Daniel (@dungeondive) stacks three sprawling adventure games against each other across seven categories: rulebook, setup, sense of exploration, combat, base-game viability, table presence, and overall ranking. All three share a core mechanism—a massive deck of numbered cards from which each game draws a dynamic subset—which makes them unusually comparable.
Arkham Horror 3e wins the rulebook category easily, thanks to its lauded hardbound deluxe edition packed with lore and Richard Launius’s origin history. Fallout takes second; Skyrim’s rulebook is legendarily bad. On setup, the rankings flip: Arkham’s double-sided tiles and subset-enemy-card curation make it a chore, while Fallout and Skyrim deploy quickly. Skyrim surprises in the exploration category, with its sandbox structure and elegant threat-as-timer mechanic, edging out Fallout. For combat, Skyrim’s weapon-versus-armour system wins; Arkham’s D6 pool is clean and Fallout’s Pip-Boy dice are fiddly.
Arkham wins base-game viability (Fallout desperately needs its expansions; Skyrim’s expansions are prohibitively expensive). Table presence goes decisively to Arkham—Fantasy Flight’s Mythos art library is one of the best in the hobby—while Skyrim is “aggressively ugly” with low-res video-game screenshots. Final ranking: Arkham 3e first, Fallout second, Skyrim third, but all three earn permanent slots in the collection.
Which of these three feels most like an adventure—and which feels most like a system?