Legend - Tell Me What's Wrong With It

[Gorfnod]

I have seen a lot of talk about the relatively new d20 system "Legend" and after reading a few reviews am tempted to try it after my next campaign is over but the one thing I am wary about is that everything I have read has been positive. Not a single bad thing said about it. Can it really be that good?

So tell me, what's wrong with Legend?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd say the biggest thing going against Legend is inertia. It's different enough from D&D that it has to be significantly better than D&D to justify the monetary cost (a charitable donation, but still) and the time spent learning the new system. The thing is, if you want a system that is difficult to break, you have to make a system that is quite different from D&D. Just look at PF...

[Grinner]

It's been made available (https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf) for free since the donation drive ended.

Adjusting to some of the concepts introduced in Legend, which tend to be considerably different from D&D 3.5, is the most difficulty I've had. Also, it seems like it makes for great high fantasy games, but anything else would require some adjustment.

[Answerer]

I love Legend, I'll put that at the start.

But I think the single thing that most people who don't like it, don't like, is that Legend is much less simulationist than D&D. Lots of things are abstracted for ease/speed of play. In every case, IMO, these things are minor things that in D&D took way too much time to do "right" for really minor improvements in immersion, but some simply cannot enjoy the game knowing about these abstractions.

The perfect example is flight. In 3.5, the flight rules were enormous, obnoxious, and involved quite possibly involved trigonometry (or at least the Pythagorean theorem). In Legend, flight is basically just a condition: when you're flying, you gain these bonuses. That's it. Does this lose a fair bit of simulation? Yes. Was that simulation worth it? I certainly don't think so – the times when the significance of the changes actually matter are not as frequent as you might think, and the monumental headache that was 3.5 flight is a very serious problem, to my eyes.


Adjusting to some of the concepts introduced in Legend, which tend to be considerably different from D&D 3.5, is the most difficulty I've had. Also, it seems like it makes for great high fantasy games, but anything else would require some adjustment.
Far less so than 3.5, I'd think. Legend even has little hints and tidbits about how you'd do non-standard fantasy fair.

[Shadowknight12]

I personally find it restrictive (could be solved with more options), unappealing (could be a matter of personal taste) and just terribly, soul-crushingly, painfully dull (again, could be just a matter of taste or them abiding by the standard fantasy tropes). I would need to read everything more in-depth to make a proper critique, but the fact that I simply cannot progress beyond the first couple of pages should be a clear indication that something's wrong somewhere.

[Answerer]

Uhm. Legend has an enormous number of options... I mean, it's not as much as 3.5's entire library in one book, but it is enormous.

The rest sounds like extremely vague person preference misalignment. You haven't really explained what makes you react that way anywhere, and have asserted that something is necessarily wrong because of a personal reaction that you've had, apparently without having read very much of the book. I find this... confusing.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I personally find it restrictive (could be solved with more options), unappealing (could be a matter of personal taste) and just terribly, soul-crushingly, painfully dull (again, could be just a matter of taste or them abiding by the standard fantasy tropes). I would need to read everything more in-depth to make a proper critique, but the fact that I simply cannot progress beyond the first couple of pages should be a clear indication that something's wrong somewhere.

Don't compare it to the damn entirety of 3.5, compare it to 3.5 core. Okay, maybe core + ToB.

How do you find it restrictive? You know you can freely trade out most tracks (there's two you can't, a paladin one and a rogue one), right? And take Guild Initiation or Full Buy-in for even more options?

My only problem is the abstraction of flight. That's it.

[Mithril Leaf]

I find the system quite nice overall, lets get that out of the way.

Here's the things that I find wrong with it, at least those that I thought of when I read the rulebook a few weeks ago:
The item system. Its a bit awkward and I was in love with the economy in D&D. Having an unlimited number of magical items, but only getting to equip a certain number of them based on level feels weird to me.
The fact that monks are basically the two weapon fighters is weird, although I find it kinda cool.
The guild system is strange and confused me a fair bit at first.
The whole weapon system and lack of critical ranges is something D&D has conditioned me to long for.

Overall, its pretty solid. And I'd imagine the reason that you don't see many negative reviews is that its a: Good, and b: From this very forum.

[Shadowknight12]

Uhm. Legend has an enormous number of options... I mean, it's not as much as 3.5's entire library in one book, but it is enormous.

The rest sounds like extremely vague person preference misalignment. You haven't really explained what makes you react that way anywhere, and have asserted that something is necessarily wrong because of a personal reaction that you've had, apparently without having read very much of the book. I find this... confusing.

It's been practically a year. I honestly can't remember what was so bad about it, since the details faded, leaving only the general impression. Also, those options you refer might have been added after I read them, in which case it'd be my fault for not actualising but what I said remains true to my experience.

Having said that, what I can recall about the things that bothered me was how generic everything was, how "silly" (or "unserious", if you prefer) the overall tone was (full of irritating pop culture references), how the mechanics did not look appealing in the slightest (too dry and dull-looking, they lacked flavour; too rigid and inflexible, they lacked options and modularity), how everything looked like pandering to the things the masses liked (melee was beefed but it was still the same trite old archetypes) and there wasn't anything unique or that encouraged you to play unique characters the way 3.5e sourcebooks offered flavourful PrCs or ACFs or alternate magic systems and so on.

Now I'm not saying it wasn't balanced or didn't fix all the stuff that 3.5e needed to fix (which is, frankly more than Paizo ever did), only that I couldn't find anything memorable, appealing or that made me feel that learning all the new mechanics was actually worth the feel of reading through a Tax Law textbook.

EDIT:


Don't compare it to the damn entirety of 3.5, compare it to 3.5 core. Okay, maybe core + ToB.

Why not? The things I like best about 3.5e are found in splat books. They're practically the main reason I still play 3.5e. A core-only or core+ToB game would be so dreadfully dull to me I might actually slip into a coma at the table.


How do you find it restrictive? You know you can freely trade out most tracks (there's two you can't, a paladin one and a rogue one), right? And take Guild Initiation or Full Buy-in for even more options?

My only problem is the abstraction of flight. That's it.

I... have no idea what tracks are. Were they added later on? Might be the fact I never made it that far. I only got about halfway through classes before I decided to just skim the rest.

[Empedocles]

Don't compare it to the damn entirety of 3.5, compare it to 3.5 core. Okay, maybe core + ToB.

How do you find it restrictive? You know you can freely trade out most tracks (there's two you can't, a paladin one and a rogue one), right? And take Guild Initiation or Full Buy-in for even more options?

My only problem is the abstraction of flight. That's it.

The abstraction of flight is bad, but everything else is pretty much amazing.

Also, there're 3 tracks you can't switch out: the Rogue's Esoterica Radica, the Paladin's Judgement, and the Sage's primary ability (can't recall the name off of the top of my head).

[Hiro Protagonest]

... have no idea what tracks are. Were they added later on? Might be the fact I never made it that far. I only got about halfway through classes before I decided to just skim the rest.

...

You don't even know how the system works, do you? Each class is made up of a chassis plus three tracks. You see those lines separating three different sets of abilities? Monsters also have tracks that you can multiclass with, like there's a dragon track and a lich track.

[Shadowknight12]

...

You don't even know how the system works, do you? Each class is made up of a chassis plus three tracks. You see those lines separating three different sets of abilities? Monsters also have tracks that you can multiclass with, like there's a dragon track and a lich track.

No, I definitely do not recall that at all. When was that added? Now, don't get me wrong, I do recall something similar to it, but it was more along the lines of "rogue's list of special abilities" than what you're describing right now. Maybe they streamlined it at some later date?

[Voyager_I]

Why not? The things I like best about 3.5e are found in splat books. They're practically the main reason I still play 3.5e. A core-only or core+ToB game would be so dreadfully dull to me I might actually slip into a coma at the table.

Why not compare a small in-house product that hasn't even finished development of its core rule set to the entire published run of a product backed by one of the largest companies in the business over the better part of a decade?

Do you really need someone to explain how that's not a fair comparison?



I... have no idea what tracks are. Were they added later on? Might be the fact I never made it that far. I only got about halfway through classes before I decided to just skim the rest.

Tracks are essentially sets of class features that make up the building blocks of any class, all but a handful of which can be interchanged with a stunning amount of freedom. There is no legitimate way you can claim an opinion about Legends without knowing what they are. That's literally like not knowing what classes are in 3.5.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, I definitely do not recall that at all. When was that added? Now, don't get me wrong, I do recall something similar to it, but it was more along the lines of "rogue's list of special abilities" than what you're describing right now. Maybe they streamlined it at some later date?

Alright, maybe you got Legend confused with another game called Legend by... Mongoose Publishing? Or maybe you just got an older version, I know that there was one quite a while ago. Tracks are what Legend is built on.

[Seerow]

I... have no idea what tracks are. Were they added later on? Might be the fact I never made it that far. I only got about halfway through classes before I decided to just skim the rest.

Here's a tip: Try to at least read the whole core book before trying to trash it. The tracks are a core mechanic of Legend, and a major source of the flexibility of the system. If you only read the first few pages, then skimmed shoddily enough you missed major things like that, then you really aren't in any position to be critiquing the system. (And yes, Tracks were in the very first Legend release. I'm pretty sure it was even in the beta releases they were doing on the forum months before the official release).






Now with that said, I liked what I read of Legend, but haven't converted to playing it. I will say that while tracks are cool in theory, I prefer 3.5's multiclassing system, despite its idiosyncrasies.

There were other areas I found lacking as well, primarily the magic items, the special "each character only gets one of these" feats (I forget the correct term for them, but I found most of them lacking and not really being worth the restriction), and the fact that all monsters are statted up with the exact same complexity as a character.

Even in 3.5 a given creature will have less/no treasure, in Legend they either have full PC items, or trade out their items for a bonus track giving them even more options for the DM to keep track of. To my understanding they later introduced some minion/mook rules, but I'd much rather all NPCs be simple by default, with PC-level complexity NPCs being rare.



Things I did enjoy from it though was melee reach scaling with level, skills scaling so you could do awesome things with them by high levels (like Acrobatics becoming flight, Athletics being a pseudo-flight and also increasing movement speed. There's others but those two stuck out to me as cool things for mundanes), and the much more balanced RNG (along with other streamlined mechanical things such as KOM and KDM).

[Shadowknight12]

Why not compare a small in-house product that hasn't even finished development of its core rule set to the entire published run of a product backed by one of the largest companies in the business over the better part of a decade?

Do you really need someone to explain how that's not a fair comparison?

Uh, actually, when we're talking about a derivative product and said derivation comes from the aforementioned "entire published run", then it's actually not as unfair as you make it out to be.

Had it been parallel development, you'd be right, but it's not. It's derivative development, which means that I can actually make that comparison. Legend has the entirety of D&D 3.5e to cherry-pick what aspects to emulate, based on popularity (as I'm sure they've been inspired by ToB).


Tracks are essentially sets of class features that make up the building blocks of any class, all but a handful of which can be interchanged with a stunning amount of freedom. There is no legitimate way you can claim an opinion about Legends without knowing what they are. That's literally like not knowing what classes are in 3.5.

*shrug* Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to dismiss a contrary opinion. I'm not saying you should give my opinion the same weight as the guy who has read the whole thing from metaphorical cover to metaphorical cover and produced a 10-page analysis (that'd be silly), but saying that "there is no legitimate way I can claim an opinion on Legend" strikes me as a bit too defensive.


Alright, maybe you got Legend confused with another game called Legend by... Mongoose Publishing? Or maybe you just got an older version, I know that there was one quite a while ago. Tracks are what Legend is built on.

As someone who helps creative people in his spare time, let me give you some advice: It's usually better to drop the defensiveness and actually listen to feedback when someone spends time and effort to give it.

Here's how I'd have handled the situation:

SK: "Well, it's been over a year, and it was all very dull and uninteresting."
Legend fan: "The project has undergone several revisions, so you might want to re-read it, I guarantee it's been spruced up and care has been taken to ensure it's flavourful and appealing."
SK: "Oh, I had no idea, I'll go re-read it now."
*time passes*
SK: "Well, colour me surprised! It's actually far better than I remember! However, I do have the following concerns and comments..."
Legend fan: "Do tell, we're all ears!"

