$10.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Runebound (Second Edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Differences between 2nd and 1st edition? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dimitris Vasiadis
Greece
Vari
Attiki GREECE
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello runebound fans.
I found the first edition on a reasonable price,is there any reason
I should prefer the 2nd edition for a higher price?Is the 1st edition compatible with the expansions?Are there any other differences?

thanks for any answers!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Patterson
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say, from what I know and remember, that you should definitely go with the second edition if you can at all afford it. First, there's only one mini expansion (the 1st edition of Shadows of Margath) that's truly compatible (and even that one's been reprinted/redone for 2e). The use of 2d10 instead of a d20 makes for a far more predictable curve (or actually any curve at all) of probability. I'm going on memory here, but I believe the second edition was tweaked to increase the difficulty, which had been an issue with the first one. Seriously, any game that had to have a second edition rushed out as quickly as Runebound's suggests that the first was seriously flawed. I'm sure there are people who like it, but I'd imagine they're in the minority.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mbmb
Short answer, they are not easily compatible. 1st Ed. uses 1d20 where 2nd Ed. uses 2d10. This minor change affects the values of every challenge and encounter in the game - and the changes are not straight-forward transformations.

There are other changes, but I believe that's the one that makes compatibility most problematic.

-MMM
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dimitris Vasiadis
Greece
Vari
Attiki GREECE
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
thanks for your answers guys.I got it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I remember when 1st edition came out we gave it a spin and hated it. 2nd edition rolled out eventually and we gave it another shot and liked it now. Is it only the dice that changed? Sure, now you don't have as wild a spread of results with 2d10 but is that the only reason that 2nd edition seems so much better? I don't know, but I wouldn't recommend 1st edition to anyone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mbmb
Trump wrote:
I remember when 1st edition came out we gave it a spin and hated it. 2nd edition rolled out eventually and we gave it another shot and liked it now. Is it only the dice that changed? Sure, now you don't have as wild a spread of results with 2d10 but is that the only reason that 2nd edition seems so much better? I don't know, but I wouldn't recommend 1st edition to anyone.


Having the triangle-distribution of possible rolls centered around 10.5 compared to the flat distribution of the d20 makes a HUGE difference in regards to estimating challenge difficulty. There were some other changes (the start city is now centrally located rather than in the corner) but the change to 2d10 is by far the biggest improvement.

-MMM
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ART
Norway
Tromsø
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But, given how much people mod both editions, if you don't plan on buying expansions and just want the board for modding, then why not get it. Problem is there's no compatibility, so far as I know, with any of the new stuff out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mbmb
ahoodedfigure wrote:
But, given how much people mod both editions, if you don't plan on buying expansions and just want the board for modding, then why not get it. Problem is there's no compatibility, so far as I know, with any of the new stuff out.


Well...one reason not to get the old edition, besides incompatibility with expansions, is that the d20 based challenge system sucks to high heaven. I cannot understate this.

-MMM
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dimitris Vasiadis
Greece
Vari
Attiki GREECE
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
thank you again for the comprehensive answers.I'll go for the second edition
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Crowson
United States
Eyota
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:
ahoodedfigure wrote:
But, given how much people mod both editions, if you don't plan on buying expansions and just want the board for modding, then why not get it. Problem is there's no compatibility, so far as I know, with any of the new stuff out.


Well...one reason not to get the old edition, besides incompatibility with expansions, is that the d20 based challenge system sucks to high heaven. I cannot understate this.

-MMM


I'm still not sure why 1d20 would be all that bad. It worked/s for D&D. Granted, I've not played much since the 2ed rules, but with that you would add up all your bonuses, calculate your THAC0 and roll away. Yes it was a flat distribution, but would a 2d10 system have been that much better?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gilles Duchesne
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kneebyter wrote:
I'm still not sure why 1d20 would be all that bad. It worked/s for D&D. Granted, I've not played much since the 2ed rules, but with that you would add up all your bonuses, calculate your THAC0 and roll away. Yes it was a flat distribution, but would a 2d10 system have been that much better?

