[Legend] What might make you switch? III

[Doc Roc]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11150634#post11150634) is the best place to find the current version. It's the last version we'll be releasing that isn't fully typeset, and one of the last versions we'll be releasing that doesn't have art. We've been working towards addressing a lot of the concerns that have come up, and I was wondering if we'd gotten it Closer To Right?

What can we do to make this the game you wanted?

[Geigan]

The art and full typesetting would do it.

[Doc Roc]

First previews of typeset Legend should be available around the 15th. :)

[Savannah]

Generally speaking, I'm not going to switch to anything that doesn't easily support all the many, many 3.5 books I've collected. I'm not willing to either stop using the books or do any extensive updating of their contents to continue to use them. Now, I haven't looked through Legend extensively, but when you're changing enough to release it as a new system, I suspect that I can't just pull anything from my books and use it as-is.

I guess my point is, if you want to convince people like me to switch, make sure it's clear that it's fully compatable with 3.5 splats. If it's not, I'm afraid I'll take imbalanced (which isn't a huge deal when you play with low-op, non-competative groups like I tend to) over throwing out several hundred dollars of investment into D&D books.

[erikun]

I am reading through it now, mainly because I've only given previous versions a quick glance-over. I do wonder if the design philosophy, particularly what amounts to "what other systems have done wrong", is better placed in an accompanying post rather than the document itself.

[Doug Lampert]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11150634#post11150634) is the best place to find the current version. It's the last version we'll be releasing that isn't fully typeset, and one of the last versions we'll be releasing that doesn't have art. We've been working towards addressing a lot of the concerns that have come up, and I was wondering if we'd gotten it Closer To Right?

What can we do to make this the game you wanted?

I don't think it is the game I wanted.

But if it were, I'd want multiclassing to get a spell-casting track defined. Nearly every other track gives seven distinct benefits, put class A's number three track into class B's number two's slot, and it works. I get benefit number 4 at level 11 rather than 9. No problem.

With spellcasting? Character level is used for gobs of stuff (spell slots including what spells you know, spells known, caster level for spells).

Circle seems to be access to a spell level, but how does this interact with which track I put it in? If I put spellcasting in a different track as a multiclass then when does it advance? When do I get new levels of spells? Is my caster level changed? What about spells known. If I put shaman casting in my Sage's force of will track, how many spells and of what level does he have at level 1, 3, 4, or 6?

Everything else comes in 7 "chunks", casting comes in 20 "chunks", and there doesn't seem to be any guidence as to how to deal with this.

DougL

[Doc Roc]

Generally speaking, I'm not going to switch to anything that doesn't easily support all the many, many 3.5 books I've collected. I'm not willing to either stop using the books or do any extensive updating of their contents to continue to use them. Now, I haven't looked through Legend extensively, but when you're changing enough to release it as a new system, I suspect that I can't just pull anything from my books and use it as-is.

I guess my point is, if you want to convince people like me to switch, make sure it's clear that it's fully compatable with 3.5 splats. If it's not, I'm afraid I'll take imbalanced (which isn't a huge deal when you play with low-op, non-competative groups like I tend to) over throwing out several hundred dollars of investment into D&D books.

Actually, it's not back-compatible when used as a full system, but it can be used to rapidly generate content for 3.x, within certain parameters. I can talk about this a lot more if people are interested.

It's not just about balanced. It's about a game that cares about the people who play it, a chance to actually do something right.



I am reading through it now, mainly because I've only given previous versions a quick glance-over. I do wonder if the design philosophy, particularly what amounts to "what other systems have done wrong", is better placed in an accompanying post rather than the document itself.

Hard to say, we'll see if it needs to be as we go. That's why we're having a conversation instead of a yelling match. :)

[Savannah]

Actually, it's not back-compatible when used as a full system, but it can be used to rapidly generate content for 3.x, within certain parameters. I can talk about this a lot more if people are interested.

'fraid that's pretty much a deal-breaker for me.


It's not just about balanced. It's about a game that cares about the people who play it, a chance to actually do something right.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? :smallconfused:

[erikun]

Should we engage in talk about the system here, or in the other thread?

[Doc Roc]

'fraid that's pretty much a deal-breaker for me.