See how that produced much better results than merely saying "you can't remember the mechanics even though you said you have no problems with them and they are not the source of your complaints? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK!"? :smallsmile:


Here's a tip: Try to at least read the whole core book before trying to trash it. The tracks are a core mechanic of Legend, and a major source of the flexibility of the system. If you only read the first few pages, then skimmed shoddily enough you missed major things like that, then you really aren't in any position to be critiquing the system. (And yes, Tracks were in the very first Legend release. I'm pretty sure it was even in the beta releases they were doing on the forum months before the official release).

And here's one for you: "potential players who are lost before they commit time and effort to learn the new mechanics" is an actual portion of the audience. Disregard it if you will, but I was under the impression all types of feedback mattered (though I reiterate: nothing forces anyone to give all sources of feedback the same weight, merely to give them all a non-zero amount).

[Empedocles]

And here's one for you: "potential players who are lost before they commit time and effort to learn the new mechanics" is an actual portion of the audience. Disregard it if you will, but I was under the impression all types of feedback mattered (though I reiterate: nothing forces anyone to give all sources of feedback the same weight, merely to give them all a non-zero amount).

Tracks are the classes of Legend. I have dismissed many alternative RPGs before, but I've dismissed them because I didn't like the mechanics. If I obviously had no clue what the game consisted of I would not pretend to have enough of a factual basis to even begin to formulate an opinion. Here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) is the up-to-date version of Legend. It doesn't even ask you to donate anymore. It's free. Read it, and then come back and talk about how soul-crushingly dull it is. I won't even ask you to read the first chapter. Just skim the part about Tracks. Figure out what the basic idea of the theories behind the game are. Give it that much.

[Zeful]

(melee was beefed but it was still the same trite old archetypes)

Because there's nothing wrong with the archetypes, 3.5 just unilaterally failed to represent them with any kind of accuracy. 3.5 is pretty much a direct port of 2e, with only some small incidental changes for a new chassis. That is pretty much responsible for everything wrong with 3.5; the designers didn't know what they were doing.

Real-life fighting, put into D&D, would look nothing like what exists for 3.5. Even the ToB is poor substitute for real fighting.

[Voyager_I]

Combining statements like this...


I personally find it restrictive (could be solved with more options), unappealing (could be a matter of personal taste) and just terribly, soul-crushingly, painfully dull (again, could be just a matter of taste or them abiding by the standard fantasy tropes)

...with other statements, like this...



I... have no idea what tracks are. Were they added later on? Might be the fact I never made it that far. I only got about halfway through classes before I decided to just skim the rest.

...is basically guaranteed to get agitated reactions out of people. Yes, you were mature enough to qualify your opinions as personal, but these are nonetheless hostile opinions made with practically no foundation.

It'd be like saying you thoughts Wizards sucked in 3.5 because you had just skimmed through and didn't know what spells were or something, except it's even more fundamental. Tracks are literally 95% of the identity of every class.

[Doc Roc]

Okay, I'm back JUST to weigh in here.

I don't know of a single barbarian build in 3.x that can attack everyone in 60 feet at level 10, generating a whirlwind of fire and hate and death, while flying, while having room for spellcasting. It can explode in a paroxysm of annihilation like this every other round. While moving fifty feet or so per turn. Because our full attacks are standard actions.


Maybe you should read Legend, Shadowknight. I helped write a LOT of the guides to 3.x. I ran a PvP arena at the highest power level for 2 years. And our melee does not play like 3.x melee. It just doesn't. I have empirical evidence.


JakeK, Creative Lead, RoC

[Flickerdart]

You read Legend a year ago? It only launched its beta period at the very end of November, so I'm not really sure what it was you were reading 8 months before that point.

[Empedocles]

You read Legend a year ago? It only launched its beta period at the very end of November, so I'm not really sure what it was you were reading 8 months before that point.

Yeah...shadowknight I'm pretty sure you were reading Mongoose Publishing's Legend game...

[Shadowknight12]

Tracks are the classes of Legend. I have dismissed many alternative RPGs before, but I've dismissed them because I didn't like the mechanics. If I obviously had no clue what the game consisted of I would not pretend to have enough of a factual basis to even begin to formulate an opinion. Here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) is the up-to-date version of Legend. It doesn't even ask you to donate anymore. It's free. Read it, and then come back and talk about how soul-crushingly dull it is. I won't even ask you to read the first chapter. Just skim the part about Tracks. Figure out what the basic idea of the last sentence was.

Firstly, let me just point out that nobody is forced to have the same judging standards as you. I don't place mechanics as my first item to judge a new system. I judge primarily whether the book can hold my interest or not. It may have excellent mechanics, but if reading them feels like reading through a textbook, I will stop reading. I don't have enough of a passion for balanced mechanics that I will endure dull writing to get me some.

Secondly, I will put an end to this entire argument and do just that. I got the PDF, now I'm going to re-read it and I'll be more than ready to apologise for any misinformation I may have inadvertently spread.


Combining statements like this...



...with other statements, like this...



...is basically guaranteed to get agitated reactions out of people. Yes, you were mature enough to qualify your opinions as personal, but these are nonetheless hostile opinions made with practically no foundation.

It'd be like saying you thoughts Wizards sucked in 3.5 because you had just skimmed through and didn't know what spells were or something, except it's even more fundamental. Tracks are literally 95% of the identity of every class.

Hostile? What? This is frankly outrageous. I can't speak my mind now out of fear of being labelled as "hostile"? Wow. I am frankly just stunned. I don't know about you all, but "I found it boring so I stopped reading" is not hostile. It's honest feedback. "This is the worst game I have ever read and it should be discontinued" is hostile. There is an actual difference.


Okay, I'm back JUST to weigh in here.

I don't know of a single barbarian build in 3.x that can attack everyone in 60 feet at level 8, generating a whirlwind of fire and hate and death, while flying, while having room for spellcasting. It can do this every other round. While moving fifty feet or so around. Because our full attacks are standard actions.

Maybe you should read Legend, Shadowknight. I helped write a LOT of the guides to 3.x. I ran a PvP arena at the highest power level for 2 years. And our melee does not play like 3.x melee. It just doesn't. I have empirical evidence.

You? You have trashed three years of work by brilliant people because you can't bother to read it.

Wow. I am just stunned. Again. Just. Wow.

You are taking this way too personally. I'm serious, man, you need to take a step back and look at things objectively. I am nobody. No, I am less than nobody. People have stated time after time that I lack the "necessary qualifications" to have a proper, informed opinion, and while I disagree, they have sort of a point, in that you cannot give too much weight to what I said, for the reasons everyone mentioned before. The very OP of this thread begins saying that they have heard nothing but positive comments from the game. I saw the sum you managed to raise just as I was downloading the PDF. Please, just relax and remember that one person saying that they found it boring is nothing worth even caring about.

And for what it's worth, I wasn't even aware I was "trashing" the game.

Geez, way to make people feel guilty for being honest. :smallfrown:


You read Legend a year ago? It only launched its beta period at the very end of November, so I'm not really sure what it was you were reading 8 months before that point.

I went back and looked it up. I read this (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8lf_LtvhqMlN2ViOWRlZWUtODc1NC00ZTJmLWFjZjgtMzMwM zIxYTNkNmRm/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1). People were right, tracks were there from the beginning, I remembered the mechanics but forgot the name.

[Knaight]

Yeah...shadowknight I'm pretty sure you were reading Mongoose Publishing's Legend game...

Which would be a derivative, low grade 2e knockoff, so most of the review isn't surprising at all. I read it back when it was called Wayfarers, and it was utter crap. However, it doesn't make sense in a few places - pop culture references are very much part of the Legend being discussed. As such, it might have been an incredibly early pre-track alpha, which is also near useless for discussion purposes.

[Empedocles]

I went back and looked it up. I read this (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8lf_LtvhqMlN2ViOWRlZWUtODc1NC00ZTJmLWFjZjgtMzMwM zIxYTNkNmRm/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1). People were right, tracks were there from the beginning, I remembered the mechanics but forgot the name.

WOW.

No wonder you hated it! That's like a purely mechanical RPG that a bunch of guys put together on these forums for developmental purposes (I don't have sources to back this up, but based on the comments and when the Beta for Legend was released it seems likely). It was intended to get the basic ideas of the mechanics across to playtesters and see if the chassis of an RPG they had worked, not to hook a fan base.

[Flickerdart]

I went back and looked it up. I read this (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8lf_LtvhqMlN2ViOWRlZWUtODc1NC00ZTJmLWFjZjgtMzMwM zIxYTNkNmRm/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1). People were right, tracks were there from the beginning, I remembered the mechanics but forgot the name.
Yeah, that's, uh...basically, that would be like reviewing Pathfinder based on the napkin draft of 3.0. And you said you only got a few pages in?

[Gavinfoxx]

Mostly, the fact that it is not finished and is incomplete, still missing important parts.

[N. Jolly]

I have to say reading this thread really makes me not want to read or play Legend when I see how crazy defensive people are being about it.

[georgie_leech]

To be fair, when someone dismisses something you enjoy without bothering to verify even the basics of the game (or anything else, really), it feels like an insult, even if not intended to be. The topic only went defensive after someone said they didn't bother after reading only a few pages.

[JadePhoenix]

I dislike Legend's lack of simulationism. Like the group's name says, it runs on rule of cool, and rule of cool only. The game doesn't try to make sense, fluff is separate by crunch. In games like these, I think being class-based is just a mistake - it should be point-based. If you have classes and they don't carry fluff implications behind them, I think you're doing something very wrong - the whole 'classes are metagame constructs' mindset never appealed to me, basically because that's not the origins of D&D and that's not how the books treat them. You might get every three books a paragraph saying 'if you want to play X and nothing in the system fix, ask your DM to change stuff', but that's not a free pass for 'classes are metagame constructs'.
Basically, Legend looks like a disguised point-based system to me. And I don't need another point-based system when I can just play Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS. It's a good effort, congrats to the team for putting it together, but it just does not appeal to me. If I wanted balance, I'd be playing 4e. If I wanted point-based, I'd be playing M&M. I really don't know what I should want to be playing Legend.

[Seerow]

I dislike Legend's lack of simulationism. Like the group's name says, it runs on rule of cool, and rule of cool only. The game doesn't try to make sense, fluff is separate by crunch. In games like these, I think being class-based is just a mistake - it should be point-based. If you have classes and they don't carry fluff implications behind them, I think you're doing something very wrong - the whole 'classes are metagame constructs' mindset never appealed to me, basically because that's not the origins of D&D and that's not how the books treat them. You might get every three books a paragraph saying 'if you want to play X and nothing in the system fix, ask your DM to change stuff', but that's not a free pass for 'classes are metagame constructs'.
Basically, Legend looks like a disguised point-based system to me. And I don't need another point-based system when I can just play Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS. It's a good effort, congrats to the team for putting it together, but it just does not appeal to me. If I wanted balance, I'd be playing 4e. If I wanted point-based, I'd be playing M&M. I really don't know what I should want to be playing Legend.


I disagree with you on the point of "Classes should either be really fluff heavy or you should be playing a point buy system". The point buy system has its own problems, mainly with balance, unless you have so many controls on it it may as well be a level based system.

Basically in a point buy system, 2 300 point characters can represent wildly different levels of diversity and power. 2 level 1 characters generally represent similar levels of power and specialization/diversity. (Note I say generally. Because ideally this is the point of a level based system. 3.5 and other similar systems have a bad habbit of making one class much stronger than others completely destroying this baseline assumption).


I guess you could maybe have something funky like a point buy level based system, where each level you get so many points to spend. But even that has pretty major potential issues. In a class based system the developers choose premade packages of abilities. In a well designed system (like Legend) this means you can generally assume every one will have a set of level appropriate abilities, and a fair amount of diversity. In any sort of point buy system, you have no such assurances. It's a perfectly legitimate design decision to use classes even if you don't want them to be in-game constructs.

[Gorfnod]

Hmmm, so I guess that I started a bash ShadowKnight thread. Sorry man.

Thanks to everyone for your input. I think I got all the information that I needed. I'm convinced that it's at least worth a decent read through the PDF.

Thanks again.

[Malachei]

What's wrong with Legend?

