Trashdome - Talisman VS Runebound

Shellhead wrote:

This whole post really cuts through all the crap, straight to the truth. Both games are stupid, but Talisman is at least fun.

I gotta agree mostly with this sentiment.

Which is why I'm voting for Talisman.

Runebound is heavier and meatier then Talisman, but in all the wrong ways. Everything it ads is pointless and detracts from the game.

Like the map and movement for instance. On the face, it makes it more realistic. There's a map you can move around rather then just a track. But the map is meaningless. You roll the dice, trudge around and just go to hot spots. Where those hot spots on the map ARE is largely irrelevant. Talisman just cuts out the pointless middle man part and says "You go to the town" rather then make you roll a bunch of symbol dice and trudge your way across a pointless map. Runebound ads pointless clutter to the whole process. (Which isn't to say, fyi, that Talisman's movement doesn't also suck. Something like MEQ is a good example of it done pretty well).

Talisman also goes all out with all sorts of interesting interactions, rather then just "Here's a skill test. PASS IT!". Sure it's just a dice roll, but at least it's trying something.

So, basically, Talisman is very flawed, but has much better ideas going on. It's also light, which helps it alot.

Runebound, on the other hand, is heavy, plodding and overburdened with useless extras. There's more to it, but none of that extra adds anything to the game except making it take longer.

shryke wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

This whole post really cuts through all the crap, straight to the truth. Both games are stupid, but Talisman is at least fun.

I gotta agree mostly with this sentiment.

Not surprising comming from a guy who asked for wood for sheep 3 times a week for 2 years.

Runebound is heavier and meatier then Talisman, but in all the wrong ways. Everything it ads is pointless and detracts from the game.

Like the map and movement for instance. On the face, it makes it more realistic. There's a map you can move around rather then just a track. But the map is meaningless. You roll the dice, trudge around and just go to hot spots. Where those hot spots on the map ARE is largely irrelevant.

What a load of bollocks. If you are going to say the map in Runebound is useless then the map in every game such as Risk is useless then!
The map
- Defines where you are in relation to other players (whom you can fight.)
- Defines where you are in relation to the cities, each of which has a different marketplace (so you'll want to target different cities depending what you are after.)
- Defines where you are in relation to the encounters - which is VERY relevant, as harder to get 'hot spots' are normally in harder to reach areas.

That is the base game only. The expansions add more importance to the map (especially sands and frozen.)


[q]Talisman also goes all out with all sorts of interesting interactions, rather then just "Here's a skill test. PASS IT!". Sure it's just a dice roll, but at least it's trying something.[/q]

Bollocks again.
At least with Runebound skill checks are based on Stats, meaning different characters have different chances at doing something. The elf gets +2 to a swim check, the mail clad orc doesn't. In talisman you'd just roll 1d6 and check a table; no matter if the character was a fat arsed ogre or a mermaid, both have the same chance of crossing the river successfully. Ghey.

[q]So, basically, Talisman is very flawed, but has much better ideas going on. It's also light, which helps it alot.[/q]

Helps if you are a softcock.

I'm convinced half of the detractors here havn't even played the game but rather have just read some assholes opinions on BGG, because it's the same tired proven wrong arguments again and again. I'm waiting for one of you clowns to pull out the golden ripper:
"There is no player interaction!!!!111"
So I can point out it is EASIER to brawl someone in Runebound then it is in Talisman as characters aren't dumb enough to move passed a character they want to attack.

Vote: Runebound

Because it's great for solo play. Haven't even tried it with more people. I totally bought it for solo play only.

The game has a lot of different characters that play differently. And all the stuff you can buy at the markets really makes every game different.

Expansions can be added/used to alter the game.

The combat actually has decisions. And combat against different enemies might require totally different approaches. It's fun to use some cheap companions as canon fodder at the start of the game. But then when you finally find/hire a really good mercenary you try hard to keep him/her/it alive to the final fight.


I haven't even tried Talisman. A friend got an old copy that I want to try, but I'm not really sure how we would like the stupid roll-and-move mechanism.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

shryke wrote:

Shellhead wrote:

This whole post really cuts through all the crap, straight to the truth. Both games are stupid, but Talisman is at least fun.

I gotta agree mostly with this sentiment.

Not surprising comming from a guy who asked for wood for sheep 3 times a week for 2 years.

