Maybe this is a topic that has come up before, but I'm curious about comparing these two games, especially since FFG is producing both of them now.

I've owned the original 1st Edition Talisman and the first four expansions for many years, but don't own Runebound. So far, I'm not sure what to think of Runebound. I've done a bit of reading online to try to figure it out. I've read comments suggesting it is similar to Talisman, but never are the comments fleshed out.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on these games. I suppose a few questions may help:

1) What about the game mechanics for each game? Stuff such as dice-rolling, card decks, character development, questing, luck, strategy, endgame. Are these areas really so similar between these games? Which game has the upper hand on these things?

2) Which game is just plain more FUN? And re-playable?

3) What are the strong points for each game?

4) What are the weak points for each game?

If you have other things to bring up, too, that's fine. Thanks.

coasteray said:

The new Talisman isn't all that different from the old Talisman, really. There are new parts to be sure; the whole Reaper thing is pretty cool. At the end of the day, though, the overall experience is still the same "largely random crazy adventure" that we've come to know and love. Runebound is similar in that it is a fantasy adventure, but that's about it. Talisman, to me, feels like a classic board game. You roll d6s, move around spaces in a circle and draw cards to see what happens to you. Runebound is more free-form. You still roll dice for mvoement, but since the map is a hex grid you have more freedom for where you go. You still draw cards when you get there (usually) but sometimes those cards have story effects instead of just being treasure or monsters. There is an over-arching story in Runebound that unfolds slowly as you play.

To address your questions directly:

1) Both games involve rolling dice, drawing cards and advancing your character via experience earned from fighting monsters. Runebound feels less random about it to me, but they are both random at the end. I mentioned how movement differs above. Combat is combat in both games. The mechanics are slightly different but they both boil down to rolling dice and comparing to a static value.

Character advancement is likewise similar in both games: earn XP by killing things, spend XP to increase your stats. Runebound wins this comparison for me mostly because it has more stats to work with. RB has health and fatigue, where Talisman only has "lives." RB has three combat stats (melee, range, magic) whereas Talisman has only Strength and Craft ("physical" and "magic/psychic") What this means is you have more options to personalize your hero in RB. RB also has Skills which are paired with the same three combat stats to make non-combat skill evaluations (physical, mental or spiritual, respectively) for certain encounters. Talisman does have non-combat encounters, but they're self-contained on the card and usually involve rolling dice, so the heroes have little means to prepare ahead of time. They just roll and hope for a good result.

I'm not saying Talisman is bad, mind you. I love Talisman. RB is just more flexible in my opinion. I play Talisman when I don't want to think too much and just have a fun random adventure. I play RB when I want to have a tactical campaign experience without the time and effort involved in DMing an RPG.

2) Both games are highly replayable. I suppose the base Runebound game would get boring faster than the base Talisman, but both games cover a lot of ground. Runebound also offers a wide variety of expansions that change the game in ways both subtle and drastic. Big box expansions provide a new map to replace the base game, new heroes and copious amounts of tokens and new rules to make an entirely new experience for you. Small card expansions come in a number of flavours. Adventure variants modify the base game in some very creative ways to change the end goal or the progression, add a new story and things like that. Item and challenege decks add new monsters are treasures without really changing much else. There are even some "character expansions" that give you even more personalization options (primarily aimed at increasing PvP during gameplay.) So Runebound has a lot of replayability, but this does depend on further purchases after a certain point. Talisman expansions exist, and they do add new spices to the game, but at the end of the day it's still Talisman and the majority of its replayability is built into the base game. If finances are a concern, this might be something to consider.

I just want to stress again that Runebound is very replayable as just the base game, I just think Talisman is more so. If you want to expand on RB and don't have a lot of money, there are a ton of small, cheap card expansions. Buy one or two and you'll be good for a while.

3) Talisman's strength is it's replayability without the added cost of expansions, it's similarity to a "normal" board game also helps non-gamers get into the spirit if you want to play with friends and family who normally don't go for that sort of thing, and it's capacity of mindless fun when I don't feel like thinking. Runebound's strength is it's strong thematic flavour and tactical flexibility, the feeling of a story unfolding (it's not ever-present but I definitely feel a sense of progression when I play) as well as being part of the larger Terrinoth world (along with Descent and Runewars - that counts for me at least.)

4) Talisman's weakness is it's randomness if I do feel like thinking, and it's competitive nature. Runebound's weakness is the down time between turns (which can get quite long for some people if there are more than 4 players at the table) and the fact that a few bad rolls can put your character out early in the game.

