Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Recommendations

Subject: Deciding between Arkham and Runebound rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: thisorthat [+] [View All]
Lester Dizon
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm just getting reacquainted with board games and would like some opinions on which title to purchase next, Arkham Horror or Runebound. I'm looking for a solid replayable game that works as a solo game as well as something I can play with my GF. I like all kinds of games, themes and mechanics but playing with my sweets has some caveats:

1) Rules with minimal ambiguities. I don't mind complex rules as long as I can explain them or handle the administration of them efficiently. Downtime from niggling over details because of ambiguous rules has tarnished games between us in the past.

2) Tight integration of theme and mechanics. I like Euros. Her... not so much. Which game is more cohesive?

3) Violence. She likes killing stuff and getting loot and then kiling more stuff. But she dislikes a lot of table checking. I like DMing DnD. How does combat compare between the games? Is PvP combat necessary in Runebound?

4) Downtime. How does the downtime for resolving combat and what not compare?

5) Length. I realize both games are serious time sinks. We'll probably play in multiple shorter sessions. Is breaking down either game between sessions and setting it up again to continue feasible?

We both like the setting for each of these games but I only want to pay for one right now. Any insight is appreciated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played Runebound with Wifey and she actually enjoyed it. She would never play something like Arkham Horror.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Nicholson
Canada
Brantford
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Biggest play-feel difference is..

Do you want to work together or compete?

In AH, you will be talking and working together to attempt to take out the big bad. There will be a lot of "where should I go this turn" discussions. I think AH would end up feeling stale more quickly if you replayed it a lot, as you'd get to the point where you just efficiently go about what you need to do to get the advantage.

In Runebound, you will be quietly taking your turns as you are competing. You are each trying to be more efficient in building up. Runebound is much more playable with 2 than with more, as you don't have the downtime issue. I feel it's more replayable over a short period of time. (That said, I think Prophecy is a much better game along these lines).


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lester Dizon
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Co-op is fun. Competing isn't a problem as long as there isn't required PvP or major screwage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Abner
United States
Johnstown
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First off, both are fine as solo games; I prefer AH when doing a solo run, althouhgh it's a LOT more fun when playing with like-minded friends.

lstr wrote:


1) Rules with minimal ambiguities. I don't mind complex rules as long as I can explain them or handle the administration of them efficiently. Downtime from niggling over details because of ambiguous rules has tarnished games between us in the past.


Heh, um, you sure you want to play AH or RB? Personally, I find AH more fiddly of the two but neither game is what I'd call a game "with minimal ambiguities."

Quote:
2) Tight integration of theme and mechanics. I like Euros. Her... not so much. Which game is more cohesive?


AH and RB are examples of Anti-Euro design. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy both games, but "Euro" isn't something I'd equate with either of them. What do you mean by more "cohesive." In what way? Both games drip with theme, though, especially AH.

Quote:
3) Violence. She likes killing stuff and getting loot and then kiling more stuff.


Runebound. Definitely. RB is basically a big item hoarding, charcter levelling game. If you are familiar with Talisman at all -- it's like that. Arkham, while you do get more stuff...it just sounds like RB is more her speed in this regard. I find combat a bit more enjoyable in RB as well. AH is fun with a bunch of friends who take delight in seeing the completely insane situations they can get their investigators in.

Quote:
4) Downtime. How does the downtime for resolving combat and what not compare?


Downtime in Runebound with 3+ players drives me insane. With 2 I think it's fine, but turns can take a while as there are lots of die rolls in combat. I think AH plays a bit quicker.

Quote:
5) Length. I realize both games are serious time sinks. We'll probably play in multiple shorter sessions. Is breaking down either game between sessions and setting it up again to continue feasible?


Setup in both games takes time, IMO. There's TONS of bits in AH. Runebound has a fair share as well. With 2 players...you're looking at, usually, 2-3 hours for either game. (Not to set up...thad be crazy. I mean to play to completion) Runebound with 4+ players can take up to 5-6 hours, depending on the players. AH -- same deal. More players = lots more time.