Perhaps the promotion it gets by its adherents is a bit aggressive sometimes. That includes bashing people who happen to have another opinion (whether they do so well-informed or as a first impression).

Forums are about pluralism.

[JadePhoenix]

I disagree with you on the point of "Classes should either be really fluff heavy or you should be playing a point buy system". The point buy system has its own problems, mainly with balance, unless you have so many controls on it it may as well be a level based system.
Only if the options are not really equivalent. In a point-buy system, if something is X times more powerful than Y, it costs X times more points. It's hard to do it in practice, of course. The alternative is spoon-feeding the designer's idea of balanced options, which I dislike.


Basically in a point buy system, 2 300 point characters can represent wildly different levels of diversity and power. 2 level 1 characters generally represent similar levels of power and specialization/diversity. (Note I say generally. Because ideally this is the point of a level based system. 3.5 and other similar systems have a bad habbit of making one class much stronger than others completely destroying this baseline assumption).
You're comparing an ideal level-based system to a nonideal point-based system.


I guess you could maybe have something funky like a point buy level based system, where each level you get so many points to spend.
BESM d20 and Mutants & Masterminds both spring to mind.

But even that has pretty major potential issues.
Which issues?

In a class based system the developers choose premade packages of abilities.
And why is that a good thing? Because of balance? If you put the same amount of thought into how much such a trait should cost, the result is the same.


In a well designed system (like Legend) this means you can generally assume every one will have a set of level appropriate abilities, and a fair amount of diversity. In any sort of point buy system, you have no such assurances.
Except when you do. Like in Mutants & Masterminds. Or even GURPS.


It's a perfectly legitimate design decision to use classes even if you don't want them to be in-game constructs.
I still disagree. Like I said before, if I wanted classes as crutches for balance, I'd be playing 4e. You're free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

[Answerer]

The game doesn't try to make sense
The rest of your post is your personal preference, which I accept.

But this isn't even remotely true.


Missed this earlier:

Even in 3.5 a given creature will have less/no treasure, in Legend they either have full PC items, or trade out their items for a bonus track giving them even more options for the DM to keep track of. To my understanding they later introduced some minion/mook rules, but I'd much rather all NPCs be simple by default, with PC-level complexity NPCs being rare.
The mook rules are quite well done, I think; I've been running a campaign with nothing but mooks, sometimes mooks with a single special ability tacked on, and it's worked really well. Rule of Cool kind of downplays the mooks in the document because they weren't really sure about them, but they turned out better than expected and they really are useable for the majority of monsters.

[JadePhoenix]

The rest of your post is your personal preference, which I accept.

But this isn't even remotely true.

What I meant is that the game doesn't try to make it's fluff match it's crunch. It doesn't try to be simulationist. It runs on rule of cool. Nothing has to make sense - it needs to be balanced and fun. The creators have gone officially on record to state this, they don't care about simulationism (which is 'things making sense' for me), they care about balance, fun and rule of cool.

[Answerer]

It's true that balance and fun are more important to them, absolutely.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't make any kind of sense. Yes, the flight rules are abstract and in some cases can lead to situations that don't make sense. There are a few other corner cases where simulationism or "making sense" are sacrificed for fun or balance. But on the whole most of it still makes sense. It's a lower priority, not a non-priority.

[JadePhoenix]

It's true that balance and fun are more important to them, absolutely.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't make any kind of sense. Yes, the flight rules are abstract and in some cases can lead to situations that don't make sense. There are a few other corner cases where simulationism or "making sense" are sacrificed for fun or balance. But on the whole most of it still makes sense. It's a lower priority, not a non-priority.

Which is exactly what I said, of course. It has to make some amount of sense to be understood. It does not actively try to make sense. That is my problem with it.

On a sidenote, I disliked everything I heard about the official setting. It seems well thought out, but it has nothing to do with the crunch and it feels like beyond the impossible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeyondTheImpossible) high fantasy, which is simply not my cup o'tea.

[Tenno Seremel]

In a point-buy system, if something is X times more powerful than Y, it costs X times more points.
How much more powerful healing yourself (and yourself only) from diseases (you also want auto-success here) than disease immunity? AFAIR immunity is cheaper in GURPS.

[Cieyrin]

I have to say reading this thread really makes me not want to read or play Legend when I see how crazy defensive people are being about it.

Just to say my two coppers but this is less about the game so much as a personal disagreement, given the opinion was based on an early beta and the game has changed a lot since then, which includes much more flavor. In any case, we're generally a friendly group, it's just this is an instance of people rubbing each other wrong.

I do invite both you and Shadow Knight, if you so choose to, to look at the current incarnation of the game if you're both still reading the thread and would like to see for yourselves what the game's current direction is. It's currently free, so all you have to lose is time spent reading itand the 9 MB to download the core book. You can get it here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) and we hope you don't take this one spat as a measure of the group or people in general. :smallsmile:

[Epsilon Rose]

Hm, I think I'll take a shot at this. Please be forewarned that I haven't actually read Legend since they were soliciting critiques on this forum a while back.

My first problem is the level of abstraction. Fly is not a binary condition. There is a Z axis and it's important, both for flight and the layout of a field in general. This could probably be solved with a bit of homebrew and is rather minor.

More importantly, I hate the track system. You get to choose your 3(?) tracks at character creation, and then they're set. There is a feat that lets you change a track, but it completely overwrites the old track. To me this seems to hamper choice and progress. You can't really have a character stumble onto some lost monastery that teaches ancient secret techniques, because they either have to stick with there old tracks (meaning they learn nothing) or they have to overwrite an old one (meaning anything they've learned up till then is rendered moot) neither is particularly appealing to me, nor is a complete lack of ability to decide the basics of my character's basic advancement (i.e. beyond feats) advancement after character creation.

[PEACH]

More importantly, I hate the track system. You get to choose your 3(?) tracks at character creation, and then they're set. There is a feat that lets you change a track, but it completely overwrites the old track. To me this seems to hamper choice and progress. You can't really have a character stumble onto some lost monastery that teaches ancient secret techniques, because they either have to stick with there old tracks (meaning they learn nothing) or they have to overwrite an old one (meaning anything they've learned up till then is rendered moot) neither is particularly appealing to me, nor is a complete lack of ability to decide the basics of my character's basic advancement (i.e. beyond feats) advancement after character creation.


Tracks give choices within them at many points, depending on the track, so you have options there (the spellcasting tracks are especially flexible). Also, while I can understand wanting to "switch things up," Legend is not designed for you to take four abilities from one track and then the top three abilities from the other; that could result in some very broken or very terrible combinations, depending on whether you got abilities that were more or less synergistic than your previous options. The other thing is that, at least with my characters, they're fairly well planned from the start even in 3.5; I know how I'm going to advance in levels. The track system allows you to pick how your character progresses, but he progresses in *exactly* the way you want him/her to.

If you want to give bonus abilities from finding a special location or studying with monks or what have you, just do it! There aren't any rules for that sort of thing in 3.5, but it happens all the time; study with the monks, get a +2 to wisdom, or can flurry once per combat, or whatever. Giving bonuses like that, especially since Legend already has a system for special locations counting as items (which you can also choose in Legend), seems fairly intuitive and doesn't run the risk of messing things up.

I can see how tracks might pose a conceptual problem for you if you really enjoy creating characters as they level up, but there are still plenty of customization options, even if they're front loaded. Even in a system like 3.5e, the number of effective options when you level, in terms of class selection, is very low and only gets lower as you level up, even if the total number of options is theoretically massive. Legend is balanced around the concept of characters being the same power (roughly) at the same level, and picking and choosing from tracks would make that much more difficult, if not impossible (that's one of the flaws of point buy games; you can't account for synergy, which is why powers that are theoretically equal in the vacuum are hugely imbalanced in the aggregate). If your solution to that is "have the DM arbiter what you can and can't swap around" then you can already do that with base Legend; it's just that supporting mechanics for mix and matching abilities within a track isn't something that Legend is trying to balance.

[Flickerdart]

More importantly, I hate the track system. You get to choose your 3(?) tracks at character creation, and then they're set. There is a feat that lets you change a track, but it completely overwrites the old track. To me this seems to hamper choice and progress. You can't really have a character stumble onto some lost monastery that teaches ancient secret techniques, because they either have to stick with there old tracks (meaning they learn nothing) or they have to overwrite an old one (meaning anything they've learned up till then is rendered moot) neither is particularly appealing to me, nor is a complete lack of ability to decide the basics of my character's basic advancement (i.e. beyond feats) advancement after character creation.
This is a concern (and a valid one) that has been voiced before. However, the (also previously voiced) counterpoint is that even in 3.5, when you built your character, it was for 20 levels, feats and all. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to qualify for the PrCs you wanted on time, or get your combo running (and keep it level-appropriate) or similar.

Nevertheless, you just might be seeing a lot more "choose from the following" circles in upcoming material.

Also, the monastery thing? That's what magic locations are for.

[Cieyrin]

My first problem is the level of abstraction. Fly is not a binary condition. There is a Z axis and it's important, both for flight and the layout of a field in general. This could probably be solved with a bit of homebrew and is rather minor.

I think somebody did a homebrew fix for that, as I remember reading it in the main Legend thread. I could dig it up if you'd like to see it. It may also be over at the Rule of Cool forums, I haven't had a chance to frequent it as of yet.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Except when you do. Like in Mutants & Masterminds. Or even GURPS.M&M is a nice system... in spite of its balance issues. GURPS I can't speak to.

Also, I just thought of something Legend may be missing: SRD (hypertext is best). I use the 3.5 and PF SRDs all the time. If they have it, page one of google failed me, and I am lazy.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I dislike Legend's lack of simulationism. Like the group's name says, it runs on rule of cool, and rule of cool only. The game doesn't try to make sense, fluff is separate by crunch. In games like these, I think being class-based is just a mistake - it should be point-based. If you have classes and they don't carry fluff implications behind them, I think you're doing something very wrong - the whole 'classes are metagame constructs' mindset never appealed to me, basically because that's not the origins of D&D and that's not how the books treat them. You might get every three books a paragraph saying 'if you want to play X and nothing in the system fix, ask your DM to change stuff', but that's not a free pass for 'classes are metagame constructs'.
Basically, Legend looks like a disguised point-based system to me. And I don't need another point-based system when I can just play Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS. It's a good effort, congrats to the team for putting it together, but it just does not appeal to me. If I wanted balance, I'd be playing 4e. If I wanted point-based, I'd be playing M&M. I really don't know what I should want to be playing Legend.

So, you're implying that everyone who wants balance is fine with 4e (I am, but Mystify hates it with a passion, and another poster even posted a whole rant about how balance is boring and it was implied thar the only balanced system he knew of was 4e), that if you can fluff stuff however you want, you should play point-based (often quite a bit more complex than class-based), and that classes can only be played with the fluff presented by the designers (I have never once mentioned the Sublime Way in the multitude of warblades I've made, and the disciplines only as metagame constructs, except for one game that was explicitly based around the fluff).

I have been refluffing things since day 2 (day 1 was when I was really new and playing my first game). Classes are sets of abilities, not names. It's even more set in stone by how the designers fluff multiclassing, they explicitly say it's for certain concepts that can't be covered by just one class, and when my concept is "lightning fast warrior" my build is "warblade 1/spirit lion whirling frenzy barbarian 1/warblade +X".

[Flickerdart]

As an aside, witnessing an argument between Jade Dragon and Jade Phoenix is very surreal but somehow appropriate. Carry on, folks.

[IthroZada]

Now, I might have to look at the spells again, but I would say my main issue is that magic just isn't quite as wonderful as what I'm used to. This stems from two things, a lack of sheer volume of spells that 3.5 has, and the creator's desire to not have mages simply replace every other archetype through clever spell lists.

But it's hard for me to complain about that, because while I do like god-wizards and Omnificers, I don't want them at the expense of the Barbarians and the Fighters, and I don't want it to be an unspoken rule that every character you make should have spell casting as their third track.

What I want is terrain deformation, magic mansions, songs of building, and the ability to store any spell 4th level and below into any item I touch. But if that is the cost of balance, fun, and badass barbarians, then I am quite willing to pay it. And I should note, that magic items actually cover a few of those examples, like the pickaxe, but I do feel that is a tad different than an arcane savant doing it with his mind and bat guano, mutability of fluff aside.