What the heck is that supposed to mean? :smallconfused:

It means that we've tried to insure rules are clear, that fights are fun, that the game gets out of the way and requires limited memorization. Part of making something balanced is being able to test it, and being able to test it means making it knowable. What this is the long way of saying is that we've built it this way not just in the name of balance, but in the name of giving a damn about fun. Your fun, not ours. Your game, not ours. This is what I mean by caring.



Should we engage in talk about the system here, or in the other thread?

Direct discussion of the game should go there. I think more meta-level concerns are probably suitable here.

[true_shinken]

It means that we've tried to insure rules are clear, that fights are fun, that the game gets out of the way and requires limited memorization. Part of making something balanced is being able to test it, and being able to test it means making it knowable. What this is the long way of saying is that we've built it this way not just in the name of balance, but in the name of giving a damn about fun. Your fun, not ours. Your game, not ours. This is what I mean by caring.

You're coming out as a bit arrogant again, Doc. The way you phrase makes it seem ike standard 3.5 designers 'don't give a damn', so you're basically saying this game that many people love and play sucks. I think that's a very good way to alienate possible players.

As of now, I still stand on the side of 'give me more fluff'. I won't be switching to Legend, because I won't stop playing 3.5, but I'll give it a try once it gets more fluff and it's own identity. Because by now, frankly, it's a heavily houseruled D&D 3.5 with a big ego.

[LordBlades]

You're coming out as a bit arrogant again, Doc. The way you phrase makes it seem ike standard 3.5 designers 'don't give a damn', so you're basically saying this game that many people love and play sucks. I think that's a very good way to alienate possible players.



The way to say it might not be the most fortunate but his points stand:
-D&D 3.5 designers had no idea what they were doing in many cases (see wizard, cleric and druid in the same book with monk and fighter).
-Rules ambiguity in 3.5 needs no further explanation I think.
-fun fights: 3.5 does provide fun fights for some classes, but other are completely bland (think 'I have 20-30 spells that can produce that many different effects' vs. 'I got a sword that I can try to smack the bad guy with and that's about it') .

[Eldan]

Yes, but for all that, I still like it more than what I've seen of Legend so far.
I agree with Shinken. As long as there's only the barest bones of the rules, there is nothing to give the game its own identity. There is nothing that pops out as interesting, few, if any, abilities that are new and original (all the versatile things with interesting uses seem more or less imported from 3.5) and a dire lack of fluff. Some abilities just seem to make little sense without some explanation how they fit into the framework of the world and the class.

I love 3.5 for the horrible, chaotic, unbalanced, creative mess that it is, and all the horrible butchering of fluff that accomplishes it.

[subject42]

I'm still (theoretically) running a PbP game and I do have one question.

What was the motivation behind keeping an X/day mechanic for as many abilities as you did? Would you be able to suggest an alternate refresh mechanic for scenarios where you want to keep the tension up without completely draining players of options over time?

[true_shinken]

The way to say it might not be the most fortunate but his points stand:
It stands to some people, you mean. Nonw of what you pointed out is unanimous.

-D&D 3.5 designers had no idea what they were doing in many cases (see wizard, cleric and druid in the same book with monk and fighter).
If you mean that you want noncasters to be as powerful as casters, then I completely disagree with your. I like my magic more powerful than hitting things with a sword, unlike 4e.

-Rules ambiguity in 3.5 needs no further explanation I think.
And yet most of the times we do it anyway. It's not like Legend doesn't have any ambiguities. Check the threads for how many people have already found. They are adressing it, sure, but that's not a merit of Legend, it's a merit of editing. Just like 4e.

-fun fights: 3.5 does provide fun fights for some classes, but other are completely bland (think 'I have 20-30 spells that can produce that many different effects' vs. 'I got a sword that I can try to smack the bad guy with and that's about it') .
That's what you think. For many people, hitting nthings repeatedly with a sword is fun enough. For others, combat itself is boring. I have a player who dislikes any combat, so all he does is full-attack every round. Fun is subjective. More options might seem fun for some people and not fun for other people.
Also, even when all you have is a hammer, you have choices in D&D 3.5. You can charge, you can disarm, you can trip, you can sunder, you can bullrush. Sure, that might be less than optimal depending on the circumstances, but they are still options.

[LordBlades]

It stands to some people, you mean. Nonw of what you pointed out is unanimous.