Quote:
We both like the setting for each of these games but I only want to pay for one right now. Any insight is appreciated.


I love AH with 3 or 4 players. It's good with 2, but neither this or Runebound, I feel, were specifically designed with 2 in mind. You do have other options for 2-player games, though.

I know you didn't specifically ask for other game advice but since you said you were just getting back into the hobby...I'd strongly reccommend games like Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation, BattleLore, Dungeon Twister, and even something like Fury of Dracula. All are excellent 2 player games.

Good luck w/ whatever you decide.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michelle Zentis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I found Runebound much more straightforward. For the first game you'll have to check the rulebook every so often, but it's not too bad.

For all three games of Arkham I've played the rulebook has stayed on the table because it needed to be consulted every 2.56 minutes. It drove me nuts, and I play both Descent and wargames (which also require frequent rule checks). Based on your criteria I think Arkham is probably not the game for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lstr wrote:
I'm just getting reacquainted with board games and would like some opinions on which title to purchase next, Arkham Horror or Runebound.



ARKHAM. *cough*.. ok, I'm better now.

Quote:
I'm looking for a solid replayable game that works as a solo game as well as something I can play with my GF. I like all kinds of games, themes and mechanics but playing with my sweets has some caveats:


Well, Arkham is the better game BY FAR. Don't trust the taste of anybody that tells you differently. Arkham is *deep* where as Runebound is like a puddle of quasi-dorky (opposed to geeky) nerd-boy love that come only to your ankles.

I own both, and respect both, but Arkham is sooo much better. Just check the activity on the official forums:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?boar...

You can find runebound's from there. Two points to make note of: Arkham's board actually has a community that posts regularly (and not just about rule interpretation conflicts) and the relative page count of the two forums (compared to the age of the products).

With that said, Arkham IS genuinely more complex.. however, since it's a co-operative title both parties need not be steeped in the rules (one can act like a GM until the other gets the hang of the game).

Arkham is also MUCH harder to beat, but this makes sense since the primary adversary of the title is the game itself opposed to Runebound where it's supposed to be another player. Unless you're just really not paying attention and using the doom/threat tracks (timers, basically) then you'll beat Runebound easy every play - even solo.

Runebound is pretty low on player interaction unless you include the class decks. Unfortunately, with those added it becomes highly a screw your buddy game. There isn't much of a chance for semi-peaceful coexistence (in other words the game works on extremes: one hand you're not interacting at all and on the other you're harshly screwing your mate - very little inbetween).

Runebound's gameplay is also a bit more boring due to the fact it's pretty much a 1) walk around 2) kill monsters 3) rise and repeat till you get items good enough to kill 3 big monsters. Arkham has MUCH more depth, as you're trying to balance keeping monster counts down whilst also traveling through trans-dimensional gates to keep the horrors at bay.

Quote:

2) Tight integration of theme and mechanics. I like Euros. Her... not so much. Which game is more cohesive?


I'd say Arkham, but they're both really good. People claim Runebound has this great narrative that flows through the cards but it feels pretty thin to me. Arkham has encounters that aren't solely (or even in the majority) based on combat, so you feel more like you're adventuring in another world.

ps: I should probably mention that I originally purchased Arkham and then, before even playing it, had a bout of buyers remorse and added runebound to my collection (primarily for solo play). After actually running both titles, I discovered Arkham was actually the better on both counts (solo and adventuring) but have kept runebound around for various reasons (Sands of Al-Kalim is pretty bad ass).

Quote:

3) Violence. She likes killing stuff and getting loot and then kiling more stuff. But she dislikes a lot of table checking. I like DMing DnD. How does combat compare between the games? Is PvP combat necessary in Runebound?



