Thoughts on Legend (Rule of Cool)

[baixiwei]

This thread is intended for discussion about the game Legend from Rule of Cool among people who have played it or at least read the rulebook.

I checked out this game at the recommendation of someone in another thread. I *love* the general structure of the game. In particular, I think the idea & implementation of tracks is brilliant. I do, though, have one large and one small concern.

The large concern is that I don't really like the range of abilities available via the tracks and feats. First, they seem generally oriented towards flashy, cinematic, superhuman abilities. I feel it would be difficult to use this system for a grittier game in which normal humans are the reference point. Also, it seems like very few of the abilities or feats are non-combat-oriented. This combat focus seems liable to steer the game to combat punctuated by occasional RP, rather than making RP the center, as is easily achieved in games like WoD where combat accounts for less than half of the rules.

What do you all think? Are my "feelings" about what styles of play the game would and would not support accurate? Of course, I could adapt the game for my purposes, but I'm curious to know how it plays as written.

The small concern is that I don't understand how the different classes are supposed to be balanced with each other. Given that each class has three tracks and that the tracks can be freely swapped, I assume that the tracks of one class are intended to be equal in power to those of any other class. Classes are (almost) entirely defined by HP, BAB, Saves, Skills, KOM/KDM, and Tracks. If the tracks are all equally powerful then the HP / BAB / Saves / Skills / KOM/KDM suites of different classes must also be equally powerful in order for the classes to be equally powerful. But it seems like the latter is clearly untrue: for example, Sage and Shaman look clearly inferior to Monk, which has the same HP, Saves, and Skills, but better BAB, and also to Rogue, which has the same BAB, HP, and Saves but more Skills.

This seems like a clear imbalance among the classes. Am I missing something?

[gkathellar]

Legend is a very cool game, and I'm glad to see that people are still making their way to it.


The large concern is that I don't really like the range of abilities available via the tracks and feats. First, they seem generally oriented towards flashy, cinematic, superhuman abilities. I feel it would be difficult to use this system for a grittier game in which normal humans are the reference point.

Certainly, I think that grittier game about normal humans is quite possible in Legend - at low levels. But as characters scale up, they uh ... scale up. High level play is going to be superhuman, almost inevitably so. That's simply an assumption the game makes, and a necessary one to maintain A=A`.


Also, it seems like very few of the abilities or feats are non-combat-oriented. This combat focus seems liable to steer the game to combat punctuated by occasional RP, rather than making RP the center, as is easily achieved in games like WoD where combat accounts for less than half of the rules.

Variety and balance in combat are very important goals for Legend, so yeah, a lot of options are combat-oriented because this isn't a game like WoD — no one should be "the combat guy" or "the non-combat guy." Everybody should be good at combat, and including too many options with zero combat applications skirts dangerously close to that line.

That said, take another look over the [Skill] feats, and check out Osaka Street Stories, which has the first Skill Games. Skill Games are kind of Legend's answer to sophisticated non-combat rules.

[Cieyrin]

The small concern is that I don't understand how the different classes are supposed to be balanced with each other. Given that each class has three tracks and that the tracks can be freely swapped, I assume that the tracks of one class are intended to be equal in power to those of any other class. Classes are (almost) entirely defined by HP, BAB, Saves, Skills, KOM/KDM, and Tracks. If the tracks are all equally powerful then the HP / BAB / Saves / Skills / KOM/KDM suites of different classes must also be equally powerful in order for the classes to be equally powerful. But it seems like the latter is clearly untrue: for example, Sage and Shaman look clearly inferior to Monk, which has the same HP, Saves, and Skills, but better BAB, and also to Rogue, which has the same BAB, HP, and Saves but more Skills.

This seems like a clear imbalance among the classes. Am I missing something?