Of course, what I stated is my opinion, nothing more, and should be taken as such.


If you mean that you want noncasters to be as powerful as casters, then I completely disagree with your. I like my magic more powerful than hitting things with a sword, unlike 4e.

I want a game where casters and melee play in the same league (not necessarily same power level but at least same order of magnitude would be nice) and where the answer to the question 'who's the best at fighting?' is not 'a caster'


And yet most of the times we do it anyway. It's not like Legend doesn't have any ambiguities. Check the threads for how many people have already found. They are adressing it, sure, but that's not a merit of Legend, it's a merit of editing. Just like 4e.

My point was that in 3.5 it's not uncommon for 2 people to draw exactly opposite conclusion out of the same RAW text, I see it pretty often on forums.


That's what you think. For many people, hitting nthings repeatedly with a sword is fun enough. For others, combat itself is boring. I have a player who dislikes any combat, so all he does is full-attack every round. Fun is subjective. More options might seem fun for some people and not fun for other people.
Also, even when all you have is a hammer, you have choices in D&D 3.5. You can charge, you can disarm, you can trip, you can sunder, you can bullrush. Sure, that might be less than optimal depending on the circumstances, but they are still options.

As I said before, all of that is my opinion. For me and for most people I know, having multiple viable option beats the hell out of having only one not-so-viable one.

[Veyr]

If you mean that you want noncasters to be as powerful as casters, then I completely disagree with your. I like my magic more powerful than hitting things with a sword, unlike 4e.
But the designers of 3.5 didn't want that. It was an unintentional result of mistakes in their design. Nothing in the books indicates that this should be the case. The books pretend the fighting types are just as strong, and anyone picking up the system could easily fall into that trap.

There are systems that specifically tell you that playing a non-magic character is gimping yourself. Like Exalted or... I dunno, there are others.

But 3.5 isn't that. It ended up like that, but this is a design flaw because it was unintentional, and in fact the opposite was intentional.

[Doc Roc]

Poor Monte has confirmed this, V.

[true_shinken]

But the designers of 3.5 didn't want that. It was an unintentional result of mistakes in their design. Nothing in the books indicates that this should be the case. The books pretend the fighting types are just as strong, and anyone picking up the system could easily fall into that trap.

Monte Cook and all versions of D&D prior to 4e disagree.
A Wizard in AD&D was stronger than a Fighter. Prior to 4e, magic was always supposed to be stronger than the sword. That's how it works in fantasy, usually.
The books don't 'pretend the fighting types are just as strong', what they do is pretend they have unlimited resources and this should even it out (but hit points are a finite resource).
Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a completely streamlined game where everyone performs at the same level... but we already have 4e for that.




My point was that in 3.5 it's not uncommon for 2 people to draw exactly opposite conclusion out of the same RAW text, I see it pretty often on forums.

See Doug's confusion about the spellcasting multiclass tracks up there. Same thing.

[Tehnar]

To make me switch, you would need a really strong setting and fluff to accompany the rules. Short stories before every chapter (ala the Shadowrun 4th ed books); generally something that stands out as unique.

Now I see that you put a lot of effort into the rules; and after a brief reading it seems balanced. A lot of rules are really elegant (the Track system in particular), but I also happen to disagree with some of them (for example the KOM and KDM I strongly disagree with; they remind me of the bad parts of DnD 4e).

In the end Legend seems like a elaborate set of house rules. Elegant and balanced house rules, but house rules none the less. I think if you want to reach a lot of people a unique setting and strong fluff to accompany the crunch will be needed.

[Doc Roc]

Monte Cook and all versions of D&D prior to 4e disagree.
A Wizard in AD&D was stronger than a Fighter. Prior to 4e, magic was always supposed to be stronger than the sword. That's how it works in fantasy, usually.
The books don't 'pretend the fighting types are just as strong', what they do is pretend they have unlimited resources and this should even it out (but hit points are a finite resource).
Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a completely streamlined game where everyone performs at the same level... but we already have 4e for that.


Pull the other one, it's got bells on. 2nd edition's casters are nothing like 3rd's.

You can be balanced without being narrow. I'm tired of this false equality. 3.x's space for solidly tier 3 builds is pretty small. Its concept space is arguably even smaller. I know, I know, there are tons of alternate systems and subsystems. Most of them suck. Most of them add few unique options. The ones that don't suck, and add lots of unique choices? We've covetously imitated.