PvP is generally avoided at my table, if that's any indication. As to the overall violence issue - neither games give you a real sense of accomplishment (or loot) for beating a foe - but Runebound is definitely more of a monty haul title than Arkham. Runebound also has the better combat system (I'll elaborate in a second on both).

Arkham has a Magic shop (acquire spells), a Curiosity shop (unique items, like magic weapons and weird non-combat doodads) and a general store (normal weapons and conventional items like whisky). All the decks are fairly deep (it would take probably 5-6 games of really focusing on exploring those decks to see everything) - however, as the game progresses these stores can close due to stuff going on in arkham. On top of that, the way the mechanics work, when you decide to go shopping at one of these locations you draw 3 cards and HAVE TO purchase 1 if you have the money. The other two options are incapable of being purchased, even if you have the cash, and must be returned to the bottom of the item deck. This is to keep players from becoming over powered (and the mandatory purchase rule is to prevent item camping).

Runebound has a collection of markers on the side of the board which represents the towns in the game and acquire market cards (face up) over the course of play. All but one of the towns starts with a single card and anytime you end your movement on a town you draw from the item deck, placing the selected object onto the relevant town stack. These items can be a weapon (of which you can only carry 2), armor (of which you can only carry 1), an ally (of which you can only have 2) or "other" (magic items, weird objects, generally combat related and unlimited on your person). Whether you opt to buy anything or not a card gets added. Over time, these cards add up and give the sense of character to (and urge to visit) the various towns. Oh, and yes - you can buy until your hearts content, provided you have the money.

In runebound, you get money from killing a monster. Since the game is designed around combat, you always have an increasing flow of cash to acquire new items. Arkham doesn't really give money for anything but special encounters (and is only incidentally based around combat, though it happens a lot). You'd likely have to go out of your way to find cash. Since the game has a natural time limit, a lot of players eschew money acquisition and opt to just luck upon items through encounters.

Most of my games involve visit to the various shops early in the session, but by the mid-late game portion we focus on the task at hand (acquiring items primarily through non-combat encounters in other dimensions or in Arkham). It should probably be noted that, though Arkham gives less overall items per play session, the average AH trinket is relatively more powerful than the average Runebound item. Runebound, though, has MANY more card expansions dedicated to increasing the item count, so Runebound probably wins on sheer volume in this department as well.


Before I elaborate on the combat mechanics, let me simplify the above to:

Runebound = GREAT monty haul game (in fact, that's RB's only plus - the sense of gratification from item acquisition). Mediocre adventure game.

Arkham Horror = Mediocre monty haul game (cool items exist, however). Fantastic adventure game.


Combat Differences (non PvP):

Runebound
: Combat occurs across 3 primary phases. Combat is always resolved in the same order:

Ranged -> Melee -> Magic.

You can only attack in one of these, so you must defend in the other two.

Both attacking and defending are resolved the same way. Roll 2d10 - add your relevant skill level (generally ranges, at game start, from 1-4). If you match or beat the level of your opponent then you succeed [Most early opponents have skill ratings from 8-15]. If attacking, you deal damage. If defending, you block damage from them. However, regardless of attacking OR defending, a failed roll results in you taking damage (assuming the creature has damage to deal for that phase).

Most creatures only attack in two rounds, but it's hypothetically possible to encounter creates which attack in all three, so you could take damage 3 times in a round where as your avatar only has the ability to dish it out once. This imbalance is mitigated by allies. They can attack in the rounds you don't, so they make great meat shields and added firepower for your character.

It gets slightly more complicated once items and special abilities come into play, but that's the basics.

