Wello!
I recently bought Talisman with Reaper, Sacred Pool and The Frostmarsh. Played 2 games in a row and both were awesome!
I keep reading about Runebound being kind of a race between players. I must admit, it's the only point about RB that keep me from buying it.
In Talisman, ther's kind of a race thing going on between players, in RB, is it the same kind of race or when 1 player cracks another color the others are automatically screwed?
Thanks all!
Runebound is certainly a race to the end, but not really the same way as Talisman. There's isn't much direct interaction between players, unless they go out of their way to bump into each other. One player reaching for the next colour grade certainly indicates he is making progress and should act as a kick in the nards for everyone else to get moving, but it doesn't mean the other players are completely screwed just because he got there first.
On the other hand, bad luck can screw a player and keep him down regardless of what any other players are doing.
The "race" element doesn't really kick in until someone breaks red challenges, in my experience. At that point, anyone else who's hoping to win really wants to be hitting red themselves within a turn or two. Before that point, there's a steady build up as you move from green to yellow to blue, but for the most part everyone is just doing their own thing and seeing what they find.
Personally, the thing I enjoy about Runebound is the story that unfolds through event cards and through the circumstantial adventures we watch our heroes go through. Laughing about how one hero always gets a particular type of encounter, gloating over our own good fortune (or bemoaning our own bad fortune.) It's all in good fun, of course. It hardly even matters who wins, and several of our games have, in fact, ended without us getting to red challenges. We call the game on time and usually make some desperate final attacks, throwing our unprepared heroes upon red (or sometimes blue) challenges just to see how many rounds we can go with whatever turns up.
It's a great game, but it can seem somewhat "aimless" at times. That might sound like a bad thing at first, but it lends the game a sense of wanderlust you just don't find in games that more focused on a specific goal.
Ok! I thought that as soon as one player broke the next color, all others we're forced to do this new color challenges (ie: the former color was out of the board).
That way I like the mechanic more than if your were forced to do challenges according to the highest toon.
Thanks Steve-O!
EDIT: And is it true that it's best played with max 3 players for the pace?
Most long time players tend to agree that, for a reasonable game length, 3 players is about right for a one evening game. As a comparison, RB can take twice as long to play as Talisman where equal number of players are concerned. Talisman is the "Monopoly" of fantasy games (and I do NOT mean that as a dig), whereas RB might be more like "Acquire" (and then some) by comparison.
RB combats often take multiple phases/rounds, whereas Talisman combat is usually one die roll and its over. RB cards can be more conditional as well versus Talisman.
RB is a richer environment than Talisman and has more choices to consider, though both are driven by random mechanics in different and similar ways. We play both, though we've come to prefer RB for our core players, and RB is indeed the longer game.
A Rule of Thumb:
If your group for the evening is small and/or enjoys paying attention to other character's stories, then RB is the better choice. If your group is large, or the players are impatient and focused on win/self/their own turns in general -- or its just a lighter and more social evening -- then Talisman is the pick.
JCHendee said:
Most long time players tend to agree that, for a reasonable game length, 3 players is about right for a one evening game. As a comparison, RB can take twice as long to play as Talisman where equal number of players are concerned. Talisman is the "Monopoly" of fantasy games (and I do NOT mean that as a dig), whereas RB might be more like "Acquire" (and then some) by comparison.
RB combats often take multiple phases/rounds, whereas Talisman combat is usually one die roll and its over. RB cards can be more conditional as well versus Talisman.
RB is a richer environment than Talisman and has more choices to consider, though both are driven by random mechanics in different and similar ways. We play both, though we've come to prefer RB for our core players, and RB is indeed the longer game.
A Rule of Thumb:
If your group for the evening is small and/or enjoys paying attention to other character's stories, then RB is the better choice. If your group is large, or the players are impatient and focused on win/self/their own turns in general -- or its just a lighter and more social evening -- then Talisman is the pick.
Thanks for your comment JCHendee.
I already own Talisman and we're having a blast with it. It's simple to learn and the adventuring/exploring aspects of it are quite nice (I already own The Reaper, The Sacred Pool, The Frostmarsh and just got The Dungeon an hour ago). For now Talisman suits our needs tremendously but RB is officially on my radar in 2011.
SolennelBern said:
EDIT: And is it true that it's best played with max 3 players for the pace?
That's what I hear. The downtime between two turns gets pretty lengthy with more than that. Personally I enjoy watching other people take their turns almost as much as playing my own, so I don't necessarily mind playing with more people as long as we have the time for it. The distinct lack of player interaction also makes it easier for me to cheer for other people while doing my own thing in this corner.