Actually, consider for a moment that you can't just trade all tracks for different ones. There are 4 ways to trade tracks in the game.
Everyone can trade one track for free.
If you're a Shaman, you get to choose one track of your choice to fill in your 3rd track, besides the Paladin and Rogue exclusives or a Racial track.
You can Full Buy-In to a guild, which trades most of your magic items for a 4th track.
You can start as a race with a Racial track, which replaces one of your class' tracks.
So it's not quite as free as your initial supposition. Shamans could get all of a different class' tracks at the cost of their magic items but the other classes can get at most 2 from other classes and no class that isn't a Paladin or Rogue can take their exclusives. So there's checks and balances there so you can consider that it may be better to start as a specific class if you want at least 1 or 2 of those tracks before multiclassing out the tracks you don't.

[Siegel]

I still don't know how Legend creates different storys than DnD. In the end it may have better classes but not a better play experience besides.
This comes from a (mostly) Indie/Storie Gamer that has skimmed the rules

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's already a Legend thread.


I still don't know how Legend creates different storys than DnD. In the end it may have better classes but not a better play experience besides.
This comes from a (mostly) Indie/Storie Gamer that has skimmed the rules

...How? Because wizards can't be more powerful just because of class any more, and there's no borked system for playing past level 20? Because barbarians can grow wings from a boon or unlocked heritage? Because you know, you could just have level 16-18 characters fight a level 20 wizard, and you don't have to take Wings of War (although it's heavily recommended). There's also that "legendary characters" thing if you want them to be more powerful. You don't like that they flat-out tell you that if you don't have flight or teleportation by mid-levels, you're going to fall behind? That was true in 3.5 too, the creators of Legend are just looking out for you more.

[Cieyrin]

I still don't know how Legend creates different storys than DnD. In the end it may have better classes but not a better play experience besides.
This comes from a (mostly) Indie/Storie Gamer that has skimmed the rules

Legend provides the mechanics to run on in an efficient manner so that you spend less time wondering how to do something and more on creating the story you want. At least, that was one of the goals of the game, how you use the rules to create the story you wish to create is often a matter of what tracks are in play and the world that your game is set in. Legend is fairly system agnostic on purpose so that you can use it for fantasy, steampunk, horror, MLP or whatever your heart is set on.

Though, I perhaps should point out that (lax on my part) we do have a Legend thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231615) in the 3.5 subforum, as well as the Rule of Cool forums that I believe have been rolled out and functional if you want to gander more opinions from people that have more play experience and from people more in touch with the current rules direction than I am. Have a gander, we're friendly and willing to answer questions and concerns. :smallwink:

[GRM13]

I still don't know how Legend creates different storys than DnD. In the end it may have better classes but not a better play experience besides.
This comes from a (mostly) Indie/Storie Gamer that has skimmed the rules

Because you can play a Kamen Rider! argument over. :smallamused:

But in all seriousness, the Legend system is not restrained by the "this is a fantasy story" limitation that D&D tends to do. This means that the setting can be anything, fantasy, sci-fi, modern, horror, toon like, hero. The system works with a lot of setting.

[Zelkon]

It's another way 4e could have been. I love 4e btw, and legend's execution isn't great in some places. I used it as an inspiration for a game I am making (its called Holydoom, and there was a thread about it that dropped off a couple of days ago.)

[Siegel]

Because you can play a Kamen Rider! argument over. :smallamused:

But in all seriousness, the Legend system is not restrained by the "this is a fantasy story" limitation that D&D tends to do. This means that the setting can be anything, fantasy, sci-fi, modern, horror, toon like, hero. The system works with a lot of setting.

But isn't it just "killing monsters and taking their stuff" in the end?

[Knaight]

But isn't it just "killing monsters and taking their stuff" in the end?

Yes. However, there is both the general theme and concept being conveyed, and the quality of this. 3.x is a clunky, over-encumbered system with a habit of dragging down play. Legend isn't. It's a better play experience because you aren't fighting the system all the time, and you use it over 3.x for the same reason you use Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard over GURPS, even though the latter can technically cover both of them.