Well, I'd say it's because...
AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, 1st Edition, p.10 wrote:
A single die, or multiple dice read in succession (such as three dice read as a hundreds, tens and decimals) give linear probabilities. Two or more dice added together generate a bell-shaped probability curve.

When you mentioned D&D, I was immediately remembered of this little article of the DM manual, the very first probability course I ever had.

Seriously, why go for the bell curve? Well, in D&D, a typical fight it made of many many rounds. In Runebound, failure typically means a quick death. That gives predictability a much bigger value, wouldn't you say so?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mbmb
The nature of a flat distribution makes it so that unlikely success and unlikely failures are more common compared to the triangular distribution of 2d10. This may sound balanced at first - you get more bad but also more good - but in practice it doesn't work that way. No one would stake their chances in the game on having an unlikely positive result. Meaning that the players only really ever feel the bad side of the luck.

Let's compare the two methods. Let's say you need to roll 3+ to be successful. In Runebound's system this is an overwhelmingly favorable position to be in, yet with a d20 you still have a 10% chance of failure. With 2d10 you only have a 3% chance of failure. The d20 leads to over 3x the chance of failure in a situation that should be practically automatic for the hero.

-MMM
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Crowson
United States
Eyota
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm sure distribution tables abound, but here's another one.

The triangular distribution of 2d10 favors the lower rolls, but you're actually at a disadvantage with higher rolls. It looks like the break even point is at 12. That is, you have a 45% chance of rolling a 12 or more with both 2d10 and 1d20. After that though, it becomes harder to roll the higher number where you really need it.
So when you're in the tougher challenges and need to roll a 19 or more or get walloped, you have 3% chance of success with 2d10 and 10% chance of success with 1d20.

Don't get me wrong, I have Runebound 2nd edition and enjoy it, but I don't buy that 1d20 is "bad", just different.


% Chance of Rolling >= Total
Total 2d10 1d20

1 N/A 100
2 100 95
3 99 90
4 97 85
5 94 80
6 90 75
7 85 70
8 79 65
9 72 60
10 64 55
11 55 50
12 45 45
13 36 40
14 28 35
15 21 30
16 15 25
17 10 20
18 6 15
19 3 10
20 1 5
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mbmb
Kneebyter wrote:


Don't get me wrong, I have Runebound 2nd edition and enjoy it, but I don't buy that 1d20 is "bad", just different.


Different, yes. But in the context of the game it is also bad. The d20 requires the player to level up more to have the same chances of success compared to 2d10. This adds considerably to the game length. This problem is compounded by the fact that first edition challenges to not replenish, leading to the possibility of finding oneself in a hopeless situation.

Your table is accurate, but not quite formatted properly for purposes of making Runebound decisions. You aren't concerned with the chances of rolling at least a 3, you are concerned with the chances of rolling less than a 3 (if 3 is your target number for success). Note that If your target number is 6 or less that you are at least twice as likely to fail using d20 compared to 2d10. As failing a roll that you are counting on can be devastating, this is a significant difference.

So in both cases it is easy to know that a difference of 10 is roughly a 50/50 proposition, but 2d10 makes it easier to succeed in cases when the odds are supposed to be more in your favor. The 2d10 results are more forgiving in terms of bad luck (and subsequently makes bad luck that does occur more noteworthy and exciting as it happens more rarely).

-MMM
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gilles Duchesne
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yet another thing occurred to me today. As we've established already, the bell curve yields better probability on low-to-median scores, but worse probability when trying to get higher results.

This means, in the context of Runebound, that the first levels you gain will grant you a lot more "bang for your buck", with diminishing returns if you keep increasing the same skill.

Now that, to me, sounds like a great thing to have in RB. In fact, it reminds of some house rules I've read (but that I don't use) where the first level costs 1 XP, the 2nd 2 XPs, etc...

Although levels are being acquired at a constant cost, the first levels will affect your characters more. So using 2d10 instead of 1d20 makes the game go faster, in a very subtle way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Woodward
New Zealand
Hamilton
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have the First Edition. Will it be improved if I use 2d10 or will it not work?

Edit: What I really want to know is whether the solo variants in this forum can be used with the First Edition.
 
 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.