Going over 3 and 4 made me realize a couple points I missed earlier. Talisman is strongly PvP. Because movement is limited and players are in fact competing against one another, it can be hard to avoid running other players sometimes. You should be ready to fight one another as well as the board. Runebound has PvP capability, but in practice the players rarely run into each other unless they make an effort to do so. If you enjoy PvP encounters, you'll get more out of Talisman. If you prefer to each do your own thing and see who gets to the end first, Runebound might be more up your alley.

Also, despite what I said about RB being less random overall, chance does of course play a part. If you get unlucky and die a couple times early in the game, it can become difficult to catch up to players who didn't suffer that setback. It's not a huge game-breaker, but it happens.

I think that's about all I have to say on the subject. Let me know if you have further questions. =)

Steve-O, thanks so much for your nice long post answering my questions. It does definitely help me out. I've been sort of feeling the itch to pick up Runebound, and this posting helps me out. I've also been wondering whether I should even bother with the new Talisman since I already have the original + the first four expansions. At least, though, Runebound would give me a whole new game to play around with. And then there's the new Dugneonquest. I also own the original '87 version without expansions, so the new one is intriguing because it takes the best of the original plus its expansions.

If I think of some other RB questions, I'll post those, for for now, I'd like to say thanks for the great input and the obvious time you put into it, about Runebound. Much appreciated.

Although this wasn't asked, I would like to interject a question a long a somewhat similar vein to this one, as I have been looking at Runebound and Talisman (as well as World of Warcraft: The Adventure Game). After researching them a little bit, I decided that Talisman looked a little to "random" for me (like Monopoly with monsters and weapons instead of houses and properties), though I still don't know what the heck to think of WoW:The Adventure Game.

Basically my question is, should I buy Runebound if I already own WoW:The Boardgame with its expansions? Frankly, from what I've researched I would think definitely no, but if someone who is a fan of Runebound would care to convince me otherwise I'm willing to listen (lol, who doesn't love being talked into buying a game? ).

Both games look incredibly similar to me (just a "team" aspect instead of a "solo" one), it's just that WoW:TBG (which I have already and enjoy) looks better in nearly every way. Yes it has the same weaknesses (length of play, downtime, lack of player interaction) as Runebound, but it has several other strengths to make up for it (better combat system, interacting with members of your own team, deeply rich character development and customization). I played the MMO and am a fan of the universe, so I'm sure that helped me enjoy it to.

Still, I do own both Descent and Runewars and love both of those games a lot . As a result I have developed a strong enjoyment of the whole Terrinoth universe and have something of a desire to learn more about it. Plus, I bought the Realms of Terrinoth Gift Bag set, so now I have 4 Runebound character cards .

I've heard people talk of Runebound "telling a story" well, which is something that WoW:TBG doesn't really do much of (it's basically combat, with some combat, and then a little bit of combat mixed in). I've never seen Runebound, but I did read the rules and I can't really see how it does that. Can someone explain where the story element comes from? Is it just that the flavor text on the cards is that good?

Still, so as not to totally hijack the thread, in response to the OPs question I would say go with Runebound. I haven't played either game , but I have read the rules to Runebound and talked to many of my friends who have played both of them (as well as read a lot of reviews, etc.) Runebound definitely looks more interesting to me, and I would definitely go that way if I were you since you already own the 1st edition of Talisman, though it looks like you are leaning that way already after reading Steve-O's detailed response.

Kartigan:

Yeah, I think Runebound would be an interesting way to go since I already have Talisman. Who wouldn't like that new game, right? But I'll have to admit it would be an kind of an interesting experiment to at least also pick up one of the new Talisman expansions to see how it plays with my original game + expansions. I've even checked out various YouTube videos on the new Talisman and saw how it is really the 1st/2nd Edition with a new look. I'll bet the new expansions would work out, whether I integrate the cards or keep the new decks separate. I wonder if anyone has ever tried that.

I know i started this thread for Runebound and Talisman, but as a quick aside, I wonder which is better, Descent or Runewars, because I've even thought about those. I only mention that here because you brought those games up in your post.

Back to Runebound, I'm getting intrigued more and more because there seems to be enough positive opinions about it even in light of its own weaknesses. I'm betting Runebound will turn into one of the classics.

Runebound in many ways is a superioir game to talisman.

Talisman is a classic roll the dice and pick up the card smash game and tbh is very simple to play, but in truth becomes quickly repetitive in the basic game.

I owned the original and every remake and it was pretty expansive in GWs 3rd edition, but in truth after your 20th game is a bit dull.

However it is very simple to pick up and play, and does have limited tactics on choices that can change your chances of winning the game.

Runebound however has more going for it, and though it can be repetitive, there are so many expansions that really does have a lot of scope.

Another factor in rune bound is that there is more thought needed on winning the game - you make choices that really change the chance you have of winning, and a bad choice can easily result in death.