Arkham
: Much simpler. You encounter a monster - you can evade or fight. If you fight, you first make a check against a variable player stat (you can change your stats around each game round). If you fail, you loose sanity (one of two types of hit points). If you succeed, you lose nothing. Regardless, assuming you have at least 1 sanity left, you get to jump into combat. You look at your "fight" stat and roll a number of dice equal to this + any relevant modifiers (weapons, spells, etc). This can sometimes mean you're rolling 10+ dice (six sided). Anyhow, you then subtract a number of dice based on the difficulty of the monster and try to roll anywhere between 1-5~ "successes". The target number of "successes" is modified by attributes of the monster (toughness), but the average tends to be 1-3. A success is generally considered a roll of 5 or 6 on a single die. Curses and blessings (plus other elements) can modify this.

That's it. You get the roll, you kill it in one go. No HP like in runebound for monsters. You either hit or you don't, and if you hit they are dead. This, incidentally, is different for the final monster if it awakens, but even that battle is equally abstract (it just has hit points). If you miss, or can't roll any dice, you take physical damage. Rinse and repeat till something dies.


In a nutshell:

Runebound - Deeper combat mechanic that involves a more traditional, though abstracted, RPG vibe (multiple rounds, hitpoints for both participants). In spite of this, I wouldn't call it exhilarating to any stretch.

Arkham - More abstract combat system that only goes into multiple rounds if the player fails (and takes damage).

Neither game have player elimination till the end, btw.


Quote:

4) Downtime. How does the downtime for resolving combat and what not compare?


Much higher in Runebound. Turns are phased in Arkham. A "round" in Arkham involves a upkeep phase, a movement phase, an encounter phase and a "game changing event" phase (called the mythos phase). Every player does their upkeep, then every player does their movement, then.. etc.

Runebound is more traditional - You do your full round then I will, etc. Not much of what happens to you effects me in any way, so it can equate to uninteresting downtime with the wrong personalities.

Quote:

5) Length. I realize both games are serious time sinks. We'll probably play in multiple shorter sessions. Is breaking down either game between sessions and setting it up again to continue feasible?


No, you need to probably keep them setup to remember what's going on - which cards have been drawn, which items are where, etc. It's possible to write it all down, but HIGHLY unlikely anybody would do that without some serious "rainman"-esque mental instabilities.

Neither game is impossibly long. Arkham is probably longer on average, but runebound *feels* longer to me.


So, if you're looking for the game with the greatest replayability factor, highest difficulty (for a good challenge), quality community and deepest mechanics (beyond combat) then go for Arkham Horror.

If you're interested in a lighter (yet still long) game with little player interaction, but great item acquisition opportunities* and (slightly) deeper combat - go runebound.


Hope this wasn't too long for you.


* - "greater acquisition opportunities" actually goes to Arkham seeing as how you can find items through non-combat encounters that are drawn on generally every round (note: these encounters can bring about combat, but the ratio is skewed towards mere adventure). Runebound only affords you items when entering towns *generally* (cards exist that offer you the option, but they're the exception opposed to the rule).

[ Add Notes:

1) Arkham Horror with both expansions is one difficult game. Only play if you don't mind being beaten into a pulp from time to time.

2) Though I talk a lot of crap about Runebound, and **really** dislike the (lack of) effort put into the base game from a design standpoint, some of the recent expansions do kick ass. Sands of Al-Kalim, as mentioned above, is a really cool innovation on the original with day/night mechanics (traveling through the desert during the day is easier regarding encounters but hazardous to your health without water, etc) - migrating weather effects - "story dice" (random encounters based on dice symbols) - real quests and 3 "legendary" cities that migrate around the board (and can completely disappear). I'm under an NDA, but some of the stuff on the horizon is pretty cool also .

3) out of the box, Arkham has more variety than Runebound.

4) Arkham is hard.

5) Arkham takes a lot of space:

18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristin Johnson
United States
Williamsport
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anarchosyn said pretty much everything I wanted to. My husband and I have played both of these games with two other people and we've yet to finish a game of Runebound. Arkham Horror keeps everyone engaged, where Runebound involves a lot of sitting and waiting on other players.