[Siegel]

Yes. However, there is both the general theme and concept being conveyed, and the quality of this. 3.x is a clunky, over-encumbered system with a habit of dragging down play. Legend isn't. It's a better play experience because you aren't fighting the system all the time, and you use it over 3.x for the same reason you use Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard over GURPS, even though the latter can technically cover both of them.

but Sorcerer and Dogs both have a really specific theme and play-feeling

[gkathellar]

But isn't it just "killing monsters and taking their stuff" in the end?

Not at all, really. Legend places a fair emphasis on combat, but it also decouples itself from most of the big genre traditions — the fact that there are no wealthy rules and entirely optional XP rules kind of dashes the whole "killing monsters and taking their stuff" archetype against the floor and shatters it into a million pieces. You can play Legend as a game of violent hobos if you'd like, but there's actually nothing in the game's structure to suggest that you should. All that you can really get from the rules themselves is that it's a very well-constructed fantasy/sci-fi action game.


but Sorcerer and Dogs both have a really specific theme and play-feeling

Yeah, which is great when you want to play games with those really specific themes and play-feelings. Which is not always.

[baixiwei]

I'm still unconvinced on both of the points I raised earlier. (I WANT to be convinced, sort of.) Here's why:

1. running a human-scale, gritty campaign

Yes, this might be partially achieved by running the campaign at low levels. But that greatly reduces the granularity of the system. If, for example, you play at levels 1-5, that means there are only five different levels with which to represent a fresh recruit, the champion of the realm, and everything in between. Also, I have to say that a lot of the powers and feats available even at level 1 would not be very suitable for a campaign like this IMHO.

Has anyone here *actually used* the system for a gritty, human-scale campaign? How did it go?

2. balance among classes

Someone said my argument that the classes look imbalanced on BAB, HP, and Skills alone doesn't mean they're imbalanced overall because their tracks might (by being imbalanced in the other direction, presumably) make up for the imbalances I pointed out. If true, this would greatly reduce the attractiveness of the system for me. I would go so far as to say that the MAIN reason I like the system is because of the flexibility afforded by the ability to freely swap (putatively balanced) tracks.

Anyway here's a specific example: Monks have 8 HP, 6 Skills, and Fast BAB. Shamans have the same except Slow BAB. If these are balanced then either the Monks have some compensating disadvantage or the Shamans have some compensating advantage. Neither of these could be due to any one track because, if the Monks had one less-than-average track, they could swap it out, and if the Shamans had one above-average track, Monks could swap it in. So ... where does the balance between these classes come from?

[GRM13]

for me the KOM and the KDM that the class focus on determine more on your choice than the other things.

[Knaight]

but Sorcerer and Dogs both have a really specific theme and play-feeling

Which they handle well, yes. Legend has a broader, but still specific theme and play-feeling, and it simply handles it better than 3.5. Not all systems are equal, and if two systems share a niche it is very possible that one is simply a better game than the other.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I'm still unconvinced on both of the points I raised earlier. (I WANT to be convinced, sort of.) Here's why:

1. running a human-scale, gritty campaign

Yes, this might be partially achieved by running the campaign at low levels. But that greatly reduces the granularity of the system. If, for example, you play at levels 1-5, that means there are only five different levels with which to represent a fresh recruit, the champion of the realm, and everything in between. Also, I have to say that a lot of the powers and feats available even at level 1 would not be very suitable for a campaign like this IMHO.

Has anyone here *actually used* the system for a gritty, human-scale campaign? How did it go?

2. balance among classes

Someone said my argument that the classes look imbalanced on BAB, HP, and Skills alone doesn't mean they're imbalanced overall because their tracks might (by being imbalanced in the other direction, presumably) make up for the imbalances I pointed out. If true, this would greatly reduce the attractiveness of the system for me. I would go so far as to say that the MAIN reason I like the system is because of the flexibility afforded by the ability to freely swap (putatively balanced) tracks.

Anyway here's a specific example: Monks have 8 HP, 6 Skills, and Fast BAB. Shamans have the same except Slow BAB. If these are balanced then either the Monks have some compensating disadvantage or the Shamans have some compensating advantage. Neither of these could be due to any one track because, if the Monks had one less-than-average track, they could swap it out, and if the Shamans had one above-average track, Monks could swap it in. So ... where does the balance between these classes come from?