My only issue with RB is the range of dice. You roll 2d10 and add stats and the target numbers can be very high. meaning you really need a lot of luck on the dice, as opposed to talismans 1d6.

To summarise, new people to board games then Talisman - it is a very good introduction to board games. If you are an old hat at BGs then runebound, but if you get into you need deep pockets as they release expansions and cards regulalrly

Kartigan said:

LOL. That's actually quite an apt description, I think. With the caveat that Talisman isn't half as boring as Monopoly usually is, of course. The fact that you can take things from your opponent by force instead of trying to negotiate a trade really livens up the process. =P

Kartigan said:

It sounds like you done a fair bit of research here and the answers you're finding point you away from RB. I also own WoW: tBG, though sadly I've never played it. (The fact that you NEED equal teams for Horde and Alliance makes it difficult for me to get it on the table, especially since we all play Horde in the computer game =P.) It's hard for me to say what the differences are, without having sat down and played WoW, but it seems like you've found a few hints by yourself.

Kartigan said:

The flavour text is very descriptive, certainly. Whether or not it's "good" is a point for discussion I suppose. I'm not looking for award winning literature on Runebound cards so my expectations aren't all that high. When I say that RB tells a story, what I mean is this: The ultimate goal of the base game is to defeat the Dragon Lord Margath. Margath is one of the red challenge cards (the highest difficulty level of challenge) so you can, in fact, face him directly. Or you can kill three of his seven (?) lieutenants (also red challenges) to gather three dragon runes, at which point you presumably have enough of these magical artifacts to overthrow his plot. Throughout the game, players will progress from green challenges (the easiest) through yellow and blue, up to red. Most of these cards are monsters you fight, very typical. But sometimes you will get an Event or an Encounter card. An Event is a world-wide occurance that changes things somehow, and the flavour text describes how Margath's influence is affecting the world - the events don't directly mention Margath most of the time, but who else would be setting all teh forests on fire, really?

So you're left with the impression that the villain is progressing in his plans and he razes cities or sets the forests on fire or whatever. You need to step it up to stop him before it's too late! Encounters are a bit more random. You might find a treasure map that tells you to search for a powerful magic item in a swamp, and then directs you to end your turn on a swamp hex, discard this card and draw an item for free. Those are less relevant to the main plot, but serve as "side quests."

It's not really the same kind of storytelling as reading a book. The plot doesn't advance in a linear fashion from start to finish and it's certainly not the same every time you play. It's more like a sequence of plot points, guaranteed to occur in increasing urgency due to the colour coding of the cards, that serve as mile markers to show you things are happening behind the scenes. It's not just all about your hero killing one monster after another until he finds his way to the villain's lair. Maybe not everyone who plays the game appreciates this style of storytelling like I do, but I for one find it a compelling way to give a sense of progression through the game.

We shold also consider the card expansion in the discussion of story. For example, there are "Challenge Expansions" that add new challenge cards to the colour-coded decks. Again most of these are monsters, but some are new Events and Encounters. Everything is still revolving around Margath's efforts to destroy the world, but it gives the story new life. Then there are "Adventure Variants" which change the story entirely. They usually provide a new red challenge deck with a different villain or end goal (and different backs as they are not meant to mix with the original cards.) They also have new set up rules and sometimes a handful of new tokens that change the way cities behave or the way treasure is collected or what have you. It essentially lets you play an whole new story on the same board.

And then there are the big box expansions which tell a whole different story in a different part of the world, with radically different victory conditions and a whole slew of new rules. Sands of Al-Kalim for example, which is widely held to be the best of the big boxes so far, has a story that revolves around you trying to earn yourself an "immortal place in history" by gathering 4 of the rarest and most legendary treasures in the world. There isn't a central villain, although lots of interesting Events still happen in the strange deserts of Al-Kalim. Three of the eight standard cities are removed from the board and changed into tokens. Mysterious mirage cities that appear and disappear before an adventurer's very eyes all across the land.

I hope that helps. I don't really know how to explain it any better, so if you're still curious I would suggest trying to find someone who owns the game and asking if you could try it out.

coasteray said:

The cards in the new edition are diferently sized than the older editions, so I don't think they would mix well (even setting aside the obvious difference in card back art.) I suppose you could keep the two adventure decks separate and alternate which one you draw from. You might be able to mix something like the Reaper or Frostmarch into the old edition and just ignore the few things FFG has changed about the base game (ie: ignore references to Fate) I'm not sure how that would work out, but it's worth a shot.

coasteray said:

Descent and Runewars are really two different games, so it's not so much which is better as a question of which style you prefer. Descent is a dungeon-crawl at heart, hearkening back to games like HeroQuest - though it tends to be a more brutal fight between Overlord and Heroes than HQ ever was. Runewars is a game of global dominance. Very similar to Twilight Imperium, except in a fantasy world and with a few streamlined features. Each player controls a nation in its bid to control the dragon runes and thus the world. Both games are set in the same "game world" as Runebound, Drakon and FFG's upcoming reprint of DungeonQuest, but they're different types of game.