Kristin

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marshall Miller
United States
Malden
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
The Warren is a roleplaying game about intelligent rabbits trying to make the best of a world filled with hazards, predators and, worst of all, other rabbits.
badge
Marshall is a Boston-based researcher and game designer.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't really top what anachrosyn had to say about Arkham Horror, but I agree with it. (I haven't played Runebound for many of the reasons listed, namely either no interaction or screw other players. )

You should know that it is very space intesive and has a boat load of components. If you like RPGs, you can handle the rules for AH, but you should read them all ahead of your first game. Our first game was directly after pulling the shrink and it took a long time to read them all out loud. Learn from me and read them the day before - then be the administrator for the 1st game.

I usually just play with my GF. She loves AH. She made me buy the Dunwich expansion and tote both boxes half way across the US just to play them. Its a great game. It does a great job of keeping everyone involved all the time. It also has great replayability, we played 6 games in as many days - each was great. Do yourself a favor and go buy this game right now. Don't wait, right now. After you've played it once with each Ancient One, play it one more time and then buy and expansion, continue to do so...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew C
United States
San Marcos
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I strongly recommend Arkham. I played and own(ed) both, but Runebound has the 'honor' of being the only game, of the 100 or so I've bought in the last year, that I actually sold on ebay.

AH is by far the better game. There are many more things that might happen (or might not) in a given session, so replayability is high. While the combat engine in AH is simplier than RB, I still found it more enjoyable. Combat in RB was a real turn off, as was the roll and move mechanic.

Finally, there are plenty of 'compete against your neighbor' games out there, but not that many where everyone cooperates against the game.

Warning, though, AH is far more complex on your first play through or two. But that complexity means its deeper, more satisfying, and retains its playability longer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lester Dizon
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the input everyone. Anarchosyn, you went above and beyond. That was an excellent run down. I'll run the feedback by the GF and see what she thinks. I'll end up owning both at some point so all the info on both titles from everyone is appreciated!

edit: also thanks for the alternate titles for those that listed them. I'll be looking into those for the future.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lstr wrote:
Thanks for the input everyone. Anarchosyn, you went above and beyond. That was an excellent run down. I'll run the feedback by the GF and see what she thinks. I'll end up owning both at some point so all the info on both titles is appreciated!


No problem, mate. I was waiting for a bus and had some time to kill.

Anyhow, I'm empathetic to your plight as I recently struggled through some similar issues (and, of course, suffered through this exact issue awhile back too).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lester Dizon
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
She's also into skulls... hands off, bub.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Anarchosyn wrote:

2) Though I talk a lot of crap about Runebound, and **really** dislike the (lack of) effort put into the base game from a design standpoint, some of the recent expansions do kick ass. Sands of Al-Kalim, as mentioned above, is a really cool innovation on the original with day/night mechanics (traveling through the desert during the day is easier regarding encounters but hazardous to your health without water, etc) - migrating weather effects - "story dice" (random encounters based on dice symbols) - real quests and 3 "legendary" cities that migrate around the board (and can completely disappear). I'm under an NDA, but some of the stuff on the horizon is pretty cool also .



Though I disagree with a great many of Anarchosyn's opinions on Runebound (one of my absolute FAVORITE Boardgames), I believe *both* Arkham Horror and Runebound are great games that deserve purchasing.

Though one could call Runebound a "monty haul" adventure, I would classify it more as a boardgame D&D adventure, minus the campaign (though I'm beginning to write up rules for a Runebound Campain idea, and have already written up other ideas on the Runebound forums). I won't deny Arkham gets a lot more posts, but if Runebound was as convoluted rule-wise as Arkham, you'd get a lot more posts as well asking "How do I do such-and-such?"

Arkham does have *great* atmosphere and a great presentation, but in MY opinion so does Runebound. What I love about Runebound is collecting the tons and TONS of cards that I can keep adding to my market stack, or the various other stacks.

It means something to me that a card expansion will come out (6 card sets, total cost about $30-35 bucks), and you get 2 new adventures, tons of new items, tons of new equipment, and more encounters for the main game!