As for casting, I don't think his confusion was about the meaning of the rules, but rather the goodness of them. Spellcasting is an issue we've been batting back and forth for almost three years now, and I'm pretty open about how unhappy I am with our solution.

However, it does follow the 7-circle leitmotif, as you unlock your spell levels when that particular circle would drop for a track in that progression. We're going to continue to evaluate this, and there may be some changes. We've some base concerns about casters in general, ones that are, I imagine, hardly surprising.



Now I see that you put a lot of effort into the rules; and after a brief reading it seems balanced. A lot of rules are really elegant (the Track system in particular), but I also happen to disagree with some of them (for example the KOM and KDM I strongly disagree with; they remind me of the bad parts of DnD 4e).


KOM\KDM is the subject of some ongoing debate, but I don't think it's really as severe a change as it appears. One reason we opted to take this approach is because it allows us to further distinguish and render intelligible the differences between classes. Another is that it removes some of the itemization traps, particularly with respect to certain kinds of AC builds.

[true_shinken]

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. 2nd edition's casters are nothing like 3rd's.

You are not very familiar with AD&D, are you?
Most spells are unaltered (some were nerfed, like Prestidigitation, but that became a lower level spell as well). The difference is spellcasting is safer in 3rd edition.




You can be balanced without being narrow. I'm tired of this false equality. 3.x's space for solidly tier 3 builds is pretty small. It's concept space is arguably even smaller. I know, I know, there are tons of alternate systems and subsystems. Most of them suck. Most of them add few unique options. The ones that don't suck, and add lots of unique choices? We've covetously imitated.

Now this, this is so wrong. I'm surprised, I've never expected to see such a false statement from you, Roc. Seriously, this makes me lose respect for you.
Most of the classes in D&D 3.5 are in the tier 2-4 range. That's what's considered acceptable in play most of the times. Very fall are higher or lower than that.
Then again, the tiers are not meant for that. A class doesn't 'suck', as you put it, because it's higher or lower than tier 3. It's meant to have everyone on the same level, so you can have campaigns on different levels of power. That's an option, that thing you keep saying is so good. An option that Legend lacks.
And that system that 'sucks' that 'doesn't care about the players'? You admit yourself you're simply copying it! Damn, dude. That's weird, specially most of that stuff you admit you're copying isn't even open game content.

[LordBlades]

Monte Cook and all versions of D&D prior to 4e disagree.
A Wizard in AD&D was stronger than a Fighter. Prior to 4e, magic was always supposed to be stronger than the sword. That's how it works in fantasy, usually.
The books don't 'pretend the fighting types are just as strong', what they do is pretend they have unlimited resources and this should even it out (but hit points are a finite resource).
Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a completely streamlined game where everyone performs at the same level... but we already have 4e for that.

The books do pretend that all classes are relevant though, that you can have a fighter or rogue in a party with a cleric, druid and wizard and still contribute, which is not the case (assuming equal levels of optimization).




See Doug's confusion about the spellcasting multiclass tracks up there. Same thing.

The fact that Legend might fail to solve this problem doesn't mean it's not a problem.

[Doc Roc]

You are not very familiar with AD&D, are you?
Most spells are unaltered (some were nerfed, like Prestidigitation, but that became a lower level spell as well). The difference is spellcasting is safer in 3rd edition.

Actually, I am familiar with it. You've neglected to mention the differing experience tracks, lower net HP, the longer casting times, and quite a few other concerns that didn't get ported such as the ease of spell interruption.

2nd wasn't unrecognizable, but it was quite different.


Now this, this is so wrong. I'm surprised, I've never expected to see such a false statement from you, Roc. Seriously, this makes me lose respect for you.
Most of the classes in D&D 3.5 are in the tier 2-4 range. That's what's considered acceptable in play most of the times. Very fall are higher or lower than that.
Then again, the tiers are not meant for that. A class doesn't 'suck', as you put it, because it's higher or lower than tier 3. It's meant to have everyone on the same level, so you can have campaigns on different levels of power. That's an option, that thing you keep saying is so good. An option that Legend lacks.
And that system that 'sucks' that 'doesn't care about the players'? You admit yourself you're simply copying it! Damn, dude. That's weird, specially most of that stuff you admit you're copying isn't even open game content.