Thanks for the reply Steve-O, my interest has indeed been piqued by Runebound. I can see what you mean about "telling a story" now. WoW does this a little bit, but not overly much, I can see how the challenges and events could add to the atmosphere of the game. The Terrinoth fantasy setting is one I enjoy, and it is a style of game I like. I think I would like to try it first before I buy it though, as you suggest. But knowing me, lol I'll probably end up just buying it either way .

As for World of Warcraft: The Boardgame, I would really encourage you to give it a try. It is a long game, but if your players like Runebound and Descent it shouldn't be anything they couldn't handle. If your players absolutely refuse to play alliance, the game is easily playable solo or co-op, there are some variants on the BGG forum that streamline the play a bit if you are doing that, it's still pretty fun. In fact many people prefer doing it that way since there is then no downtime (one of the big downsides to the game). If you do play it, just be sure that you plan out as much of your team's turn during the other faction's turn as possible. This will really speed up the game play and reduce downtime a lot. The game gets knocked a lot, but I really think its character development and combat are 2nd to none (though the character options might be somewhat limited if you don't have the Shadows of War expansion since it doubles the number of talents and powers available to each class).

Steve-O, thanks again for answering a few of my Runebound questions in the same post as answering Kartigan. Your nicely detailed description of Runebound and its expansions is very good. Also, thanks for the input about Descent and Runewars. I think Runewars sounds pretty cool. Ah, yes, then Dungeonquest. I have the original w/o expansions, so I look forward to that title as well because it will combine the best of the original base game plus its expansions. That's a good move by FFG.

While I'm at it, and not trying to change my original thread theme, there is another game that is said to have a little of both Talisman and Runebound, and that game is Z-Man's "Prophecy". I saw the Scott Nicholson video on YouTube. His thorough description was very intriguing to me. It even has an expansion.

It's great to see such a variety of games out there now, and to see FFG publishing both Talisman and Runebound. It's good for whatever mood we may be in.

If anyone else has some favorite Runebound expansions, let's hear from you, too.

Wow. there are certainly enough details here about Talisman and Runebound... but I'd like to add my two cents as well (I'll keep it short).

I first I thought Talisman was too simple to stay interesting. But now that I've played a bunch of games I'm finding that I'm enjoying it more each time. Like all FFG board games it looks beautiful. Turns are quick so there is very little down time... unless a player gets that **** card that lets you search the massive deck of spells for any card of your choice (The game always comes crashing down when this happens )! And there's just enough player interaction; enough of the characters can affect other character and the Reaper is always fun even if he's doesn't always land on someone each game. I have all the expansion for Talisman (and Runebound) and they really add a lot of value.
I just recently read the varient for Talisman about placing a random end game card on the crown of command so that no one knows the end game until someone get there. I think this is a very cool idea and I'll try it out on my next play through.

When I want something a little more complex I'll go for Runebound. When I don't feel like thinking as much I'll play Talisman. I'm not saying Taliman is a lesser game, it's really not. Over the past few years as I've gotten into these FFG board games I've notice the variety really helps the longevity of all my games.

But since you already have an older edition of Talisman definately go for Runebound.

Just played Runebound for the first time tonight.

It is really a pretty decent game. I liked the movement concept and it's game-play mechanics, of recharging you. If it was color coded, that would be MUCH better. The dice randomness can really give you a pretty harsh knocking about. One single encounter can be pretty harsh, and can happen often.

Talisman is my first love of boardgames.

With the expansions the flavour is pretty varied. It's simplicity, less the grammatical connotations is so inviting. One encounter isn't going to ruin your characters day, unless you get toaded, and that doesn't happen too often.

Talisman is a 9 (10 once the other corners are completed)

Runebound is an 8

I cannot wait to try more of Fantasy Flight Games offerings.

danjr said:

There are colourized images of the movement dice faces available for download out there on the net (check BGG.) Print them out and stick them to your dice (or to a set of comparatively sized d6's if you prefer not to molest the real movement dice.) They make it much easier to read your roll, I find.

Wow I actually JUST asked this very same question not very long ago on the Descent forum! And I bought this game only today! And I guess its the right decision to pick Runebound over Talisman if I only had one choice.

And someone mentioned: World of Warcraft: The Adventure Game?

DO NOT GET IT. This was my worst decision ever. Ever. Don't ask me why, it just sucks in comparison to EVERYTHING else. The only ups are the beautiful art and the great figures. Then again, almost all FFG products give you great figures.