You already have a lot of monsters to face and fight from the base set, but as you add the expansions, that stack continues to grow and makes every game have even more variety. Same with the market stack - you never know exactly what you'll get to equip your hero with, but there's so much good stuff each game is different.

Oh, and Sands of Al-Kalim does rock. HARD.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Wang
United States
west covina
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
If you want to go madness, you should try Arkham.
If you want to die brutally, you should try Runeboud.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SanguinousRex wrote:
I would classify it more as a boardgame D&D adventure, minus the campaign


If by this you mean minus the sense of plotting, development of tension, non-combat encounters, dialog (in the non-literalists sense of a dialectical flow between the game and players) and party interaction then I agree. I think the only real parallel between Runebound and a conventional RPG is the theme, but I don't see much beyond the setting and imagery.

Quote:

(though I'm beginning to write up rules for a Runebound Campain idea, and have already written up other ideas on the Runebound forums).


I'd like to read those ideas, perhaps they can help fix this game.

To the OP, base Runebound can be made more fun (especially solo) by utilizing certain player mods and ideas (I use three key items in my games, namely: threat track, a unique travel hazards table that incorporates cards from the class decks and story dice for the cities), but out of the box its.. well.. it needs help.

Quote:
I won't deny Arkham gets a lot more posts, but if Runebound was as convoluted rule-wise as Arkham, you'd get a lot more posts as well asking "How do I do such-and-such?"


Take note that, in the above passage you're referencing, I specifically stated the majority of the posts aren't of the rules interpretation variety. In fact, as of late, most have been variant ideas, new player made characters, random babble, questions beyond mere gameplay (basically shooting the breeze about the mythos and game), etc.

Of course, many are and have been.. but there's an active community of regular know-it-alls that post habitually about other items.

Quote:

Oh, and Sands of Al-Kalim does rock. HARD.


Yeah, we can both agree to that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SanguinousRex wrote:

(though I'm beginning to write up rules for a Runebound Campain idea, and have already written up other ideas on the Runebound forums).


Anarchosyn wrote:

I'd like to read those ideas, perhaps they can help fix this game.


This is just a start on Runebound Campaign Play ideas, but I had posted it a while ago. My idea is to be able to incorporate all the Runebound releases into a campaign game. I think it has a lot of possibilities, but unfortunately I seriously lack playtesters in my area:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/144352
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hilary Hartman
United States
GLENNALLEN
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Just your friendly, neighborhood game player and superhero!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My wife and I had both and played both, and Arkham Horror is the first FFG title of ours to be traded away.

Runebound is a great game. Sure, there's a little downtime during player turns, but no more than the downtime spent looking up rule clarifications in AH. In fact, at the end of the night, I'd say there was less downtime in RB.

Furthermore, there's been--what?--18 or so card expansions for Runebound, some of which change the game entirely from the original "kill the dragon" quest. Oh, and let us not forget the expansions that have added whole new regions to explore, with new boards, new cards, and the like.

So, in the end, I guess it boils down to what kind of game you want, as there are so many folks on BGG who side with either game and will have hundreds of reasons why you should side with them.

The rules for both are available online. Do yourself a favor and check them both out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, after quite a few games, my wife finally decided that Runebound was her new #1 game, replacing carcassonne (yeahhhhhh!!!! finally!). We've mostly played 1 on 1 games, and I've played Arkham just once, so here's my two cents on the subject:

1) Runebound. It's rules are very, very, very simple, and streamlined. Much simpler than Arkham's
2) Runebound also. The theme and the mechanics are highly integrated. Not that Arkham isn't integrated (because it is), but seems to me, it's stronger in Runebound.
3) Hmmm... Violence (Hack & slash), killing, looting? Runebound. Arkham is more an investigation game with some combat. Runebound is combat, with some exploration. No table checking at all! PvP is possible, but NOT required! (It's forbidden in my table for reasons I won't relate, that involved me sleeping in a couch for one long night for "stealing hard earned gold").
4)Runebound. But keep in mind, downtime is minimal only with 2 players. With 3 is decent, with 4 it begins to be too much. I'd never play Runebound with 5 or 6 players...no way.
5)A Runebound 2 player game will be somewhere near 4 to 6 hours. But you can easily stop, and continue some other time (we do this all the time. Just remember who's turn is it when you pick it up). We usually do this for "school night" games.