Plus, I miss Bards, Druids, and Cloistered Clerics.

[eggs]

I've read the book, but have never played it. I'm not a huge fan, but I rarely see any reason to chime in to complain about it or anything like that. The system looks good at what it does, but what it does just isn't something that interests me.

My turn-offs with Legend largely stem from the d20 system that it's based on, rather than the quality of the game's materials:

Levels with significant numeric increases (a plucky inexperienced spacefarmer with a laser sword is going to be murdered by the evil cyborg spacegeneral, endstop).
Level-based ability access, rather than improvements. I know that this is to make players excited about gaining levels, and that's cool. But this both puts turns the metagame of character advancement into the major game incentive, and creates situations where a low-level karate kid can watch his mentor bust out a crane kick, then train the move endlessly, but still not be able to even attempt it until hitting a certain level.
Mechanical character abilities sculpt in-game fiction, rather than the opposite. The basic character action dynamic involves a warrior looking down a list of combat options or a caster looking down a list of spells, then selecting one, rather than determining what the character does based on game fiction, then making rulings to accommodate it. Again I understand why this is necessary, due to Legend's tactical emphasis, character progression incentives and focus on inter-character balance, but it's a different style of play from I tend to enjoy.
Tactical combat emphasis (reading 70-80 pages of rules is fine, but if only 2-3 are salient to games that default to non-combat resolution, I'm not going to use it; and the social system is the one place where I would complain about the game's design, but that's not really the point of D&D-types, so whatever)


None of these are intrinsically problematic or Wrong, but they're areas where my values relating to rpgs vary from those involved in Legend's design.

It should be pretty clear that (A)D&D[/PF] isn't my choice system, but it has the same pitfalls and I still play it, even though I probably won't play Legend. I should probably explain why:

What D&D has that Legend doesn't is ubiquity. It's a staple that you can safely expect a gamer to know and to basically have some fun with. I know it isn't fair to judge Legend harshly based on that criterion, but it's one of two reasons I put up with D&D-variants at all (the other is the monster books, especially the long, long 2e lists of ridiculous monsters with detailed and fleshy discussions; but those aren't especially pertinent, because they could be transferred over).

In terms of doing what D&D 3e does, Legend looks like it does it, and does it better than the original. So I'm not trying to bash it; Legend looks like a good game.

The one reason Legend sometimes irks me is the vocal support this forum gives it in areas where it doesn't quite fit - things like horror games or supers games where the emphasis isn't on tactical play or character balance, but on character-driven drama: styles of play where Legend doesn't offer much support.

[Tenno Seremel]

What I want is … magic mansions
Well, there is a Safekeeper Magus feat (1 prerequisite) if that's what you mean.

[Prime32]

Now, I might have to look at the spells again, but I would say my main issue is that magic just isn't quite as wonderful as what I'm used to.[...]If you want "ALL THE MAGIC" you could go Shaman spells/Tactician spells/True Mage/Arcane Secrets or something.


Levels with significant numeric increases (a plucky inexperienced spacefarmer with a laser sword is going to be murdered by the evil cyborg spacegeneral, endstop).Huh? :smallconfused: A cyborg spacegeneral is always going to be stronger than a farmer. The level system doesn't change that; if levels don't mean a lot, that just makes the level difference higher.
And Luke is much more than an inexperienced spacefarmer anyway - he's got destiny + magic powers + plot armor going for him, all of which should be modelled in an actual game. (In Legend I think this would mean some rogue tracks?)

[Greenish]

Also, there're 3 tracks you can't switch out: the Rogue's Esoterica Radica, the Paladin's Judgement, and the Sage's primary ability (can't recall the name off of the top of my head).All Sage tracks can be multiclassed out of or into. Some of the older documents forbade Shaman from taking Sage's tracks for their free multiclass, but that was a legacy of older designs and has been banished since.


Even in 3.5 a given creature will have less/no treasure, in Legend they either have full PC items, or trade out their items for a bonus track giving them even more options for the DM to keep track of. To my understanding they later introduced some minion/mook rules, but I'd much rather all NPCs be simple by default, with PC-level complexity NPCs being rare.The mook rules will be in the Core document once 1.0 rolls around.

Basic mooks are here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mooks.pdf), and myriads (for presenting large mobs of people, heads of a hydra etc.) are here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Operatives.pdf).


Also, I just thought of something Legend may be missing: SRD (hypertext is best). I use the 3.5 and PF SRDs all the time. If they have it, page one of google failed me, and I am lazy.I've heard they're planning making a hypertext SRD once beta is over and they have a shiny 1.0 rules to make it out of.


Huh? :smallconfused: A cyborg spacegeneral is always going to be stronger than a farmer. The level system doesn't change that; if levels don't mean a lot, that just makes the level difference higher.eggs is basically stating a preference for a more narrative, non-D&D like systems. Each for their own.

[eggs]

Huh? :smallconfused: A cyborg spacegeneral is always going to be stronger than a farmer. The level system doesn't change that; if levels don't mean a lot, that just makes the level difference higher.
d20 has an exaggeratedly vertical power progression - characters do a thing and get better and better at it until less advanced characters don't have any chance of competing. This holds for Legend.

Many games provide progressions that are more horizontal (where a character can start with an ability or two capped out, and gradually become competent in more and more areas), less absolute (where a player rolls a larger die with advancement, but doesn't always trounce less advanced characters), less numeric (where a character picks up extra qualitative traits along the way, possibly expanding breadth of capability or reducing the effort required on the player's part) or less meaningful (where the numeric benefits of clever play or plot-based mechanics can outweigh the numeric benefits of character advancement). Often one or more of those are combined.

In those games, the cyborg space general is still better than the hick spacefarmer, but the system allows the lower-skilled character to come out ahead (or at least alive) with enough cunning, luck or plot-based support.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Y'know, that wimpy farmer with a laser sword got trounced by the cyborg space general even after he got extensive training and "leveled up" a bunch, so to speak. He didn't die because the cyborg space general didn't want to kill him, and due to plot armor.

That example aside, I do understand that level-based systems generally ensure that lower level stuff doesn't stand a chance against higher level stuff, but by my reading of Legend's intro (the part where it talks about a party of level X versus a normal human army) this level-based distinction was a design goal.

[Greenish]

That example aside, I do understand that level-based systems generally ensure that lower level stuff doesn't stand a chance against higher level stuff, but by my reading of Legend's intro (the part where it talks about a party of level X versus a normal human army) this level-based distinction was a design goal.Well, he has been saying he's not looking for a game with Legend's design goals. :smallamused:

[Zeful]

d20 has an exaggeratedly vertical power progression - characters do a thing and get better and better at it until less advanced characters don't have any chance of competing. This holds for Legend.Which is a systemic issue that can only be fixed by abandoning the d20 system as many people know it. Think the complaints that 4e "Wasn't D&D" were bad? Imagine altering the system so it's not the d20 system entirely?

[Greenish]

My turn-offs with Legend largely stem from the d20 system that it's based on, rather than the quality of the game's materials

Which is a systemic issue that can only be fixed by abandoning the d20 system as many people know it.Does it echo here?

[JadePhoenix]

So, you're implying that everyone who wants balance is fine with 4e (I am, but Mystify hates it with a passion, and another poster even posted a whole rant about how balance is boring and it was implied thar the only balanced system he knew of was 4e), that if you can fluff stuff however you want, you should play point-based (often quite a bit more complex than class-based), and that classes can only be played with the fluff presented by the designers (I have never once mentioned the Sublime Way in the multitude of warblades I've made, and the disciplines only as metagame constructs, except for one game that was explicitly based around the fluff).
I'm not implying anything about anyone else. I'm just stating my personal opinion.


I have been refluffing things since day 2 (day 1 was when I was really new and playing my first game).
And I haven't. Is that a problem? I'm I forced to like refluffing or something? I could even mention Oberoni fallacy here. Just because you can add your own fluff it doesn't mean lack of fluff isn't a problem.


Classes are sets of abilities, not names.
That's your opinion, but mine is as valid as yours.

It's even more set in stone by how the designers fluff multiclassing, they explicitly say it's for certain concepts that can't be covered by just one class, and when my concept is "lightning fast warrior" my build is "warblade 1/spirit lion whirling frenzy barbarian 1/warblade +X".
Except you can be a "lightning fast warrior" while being only a barbarian, can't you? :smallamused:
Sincerely, a fighting style is not a concept. It's, well, a fighting style. If your concept is simply "I attack very very fast"... I think there is something wrong with your concept. If all you want from the game is combat, that is not a game I really care to play. I have two D&D Adventure System games - when I want to roll dice and kill things, that's what I play. If you're telling me Legend is supposed to only a tactical combat game, that's fine. It just grew to become more of a game I don't want to play.

[Shadowknight12]

Hmmm, so I guess that I started a bash ShadowKnight thread. Sorry man.

Thanks to everyone for your input. I think I got all the information that I needed. I'm convinced that it's at least worth a decent read through the PDF.

Thanks again.

No problem. I never said it wasn't worth a read, so even if we point out what we individually think as flaws, you may find that they do not bother you at all, whereas things that never bothered me might rub you the wrong way.


To be fair, when someone dismisses something you enjoy without bothering to verify even the basics of the game (or anything else, really), it feels like an insult, even if not intended to be. The topic only went defensive after someone said they didn't bother after reading only a few pages.

I'm just going to point out, as someone who spends a lot of free time dealing with artists (particularly writers) and critique, first impressions matter. They may not have the same weight as the critique from someone who read the whole thing, but they do matter. Someone who never made it past the first few pages is giving you a form of critique, something worth improving on. Why? Because he's not the only one. There is a sector of the audience that will think the same and it's unwise to disregard any sector of your audience, regardless of your personal disagreements with their judging methods.


I do invite both you and Shadow Knight, if you so choose to, to look at the current incarnation of the game if you're both still reading the thread and would like to see for yourselves what the game's current direction is. It's currently free, so all you have to lose is time spent reading itand the 9 MB to download the core book. You can get it here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) and we hope you don't take this one spat as a measure of the group or people in general. :smallsmile:

I will, actually. I am halfway through, currently, but I will not make the same cardinal sin of speaking without finishing my read.

[Answerer]

...except that you commented on a first impression made while reading the first few pages of a super-early draft copy.

[Greenish]

If you're telling me Legend is supposed to only a tactical combat game, that's fine. It just grew to become more of a game I don't want to play.Legend does other stuff okay. There's rules for social combat, various skill games (for example, parkour chase over the rooftops, and the upcoming investigation), and the skill feats (and many of the general ones) tend to have out-of-combat applications (like playing back the last hour's worth of shadows cast in a certain place, deducing from an object what it has been used for, hypnotizing people to accept your demands and so forth).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Legend does other stuff okay. There's rules for social combat, various skill games (for example, parkour chase over the rooftops, and the upcoming investigation), and the skill feats (and many of the general ones) tend to have out-of-combat applications (like playing back the last hour's worth of shadows cast in a certain place, deducing from an object what it has been used for, hypnotizing people to accept your demands and so forth).

And even more importantly: explain to me how 3.5 does out of combat stuff any better.

[JadePhoenix]

And even more importantly: explain to me how 3.5 does out of combat stuff any better.

Are you implying Legend can only be compared to D&D 3.5? :smallconfused:


Legend does other stuff okay. There's rules for social combat, various skill games (for example, parkour chase over the rooftops, and the upcoming investigation), and the skill feats (and many of the general ones) tend to have out-of-combat applications (like playing back the last hour's worth of shadows cast in a certain place, deducing from an object what it has been used for, hypnotizing people to accept your demands and so forth).
That's interesting to know. I honestly didn't knew, I just supposed it was focused on combat and combat only through JadeDragon's comments.

[Greenish]

To a large extent, Legend (like 3.5) is a pointbuy system. The classes mainly give new players the ability packages of familiar archetypes.

You could treat classes as in-game constructs, though you'd have to define them by something other than their abilities, since you could have a whole party take the class called Barbarian, and not have a single shared ability between them.

But then, when I think of classes as in-game constructs, I have hard time imagining anything but OotS.


