Let's talk about boardgames, especially RUNEBOUND and DESCENT

I'm off to scenic Bellingham, Washington this weekend for a delightful orgy of crossborder shopping due to the strong Canadian dollar.

I'm going to buy either RUNEBOUND (2e) or DESCENT: JOURNEYS IN THE DARK. I'll be darned if I can decide at this stage.

I've read every inch of data on the Fantasy Flight Games' website on both games. And I'm a registered member of boardgamegeek.com and I've read tons of stuff there.

But now I want pure, uncensored, candid comments from the folks at enworld, folks who are, first and foremost, D&Ders.

Which of these two games should I, as a D&D, buy?

I bought Runebound and wish I'd bought Descent.

Runebound is ok, but it takes a long time and doesn't have a great deal of variety out of the box (though there are a ton of expansions for it). It can have something of a death spiral that can set unlucky or inexperienced players way behind, which wouldn't be a big deal were it not for the long play time. The last time we played it we hit a dead spot where we couldn't afford gear because of a random event, couldn't get more money to buy gear because all the mobs left were too tough to beat without gear, couldn't reset the mobs, and eventually we just said screw it and quit.

From watching others play Descent, it seems to be more interactive, the game varies a little more from time to time, and it just seems more fun.

Runebound is a quicker game, Descent is more of a DM vs Players sort of game.
Having Played both I can say I prefer Runebound.

Let me say the following however -
I have House Ruled Runebound to the following:
1. Each Player starts with 1 Random Item or ally worth 1-3 gold
2. Each time a player enters a city ALL adventures reset.

We still see the Death Spiral for unlucky players.

I own both and have played both. Its still a tough choice however because they really are very different games.

Runebound is more like Talisman but with a more interesting movement mechanic. It does suffer from the drawback of not being interactive however they have improved on that with the expansions. Also, there is the trick of having players roll their movement dice before their turn while the first player is dealing with his encounter.
I have house-ruled it so players can be more interactive. If you buy it I'd suggest buying a few expansion decks (but not the class decks until you really know if you like the game). This of course increases the real cost of the game.
I do like how the game has a built in story that takes place as you draw the cards.

Descent is basically a tactical version of D&D. The dungeon is mapped out and players move through it according to preset rules. The "DM", called the Overlord, is not a D&D DM because his resources are limited. He is a player who happens to be playing against the others and he controls the monsters.
Its a dungeon crawl. A game of Descent can be long however so if you play over a few nights you need to leave the game undisturbed somewhere.

So what you you want - a tactical "D&D light" game (Decent) or a more abstract Talisman-like boardgame (Runebound)?

I'd say Descent. Very HeroQuest like game and the monster minis are quite nice. The Value per mini price of the box is good. The value per mini on the expansions, not as much...

Really, which of the two games you want to buy depends on what sort of game you're looking for. Runebound and Descent really are very different games.


Runebound is basically an everybody for themselves run around the board trying to kill some monsters, steal their stuff, and be the first one to kill the big bad guy without getting dead yourself. (You're not out of the game, you just loose a few things.) It is not a game you can play as a "build up" game. Once people start moving to the higher level adventure cards, you have to as well. If you don't, the power gap between you and them will quickly turn into a death spiral for you as far as winning.

Overall, it's fun once in a while, but not something I could ever see myself playing weekly.


Descent is ... well, the truth is, it's basically a dungeon crawl. You have a DM who is out to get the players. You have published modules you have to use because they determine some of the layout and monsters. The PCs gain treasure and power-ups and such. The game is also adversarial, since it is the players against the DM. (Overlord? Dungeon Lord? Don't remember.)

While it comes with a bunch of fun miniatures and the bright red monsters are neat, I just don't see the point. We can whip up a dungeon crawl with D&D faster than we can set up the board and frankly it gives us far more flexibility.


For my style of fun, Runebound is the better of the two. Just never play it with more than four players unless everyone has something else to do. Our game with five bogged down more than Axis and Allies.


Now, if you want a cooperative game that's fun to play, check out Arkham Horror. (Not sure I spelled that right.) It's by the same company. It's less of a combat game, because there's more to do and because a lot of the critters will eat you for lunch (or at least your brains), but it can be a lot of fun. I'm almost positive it's by the same company. The copy I bought was about the same price as Runebound.

SiderisAnon said:

Now, if you want a cooperative game that's fun to play, check out Arkham Horror. (Not sure I spelled that right.) It's by the same company. It's less of a combat game, because there's more to do and because a lot of the critters will eat you for lunch (or at least your brains), but it can be a lot of fun. I'm almost positive it's by the same company. The copy I bought was about the same price as Runebound.

Click to expand...

Arkham Horror is by the same company, Fantasy Flight Games. You should check out their website and take a look at their games. They would appeal to a lot of RPGers.

I second the Arkham recommendation but caution that the rules are heavy and take some learning. I played my first two games wrong before I caught myself. Once you learn the rules, it does follow a good flow. And it is a good cooperative game.

I find Descent favours the heroes too heavily. With 4 Heroes the Overlord can barely challenge them after the first silver treasure chest (there are 3 types copper, silver and gold opening one gives a benefit for every hero) is opened. Getting gold treasures means the Overlord might as well pack up and go home - he hasn't got a chance. It makes for a pretty boring game actually. I regret getting Descent from a game standpoint but the minis and board pieces do add some value back. Also Descent, again with 4 heroes and an Overlord, takes a very, very long time to play.

Runebound does have a similar time problem but I haven't noticed the 'death spiral' some people are talking about. Usually one or maybe two players will get ahead but get slowed down by some tough encounters enabling the others to catch up. If you are consistently unlucky, of course, you will never catch up. I personally don't believe in 'luck'. The dice will even out in the end. I much prefer playing Runebound to Descent when I am in the mood for a long game. Of course I would rather play Attack!, Advanced Civilization or Arkham Horror than either Runebound or Descent.

In Descent someone has to play the DM, while in Runebound everyone participates as a player.

I was the DM twice in Descent and felt the players ruled the board and all you can do is delay them from eventually winning. I've played Runebound once (as a solo game) and eventually quit after playing for two hours and getting to the third group of challenges.

I think both of them are very long, and with the time they require to play, I'd rather run a one shot RPG.

Holy Bovine said:

I find Descent favours the heroes too heavily.

Click to expand...

If you want to remedy that, play Doom! It's the complete opposite.