In another forum, I was debating between Arkham and Runebound, and someone told me to instead of Runebound look into Talisman. A major reason I was debating between the two was solitaire play. Seeing as this game is recommended 2 players and up, but does it have solitaire applicability? I also heard it is better than Runebound because you feel constantly under pressure. Comments?

There's some things that I really like about the depth Runebound, but I like Talisman for it's ease of play as well. I don't think I'd play Talisman or Runebound by myself, but that's just me. I've never really felt alot of pressure in Talisman either, although The Dragons expansion and The Reaper expansion can certainly add to the difficulty of the game. I'm not even sure I can point you in either direction. Both games are different in nature and I like them both for what they are.

There really isn't much comparison. Talisman in general offers you little control over what you do, where you go, and what happens to you. It is much simpler than RB, but RB has slightly more control, at least in movement, and you are not thereby jumped by something every other turn. The major differences to me are (1) a bit more depth of play in RB but not suitable to large groups and (2) Talisman is lighter and easier to learn and manage, so more suitable for social evenings. Both can be adapted to solo play with some effort; for that you need to look at the appropriate pages on BoardGameGeek.com... files section of each page. You will some less for this in Talisman, as it is built more for PvP (player vs player interaction) in some ways and also has more CvC (character vs character interaction). Without that, I personally don't see the point of a solo Talisman.

As to pressure... that's something "win" oriented players are obsessed with. For "play" oriented players it really doesn't matter as much, and you can always create any number of your own "win" parameters if you feel a need for so-called "pressures." My advice is don't bother and just enjoy yourself at first. Make those kinds of artificial adjustments later; that is not a consideration to bother with in your initial choice.

Tromdial said:

Talisman is not desgined to be played solo, but it can be done very easily. Whether you choose to just play one character or play several at once, it works just the same solo as it would with multiple players. The only thing you lose is the question of who will win. =P

That said, most of the "pressure" in the game is generated by other players running around attacking you and throwing random card events at you, so playing solo would be a much different experience. Still entertaining, I'd expect, but different. There's no rush to get to the Crown because you control all available players.

Talisman is a much more "traditional" board game, having been originally made back in the days before the public at large had really gotten a feel for truly thematic games. All of the board spaces are set up like a track around the board. You roll a die and then move, left or right, and see where you land. Draw a card or two and possibly fight something or experience some random effect. The expansion boards provide a few tangent paths from certain spaces, but overall the play is very linear. The primary appeal of Talisman (at least for me) is all the random nonsense flying all over the place.

Runebound, by comparison, allows for more freedom of movement, with the hex grid, and the way the dice work provides some kind of terrain impact for moving (more difficult terrain symbols are less frequent.) It also has a stronger overriding storyline with event cards, but other than that, the experience is very similar to Talisman.

In the end, it's a question of what kind of play you prefer. Both games are high fantasy-themed, both are easily soloable even though they aren't officially made to be. The question is whether you want a more liner story with a wider degree of control and a longer play time, or a more linear fast-paced play style with no particularly involved story.