I currently have Descent Journeys in the Dark with the Altar of Despair and the Road to Legend expansion, and I was wondering about Runebound and Talisman. Descent with RtL, Runebound, and Talisman seem very alike to me. Runebound even has the same characters and the same artwork for some cards! However, which one is better? More importantly, if I currently own Descent, is it worth getting any of these games? Or are they too alike that it wouldn't be too much of a different game?

I haven't played the new version of Talisman yet, but Runebound is nothing like Descent really. If the new Talisman is anything like the older version then I would give that a try since that is a great game.

Big Remy said:

The new version of Talisman is pretty much like the old one we know and love and is also a completely different game than Descent. You can't compare the three. Really the only simililarities are that they are all fantasy-based and the Runebound and Descent share the same "universe". If you are enjoying playing Descent and feel that something is lacking in terms of character improvement and development then the RTL advanced campaign might be good for you.

Martin designed Runebound to be a "modern version of Talisman", back when Talisman was OOP. It's more detailed and involved and a little less random than Talisman, but the same kind of thing.

Those are adventure board games, Descent is Dungeonbash. They're not the same. They are all awesome though.

luckycharms94 said:

I own all three so I can say with confidence that your concerns about them being the same game are unfounded. Descent (even with RtL) is fundamentally a dungeon crawl game. You have your heroes and your Overlord competing against one another for dominance.

Runebound and Talisman are different. For starters there is no Overlord player, there are only heroes. And the heroes are not necessarily working together. There can be only one winner in those games. Runebound has less opportunity for player against player activity. It's not impossible, but you generally have to go out of your way to hit other players, so most of the time it feels like each of you is doing your own thing and whoever has the best strategy (or luck) will win. Talisman is a similar idea, except that it's much easier to poke other players. At a certain point Talisman almost always boils down to one player going for the win and everyone else doing whatever they can to stop him. Talisman also has a more "classic boardgame" feel to it, with its spaces divided out and run around in rings like Monopoly or something. That's not a bad thing, btw, just an observation.

All three have distinct play experiences. Depending on how picky you are you might not want to get both Talisman and Runebound (I would reccomend looking for some way to play each before purchasing), but neither of those two is even remotely like Descent. Runebound and Descent share the same universe, which is cool, but it only means you'll some of the same faces, not the same gameplay.

Thanks a lot for the help!

Another question I have is regarding the gameplay of these games. I got Arkham Horror recently, and I didnt like it. The theme and art of it is really great but it really lacks when it comes to strategic gameplay. Its a lot of drawing cards to see what happens to you. So it seems that I just don't like these kinds of games. Is Talisman and Runebound also depend on a lot of luck and little strategy?

in talisman and runebound, you draw cards and see what happens...and arkham horror is a Cooperative game its startegy revolves around what you guys are doing, there will never be a one man team that will kill all the monsters, stop the rifts, stop dunwich, close the gates, seal the gates, learn to cast spells and shoot shotguns. It's you and your friends against a problem, which needs to be solved by sending the team where it needs to be. Also it might seem random to you, but that is what makes the game go, it will always be different or else a coop game that does not vary to much will end up being pandemic (its a great game btw) but after a few play troughs, you get the point and never lose ever again.

My hint is if you liked descent go try doom, sure it will be like a time gate in the past (since descent is based apon doom...and there are a lot of mechanics missing which are added in the expansion of doom and later refined in descent) ...but its the same dungeon crawling fun, with space marines...

luckycharms94 said:

Talisman and Runebound do rely on luck of card draws to a certain extent, but its not the same as Arkham Horror. I would say Runebound allows for more strategic freedom than Talisman.

Here's how to think about it: In Talisman you roll a die to move and then you can go left or right around the board. You draw cards to find out what you encounter where you land and sometimes the board space has its own effects (usually random involving a die roll). You can make some choices, but a lot of it is dice.

Runebound also involves rolling dice to move, but since the map uses a hex grid, you can go off in any direction, dice permitting. You can see at least some of the items availabel for sale in each city and use that to determine where you want to spend your money. When you fight against a drawn card monster, there are a few different ways to go at it (ie: you can choose which of three phases to attack in and must defend in the other two.)

Every game has a certain amount of chance involved, but I suspect the main reason you didn't like Arkham was because it was a co-op game, so all the players were working otgether and the ONLY opposition you faced was random cards. Neither Runebound nor Talisman have that problem (although as I said in a previous post, Runebound doesn't always involve PvP, so that might turn you off. On the other hand if you WANT PvP, you CAN do it.)