[Edit]:
That's interesting to know. I honestly didn't knew, I just supposed it was focused on combat and combat only through JadeDragon's comments.There is a focus on combat rules, like in most D20 systems (or so I imagine), since that tends to be a large portion of the game for many people. There's also rules for multi-lateral negotiations, (non-torture) interrogation, and so forth.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Are you implying Legend can only be compared to D&D 3.5? :smallconfused:

Comparing Legend to other systems is like comparing Pathfinder to other systems. It kinda defeats the point that it's based off 3.5. You can compare it to 4e, since they're both class-based systems with balance in mind, but comparing it to GURPS is a bit out of line, since they're two completely different systems (the two major differences are 1) class-based vs point-based and 2) the core mechanic).

[Greenish]

I think it's valid to compare Legend to, well, any system you might be playing instead, though obviously if you pick something very different (say, Paranoia, Mouse Guard), you're only expressing personal preference for a certain type of game (like eggs did).

[Kurald Galain]

So tell me, what's wrong with Legend?

What turned me off during the beta was that the system contains mechanical effects that don't make any sense in character, but that are included for the sake of game balance. For example, a moderate-level fighter can make melee opportunity attacks with a melee weapon from 30 meters away, without actually moving, and with no explanation given.

I'm not fond of RPG systems that are designed for mechanics first and have verisimilitude as an afterthought at best.

[Greenish]

What turned me off during the beta was that the system contains mechanical effects that don't make any sense in character, but that are included for the sake of game balance. For example, a moderate-level fighter can make melee opportunity attacks with a melee weapon from 30 meters away, without actually moving, and with no explanation given.30 meters is more reach than an average level 20 warrior has with a reach weapon. 30 feet is only just possible at level 20 with said reach weapon.

But yeah, when the characters start going beyond human (that is to say, over level 5), they start getting wacky stuff like the ability to lunge at enemies farther away or to climb falling snowflakes and so forth.


[Edit]:
I'm just going to point out, as someone who spends a lot of free time dealing with artists (particularly writers) and critique, first impressions matter.They recently did a big Kickstarter thingy, and some of the money will be used for getting more illustrations to the core book, for when the final 1.0 is released. One of the artists has a sketchbook (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php/topic,35.0.html) over at Legend forums you can go to enjoy the pretty.

[Answerer]

What turned me off during the beta was that the system contains mechanical effects that don't make any sense in character, but that are included for the sake of game balance. For example, a moderate-level fighter can make melee opportunity attacks with a melee weapon from 30 meters away, without actually moving, and with no explanation given.

I'm not fond of RPG systems that are designed for mechanics first and have verisimilitude as an afterthought at best.
You're the one who stated that they do not move, not the Legend rules. The rules do not state this, and in fact movement (lunges and the like) are one of several expected and valid interpretations of the mechanic.

Legend simply does not force any interpretation of the mechanics on you; it leaves them up to you to explain however best fits your character.


Now, in some cases (melee reach is a big one), a bit of a "hint" towards a possible explanation would probably be a good idea, since a lot of people imagine someone standing stock-still and somehow hitting someone 30 ft. away. While that is a valid interpretation if you want it (Dhalsim or Mr. Fantastic, perhaps, or the tried-and-true air-pressure thing that doesn't really make sense but shows up from time to time in video games and anime), the usual interpretation is merely that they are moving around, and their melee reach represents the area in which a sufficiently skilled warrior can directly control – that is, move about freely enough that he's not provoking AoOs or whatever else actual movement would entail. And then actual movement is not just moving his physical person, but also moving this area of control, which may be highly dependent on the physical characteristics of the battlefield and may be risky to do in some circumstances (hence AoOs).


But ultimately, high-level anything is fantastic and unrealistic because nothing in reality even remotely approaches high levels. That's an intended feature of the system: you can control the apparent power level/realism by level, and the system can simultaneously handle the extreme levels of anime-esque jumping around and such, with high-level characters, and also gritty low-fantasy with low-level characters.

[T.G. Oskar]

I usually have no qualms with Legend material, if only because I tend to see it with different eyes. The abilities have their own kind of flavor, which while might at times seem odd, it fits well with a light-hearted kind of game, which is where I feel Legend excels. Might as well compare it with BESM d20 in terms of the inherent feel of every game, though Legend adds a bit of epicness to the game as well.

However, and the creative group of Legend knows this (I know at the very least Doc Roc does): despite all the changes, I STILL can't stomach their Paladin. It is the rough equivalent of trying to read the Necronomicon in the Lovecraftian universe, and even though some things were changed from before (the Relic circle was, IIRC, altered or replaced as the system itself was considered for magic items), the rest...well, I really cannot reconcile the feel. It's this indescribable something that just screams a big "NOOOO!!!", that impairs my ability to enjoy the class whatsoever.

That, and while there are several ways to make a Fighter, there is no proper chassis for it. Barbarian would be the closest thing there is. Though, I have no such troubles with the lack of a proper Fighter chassis; my real qualm is their interpretation of the Paladin. Given time and some exploration of the system, I might attempt a homebrew of the Paladin just to satisfy that black hole in the mechanics of Legend that I unconsciously choose to ignore.

[Answerer]

Hmm. I'm curious to hear what you wanted from the Paladin? I don't much like Paladins in general, and have only skimmed Legend's Paladin as it is, but Bastion and Smiting both seem very cool to me.

[GRM13]

The only real problem with Legend is that it still lacks the Monster book. the mook rules made things much easier but I feel like more is needed for much more variety of monster. Another still being the low number of magical Items, this one apparently will be fixed with more material and a point buy build-your-own magical item content but until then...

Oh yeah The fact that paladin and Rogue have a restricted track, having all the other classes's track be available to everyone freely makes those tow's restriction all the more jarring.

There are other ones but this would be mainly stuff that I've gotten used to D&D so feels a bit alien to me- No flanking mechanic, no size besides large and both counting only 1 square unless you take the Colossus Legendary ability.

[Cieyrin]

The only real problem with Legend is that it still lacks the Monster book.

The Monster book is the major release planned after the core rule book is finalized. I can't give time tables, as I've gotten somewhat out of touch with development since the November release, but it is coming.

[T.G. Oskar]

Hmm. I'm curious to hear what you wanted from the Paladin? I don't much like Paladins in general, and have only skimmed Legend's Paladin as it is, but Bastion and Smiting both seem very cool to me.

I'd have to read it very carefully, but it's mostly a combination of not meeting expectations (I've grown used to Paladins that use a modicum of Divine Magic, and while you can do so via tracks, it definitely does not feel the same), the utter bizarreness of at least one track (the one that has the "healing bombs", to say the very least, since the flavor screams "CLERIC!!!" to me more than Paladin), the relationship between Bastion (?) and Judgment (most of the abilities of Bastion require a mechanic available in Judgment, so you can't use the former without the latter; this may have changed, but as far as I've seen oen is dependent of the other, or the really worthwhile parts of it require the abilities of Judgment), and the lack of retribution damage (essentially dealing damage in response to a hit) and long range tanking abilities (an aura to draw damage for example).

I could deliver a better reasoning behind it, but once again, I'd have to overcome that aversion to read the class before specifying what. The best way to explain it is that the two things I have yet refused a second try are Legend's Paladin and Shin Megami Tensei Revelations: Persona *shiver*

[Flickerdart]

the relationship between Bastion (?) and Judgment (most of the abilities of Bastion require a mechanic available in Judgment
This was never a thing. For the longest time, Judgment and Bastion didn't interact at all. Judgment abilities gained the power to be broadcast through the Bastion, but nothing is stopping you from picking up Bastion on, say, your Shaman.

[Greenish]

Given time and some exploration of the system, I might attempt a homebrew of the Paladin just to satisfy that black hole in the mechanics of Legend that I unconsciously choose to ignore.That might be interesting to see, though I do love Legend's paladin.


The only real problem with Legend is that it still lacks the Monster book. the mook rules made things much easier but I feel like more is needed for much more variety of monster. Another still being the low number of magical Items, this one apparently will be fixed with more material and a point buy build-your-own magical item content but until then...Monster book is in the works, though it likely won't be released for free.


no size besides large and both counting only 1 square unless you take the Colossus Legendary ability.Small, Medium, Large, Towering, Colossus. How many squares each takes up should probably be mentioned somewhere (but isn't yet, to my knowledge, except obviously for Colossus).

[GRM13]

I should had mentioned that I already know that the Monster Book is on the works but sadly until it arrives it is a bit of a sore spot, and as the question state what is wrong with Legend I stated one of the few problems I have right now with it (even if it will be worked in the future right now it's still a problem).
Once that arrives the problem should be easily solved.


Small, Medium, Large, Towering, Colossus. How many squares each takes up should probably be mentioned somewhere (but isn't yet, to my knowledge, except obviously for Colossus).

I don't remember where Towering shows up (can you point me in the direction) but I think that all others had their space already stated. Colossus being the only ones which take more than one square.

Small, Medium and Large= 1 square
Towering=???
Colossus= 16 Square

Again this is mostly me finding it a bit weird as I'm not used to the mechanic.

[Greenish]

I don't remember where Towering shows up (can you point me in the direction)Towering (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/New-Feats-2.pdf) is when you're so large you can smack flying enemies with your melee attacks, and the tiny people down below have hard time reaching your vitals.


but I think that all others had their space already stated.Where?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Where?

As far as I know, it isn't. But I also brought this up in the Legend thread, when I mentioned the Juggernaut(?) feat. I said they should make it clear how many squares the feat makes you take up. Mystify immediately told me that it isn't stated anywhere that large size takes up more squares, and true enough, it isn't. If Towering (isn't that a feat that just makes you able to attack fliers?) doesn't say it takes up more squares, it doesn't.

[GRM13]

Hmm it seems that it doesn't say anything and took the Modifiers given of each size in the beginning of the races as stating that all 3 have the same square space.

Honestly though this upgrades it from minor personal gripe to honest problem with the system to me as this is kind of important information to know considering placement of character and space. Also adding that i a few spells (like Teleport) they mention Huge creatures.

either way it's either all size only take 1, then it's just me filling a bit weird when I say there's a huge abomination of nature and then just see it covering one space in the map.

or they took take separate spaces each, in which then there is a serious lack of information that needs to be fixed by informing the people who much space these take as it does affect how people interact with rooms and dungeons.

[Greenish]

As far as I know, it isn't. But I also brought this up in the Legend thread, when I mentioned the Juggernaut(?) feat. I said they should make it clear how many squares the feat makes you take up. Mystify immediately told me that it isn't stated anywhere that large size takes up more squares, and true enough, it isn't.It isn't stated anywhere how many squares you take up at any size, excepting Colossus.


If Towering (isn't that a feat that just makes you able to attack fliers?)It is, and it's also how they'll handle sizes larger than Large, according to DocRoc.

[GreyMantle]

It's worth noting that Legend's abstraction of square spaces is arguably another weakness. The game could have very few square-based effects in it, and that could be very cool. It would be like Shadowrun or something in that you could totally play out most combats without needing miniatures or a grid. The treatment of flight and how many squares creatures occupy strike me as the most emblematic features of this design style.

However, there do seem to be a noticeably nonzero number of forced movement effects in the game. Not nearly as many as 4E or maybe even ToB, but arguably more than most of 3.x. Examples include the Elementalist's Elemental Wave, Mystify's homebrew Sniper track, the Wake feat, and To Pierce the Heavens.

Now, I think that movement effects can be quite neat. They add a nice additional tactical layer to the game. Pushing enemies off of ledges, or performing some teleportational swap are nicely cool and iconic maneuvers for a D&D derivative. But they don't really interact well with the other abstractions Legend has. Which is kind of sadface.

Personally, I'd rather have more purely abstracted movement that still features some form of forced movement and such. I'm almost certainly going to be running Legend for my next campaign, but my goal is to first write a more internally consistent, abstract Zone system for the game, a bit like http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=161074 or http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=39406. Because I have somewhat grown to really dislike combat grids for ttrpgs.