Runebound is heavier and meatier then Talisman, but in all the wrong ways. Everything it ads is pointless and detracts from the game.

Like the map and movement for instance. On the face, it makes it more realistic. There's a map you can move around rather then just a track. But the map is meaningless. You roll the dice, trudge around and just go to hot spots. Where those hot spots on the map ARE is largely irrelevant.

What a load of bollocks. If you are going to say the map in Runebound is useless then the map in every game such as Risk is useless then!
The map
- Defines where you are in relation to other players (whom you can fight.)
- Defines where you are in relation to the cities, each of which has a different marketplace (so you'll want to target different cities depending what you are after.)
- Defines where you are in relation to the encounters - which is VERY relevant, as harder to get 'hot spots' are normally in harder to reach areas.

That is the base game only. The expansions add more importance to the map (especially sands and frozen.)


[q]Talisman also goes all out with all sorts of interesting interactions, rather then just "Here's a skill test. PASS IT!". Sure it's just a dice roll, but at least it's trying something.[/q]

Bollocks again.
At least with Runebound skill checks are based on Stats, meaning different characters have different chances at doing something. The elf gets +2 to a swim check, the mail clad orc doesn't. In talisman you'd just roll 1d6 and check a table; no matter if the character was a fat arsed ogre or a mermaid, both have the same chance of crossing the river successfully. Ghey.

[q]So, basically, Talisman is very flawed, but has much better ideas going on. It's also light, which helps it alot.[/q]

Helps if you are a softcock.

I'm convinced half of the detractors here havn't even played the game but rather have just read some assholes opinions on BGG, because it's the same tired proven wrong arguments again and again. I'm waiting for one of you clowns to pull out the golden ripper:
"There is no player interaction!!!!111"
So I can point out it is EASIER to brawl someone in Runebound then it is in Talisman as characters aren't dumb enough to move passed a character they want to attack.

It all makes sense now. You're a closet Eurogamer.

You hate Settlers because, unlike Runebound or WoW: TBG, it forces you to interact with the other players. Wouldn't want that sort of thing to get in the way of efficiency engining your way to the endgame would ya?

Runebound is the Princes of Florence of Adventure Boardgames. Hell, it's worse cause it's longer.

How AT is Talisman, compared to Runebound?

"The game was created by Robert Harris who thought it up for the amusement of himself and his friends. In its original inception, the game's objective was to become prefect of a boy's school. Changing the theme to fantasy, he found a publisher in the form of Games Workshop "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talisman_(board_game)

Talisman. Hot crumpets and buggery in an all boys school.

Oooh look! You got turned into a froggy! Ha ha! Tee hee! Oh how this game is magical! Talisman: The Harry Potter Edition would sell like hotcakes I bet. You could replace the realm of Talisman with Hogwart's School! How dandy. But it really doesn't need that treatment because the rich and colorful generic setting is already so much better than Runebound's.

If you just want to get piss drunk with your buddies or entertain toddlers then you can't really go wrong with Talisman. Fields Or Plains does not generate a lot of AP. And those confusing symbols on the dice in Runebound can really just distract someone from thinking about their fantasy football league. I mean why in fuck's sake would anybody in their right mind want to actually spend more than 3 seconds considering their movement options? Losers and geeks with "pinples" on their ass cheeks, that's who!

Talisman is a wormy shit eternally floating on the river Styx. It just won't go away.

Vote: RUNEBOUND

Personally, I enjoy rolling dice at monster cards until they go away. Even though, practically speaking, this is something that you'd be better off doing solitaire.

VOTE: RUNEBOUND

Vote: Runebound.

Hex Sinister wrote:

Oooh look! You got turned into a froggy! Ha ha! Tee hee! Oh how this game is magical! Talisman: The Harry Potter Edition would sell like hotcakes I bet. You could replace the realm of Talisman with Hogwart's School!

ya know what, I would totally buy something like this, only because there are a bunch of people I know who would play it for the Harry Potter theme.

Space Ghost wrote:

Runebound.

The expansions are quite good and the solo factor is great.

What's great about the solo factor is that it dispenses with the movement rules altogether, you just hop where you want to go and you get your fatigue back to full after every fight with nothing untowards happening.

Nothing prevents anyone from playing Talisman solo either, even if the box doesn't say you can.