If some tracks are inappropriate for a gritty, human-scale game due to the abilities they grant, then surely those tracks should be made unavailable? Absent appropriate refluffing (and refluffing is an expectation of the game, though I feel sometimes this could be slightly more clear). After all, one would not have the (unrefluffed) Dragon track available in an all human game. The same thing applies here, I would think.

The Shaman has any non-class-specific track as one of its default tracks, and this does not count toward the one free multiclass track. The flexibility that affords is what makes them balanced with the Monk. KOM and KDM are also somewhat important in choosing tracks. You really want to match one to your key spellcasting stat if you have casting, for example.

Also, Cieyrin, there's also the Guild Initiation feat -- which allows you to swap another class track out for any track offered by your Guild.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But isn't it just "killing monsters and taking their stuff" in the end?

...How is that different from 3.5?

[ScionoftheVoid]

...How is that different from 3.5?

His point is that he can't see it creating different stories from 3.5. Or being a better play experience than 3.5. Somehow I think those are supposed to be linked, but I'm not quite sure. Nor am I sure how something is not a better play experience if the classes are better but nothing is mentioned as being worse.

[Cieyrin]

Also, Cieyrin, there's also the Guild Initiation feat -- which allows you to swap another class track out for any track offered by your Guild.

Ah, right. For some reason I had Guild Initiation and Full Buy-In being one and the same in my mind. Still, that's sucking up a feat to change another track to have a 'better chassis'. I'm not saying it's a bad option, just that there's a cost for wanting to put a Sage or Shaman on a Monk chassis. If you just start as a Sage or Shaman and use those magic items or feats for something else, you can make an equally valid build that can be just as powerful despite the chassis not having as much mechanical oomph, not to mention the KOM and KDM you play with, since those tracks don't auto-change the KOM without spending another feat on it.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Ah, right. For some reason I had Guild Initiation and Full Buy-In being one and the same in my mind. Still, that's sucking up a feat to change another track to have a 'better chassis'. I'm not saying it's a bad option, just that there's a cost for wanting to put a Sage or Shaman on a Monk chassis. If you just start as a Sage or Shaman and use those magic items or feats for something else, you can make an equally valid build that can be just as powerful despite the chassis not having as much mechanical oomph, not to mention the KOM and KDM you play with, since those tracks don't auto-change the KOM without spending another feat on it.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I was meaning to complete your list of ways to change or add tracks for the sake of completeness (for anyone reading about the game who hasn't actually read the game itself in detail yet), not as part of the discussion.

[Siegel]

My point is:

When legend is still DnD (only more balanced and streamlined) and i don't think DnD offers a very rewarding play experience why is Legend better in those regards?
From what i heard Savage Wordls plays a lot different then D20 but Legend doesn't seem to do. It's just generic-D20-system #X isn't it?

[Decatus]

My point is:

When legend is still DnD (only more balanced and streamlined) and i don't think DnD offers a very rewarding play experience why is Legend better in those regards?
From what i heard Savage Wordls plays a lot different then D20 but Legend doesn't seem to do. It's just generic-D20-system #X isn't it?

The thing is, though, that Legend does offer a better play experience. It flows better, for one thing, because of how they break up temporal periods. You get quest long buffs, and resources recharge for each Scene or Encounter. This makes play more dynamic, and decreases the amount of stupid bookkeeping for both the players and DM alike.

In addition, the players feel like they're more free to take advantage of their abilities any time it seems opportune, because they're not screwing themselves over for an entire game day for one chase scene.

Personally, my favorite piece of the system is the economy and magic item rules. I don't have to worry about my players breaking the economy any more, and I can hand out a real dragon hoard without worrying too much. Magic items are limited by how many a character can use, and they can be swapped out in some downtime. This frees me up to distribute fun and flavorful treasure without feeling like I'm gimping the players, because I'm worried about them selling things off and buying a kingdom.