[Lonely Tylenol]

As a DM of a month-old 3.5P game (at the time I discovered Legend), I can chronicle the process my group and I took when I discovered Legend:

Me: "Legend? Never heard of it. Looks like they have a preview out... Oh! A Kickstarter donation?"
<After reading all the previews>
Me: "This... Is... AWESOME! But wait: I just spent weeks working with players to realize their character concepts on paper. Will I be able to re-create their concepts in Legend, without the splatbook access or system mastery?"
<I get stumped almost immediately, mostly due to my tight schedule, and turn to the Legend thread here; the Legend devs personally respond to my inquiry>
Me: "Wow, that's really great! This system seems really promising and open and very player-friendly. I'd love to see what the players think!"
<I send an e-mail, Facebook message and text message to every single player in the group, scattered out over a few days, then announce Legend to the players at the table the next game session>
<3 days later>
Player A: "Why is it that every new game system that comes out these days reads like a video game?"
Me: "Okay. :smallconfused:"
<1 month later; I've long since given up on making the conversion to Legend>
Player B: "This... Is... AWESOME!"

In other words, Legend has three things going against it, to me:
1) Lack of splatbook access: This is a personal thing, but it's one that drove me away from a straight Pathfinder game (instead leading to 3.5P); I'm the kind of player who loves the sheer, overwhelming volume of options available in 3.5, even if it's only from the massive quantity of content published. Legend is both more modular and it's new, so time will solve this problem, making it basically self-correcting.
2) There are some areas where immersion are sacrificed for ease of use. Flying is the example given over and over again here, but it is a general concern: 3.5 may be a mess of rules that I still spend time every game session searching through (usually when my players decide to do something involving a complex combination of rules, or that could be described, but not measured, with "Rule of Cool"), but for some, those rules provide an extra little bit of immersion and sense of reality in the world that makes it easier to immerse themselves in the game. This was Player A's concern.
3) Inertia. This is what got my group: I was DMing a group of twelve at the time, and while I may be a believer in the Legend system, and converting myself (one person) was an easy enough task, it was crazy of me to think that I could convert a dozen people to jump from one system in a currently running game into another, especially since those twelve people have wildly varying attitudes and experience levels as far as table-tops go, ranging from first-timers just getting into D&D 3.5 as their first system to seasoned role-playing veterans, and from people who have played a wide number of systems to people who want to stick to D&D 3.5 or some variant therein.

Basically, everything described here, with a real-world anecdote explaining exactly how all three fit into the consumers' reasoning.

[Draz74]

Legend is a good system. I don't get to play much these days, but I would much rather play Legend than Core-Only 3.5e or Pathfinder at this point. If I were to play with a really high-functioning, rules-savvy spatbook-using group, then it would be a tough choice between 3.5e and Legend ... unless I were the DM, in which case I would definitely side with Legend. Seems considerably easier to run.

Before I complain, I'd like to second two of the positive comments from earlier in the thread:

Mooks are amazingly helpful for making monsters less intimidating to run. (No more option-overload for the DM.)
Legend is actually great -- possibly too good -- at venturing away from standard high fantasy and exploring more exotic settings, e.g. with modern or sci-fi elements mixed into the fantasy.


My complaints about Legend are as follows:

Lots of typos and rules that, for brevity's sake (and due to an eccentric writing style) are left annoyingly ambiguous. To the development team's credit, they've been doing pretty well at mitigating these issues ever since the November release. Maybe someday it will all be fixed.
"Rule of Cool": the game caters to an over-the-top-action style that is great for lighthearted games, but would break my verisimilitude if it were involved in a more serious story. This can largely be worked around by playing Legend at very low levels, but ... well, at very low levels, many of Legend's other strengths (such as really cool abilities and huge variety in character design) haven't come on board yet.
Lack of simulationism. Flying isn't even the greatest offender, IMHO. My biggest issue would probably be the Ability Scores, and the way (for example) it's pretty easy to build a melee warrior who isn't hindered at all by having a terrible Strength.
A huge reliance on re-fluffing. Lots of abilities' fluff as-written doesn't make any sense, and breaks verisimilitude further. That can be fixed by re-fluffing, which I'm ok with ... sometimes. Sometimes I'm lazy and wish that the fluff was all nicely spelled out for me. And then it gets annoying how some very handy abilities can only be had through fluff-strange channels. For example, recently I had a character concept of a warrior with a certain degree of mobility, and I decided to try to build him in Legend. I managed to make him work pretty well (except for ability scores ... yeah, still a problem), but to do so, I had to make him a Water Elemental Pony. Which is fine, if the DM is totally cool with me re-fluffing him as a humanoid. Which not all DMs are ok with. Admittedly this encouragement of re-fluffing is also part of how the game gets an enormous chunk of its flexibility.
While the game streamlines many areas of the rules compared to 3.5e, that makes it more annoying when there are still really clunky rules. For example, it bothers me that poison still deals Ability Damage (one of the mechanics that slows down 3.5e combat like there's no tomorrow). Oh yeah, and the combat grid.
While there are tons of cool character concepts you can make with the Track system, that makes it all the more annoying when your concept just doesn't fit. For example, if you want a caster who's good at illusions, teleportation, divination, buffing, and healing, but not direct damage or battlefield control, you're going to have to take both spellcasting tracks, not just one, and just ignore a lot of the cool spells in both of them.
The social combat/skill game system might work great, but it's not explained very well in the rules. I've read them a few times, and I still can't wrap my head around how they really work. I think it's something you have to play to understand. People who have used them seem to like them quite a lot, though ...



Personally, I'd rather have more purely abstracted movement that still features some form of forced movement and such. I'm almost certainly going to be running Legend for my next campaign, but my goal is to first write a more internally consistent, abstract Zone system for the game, a bit like http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=161074 or http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=39406. Because I have somewhat grown to really dislike combat grids for ttrpgs.

This sounds interesting (as the continued reliance on grid mechanics is one of my least-favorite things about my own developing system). Keep me posted.

[Infernalbargain]

My biggest problem is that it has that same mechanical feeling I got from 4e (let's leave 4e's other problems out of this). I simply couldn't find myself interested in making the characters. In its successful effort to remove ambiguity, it removed possibility. It's abilities aren't written in a way that encourages creative usage. That isn't to say that that they cannot be used creatively, but rather upon reading an ability I do not find myself out looking for ways that the ability can interact most of the time. I can think of dozens upon dozens of ways to use unseen servant in 3.x, but nothing is really inspiring in legend.

[Kurald Galain]

You're the one who stated that they do not move, not the Legend rules. The rules do not state this, and in fact movement (lunges and the like) are one of several expected and valid interpretations of the mechanic.

Mechanically, they are unaffected by anything that happens to be in between them and their target, and they can perform this trick even if they're prevented from moving for whatever reason. So yeah, it's a classic example of disassociated mechanics.



My biggest problem is that it has that same mechanical feeling I got from 4e (let's leave 4e's other problems out of this).

Precisely. The game feels like it rewrites 3E using the philosophy of 4E (the disassociated mechanics I mentioned above are another example of this). So numerous criticisms of 4E's philosophy (not its actual rules) also apply to Legend.

Now of course there are numerous people who don't see a problem with disassociated mechanics, so that's good. On the other hand, there are also numerous people who don't see a problem with an system that isn't very balanced. And if you don't think balance is a priority, I see no real reason to use Legend over 3.5 or PF.

[Tenno Seremel]

Easiest flight fix is to move in 3D as you would in 2D. If converting fireballs to pillars of fire is not an option just give all spells/abilities some fixed (or not so fixed) amount of vertical area by default.

[The Troubadour]

It's not that there's something wrong with it - this is just my personal opinion. But I prefer 4th Edition, warts and all, over Legend.

[Cieyrin]

It's not that there's something wrong with it - this is just my personal opinion. But I prefer 4th Edition, warts and all, over Legend.

And you're allowed to. Legend isn't claiming it's a perfect system that appeals to all people, it's a good system that appeals to a lot of people a lot of the time and that's what we're hoping that we accomplished. There's nothing wrong with not liking something and we appreciate the feedback. We're only so many people developing game mechanics in our free time and if we can attempt to improve the game without breaking other parts that are working well, we'll try to. I know we can all hopefully understand that, right?

[Draz74]

On the other hand, there are also numerous people who don't see a problem with an system that isn't very balanced. And if you don't think balance is a priority, I see no real reason to use Legend over 3.5 or PF.

Now that I can't agree with at all. A few reasons to use Legend over 3.5 or PF that have nothing to do with balance:

More streamlined and easier for the DM to run
Better at allowing unusual character concepts (such as non-humanoid races)
Better at unusual settings such as a sci-fi/fantasy hybrid
The whole skill games subsystem

[JadePhoenix]

Comparing Legend to other systems is like comparing Pathfinder to other systems. It kinda defeats the point that it's based off 3.5. You can compare it to 4e, since they're both class-based systems with balance in mind, but comparing it to GURPS is a bit out of line, since they're two completely different systems (the two major differences are 1) class-based vs point-based and 2) the core mechanic).

I can compare it to anything I want, really. As I've been doing for a while. So it's based off 3.5. I don't care. Basing it off 3.5 was a choice the designers made. If they did that instead of creating a better game by not doing that, it was a bad design choice. Again, if you're telling me 'its 3.5, except more balanced and less simulationist'... well, there's 4e for that, if I ever feel like playing it again.
As is, Legend simply does not appeal to me. The fanbase saying I'm wrong for not liking it does not improve upon my image of the game, the game's creators or said fanbase.

[PEACH]

The problem isn't so much "you can't compare it to other systems" as much as it is "comparing it to non 3.5e systems gets to apples and oranges levels," which isn't particularly helpful when the stated purpose of the thread is to explain the flaws (and merits) of Legend. Saying "I like Mutants and Masterminds better" isn't wrong, but it doesn't really help explain what's good or bad about Legend, because Legend isn't trying to be a point buy system. The other part may have been saying that M&M is balanced (it's not) while Legend isn't (it is, at least to a much greater extent than M&M), but that's a side discussion.

[Knaight]

I can compare it to anything I want, really. As I've been doing for a while. So it's based off 3.5. I don't care. Basing it off 3.5 was a choice the designers made. If they did that instead of creating a better game by not doing that, it was a bad design choice. Again, if you're telling me 'its 3.5, except more balanced and less simulationist'... well, there's 4e for that, if I ever feel like playing it again.
4e and Legend do have similar philosophies, yes. However, the designs are so divergent that they really can't be treated as synonymous, and the implication that someone who likes one should like the other gets old. I find Legend decent, I hate 4e. Again, there are plenty of games with similar philosophies that play very differently - some are even built on the same initial chassis (e.g. The Shadow of Yesterday, and Fate), but there's no reason to assume that people find them interchangeable. Again, look at The Shadow of Yesterday and Fate, both of which have proponents that hate the other.

With that said, I would agree that Legend should be compared to far more than just D&D, and that comparing it to D&D does it a disservice. Moreover, I'd agree that it doesn't do nearly as well when compared to non D&D games. I'd go so far as to say that it also shares a niche with Anima Prime, and Anima Prime is a far better game within that niche. It's not a niche I particularly like* in any case, so I haven't really looked into filling it, and would imagine that I can find yet better games if I do so.


As is, Legend simply does not appeal to me. The fanbase saying I'm wrong for not liking it does not improve upon my image of the game, the game's creators or said fanbase.
Nobody has actually said you're wrong for not liking it. The closest to this has been arguing against a few specific criticisms, such as the 4e one above.

*Which is irrelevant to my criticisms. I judge games by how well they do what it is they do best, and goal based criticism really only comes up in stuff like RaHoWa or FATAL.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Again, if you're telling me 'its 3.5, except more balanced and less simulationist'... well, there's 4e for that, if I ever feel like playing it again.

And again, 4e plays very differently.

Comparing it to systems other than 3.5 means those problems are not just Legend problems. They're 3.5 problems. Legend is pretty much, at it's core, meant to be "3.5, but with barely any balance problems". It is for people who love 3.5 but don't like the balance problems, not for people who are either a) thick-skinned enough to play 4e or b) are looking for something other than 3.5 entirely.

[Answerer]

Comparing it to systems other than 3.5 means those problems are not just Legend problems. They're 3.5 problems. Legend is pretty much, at it's core, meant to be "3.5, but with barely any balance problems". It is for people who love 3.5 but don't like the balance problems, not for people who are either a) thick-skinned enough to play 4e or b) are looking for something other than 3.5 entirely.
...I do not think this is accurate... In fact, I think... you may be misrepresenting Legend, Rule of Cool, and the majority of Legend's fanbase quite severely, Jade Dragon.