Imitation and copying are different. What I mean is that we've tried to provide loosely similar options when it comes to playstyle. 3.x is a successful game, and there's a lot of worth in learning from people who succeeded. More than that, I'm a 3.x player, my own biases in building and designing are derived from what I enjoy.

There's a running joke that Legend is just a melange of everything I loved in the last twenty years, and there's some truth to that.

[true_shinken]

Actually, I am intensely familiar with it. You've neglected to mention the differing experience tracks, lower net HP, the longer casting times, and quite a few other concerns that didn't get ported such as the ease of spell interruption.

2nd wasn't unrecognizable, but it was quite different.

'quite different' is very very VERY different from 'nothing like it'.
I mentioned all these factors recently in another thread (along with declaring the spell before anyone else acted, meaning you could simply cast in an empty space).
The point is, even then wizards were more powerful than others.


The books do pretend that all classes are relevant though, that you can have a fighter or rogue in a party with a cleric, druid and wizard and still contribute, which is not the case (assuming equal levels of optimization).

The books don't 'pretend' anything. It's just that many playstyles lend to just that. Now and again people come to the playground saying stuff like 'wizards are not better than fighters, they run out of spells' and stuff like that. Guess why? That's because it happens in their games. So you're broad statement that those classes are not relevant is simply not true. It might not be relevant in your game, but like it's said every once and again, many DMs create situations that make them relevant. It's usually like this on novels and movies and stuff - the spellcasters are more powerful, but circumstances force the other characters to do stuff.

[Doc Roc]

'quite different' is very very VERY different from 'nothing like it'.
I mentioned all these factors recently in another thread (along with declaring the spell before anyone else acted, meaning you could simply cast in an empty space).
The point is, even then wizards were more powerful than others.

Moderately more powerful. In 3.x, a wizard played to potential is immune to HP damage, immune to dispelling, and capable of spawning a limitless legion of absolutely obedient clones.

There are 26 Classes in T2-4. There are 24 in the other tiers. Counting just tier three, my initial supposition, there are 11 against 30+.

[LordBlades]

The books don't 'pretend' anything. It's just that many playstyles lend to just that. Now and again people come to the playground saying stuff like 'wizards are not better than fighters, they run out of spells' and stuff like that. Guess why? That's because it happens in their games. So you're broad statement that those classes are not relevant is simply not true. It might not be relevant in your game, but like it's said every once and again, many DMs create situations that make them relevant. It's usually like this on novels and movies and stuff - the spellcasters are more powerful, but circumstances force the other characters to do stuff.

That's why I said equal levels of optimization. I strongly believe that a wizard played to x% of their max potential can make a fighter played to the same x% of their max potential irrelevant. Many threads here that cry 'x is broken' or 'x is not broken in my game' involve quite different levels of optimization across the board.

[Claudius Maximus]

Are we seriously arguing 3.5 fighter vs. wizard here?

The fact of the matter is that it is an explicit design goal in Legend to equalize martial and magic. If you want disparity between them then this is not the right system for that. If you want your wizards to be stronger than your fighters then make them higher in level than the fighters in your game. But Legend characters are supposed to be roughly equal in power to one another at the same level.

Going back to the "not the right system" point - considering the goal of this thread, this might be worth talking about. Do you really think Legend's approach to martial vs. magic is problematic? If so, why? What are you really looking for here? There's a difference between having the established wizards in your world being more powerful than the mundanes, and forcing the magical PCs to be more powerful than their martial counterparts while being in the same party at the same level.

[true_shinken]

Going back to the "not the right system" point - considering the goal of this thread, this might be worth talking about. Do you really think Legend's approach to martial vs. magic is problematic? If so, why? What are you really looking for here? There's a difference between having the established wizards in your world being more powerful than the mundanes, and forcing the magical PCs to be more powerful than their martial counterparts while being in the same party at the same level.

If you focus too much in the balance part you end with the 'why the hell did he learn magic when he can do the same with a sword' from 4e.
That's my problem here. Magic is supposed to be powerful and special. If you can do something as powerful as it just with skill, well, then it's not that powerful nor special.
As for 'balancing' this for play, AD&D did it quite well.



Moderately more powerful. In 3.x, a wizard played to potential is immune to HP damage, immune to dispelling, and capable of spawning a limitless legion of absolutely obedient clones.