In short, Legend offers a better play experience for both myself as DM, and for my players. You really should try the system in a game or two before giving it a snap judgement of being, "just another 3.X" knockoff.

[Knaight]

When legend is still DnD (only more balanced and streamlined) and i don't think DnD offers a very rewarding play experience why is Legend better in those regards?
From what i heard Savage Wordls plays a lot different then D20 but Legend doesn't seem to do. It's just generic-D20-system #X isn't it?

You won't like Legend if you don't like the conceptual niche of D&D. They fill the same niche. However, there is the question of how well niches are filled. To use another example - Anima Prime, Rifts, and Synnibar pretty much all fill the exact same niche (exploration focused play in incredibly variable settings, with a focus on genre hybridization). Rifts does so pretty poorly, and is a terrible game as a result. Synnibar is significantly worse. Anima Prime is actually fairly good. It wouldn't make sense to ask why Anima Prime is different than Synnibar because they are in the same niche, as the degree to which a niche is filled competently is incredibly important. At the same time, if you don't like that niche, then it's pretty pointless to play games in it at all.

[eggs]

Legend doesn't seem to do. It's just generic-D20-system #X isn't it?I can look at Legend and say "There's a reason that exists, and a reason it works in the way it does."

I look at most other d20 system #X and cannot honestly say that.

If you like the tactical element of d20, enjoy the sense of meaningful level-based progress, dislike the typically staggering imbalance of archetypally-determined character options and prefer a lighter ruleset for the game's implementation, Legend fits.

If you follow 3e discussions, you'll see those are widely shared system values. And in the context of those values, Legend is one of the best products available (and it's free).

If you aren't into those things, Legend just might not be your game.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm still unconvinced on both of the points I raised earlier. (I WANT to be convinced, sort of.) Here's why:

1. running a human-scale, gritty campaign

Yes, this might be partially achieved by running the campaign at low levels. But that greatly reduces the granularity of the system. If, for example, you play at levels 1-5, that means there are only five different levels with which to represent a fresh recruit, the champion of the realm, and everything in between. Also, I have to say that a lot of the powers and feats available even at level 1 would not be very suitable for a campaign like this IMHO.

Everyone's trying to convince you that Legend can do this, and maybe they're right, but I'm going to say that Legend is built for a specific high fantasy play experience, and the fact that it can't do something that doesn't really count as high fantasy is not a flaw in the system. Perhaps you should look for a low fantasy game to play a low fantasy campaign? Or take one early suggestion and limit play to low levels, and ban those options which don't fit your setting. But criticizing a Super Heroes game for not being able to play James Bond is, well, a little ridiculous.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Everyone's trying to convince you that Legend can do this, and maybe they're right, but I'm going to say that Legend is built for a specific high fantasy play experience, and the fact that it can't do something that doesn't really count as high fantasy is not a flaw in the system. Perhaps you should look for a low fantasy game to play a low fantasy campaign? Or take one early suggestion and limit play to low levels, and ban those options which don't fit your setting. But criticizing a Super Heroes game for not being able to play James Bond is, well, a little ridiculous.

Yep. You're saying it's bad because you don't like the design choices, not that it's bad because they really screwed it up somewhere.

On a side note, I need to figure out how to get a Slayer to lift a hundred and fifty billion tons in Exalted...
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/40/75967-90083-hulk_super.jpg

[Cieyrin]

On a side note, I need to figure out how to get a Slayer to lift a hundred and fifty billion tons in Exalted...
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/40/75967-90083-hulk_super.jpg

You'd probably want to port in some Scion. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Legend is indeed very similar in focus to what I would call the typical intended 3.5 game. Heroic magical characters going on quests, killing monsters and stealing treasure.

That said, I think it does miss quite a bit of the versatility of 3.5. The basic rules of 3.5 are a mess, but they are a mess I know well and love. I can take twenty minutes and tweak them to make a swashbuckling pirate game, an investigative game, a Planescape game, a fairy-tale game, a swords and sorcery game or a demigod game. Legend, I think, while the better basic system, is much more narrow in what it actually does, in that a certain level of basic supernatural ability is assumed in most of the rules. If you like that, it is probably great.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want to play a gritty game in Legend, stay under level 3.