[Knaight]

Comparing it to systems other than 3.5 means those problems are not just Legend problems. They're 3.5 problems. Legend is pretty much, at it's core, meant to be "3.5, but with barely any balance problems". It is for people who love 3.5 but don't like the balance problems, not for people who are either a) thick-skinned enough to play 4e or b) are looking for something other than 3.5 entirely.

Problems don't stop being problems just because other systems have the same problems. Legend deserves criticism for all problems, even if those problems still existed in 3.x, and similarly deserves credit for what it does well, even if 3.x also does those things well. Granted, willingness to play 3.x does demonstrate that the problems are likely in low priority areas for those people*, which holds true for Legend, and this probably should be considered when addressing the existing 3.x fan base.

*It could also demonstrate a lack of knowledge that there are games other than D&D.

[TARDIS]

It doesn't have the same level of support as Pathfinder.

What? You wanted something wrong, and Legend looks awesome, I'm just a sucker for the adventure paths and the campaign setting books! :smallwink:

[JadePhoenix]

The problem isn't so much "you can't compare it to other systems" as much as it is "comparing it to non 3.5e systems gets to apples and oranges levels," which isn't particularly helpful when the stated purpose of the thread is to explain the flaws (and merits) of Legend. Saying "I like Mutants and Masterminds better" isn't wrong, but it doesn't really help explain what's good or bad about Legend, because Legend isn't trying to be a point buy system. The other part may have been saying that M&M is balanced (it's not) while Legend isn't (it is, at least to a much greater extent than M&M), but that's a side discussion.

You do realize M&M is also based off 3.5, right?


And again, 4e plays very differently.
So what? :smallconfused:

Comparing it to systems other than 3.5 means those problems are not just Legend problems. They're 3.5 problems.
You're completely wrong. 3.5 is heavily simulationist and so are many games based off it - incluind Mutants & Masterminds or Fantasy Craft. Legend isn't simulationist.

Legend is pretty much, at it's core, meant to be "3.5, but with barely any balance problems".
...and hardly any simulationism, which is the d20 system's main characteristic, I believe.

It is for people who love 3.5 but don't like the balance problems, not for people who are either a) thick-skinned enough to play 4e or b) are looking for something other than 3.5 entirely.
So it's not for me, like I said many times before.


4e and Legend do have similar philosophies, yes. However, the designs are so divergent that they really can't be treated as synonymous, and the implication that someone who likes one should like the other gets old.
And I never implied that.
I'm familiar with 4e. If I want to play something like that, I'll play 4e. Someone else might think differently, like you. I'm just saying what I think.

I find Legend decent, I hate 4e.
I hate neither of those games, but I'm fond of either as well.

Again, there are plenty of games with similar philosophies that play very differently - some are even built on the same initial chassis (e.g. The Shadow of Yesterday, and Fate), but there's no reason to assume that people find them interchangeable. Again, look at The Shadow of Yesterday and Fate, both of which have proponents that hate the other.
You misunderstand me, you're arguing against a point I didn't raise.


With that said, I would agree that Legend should be compared to far more than just D&D, and that comparing it to D&D does it a disservice. Moreover, I'd agree that it doesn't do nearly as well when compared to non D&D games. I'd go so far as to say that it also shares a niche with Anima Prime, and Anima Prime is a far better game within that niche. It's not a niche I particularly like* in any case, so I haven't really looked into filling it, and would imagine that I can find yet better games if I do so.
Never heard about Anima Prime. What is it about?


Nobody has actually said you're wrong for not liking it.
I disagree. Maybe I'm just seeing implied stances where there aren't any, but I feel pretty sure at least one person has repeatedly told me my opinions are just wrong.

The closest to this has been arguing against a few specific criticisms, such as the 4e one above.
Arguing is one thing - you have been arguing pretty well. That's not what I was referring to, though.


*Which is irrelevant to my criticisms. I judge games by how well they do what it is they do best, and goal based criticism really only comes up in stuff like RaHoWa or FATAL.
I admit I'm a little biased myself, actually. I simply don't like the 'lolz based' game Legend seems supposed to support, like I said before. And that is relevant to my criticisms - "I don't like it" is still a valid opinion, after all.

[Kurald Galain]

The whole skill games subsystem


Wait, Legend has skill challenges now?

[Cieyrin]

Wait, Legend has skill challenges now?

They're called Skill Games in Legend but yes. They're currently in Osaka Street Stories (https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/OSS-Beta.pdf), an adventure written for Legend, but they should eventually migrate into the main book. At least, that's the gist I've gathered about the fate of bonus materials so that they're for the most part collected in main books, like the core rule book and upcoming Monster Guide, so digging through PDFs doesn't become detrimental to play.

[JadePhoenix]

They're called Skill Games in Legend but yes. They're currently in Osaka Street Stories (https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/OSS-Beta.pdf), an adventure written for Legend, but they should eventually migrate into the main book. At least, that's the gist I've gathered about the fate of bonus materials so that they're for the most part collected in main books, like the core rule book and upcoming Monster Guide, so digging through PDFs doesn't become detrimental to play.

So Legend pretty much is "4e, but different", isn't it?

[Flickerdart]

So Legend pretty much is "4e, but different", isn't it?
You could say that about anything. For example, my fridge is 4e but different, in that it's a fridge, and not a gaming system.

[Malachei]

You could say that about anything. For example, my fridge is 4e but different, in that it's a fridge, and not a gaming system.

Is this about fridges, or about game systems?

I think this is about game systems. Unless we want to extent to fridges, then what's your point, other than being nitpicking?

[Flickerdart]

My point is that saying that "X is like Y only different" is a meaningless statement.

[Malachei]

My point is that saying that "X is like Y only different" is a meaningless statement.

Not being the author of the line, I can only speculate, but to me, this may be a reason why that part was put in quotation marks.

[Aharon]

But... is your fridge simulationist? And does it have skill games?

[Hiro Protagonest]

So Legend pretty much is "4e, but different", isn't it?

Alright then, if that's true, Legend is also 3.5, only different. Legend is Pathfinder, only different. The "trained/untrained" thing is also sorta like non-weapon proficiencies, so you could say 4e and Legend are AD&D, only different, or 2e, only different.

[Flickerdart]

But... is your fridge simulationist? And does it have skill games?
Yes. Every time I open the freezer compartment, it simulates a landslide, and putting everything back in so that it doesn't fall down is definitely a game of skill.

[Malachei]

Alright then, if that's true, Legend is also 3.5, only different. Legend is Pathfinder, only different. The "trained/untrained" thing is also sorta like non-weapon proficiencies, so you could say 4e and Legend are AD&D, only different, or 2e, only different.

Legend just became a little more blurred to me.

[The Troubadour]

And you're allowed to. Legend isn't claiming it's a perfect system that appeals to all people, it's a good system that appeals to a lot of people a lot of the time and that's what we're hoping that we accomplished.

Oh, I didn't mean that as a bash on Legend or anything. Sorry if it came across as that.
Allow me to elaborate: when I read Legend, I got the distinct feeling it was designed with many of 4E's pre-Mearls guiding principles in mind (I've seen many people describe Legend as "4E done right"); but, by virtue of personal preference only, I prefer 4E's final product.

[DoctorGlock]

I'm gonna preface by saying I love the game, but yes, I got a few gripes.

1: Not enough content yet. I want to know more about Hallow, I want to see a completed AVLT. Still, this is only because they are less than a year old.

2: Autopilot classes. When I pick a track, my abilities are now preset. I like options. Earlier it was mentioned that this is getting fixed, so I am happy.

3: Barbarians. They are more resilient and more capable than 3.5, but still seems to be capable only of hitting things with other things/people/small houses.

4: Iterative attacks. Ok, so I run a game and participate in a game and it seems that at low to mid levels (6-12) iterative attack bonuses and AC numbers scale kinda poorly. The game math seems to have been based around hitting on a 10 for 50% hit, but the secondaries need a 15 or higher and the group barbarian was rather sad about it. I scrounged every bonus and feat I could to hit until 9th when I got sudden surge and now just toggle the win switch.

5: Spells. Yes, 3.5 spells needed an axe to the eyes. But I do miss the ability-- either through class or ritual subsystem-- to alter the world and landscape around me. Legendary traits can do this, but those are sadly optional rules and at my table every picks the passive bonuses over the world warping.

Now, I may be "doing it wrong," and if so please explain how, but these issues did cost me a couple of group members when i switched from 3.5. I love the system in just about everything else however.

[Zeful]

You're completely wrong. 3.5 is heavily simulationist...

No it's not. 3.5 attempts simulationist play and kinda fails at simulating a world supported by it's rules. The only 3.5 derived system I know of that is heavily simulationist is d20 Modern, and only because much of the overhead magic provides is gone.

[Cieyrin]

Oh, I didn't mean that as a bash on Legend or anything. Sorry if it came across as that.
Allow me to elaborate: when I read Legend, I got the distinct feeling it was designed with many of 4E's pre-Mearls guiding principles in mind (I've seen many people describe Legend as "4E done right"); but, by virtue of personal preference only, I prefer 4E's final product.

I wasn't taking it as a bash, just saying in general.
As for the 4E comparisons, I think a lot of what was done with Legend is more incidentally similar than intentionally so. We dig roots from both 2nd and 3rd, which 4E I suppose also did, as well as attempted to standardize the RNG. So, from that perspective, you could say we made our own 4th Edition. I would say that good game designers have similar principles in how to design a game. It's perhaps the execution of how we used those principles that generated what we have. In the end, play what's fun for you, it's your time, your money, don't let anyone else dictate how you spend it. I may not be particularly fond of 4E but there are are facets of it that I liked and house rule in my own games regardless of system, which I think you can do with any game. If you like something from Legend and want it in other games, feel free to take it and run with it. We aren't here to tell you that you can't and no one should, regardless of what system you're talking about.

[Ernir]

Most of what people have been mentioning as flaws is what I consider a strength. RoC people, your flight system is friggin' amazing.

But bad stuff, you say? I can't say I like the ragged left alignment of the PDF's text columns.

[Blisstake]

More streamlined and easier for the DM to run


Actually, my biggest problem with Legend is that I can't imagine any DM wanting to run it. The enemy creation system is, in my opinion, really poorly done. While the track-based system may work for players (though I don't like it, I can see why so many do), it seems like an absolute killer for trying to make interesting and varried enemies. Are all beasts going to have the same set of abilities that come from the beast track?

Maybe this will improve with the monster book, but without it, the system seems incomplete to me. Even if I can get players willing to play the game, I can't think of anyone I game with that would actually be interested in running this.

[Kurald Galain]

So Legend pretty much is "4e, but different", isn't it?

Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, rewriting 3E using the 4E philosophy. I think I'll pass on that, I'm not fond of "gamist" RPGs. I'll wait and see how 5E turns out, instead.

[Malachei]

I'll wait and see how 5E turns out, instead.

WOTC need more love.

[Answerer]

Actually, my biggest problem with Legend is that I can't imagine any DM wanting to run it. The enemy creation system is, in my opinion, really poorly done. While the track-based system may work for players (though I don't like it, I can see why so many do), it seems like an absolute killer for trying to make interesting and varried enemies. Are all beasts going to have the same set of abilities that come from the beast track?

Maybe this will improve with the monster book, but without it, the system seems incomplete to me. Even if I can get players willing to play the game, I can't think of anyone I game with that would actually be interested in running this.
Have you seen the Mooks? The rules are very effective and very, very fast to use. You just pick a level, look up all their stats in a single table, and pick between "Striker" (ranged, and flying at higher levels), "Grunt" (+2 AC and +5 HP/level), or "Myriad" (a group of individually-weaker enemies). There's also "Minion" and "Miniboss," but those get one track and four tracks, respectively, so those take a little more effort.

But still, for your average beasty, Grunts and Strikers are trivial to use. It's also really easy to tweak them slightly to give them a little personality. I halved Zombie's move speeds and gave them an additional +5 HP/level, and gave Skeletons DR 2, and they worked great and had a slightly different feel without ruining balance.

