I posted this at BGG - but want to get as many thoughts as I can.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I have an idea on how to speed up the play of the game some - and I don't think it will make any real issues... (maybe with market - but I have a thought on that.) But before I actually play this way I wanted to throw it out and see what you all thought...

So - 4 players - 2 sets of movement dice...

Players 1 and 3 start their moves at the same time (using the 2 sets of dice) and individually take their moves/turns at the same time - once they are both finished - they pass the dice to players 2 and 4 - who then roll and move and play at the same time.

The only real issues I can see with this setup is if 2 players move into a city at the same exact time in the hopes of getting something from the market. (Or for that matter to an encounter at the same time...)

I have 3 ideas on this - options being:

1. If they both arrive at the city at the same time - they each roll a D10 - highest number gets to go first.

2. We pass around with the movement dice some sort of token... this would give the priority to that player in these instances. (So the token would start with player 1 - move to 2 - then 3 - and so on... so there would always be 1 player with the "lead" token or whatever we would call it...)

3. Something similar to #1 but with more role play flavor - roll a diplomacy check. (I think it's diplomacy - right?) That way there are some heroes who have say the +2 to a diplomacy check who will get a perk there and any cards that would offer say a one time boost to a skill check could be played if the item is really important enough! But then whoever has the highest standing on the check will get the priority with the dealer at the market.

If you had 4 players playing this way - it would take the time of play for 4 players closer to what it would take 2 players to play. You would always have half the people playing - and maybe the person you would pass the dice to after your turn is the one who watches you and makes sure you are doing your turn properly... something like that.

But is this a reasonable solution to reduce the time between turns?

Thoughts?

It definitely sounds like it could it work. Of course you'd have to be playing with people mature enough not to cheat (multiple people acting at once leaves more room to slip in unseen shenanigans,) but I think we can safely assume that's not a problem. If someone is a group is known to cheat, you'll keep a closer eye on them.

The town problem can also occur if two heroes move onto a gem at the same time and want to fight it, or if two heroes cross paths basically anywhere and want to fight (who counts as the "acting player?") Both of these can be resolved by the same idea you mentioned for towns - ie: some kind of diplomacy or initiative roll.

Speaking of PvP, if players 1 and 3 are acting at once, and player 3 wants to catch player 1 to fight him, but player 1 wants to escape, then we're left with a dynamics question - since both players are acting simulatenously, if player 3 can find a legal path to the hex where player 1 currently is, does he catch him? If player 1 is thinking about where to move and player 3 acts immediately to move into the hex where player 1 started (and is still standing, for the moment), has he caught player 1? Or is movement timed by hex? ie: if player 3 is 4 hexes away from player 1, then player 3 is considered to enter his first hex of movement at the same time as player 1 enters his first hex of movement, which means player 3 will have to wait on player 1 on a hex-by-hex basis to see if he can gradually get closer until both heroes are close enough to enter the same hex on step X of their respective movements.

Lastly, how would this idea work if there were an odd number of players? Would the odd man out be force to take his turn solo, or would the pairing effectively "shift" as the rounds progressed. ie: players 1 and 3 go, then players 2 and 4, then players 5 and 1, then players 2 and 3, then players 4 and 5, then players 1 and 3, etc. It might work, but it might also be a headache to keep track of, or raise questions about some players getting a second turn before others. Your group might always be 4, which is all well and good, but if other people are intrigued by this variant, they might also have to account for a different number of players (and not necessarily a static number, either.)

A 2 player game with this variant would be especially crazy to watch. =)

Just wanna play devil's advocate here: Runebound is already called multiplayer-solitaire by critics, wouldnt this variant amplify this even more? In addition you couldnt follow what some of the other players are doing in the game (what are their plans? which items they are eager to buy? are they up to their first blue/red challange now? etc etc) bc you're absorbed by your own move. So why bother playing with other people in the first place then when you don't meant to notice them?

But your idea could be useful if you're two players who want to control two different heros in the game or if you team up (2 vs. 2) then one team could move simultaneously.

Though your idea sounds great for speeding up the game I would be worried about the trade off. Seems like it would go twice as fast but would lose alot of the fun due to keeping track of who is rolling the dice and enjoying the game, along with alot of possible issues that could arise from two people rolling at the same time. If the two people rolling are on opposite sides of the board then I can see it working fairly well but where the problem would come in, even with game speed, is when both are looking to go to the same town and/or PvP. The market dynamics seem simple to resolve but is someone was looking to do PvP then it would be a cluster! You would have players delaying to see what the other player was going to do first which would defeat the whole two people rolling at the same time. I can also see players delaying for other reasons too, maybe your tossed up to go to town or do a challenge, if the same person rolling with you ends up going to the same town in that turn and wins a diplomacy roll (or however you determine it) and possibly steal the item you wanted from the market maybe you would just prefer to do the challenge instead. With that being said, your going to delay to see what the other player is going to do first.

Basically, I think it has potential but needs a LOT of adding and/or modifying of rules to make this ever work smoothly while still keeping the game fun. Just my two cents anyway.

I am playing with two sets of dice, but like this:

1. First player rolls and completes his/her movement step

2. Second player can roll movement dice and start planning the movement

3. First player plays his/her other steps. When he/she is in his experience phase, 2nd player can start moving.

4. Player one completes his turn. Player two is already moved and starts his adventures

5. Player three can roll movement and start planning

This change speeds the game a lot.

GoingDown said:

This is how we ended up playing... worked well.