[Eldan]

Even then, it's quite difficult to play gritty low-magic, because there just aren't many options for it. How many paths are there with no supernatural powers? Barely any.

I'm not saying that's bad. D&D certainly isn't blessed with an overabundance of mundane combat options either. It just limits focus.

[Draz74]

How many paths are there with no supernatural powers? Barely any.

Counting the different varieties of Undead as different tracks, I believe there are currently 55 different tracks available in Legend.

By my count, without extensive re-fluffing, 27 of them are non-magical. Probably more if you only look at the low levels.
All 3 Barbarian tracks. Two Monk tracks (Serpent and Dragon Disciplines). All 7 Rogue tracks. The Paladin's Heroica, Bastion, and Smiting tracks. All three Ranger tracks besides Iron Magi. Mechanist Savant and Knight. Dragon, Skeleton Warrior, Ghoul, Utter Brute, Pegasus, and Sentient Cosntruct from the Racial sections. And finally, Tactical Insight.

That's actually not so restrictive.

[GRM13]

then there are those tracks that work if you reffluf them to be more mundane like. Obviously not for everyone but the option is there.

[Greenish]

Everyone's trying to convince you that Legend can do this, and maybe they're right, but I'm going to say that Legend is built for a specific high fantasy play experienceOr cyberpunk or sci-fi or urban fantasy or…


But yeah, "gritty and realistic" isn't exactly the game's strong side.

[imneuromancer]

Has anyone made a character/monster generator yet?

To me, that is the one thing that is keeping me from really running it: there are no standard monsters.

This is both SUPER AWESOME and yet a hindrance to the system. Want a bunch of intelligent wolves that have mystic powers? Cool, use this base, with that track and calculate everything out. Want those wolves to instead to be giagantic dire wolves? awesome: same base, different added track, calculate out.

If there was a quick generator, you could prepare an adventure in about 5 minutes. Without it, it would take 5 hours, I think.

But again, I LOVE THE WAY IT IS STRUCTURED! It is the way class systems and monsters should work, it is just that it needs some tools to make it really usable.

[Cieyrin]

Has anyone made a character/monster generator yet?

I know somebody in the main Legend thread had a character generator written up, which could also be used for monsters, though it has the player restrictions in place. If you poke the creator, he may add an option that removes the restrictions.

[Draz74]

Has anyone made a character/monster generator yet?

Zejety has started one (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html). And yes, it includes an "NPC" checkbox that removes the player-specific restrictions on character creation.

Everybody bug him to finish it, k? :smallwink:

[Answerer]

Even then, it's quite difficult to play gritty low-magic, because there just aren't many options for it. How many paths are there with no supernatural powers? Barely any.

I'm not saying that's bad. D&D certainly isn't blessed with an overabundance of mundane combat options either. It just limits focus.
In level 1-3? Most of them that aren't explicitly for magic. Levels 1-3 is only the first circle for most tracks (second in one of your three tracks). Most of those are things like rage, evasion, flurry, etc. etc.

EDIT: Oh hey, there was a page 2...

[Cieyrin]

Zejety has started one (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47651526/LCGb.html). And yes, it includes an "NPC" checkbox that removes the player-specific restrictions on character creation.

Everybody bug him to finish it, k? :smallwink:

Ah, good, I don't have to dig it up and the option is already there. Excellent.

[Prime32]

Even then, it's quite difficult to play gritty low-magic, because there just aren't many options for it. How many paths are there with no supernatural powers? Barely any.

I'm not saying that's bad. D&D certainly isn't blessed with an overabundance of mundane combat options either. It just limits focus.More that it doesn't distinguish between supernatural and mundane as much as D&D (which is way too much). I mean, in The Lord of the Rings everyone had supernatural powers including the hobbits, and apparently-sentient evil-harming rope was just rope that was woven really well. Yet most people would call LotR low-magic.