There are 26 Classes in T2-4. There are 24 in the other tiers. Counting just tier three, my initial supposition, there are 11 against 30+.
Considering not all classes are listed in the official tier system thread, this is just your opinion on how they should be tiered. My point stands.
And a Wizard in AD&D was A LOT more powerful than a Fighter, once he got started. Stoneskin alone is big oomph, Polymorph was already deadly, Mirror Image was basically the same and so on so forth. Add to the fact that monsters had less hit points so direct damage spells were the be-all end-all of damage (except for those pesky dart throwers). That is the reason why Bladesinger is such a badass kit - it doesn't even matter you're progressing slower, you're still better than anyone else at anything.
Also note I'm not talking about 'played to it's full potential' or anything. That just happens when people delibaretely try to break the game and if someone tried to pull that in my table, they'd just not be invited anymore.

[imperialspectre]

Are we seriously arguing 3.5 fighter vs. wizard here?

The fact of the matter is that it is an explicit design goal in Legend to equalize martial and magic. If you want disparity between them then this is not the right system for that. If you want your wizards to be stronger than your fighters then make them higher in level than the fighters in your game. But Legend characters are supposed to be roughly equal in power to one another at the same level.

Incidentally, the 3.5 PHB explicitly states that level is at least partly a measurement of power (glossary, p.310). The idea that level measures power is definitely not unique to Legend, nor is it something that suddenly showed up in D&D 4e. So when we say that according to 3.5's stated assumptions, fighters should be roughly as capable as clerics, we're not just making something up or applying external standards to the 3.5 system. We're applying basic reading comprehension and the understanding that 6 = 6 to the explicit statements in 3.5 core.

Now, if you actually want wizard and fighter characters to exist in the same game, in the same parties, but with radically different levels of competence, usefulness, and power, play a different system. You may as well also leave the thread, because this isn't something we're interested in talking about, or negotiating. There are literally no circumstances in which we will ever design material to fit your game preferences, because we don't share them. That doesn't mean we hate you, or think that the games you like are entirely bad. It just means that when it comes to game design, our preferences and values are so divergent that we may as well not bother each other about them.

For people who are attracted to the concept of a more balanced game that provides viable options for a broad range of character concepts, what can we do to make Legend more attractive to you?

[Doc Roc]

If you focus too much in the balance part you end with the 'why the hell did he learn magic when he can do the same with a sword' from 4e.
That's my problem here. Magic is supposed to be powerful and special. If you can do something as powerful as it just with skill, well, then it's not that powerful nor special.
As for 'balancing' this for play, AD&D did it quite well.

If you feel like there's no difference between casters and martial characters in Legend, I'd like to know why. That's information I'd find very valuable.

[true_shinken]

{{scrubbed}}

[Savannah]

For people who are attracted to the concept of a more balanced game that provides viable options for a broad range of character concepts, what can we do to make Legend more attractive to you?

1) Compatibility with existing splats. I know I said it before and apparently you aren't interested, but since it's a make-or-break thing for me, I figured I'd list it again.

2) A concise pitch at the beginning of the book explaining what Legend is and why it's so great. Without that, if I were to run across it somewhere, I'd be unlikely to put in the effort to read it without knowing what it was. Try not to use meaningless phrases like "a game that cares about its players" and try not to insult other games, as both of those make me want to roll my eyes and move on to another game.

Now, I haven't read Legend. I've skimmed the opening a couple of times, but never been interested enough to really get into it. If you had point 2, I'd probably read it, if the pitch looked like something I was interested in.

[Doc Roc]

1) Compatibility with existing splats. I know I said it before and apparently you aren't interested, but since it's a make-or-break thing for me, I figured I'd list it again.

2) A concise pitch at the beginning of the book explaining what Legend is and why it's so great. Without that, if I were to run across it somewhere, I'd be unlikely to put in the effort to read it without knowing what it was. Try not to use meaningless phrases like "a game that cares about its players" and try not to insult other games, as both of those make me want to roll my eyes and move on to another game.

Now, I haven't read Legend. I've skimmed the opening a couple of times, but never been interested enough to really get into it. If you had point 2, I'd probably read it, if the pitch looked like something I was interested in.

