Runebound vs. Talisman. Go.

[Simon Atavax]

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).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Oooops. Double post.

 

[Morpheus]

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

 

[Simon Atavax]

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]

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!