tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post1391638160755364307..comments2024-03-28T05:12:10.477-07:00Comments on Gone Gaming: Adventure Games, Part Four: Talisman vs. RuneboundColdfoothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11636345146138362966noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-87960956727616865182010-12-27T15:25:50.728-08:002010-12-27T15:25:50.728-08:00I know this blog post is really old, but I couldn&...I know this blog post is really old, but I couldn't help comment on it, especially since we've all had a lot more time to judge Runebound more objectively without the shadow of novelty clouding our senses.<br /><br />First off, I couldn't help but chuckle at the claim that Runebound is a shorter game. I've played the game many times and have yet to finish one under 4 hours, even with 2 players. Talisman, on the other hand, can be played with twice the number of players in the same time frame. Fantasy Flight is terrible when it comes to describing the play time for their games, they are almost always far longer than advertised. Not only are games much longer per player in Runebound, but the downtime between turns is excruciatingly long as well. In Talisman, my turn is over in less than 30 seconds, while a single turn can take up to 5 minutes in Runebound. Having any more than 2 players at the table is practicably unbearable.<br /><br />Secondly, the idea that Runebound is a "competitive" game is laughable. The mechanics work in such a way that it is extremely counter-productive to take on another player. Not only do you have to spend your turn (which only comes around every 20 minutes or so anyway) walking across the map to find another player to fight, but you risk wasting valuable time you could be using racking up loot instead. On the other hand, Talisman is very easy and fun to screw around with other players. There are plenty of cards to play against them, and moving to another side of the board is not nearly as difficult or time consuming.<br /><br />Another problem with Runebound is the poor way that expansions were designed. Other than the smaller card boosters, the modular boards are stand-alone. This means that you have to dump your other board to play your expansion. So not only are your games extremely long, include loads of down-time, but to top it off, you have to pick between each expansion to play on. This really handicaps the breadth and scope of what you get out of your monetary investment in the game's expansions. With Talisman, on the other hand, you get to combine all of your expansions into one epic adventure. With a massive world to explore and a thick deck of cards to pull from, it's difficult to ever see the same story twice. You really feel like you made the entire "game" better by purchasing an expansion.<br /><br />Other intangible differences include the fact that Runebound is primarily a grinding/combat focused game. Be prepared to kill/loot/repeat for at least 4 hours with practically nothing in between to break up the monotony. Who really wants to sit at a table watching the guy next to you fight monster after monster for hours on end? In Talisman, encounters are varied and thematic. Not only will you find epic monsters to battle, but lots of other non-combat encounters which make the world feel alive and fantastical. Watching your friend turn into a toad, or see his items rust away can be quite entertaining.<br /><br />While surfing the web and viewing reviews and comments on this game, it's interesting to see how the initial praise of Runebound has died down after a few years of sober objectivity. I think it's evidence to me that Talisman has passed the fan test of time, while Runebound has not.RJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-41392474420699671592010-12-27T15:25:08.404-08:002010-12-27T15:25:08.404-08:00I know this blog post is really old, but I couldn&...I know this blog post is really old, but I couldn't help comment on it, especially since we've all had a lot more time to judge Runebound more objectively without the shadow of novelty clouding our senses.<br /><br />First off, I couldn't help but chuckle at the claim that Runebound is a shorter game. I've played the game many times and have yet to finish one under 4 hours, even with 2 players. Talisman, on the other hand, can be played with twice the number of players in the same time frame. Fantasy Flight is terrible when it comes to describing the play time for their games, they are almost always far longer than advertised. Not only are games much longer per player in Runebound, but the downtime between turns is excruciatingly long as well. In Talisman, my turn is over in less than 30 seconds, while a single turn can take up to 5 minutes in Runebound. Having any more than 2 players at the table is practicably unbearable.<br /><br />Secondly, the idea that Runebound is a "competitive" game is laughable. The mechanics work in such a way that it is extremely counter-productive to take on another player. Not only do you have to spend your turn (which only comes around every 20 minutes or so anyway) walking across the map to find another player to fight, but you risk wasting valuable time you could be using racking up loot instead. On the other hand, Talisman is very easy and fun to screw around with other players. There are plenty of cards to play against them, and moving to another side of the board is not nearly as difficult or time consuming.<br /><br />Another problem with Runebound is the poor way that expansions were designed. Other than the smaller card boosters, the modular boards are stand-alone. This means that you have to dump your other board to play your expansion. So not only are your games extremely long, include loads of down-time, but to top it off, you have to pick between each expansion to play on. This really handicaps the breadth and scope of what you get out of your monetary investment in the game's expansions. With Talisman, on the other hand, you get to combine all of your expansions into one epic adventure. With a massive world to explore and a thick deck of cards to pull from, it's difficult to ever see the same story twice. You really feel like you made the entire "game" better by purchasing an expansion.<br /><br />Other intangible differences include the fact that Runebound is primarily a grinding/combat focused game. Be prepared to kill/loot/repeat for at least 4 hours with practically nothing in between to break up the monotony. Who really wants to sit at a table watching the guy next to you fight monster after monster for hours on end? In Talisman, encounters are varied and thematic. Not only will you find epic monsters to battle, but lots of other non-combat encounters which make the world feel alive and fantastical. Watching your friend turn into a toad, or see his items rust away can be quite entertaining.<br /><br />While surfing the web and viewing reviews and comments on this game, it's interesting to see how the initial praise of Runebound has died down after a few years of sober objectivity. I think it's evidence to me that Talisman has passed the fan test of time, while Runebound has not.RJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-58269035402716439582007-09-28T08:22:00.000-07:002007-09-28T08:22:00.000-07:00However by the early 1990s Games Workshop had been...<I>However by the early 1990s Games Workshop had been sold by its original owners, with ownership going to miniatures manufacturer Citadel Games (through a somewhat more complicated series of shared ownerships that's beyond the scope of this article).</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know this history, and would enjoy a followup article that explains what happened.Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17888183222821971413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14856978.post-55639671980125246042007-09-27T19:23:00.000-07:002007-09-27T19:23:00.000-07:00Ah, but Return of the Heroes has that lovely 1st p...Ah, but Return of the Heroes has that lovely 1st place prize for most horribly incomprehensible rulebook!<BR/><BR/>The first game I played of it was horrible as we missed one minor rule and it happened to really bite us in the backside. Also, I don't feel like there are many ways for players to compensate for setbacks. <BR/><BR/>(ie. the whole "the endgame monster is immune to one kind of damage so you need a special item if you are best at that type of combat" but then that item can easily be nabbed by any other player and be permanently out of reach ....)Dr. Matt J. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05966076479843177377noreply@blogger.com