Weekly Trash - Runebound

I picked up Runebound 1st edition shortly after it was released. Played a two-player game that first night and thought it was a fun game. Further playings, particularly with more players, showed it had some issues. When FFG announced a changed 2nd edition and future expansions wouldn't be compatible, I was actually kind of annoyed. This was back when it seemed like every original game from them was released half-assed too so I lost faith in FFG for a while. I sold my 1st edition while it was still worth something and didn't buy the 2nd edition for a long time. Not until Sands of Al-Kalim was released and the theme for that was too tempting (I'll post later thoughts on that expansion).
The second edition fixed the issues I found in 1st edition although now I've learned I wouldn't want to play the game with more than 3 people anyways. Downtime doesn't bother me in these kinds of games because I enjoy watching what others are doing. Plus whenever someone draws a challenge card an opponent reads it to them, which we find adds a little more rpg flavor.
A lot of people complain about the game not having enough player interaction. I think those people are looking for a different game. In other words, I don't think direct interaction is what this game is about. Its more like one of the co-op games people rave about where your fighting to beat the game. Its just this isn't co-op. More like a solo hack-and-slash PC game (most old-school hack/slash games were single player) where you're able to have friends playing it at the same time. Which is nice because I find playing games by myself to be boring.
Although strategically I think you have to attack another player if they start going for red tokens and you aren't within a turn of being ready yet. Because otherwise you risk them being able to kill Maragath (or three dragons) and winning while you're still working your way up to that level. So its best to become a forced encounter for them and try to knock them out, imo. Plus if you're about to lose anyways you might as well, as ubarose once said, lose spectacularly.
I have several of the market and challenge expansions mixed in and the aforementioned Sands expansion, but that's it. Never played the class decks and don't plan to as I haven't felt the game needs to expand in that direction. For the rest I have limited funds to spend on it and I actually like the rise of the dragonlords scenario.
What do you like/hate about Runebound? Played the expansions? What's your ideal number of players? How do you feel about the interaction (or lack of it)? What about the roll-and-move system?

Feel free to discuss any of the expansions or really anything at all related to the game.

The first "Weekly Trash" I haven't played yet.

I've played the base set twice, and now the only way that I might ever play again is if that Sands of al-Kalim expansion is included in the mix. The production values are high, and I wanted to like this game, but I have too many issues that seem fundamental to the design.

1. It's multi-player solitaire. There just isn't enough real interaction here.

2. Runaway leader problem. Both games I played, somebody got too far ahead and there was nothing we could do about it, primarily due to the lack of real interaction, and also because they were so far ahead so quickly.

3. Movement problems. Conceptually, the movement dice are a great idea. In actual practice, they are a pain. The best case scenario is that you roll the right combination of dice so you can get where you want to go. More often, the dice conspire to thwart you, or at least delay arrival at your destination. More frustrating than fun.

4. Combat is just terrible. Again, conceptually, the combat is a cool idea, with the different phases for the different types of attack. In actual practice, combat is tedious and repetitive, especially if it isn't your turn.

Now I've read some interesting things about the Sands expansion, and I love that theme, so that would be enough to get me to try again. Otherwise, pass.

My biggest problem was lack of opponents. I know from experience that it solos pretty well, but after a few tries of trying to get someone else interested, I gave up and traded it and ten of the decks away. Of course, after that, I bought Prophecy and ... have the exact same problem.

I really liked the sheer volume of cards and knowing that I wouldn't see the same items or encounters over and over again (at least in the same game). The art is ... alright--some cards better than others, of course. Production is good. Support is obviously excellent. The cons have already been mentioned. Still and all, if someone said, "Hey, I really like RB and would play it with you a lot if you got it again," I probably would.

My friend and I play 2-player Runebound a couple of times a year, mixing in various expansions (big-box and small-box). We both love fantasy adventure games, and Runebound is the one that gets played the most. Prophecy and Return of the Heroes have surprisingly been last satisfying, maybe because they are unintuitive and/or fail to give an adequate impression that I am a warrior walking around shitting fuck up.

My #1 complaint about Runebound has always been the movement dice; Shellhead nailed it. I always went on about how this should be the one thing expansions should address... and then Sands came out and is now the best way to play Runebound for that exact reason.

My #2 complaint about Runebound is how the overly involved combat takes away from the theme of the game, or even noticing what other players are doing. This is a common problem with these FFG fantasy games. The game fails to tell any kind of story because every item, ally, and encounter quickly becomes nothing more than a collection of numbers. But I could see where others manage with this.

Overall, I give it a Thumbs Up.

Runebound has been a blip on my radar for quite a while now. Unfortunately it hasn't ever really come into my purchase range or I would've fired up the old ... OK that analogy is going a bit too far.

I've never played it but I keep hearing it's too long and not enough player interaction. I've heard that the class decks allow for some more player interaction though, that you can play bad cards on the other players and what not.

What does Sands of Al-Kalim fix?

Still, I've wanted to play this for a while. I own prophecy, but sometimes I want something deeper.