So... if you're planning on playing with a woman, with the criteria you defined, I'd say go for Runebound no questions asked. Also, keep in mind that the expansions will help a lot in bringing a new flavor to the game, when you know the adventures and market items by heart! (It'll begiun to happen in your 6th or 7th game) that alone is a huge advantage over Arkham!

Edit: After buying and playing arkham a lot lately, I feel that Arkham, because of its immersiveness, might be a better choice...My wife really likes it, and it has begun displacing RB as my #1 solitaire game as well. Runebound is still pretty good to play with the SO, though. So play them both


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Casadonte
United States
Media
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
badge
The compass always points to Terrapin.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll add my $0.02 in, just for the heck of it. My personal preference is Arkham. It's way more immersive, for me, and the narrative is great. Those two things for me are what I look for in these type games, so Arkham gets the nod for me. On to your criteria:

1) Rules with minimal ambiguities.

Both need help. Arkham is probably the fiddlier of the two, but that goes away after a few games. I rarely refer to the rulebook any more for Arkham. If you do buy Arkham, I would strongly, strongly recommend playing a solo game first, to get the immediate rules confusion out of the way before you bring your wife into it.

2) Tight integration of theme and mechanics.

I find Arkham's theme to be much more a part of the game. Runebound's theme is there, too, but it's not as tied to the game. Case in point: there are at least 4 ways to change the entire flavor of the game (2 large-box expansions and at least 2 deck expansions that change the goals of the game). This can be a good thing or a bad thing, but it does mean the theme of the game is a bit loose.

3) Violence. She likes killing stuff and getting loot and then kiling more stuff. Is PvP combat necessary in Runebound?

That sounds more like Runebound. There is lots of killing things in Arkham, but less acquiring stuff. PvP is certainly not necessary in Runebound, but without it there is zero interaction. Personally, we play without any PvP.

4) Downtime.

Never, ever, play Runebound with more than 2. I find downtime barely tolerable with 2 with Runebound. Arkham does a much better job at keeping everyone involved all the time.

5) Length.

They're both long, but after you know both games well, Arkham is much shorter, IMHO. We often don't finish Runebound, with just 2 players, while Arkham we've played back-to-back games of on several occasions.

caesarmom wrote:
For all three games of Arkham I've played the rulebook has stayed on the table because it needed to be consulted every 2.56 minutes. It drove me nuts


I suspect you were nuts long before Arkham, dearie! We'll play in May -- in fact, I propose an Arkham campaign: 1 game a day for the whole week!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enon Sci
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rarbelaez wrote:

1) Runebound. It's rules are very, very, very simple, and streamlined. Much simpler than Arkham's


I'd agree that Runebound is simple. "Simpler" and "streamlined" are not synonymous, however.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Robben
United States
Spring Hill
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I happen to be a BIG fan of Runebound. It's not perfect, but it can be FUN, if played with the right opponent (or 2) and using the right adventure. After learning the game a time or two, the base game is a throw away. A couple of the small adventure variants and/or Sands of Al-Kalim are perfect adventure games, imho.
Simple? Ok, it is simple, but what's so wrong with that?! Why does everything need to be overly complex? Isn't it supposed to be fun?!

Adventure games are made more for fun factor than true strategy, I think...so simple is acceptable. Especially in Sands, you still have alot of choices that affect your fate. It's not all about rolling dice and accepting the outcome.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.