it is.)

 

[SteveC]

Doom is also an excellent choice (same mechanics as Descent). I recently ordered the D&D board game (and two expansions) from England and I'm hoping that will be a fun, dungeon crawl board game. (It sounds as if it is.)

Phil,
On the D&D Boardgame issue: it has been a lot of fun for us, but it is designed a little more for a younger audience. I like it (and would recommend it) but it is not as good a game as say, Warhammer Quest, for this sort of thing. You can play a scenario through in about an hour, which is always a good thing...

To the original poster on Descent vs Runebound. If you want a traditional dungeon crawl with one person acting as GM, I'd go with Descent. The one issue with it is that it tends to be "episodic" rather than campaign oriented, so keep that in mind.

For an evening's play where everyone is on the same footing: go with Runebound. I have really enjoyed playing this one, and have played the heck out of it. The basic game is competative, but not overly so. Most of the expansions have cards that offer more interaction between players where you can actively hinder them. There is a PVP option, which I really don't recommend, because using it can knock a character out of the game fairly easily.

I guess I'd say that I like BOTH of these games, and would suggest buying whichever one's theme interests you more, since they're very different in scope.

--Steve

 

[Aesthetic Monk]

The biggest knock against Runebound is typically the play time (generally much longer than advertised on the box; 3-4 hours can be about right), with the downtime-between-turns a close second.

That said, I have it and like it fairly well, though I've mostly played it solo (which works pretty well, considering that mostly you're playing the "system" via cards).

For both, I'd advise checking out these listings at Boardgamegeek if you haven't already:

Runebound:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/21523

Descent:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17226

 

[frankthedm]

Decent Has a TON of minis. the humans are a touch small, but the monster minis are grand for fleshing out a collection of figs.

Doom is also like this, however!, the normal game is gets muuuch more difficult as the number of players increase. Plus the game designer also expects a very specific style of play out of the players. It was expected they would lose the first few times until the figured it out...in the first tutorial level.

 

[philreed]

Phil,
On the D&D Boardgame issue: it has been a lot of fun for us, but it is designed a little more for a younger audience. I like it (and would recommend it) but it is not as good a game as say, Warhammer Quest, for this sort of thing. You can play a scenario through in about an hour, which is always a good thing...

I'm really looking forward to it. Thanks for the info.