Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Runebound (Second Edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: Board-less variant? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Matt Tonks
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I've been wondering recently if there would be a way of creating a board-less variant for Runebound... kind of like Runebound:the card game!

I've not played it in ages, but the way I see it is that the board doesn't serve a great deal of purpose; all the info you need is in the character, market & encounter cards. Sure, you roll the dice & move about the board, but I did find this time-consuming & kind of tedious.

With all those card deck expansions, there must be a decent way to turn this into some kind of card game! Perhaps for encounters each player, on their turn, could draw one for the colour of their choice? The markets; well, I suppose you could have 8 piles to represent each city, but not to allow buying from the same place twice in a row, to replicate moving around the board?

Plus it would prevent players levelling up too fast against other players as I have seen happen sometime; winning the game would rely more on skill.

Sure, it's a very rough idea at present... but I think it would work really well & eliminate a lot of the downtime complaints over Runebound.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Matt...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Would you like steak with that?
badge
Have another Keith's
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Not a bad idea Matt but I wonder if the board is really the cause of Runebound's lag time. Simply choosing cards would speed up the game somewhat but for me the real tedium comes from going through each encounter card. Its usually only the newbies who take too long to decide where to move.

Since each card usually results in the need for a few dice rolls (not just one), the other players must still sit there and wait until your encounter is finished.

Of course by simply choosing your encounter you take away strategy with regard to placing your character as well as the scarcity of encounters that is supposed to result as the game progresses.

Some cards rely on terrain as well don't they? You could probably house rule that somehow.

Still, not a bad idea and well worth exploring. For me part of the charm is the board.

Don.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Tonks
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lockridge wrote:


Of course by simply choosing your encounter you take away strategy with regard to placing your character as well as the scarcity of encounters that is supposed to result as the game progresses.

Some cards rely on terrain as well don't they? You could probably house rule that somehow.

Don.


Hmmm! Two good points you made & certainly ones I hadn't thought of. Will see if I can think of something on this...

Thanks,

Matt...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Crockett
United States
Bridgewater
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I see some problems with this, not only the positioning of characters regarding encounters, but also towns. Getting back to town without getting killed is sometimes part of the challenge (esp. with story dice or other "non-encounter" events.) and definitely penalizes players who do not manage risk sufficiently. the distance of some encounters from town is supposed to reflect this, as Reds and Blues, the more challenging encounters, often require the longest hike back to civilization. Greens are practically in the market as it is.

Due to waht Don pointed out regarding terrain, it'd be almost unplayable with Dark Forest (lots of forest/swamp encounters) or Cult of the Rune (the corruption marker) without severe tweaking, just to name two and I'm not sure about the Wave three expansions either, as I don't ahve them. Some Market Items would also ahve to be cut (big loss, I know, the market deck is small enough as it is

I think most of the downtime can be addressed by simply having the next player roll their movement dice and start their move while the last player fights. It makes the game even more multi-player solitaire, but if its speed you want, that's probably the easiest way to get it.

But, if you can make it work, more power to you. those are just some thoughts I had looking at the idea.

Mack
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I already have a large portion of rules done for a board-less version of Runebound - for both multi and single player.

Should I post what I have so far?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tonksey wrote:
With all those card deck expansions, there must be a decent way to turn this into some kind of card game! Perhaps for encounters each player, on their turn, could draw one for the colour of their choice? The markets; well, I suppose you could have 8 piles to represent each city, but not to allow buying from the same place twice in a row, to replicate moving around the board?

Plus it would prevent players levelling up too fast against other players as I have seen happen sometime; winning the game would rely more on skill.

Sure, it's a very rough idea at present... but I think it would work really well & eliminate a lot of the downtime complaints over Runebound.


I don't follow you. How does this prevent one player from levelling up faster than another? What makes this more skillful?

I've had no complaints on downtime... only complaints on game length.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dobromir Harrison
Japan
Ikebukuro
Tokyo
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I made a boardless variant a while ago, though it's only single-player.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/17847
1 
 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.