I only played once but I agree with what people are saying. What it does it does well but what it does is not that exciting. It is each player on their own questing to level up and beat the dragons for the win. It is multiplayer solitare and I noticed that like the multiplayer solitaire Euros there wasn't much banter or trash talk. I think Descent, Arkham Horror and Fury of Dracula all do the board game-RPG thing better. I also agree with dave about the level of abstraction. It does feel very much like a bunch of simple maths - like Munchkin dare I say. I can't see if having that much replay appeal. I know it has a hundred decks and options but, considering it takes several hours to play each game, wouldn't you be better off doing some real roleplaying.

I really like the Sands of Al-Kalim expansion. As I said its the reason I purchased 2nd Ed because I don't see many adventure games in an Arabian-style setting.
I like the day-night thing. At the beginning of your turn you choose whether your travelling during the day or at night. This effects the stats of monsters you fight and you get Exhaustion during the day (but monsters are generally easier) and some other effects.
When you move if you end on an empty space you either take a quest card to try or roll the story die. The story die makes events happen like finding a lost city or moving the sand storm. The sand storm prevents movement on an area of the board.
You can buy a camel and discard it to move one extra space in any direction. This helps a lot when trying to get somewhere specific. You can buy water to help with exhaustion and a pack to give a bonus to a skill test roll too. All these things add together to make movement both a little easier and more fun because even if you don't get anywhere you still do something.
Ultimately you want to complete 4 quest cards not just beat monsters (although you do still hack/slash your way up to red challenges). Each quest has to be from a different category. They are similar to the Return of the Heroes quests where you go to certain place and complete a certain action then flip the card over for your reward.

PS: The legendary quest in the top middle is my favorite...

Mad Dog wrote:

PS: The legendary quest in the top middle is my favorite...

That is awesome.

So how would Runebound w/Sands of al-Kalim compare with Tales of the Arabian Nights? They seem to be pretty different games with Arabian Nights' more choose your own adventure type game.

Another question, how does Arkham Horror compare against Runebound? Especially in the two-player game? I love Arkham Horror but haven't really found anyone who wants to play it with me. My wife is kind of iffy on it and so was my friend. My bro-in-law seemed to like it quite a bit, but I think he prefers Descent. I have a friend though that I think would really like to play some two-player Runebound. I haven't played Arkham Horror with him yet though.

I just have the first edition and I've never felt compelled to get the second. I wouldn't mind trying out some of the expansions, but I think I just don't like the game enough for the investment it'd need...

I do like the movement system because it forces you to make decisions on how to go about getting to all the places you need to go. It has a nice push your luck quality.

I also like the combat system because it's not too long but has some interesting decisions. After having played WoW:Tbg I wouldn't dare to call Runebound's combat system too long or cumbersome...

I don't like the fact that Runebound is combat oriented. That's why I tend to play Return of the Heroes more, even though I like Runebound's combat system better. Also, I miss more freedom to cooperate or compete (like in Magic Realm) and a more open game system with more objectives, not just one race to kill the big bad guy.

-Jorge

metalface13 wrote:

Another question, how does Arkham Horror compare against Runebound? Especially in the two-player game? I love Arkham Horror but haven't really found anyone who wants to play it with me. My wife is kind of iffy on it and so was my friend. My bro-in-law seemed to like it quite a bit, but I think he prefers Descent. I have a friend though that I think would really like to play some two-player Runebound. I haven't played Arkham Horror with him yet though.

Arkham Horror is a better game. The AH combat system is simple but fun, compared to the tedious and repetitive dicefest that is Runebound. AH movement is simple, while Runebound movement is annoying. Both games have plenty of expansions, but all of Arkham Horror's expansions can be used together, while Runebound's expansions have incompatible maps. By combining all of your AH expansions, you get a game with potentially massive replay value.

And if you can't find anybody to play AH, it was also designed for solitaire play, with no change in rules required. However, if you're going to play solitaire, I recommend running at least three characters, or four if you're also using the Kingsport expansion. Really, the only thing negative that I can say about Arkham Horror is that the base game alone eventually becomes too easy for experienced players. Add in any single expansion, even one of the small ones, and the game will continue to offer a challenge. If you only buy one expansion, I recommend that you get Dunwich Horror, because you get another board, lots of additional encounter cards, more monsters, more investigators, more Great Old Ones... basically more of almost everything. If you only get one small set, get The King in Yellow expansion, which has some really neat new twists to the game, including an exciting new way to lose the game.

On occasion I do pull out AH and play it solo, but I feel like playing it solo, it loses all its flavor and just becomes an exercise in pushing pieces around the board.

The combat in Runebound is really that lame? I thought it sounded kinda cool, kind of like the combat in Marvel Heroes.

I like the combat in Runebound fine. Once you get the hang of it, and realize you don't need to do rounds where no damage would happen, it moves pretty quickly. At most you're rolling the dice three times. Unless there's a pre-combat skill check but those aren't common.

The movement is very tactical. You have to work with what you get. Kind of like in Roborally your possible movement is dictated by the cards you get. Maybe that's why I like it fine in Runebound.

And again, I have no problem with the multi-player solitaire aspect since you're supposed to be playing against the game like an old-school hack/slash PC game. Its not like a Euro where you're supposed to be playing against the other players but you still don't directly interact with them at all. Its more intended to be multi-player solitaire and its not like any game you can't attack other players sucks. If that were the case why all the love for Arkham Horror.