Part two is something we can work on. Part one is too, actually. But we have to approach part one by treating Legend like a splat, if that makes sense? Most Legend Material will work fine in 3.x, but the converse may not be true.

It's something I'm working on with Arg, and we're talking about doing a line of classes that explicitly backport some of the really juicy stuff in Legend.




{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.}

I... think things are.... not perhaps as heated as you seem to perceive them? If we've offered veiled insults from your perspective, they were unintended. I'm sorry you feel this way, but I don't even understand where the problem lies. One minute we were having a discussion about balance points, the next you're.... quite upset. I hope this blows over, but I understand if it doesn't.

[Gametime]

{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.}


I don't understand how saying "Your preferences diverge significantly enough from our own that the game we are designing is not going to please you" is any kind of insult, veiled or otherwise.

There's lots of room for criticism from people who agree with the basic design goals of Legend. There really isn't any from people who aren't happy with what the project is even about.

[Claudius Maximus]

Really, there are things Legend is and is not trying to be. It's not super-simulationist, it's not a rules-light system, it's not a game with significant party power differentials. There are great systems for all three of those niches, and these are legitimate games that we don't hate or anything, but we're just not trying to go there with Legend.

On the other hand, people coming from these angles can still give us valuable information. If we can get a cross section of these groups interested, then that's fantastic. Maybe when fluff time comes we can try something to make magic unique and interesting enough to satisfy Shinken. Maybe we can make steps to make Legend appealing to the players of the above games while remaining true to its own design goals. That's what we're here for.

[true_shinken]

That's what we're here for.

I'm just sad imperialspectre disagrees with you, because I'm sure you all could learn a lot and improve your game a lot if all thought like you.

[Doc Roc]

I'm just sad imperialspectre disagrees with you, because I'm sure you all could learn a lot and improve your game a lot if all thought like you.

I don't think he does. He's just.... grouchy. Like an angry sea cucumber! Too cute to hate!

[Eldan]

Ah, but can he also vomit up his entrails as a defence? Otherwise, he isn't really all that cute.

[Doc Roc]

Ah, but can he also vomit up his entrails as a defence? Otherwise, he isn't really all that cute.

Better! He can vomit up someone else's!

[Honest Tiefling]

How on earth could...You know what? I don't want to know.

Through I agree with Savannah in that I'd rather 3.5 materials are compatible. A guide to convert one way or the other or how to play with both would also be nice.

[Doc Roc]

How on earth could...You know what? I don't want to know.

Through I agree with Savannah in that I'd rather 3.5 materials are compatible. A guide to convert one way or the other or how to play with both would also be nice.

I think a guide for converting material from Legend to 3.x might be worthwhile, as well as maybe a sort of starting-place guide for converting items either way.

[KoboldCleric]

I've only read the OP, so if this opinion was already expressed forgive me.

You'll never get me to switch from 3.5 to something else. 3.5 does what I want it to do well enough that I see no reason to invest in a game that competes directly with it. Having said that, you could certainly get me to play Legend, but the system would have to be sufficiently different from 3.5 to the point that it's an entirely different experience.

As the dear Mr. Giant himself writes of world-building in an article in the gaming section of this site:

"You will need to also consider how much you can borrow from other worlds, as well as how close your world is to those already published by companies with a lot more resources than to which you have access. Creating a world defined by the struggle between good and evil dragons is fine for your local group, but a stranger may look at it and think, "Oh, it's a knock-off of Dragonlance."

Of course these two situations are different, but not entirely unrelated I think, nor the gem of wisdom one to be dismissed offhand. As long as the thought even begins to cross my mind that this is just another knockoff 3.5 I've lost interest, regardless of whether or not Legend is better, supported, more balanced, etc.

[Gnaeus]

There are 26 Classes in T2-4. There are 24 in the other tiers. Counting just tier three, my initial supposition, there are 11 against 30+.

I think, to be fair, you should not include the T6 NPC classes. Having commoner's, artisans, and basic mooks come across as underpowered in a dungeoncrawl is probably less of a bug than a feature. You still have a pretty valid point, tho.

[Urpriest]

Still haven't got around to reading the thing, but one thought occurred to me vis a vis the discussion on fluff:

The Tactician and the Sage, from what I've been hearing, both seem like rather unconventional hodgepodges of abilities. There's also the whole "runes and gadgets" thing. Big mixes of normally unassociated abilities like these imply a detailed, unconventional world to justify them. So really, you've already got an enormous head-start on the fluff: you just need to think about what concepts for the classes drew you to those particular combinations of abilities.

[Doc Roc]

Still haven't got around to reading the thing, but one thought occurred to me vis a vis the discussion on fluff:

The Tactician and the Sage, from what I've been hearing, both seem like rather unconventional hodgepodges of abilities. There's also the whole "runes and gadgets" thing. Big mixes of normally unassociated abilities like these imply a detailed, unconventional world to justify them. So really, you've already got an enormous head-start on the fluff: you just need to think about what concepts for the classes drew you to those particular combinations of abilities.

Embarrassingly enough, we have a setting document laying around, it's just not very fleshed out. You've seen some of it, if you looked at A Very Long Trip.

[MeeposFire]

One thing that might be good would be not talking from a negative perspective when talking about why you created the game. When I read the introduction of legend it seemed more about talking about the bad qualities of 3e (which being a 4e player and recovering 3e DM I can totally understand where you are coming from) than talking up your system which even to me sounds overly negative, especially if you are going to try to persuade current 3e players to try it. I don't think it gets your actual intention across as well as you would like I think.

I also think the conversion document idea is a good one. A quick table showing changes would be a god send since looking at it with it looking so different but some things are the same makes it very difficult for me to keep track of the actual changes.

I could tell a lot of work went in but I had a hard time utilizing it (though that is out of your hands since my biggest problem is I dislike reading PDFs and I don't do well with them).

[Master_Rahl22]

I really like the tracks and multiclassing. I think that is the primary draw of the system, the ability to mix and match among roughly equal sets of abilities to get something you want. The rest seems to be houserules. KOM and KDM I'm a bit uncertain about. I like 4E so I'm already familiar with the concept, and it's certainly one way to balance certain track combinations when they might require the Multiclass Flexibility feat to avoid MAD. It is however quite a step away from 3.5/PF and toward 4E, and some people have a knee-jerk reaction to hate anything that is remotely like 4E.

The Ranger certainly has elements of ToB which is by far my favorite 3.5 book. Shaman and Sage both have elements of 3.5 Warlock, and it's fairly easy to make a gish even ignoring that Sage is a gish-in-a-can. I have no interest in full casters which is why I haven't even really looked at Tactician, but I've read most of the rest of the document and I like it. I do think that it would be a good idea to include a set of guidelines for creating tracks based on existing material. You could include examples from the SRD or even just from fiction. I would definitely like to see how to convert say the Druid's Wildshape abilities into a track, as well as how to develop a track based on the Wolfbrothers in the Wheel of Time, or a Shardbearer from The Way of Kings, or a Mistborn from... Mistborn.

[Doc Roc]

One thing that might be good would be not talking from a negative perspective when talking about why you created the game. When I read the introduction of legend it seemed more about talking about the bad qualities of 3e (which being a 4e player and recovering 3e DM I can totally understand where you are coming from) than talking up your system which even to me sounds overly negative, especially if you are going to try to persuade current 3e players to try it. I don't think it gets your actual intention across as well as you would like I think.


This is a really solid and really recurrent concern. I think I agree, we've spent too long defining ourselves in terms of what we aren't, and that's no way to live and no way to sell.



The Ranger certainly has elements of ToB which is by far my favorite 3.5 book. Shaman and Sage both have elements of 3.5 Warlock, and it's fairly easy to make a gish even ignoring that Sage is a gish-in-a-can. I have no interest in full casters which is why I haven't even really looked at Tactician, but I've read most of the rest of the document and I like it. I do think that it would be a good idea to include a set of guidelines for creating tracks based on existing material. You could include examples from the SRD or even just from fiction. I would definitely like to see how to convert say the Druid's Wildshape abilities into a track, as well as how to develop a track based on the Wolfbrothers in the Wheel of Time, or a Shardbearer from The Way of Kings, or a Mistborn from... Mistborn.

We were hoping to include some of these a couple releases ago, but we've had to re-evaluate some of our internal guidelines. Once we're content complete, and we have a good corpus of tracks to draw the data from, we'll be releasing our creative bible, cleaned up, as a guide for making tracks.

We want to work with you all. We want to make good.