[Blisstake]

Well, that's the thing. I want a system that doesn't leave all the details like that to the GM. That's why I don't think it's exactly friendly to GMs.

[Answerer]

You... don't have to? I mean, you can easily just use them as-is, and just describe them differently. Your players don't even have to know they're the same.

[Epsilon Rose]

You... don't have to? I mean, you can easily just use them as-is, and just describe them differently. Your players don't even have to know they're the same.

I'd argue that. Players tend to be smart and after a few encounters with reflufed enemies running the same chassis I have a feeling most'll figure it out. You shouldn't have to choose between "individually customize the enemies" and "cookie cutter clones". Then again, I like to give my mobs class level, so what do I know?

[Answerer]

I mean, most things that are level-appropriate are going to have relatively similar numbers anyway, so I'm not sure how significant that will be.

Anyway, I tend to agree with you, which is why I said I gave mine minor little special features to differentiate them.

And of course, it's not like saying that there's absolutely no need for a monster manual; the game definitely needs one. I was just saying that the problem of not having one was somewhat overstated.

[Lonely Tylenol]

And again, 4e plays very differently.

Comparing it to systems other than 3.5 means those problems are not just Legend problems. They're 3.5 problems. Legend is pretty much, at it's core, meant to be "3.5, but with barely any balance problems". It is for people who love 3.5 but don't like the balance problems, not for people who are either a) thick-skinned enough to play 4e or b) are looking for something other than 3.5 entirely.

If I may interject:

When choosing which system to run, between, say, 3.5 and M&M, or 3.5 and the Book of Five Rings, is it, or is it not necessary to make a comparison of those systems' merits?

Wouldn't the same, then, be true of Legend?

Let me put it this way: Legend can be an objectively better system than 3.5 in every conceivable way. I don't think it is (for one, I couldn't find a game on my spaced-out, rural Pacific island to save my life, and yes, that IS a criticism--if you scream "I LOVE LEGEND!" and the wind cries "meh", then that's the end of it), but it could be... But if System X is better, objectively, than both of them, then who cares which of the two inferior systems is better?

If Legend is only a good system when compared to 3.5, then it's not as good of a system as I thought, and that's probably my fault for a lack of knowledge of systems other than D&D 3e to compare it to.

[Blisstake]

And of course, it's not like saying that there's absolutely no need for a monster manual; the game definitely needs one. I was just saying that the problem of not having one was somewhat overstated.

Well, the lack of one is quite possibly the one thing stopping me from running this game, so take that as you will.

[GreyMantle]

(In reference to Lord Tylenol.)


That's a really stupid argument. Objective comparisons of most RPG systems are extremely difficult. It's totally possible to see if any system's basic math is broken, but beyond that you can't really say much.

You can say, no matter what your personal opinions are, that Skills in Shadowrun are overpriced, or that 4E Skill Challenges have never worked, or that most of Savage Worlds is more or less unworkable. You can show that 3.x Druids and Clerics are better warriors than Fighters are. All of that is totally objective, but it's often not all that useful.

Instead, everything comes down to your personal preferences and the game's ability to allow certain types of play. And the latter of those two is really dependent on mechanics transparency.

So if you say, "I want to play a heroic fantasy RPG that lets me do cool things," then Shadowrun, 4E, and WoD are already off the table. It doesn't matter that Shadowrun is really a pretty wellwritten system, or that 4E is boring for anything other than beer'n'pretzel dungeoncrawl. Both systems are just automatically not suited because of your (subjective) preferences.

Likewise, if you want to say, "I want a system with fairly minimal math and pre-gaming requirements," then GURPS and HERO will never satisfy you. GURPS could have the elements within it to fill all of your storytelling needs, but they're just not what you're fundamentally looking for.

Legend, in this respect, is very welldesigned. It explicitly states its designgoals and styles upfront, and then it manages to stay fairly consistent within those guidelines. In that it is like Shadowrun, or Paranoia.

Lo5R is a game about samurai in a pseudonipponese setting. Combat is supposed to not be fairly frequent, and social etiquette is important. M&M is a game about superheroes. Neither of those are things that Legend is expressly trying to be. You could write houserules that allow to be used for such settings, but, like d20 Modern or d20 WoD, chances are that the results are just not going to be very good. If I wanted to play a game about Kurosawa, inertia is really the only reason I would even try to consider using D&D.

Legend sez "Yo, this game is about hardcore fantasy in a D&Desque vein. There are more than a few anime stylings, and combat is supposed to be fairly frequent and over the top." And the rules and such expressly support these intentions.

Whether it or 3.x is "better" really does just come down to personal choices. My houserules for 3.T, for example, certainly have more possible options than Legend does. Hell, they probably even have more viable options, because they are the result of years spent with D&D. But Legend is significantly more balanced, and it has many fewer trap options. Its package is also much more internally consistent and coherent, which is also important. And it's new. So, by those guidelines, I'd say it meets my current criteria for an RPG.


RPG choices are sort of like evolution: There's rarely an objectively best system, especially if it tries to be general or generic. But it's possible for a system to be eminently adapted to some specific style, and for that style to adequately meet your temporary desires.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So if you say, "I want to play a heroic fantasy RPG that lets me do cool things," then Shadowrun, 4E, and WoD is already off the table. It doesn't matter that Shadowrun is really a pretty wellwritten system, or that 4E is boring for anything other than beer'n'pretzel dungeoncrawl. Both systems are just automatically off the table.

That's not an objective analysis of 4e. That's you thinking it's boring because all the classes follow the same template, even though they play very differently.

[GreyMantle]

That's not an objective analysis of 4e. That's you thinking it's boring because all the classes follow the same template, even though they play very differently.

Clearly, you and I have extraordinarily different definitions of "very differently."

[Hiro Protagonest]

Clearly, you and I have extraordinarily different definitions of "very differently."

So I assume you've played two classes of different roles? Or even a fighter and a swordmage? Or a sorcerer and a barbarian? Or a warlord and a cleric? Or a wizard and a psion?

[Fatebreaker]

If I may interject:

When choosing which system to run, between, say, 3.5 and M&M, or 3.5 and the Book of Five Rings, is it, or is it not necessary to make a comparison of those systems' merits?

Wouldn't the same, then, be true of Legend?

Let me put it this way: Legend can be an objectively better system than 3.5 in every conceivable way. I don't think it is (for one, I couldn't find a game on my spaced-out, rural Pacific island to save my life, and yes, that IS a criticism--if you scream "I LOVE LEGEND!" and the wind cries "meh", then that's the end of it), but it could be... But if System X is better, objectively, than both of them, then who cares which of the two inferior systems is better?

If Legend is only a good system when compared to 3.5, then it's not as good of a system as I thought, and that's probably my fault for a lack of knowledge of systems other than D&D 3e to compare it to.


That's a really stupid argument. Objective comparisons of most RPG systems are extremely difficult. It's totally possible to see if any system's basic math is broken (ex: 4E's skill challenges, or pretty much everything in Savage Worlds), but beyond that you can't really say much. In general, the only way they're even remotely possible is if the two systems have similar preconceptions and starting conditions, and you want to compare the systems along very similar lines.

So if you say, "I want to play a heroic fantasy RPG that lets me do cool things," then Shadowrun, 4E, and WoD is already off the table. It doesn't matter that Shadowrun is really a pretty wellwritten system, or that 4E is boring for anything other than beer'n'pretzel dungeoncrawl. Both systems are just automatically off the table.

Likewise, if you want to say, "I want a system with fairly minimal math and pre-gaming requirements," then GURPS and HERO will never satisfy you. GURPS could have the elements within it to fill all of your storytelling needs, but they're just not what you're fundamentally looking for.

Legend, in this respect, is very welldesigned. It explicitly states its designgoals and styles upfront, and then it manages to stay fairly consistent within those guidelines. In that it is like Shadowrun.

Lo5R is a game about samurai in a pseudonipponese setting. Combat is supposed to not be fairly frequent, and social etiquette is important. M&M is a game about superheroes. Neither of those are things that Legend is expressly trying to be. You could write houserules that allow to be used for such settings, but, like d20 Modern or d20 WoD, chances are that the results are just not going to be very good.

Legend sez "Yo, this game is about hardcore fantasy in a D&Desque vein. There are more than a few anime stylings, and combat is supposed to be fairly frequent and over the top." And the rules and such expressly support these intentions.

Whether it or 3.x is "better" really does just come down to personal choices. My houserules for 3.T, for example, certainly have more possible options than Legend does. Hell, they probably even have more viable options, because they are the result of years spent with D&D. But Legend is significantly more balanced, and it has many fewer trap options. Its package is also much more internally consistent and coherent, which is also important. And it's new. So, by those guidelines, I'd say it meets my current criteria for an RPG.


RPG choices are sort of like evolution: There's rarely an objectively best system, especially if it tries to be general or generic. But it's possible for a system to be eminently adapted to some specific style, and for that style to adequately meet your temporary desires.

GreyMantle, as much as I agree with your general point, Lonely Tylenol is not making a stupid argument. He's making a valid point that we can and do compare unlike systems, and that arguing whether X is better than Y is pointless if Z is better than both.

Now, I agree with your point about matching up systems to expectations; in some ways, though, that's also the point that Tylenol is making. We use different systems for different purposes, and to find the right system, we have to compare systems which are not directly comparable. Shadowrun vs. L5R. Exalted vs. Dark Heresy. WEGSWRPG3rdE vs. D&D4e. Comparing and contrasting different games helps you look at them in a new light and approach them in a new way.

Long story short, answering the question "What are you looking for?" necessitates exploring how those needs and wants are met, and how each system does those things. At some point, that involves comparing unlike systems.

Sidenote the First: I will say that my group's experiences with 4e did give us heroic fantasy roleplaying, and we did cool things. I've never had nearly so much fun in any D&D game as the times I've played 4e. Your Shadowrun example is much better, because Shadowrun simply is not fantasy, and you have to really break away from the core themes and mechanics of the game to make it heroic.

Sidenote the Second: I'm an ardent opponent of the 3.x system. But frankly, from what I've heard here, I'm really excited to try Legend. I'll run it by my group. And if we have fun, once y'all get a real hard-copy book, we'll gladly throw money at y'all!

[GreyMantle]

Curses, a double post!

[GreyMantle]

So I assume you've played two classes of different roles? Or even a fighter and a swordmage? Or a sorcerer and a barbarian? Or a warlord and a cleric? Or a wizard and a psion?

Classes I Have Played in Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition Ranging Between Levels 3 and 15
A List by GreyMantle

1. Ranger
2. Rogue
3. Sorcerer
4. Wizard
5. Bard
6. Warden
7. Psion

I also DM'd a fair bit.


Every class did not play identically. However, compared to 3.T (which I have played extensively), there was very minimal amounts of variation between classes. And variation between levels was basically nonexistent.

I like variation. When I'm playing a single character, I tend to get bored if my character does not have a mildly wide range of options. And 4E absolutely does not support that playstyle. It's not a truly bad game (because those things don't really exist outside of FATAL and RaHoWar), but it meets almost none of my desires. It does some things fairly well (balance and a dearth of egregious trap options, easier monster design). It does some things mildly well (a lot of the ideas behind its design that were poorly implemented, like the bloodied condition). It does a number of things poorly (Skill Challenges, race/class shoehorning, generic powers, minimal variation). In general, when I played, the times I had fun were in spite of the mechanical system rather than because of it.

[GreyMantle]

GreyMantle, as much as I agree with your general point, Lonely Tylenol is not making a stupid argument. He's making a valid point that we can and do compare unlike systems, and that arguing whether X is better than Y is pointless if Z is better than both.

Now, I agree with your point about matching up systems to expectations; in some ways, though, that's also the point that Tylenol is making. We use different systems for different purposes, and to find the right system, we have to compare systems which are not directly comparable. Shadowrun vs. L5R. Exalted vs. Dark Heresy. WEGSWRPG3rdE vs. D&D4e. Comparing and contrasting different games helps you look at them in a new light and approach them in a new way.

Long story short, answering the question "What are you looking for?" necessitates exploring how those needs and wants are met, and how each system does those things. At some point, that involves comparing unlike systems.

Sidenote the First: I will say that my group's experiences with 4e did give us heroic fantasy roleplaying, and we did cool things. I've never had nearly so much fun in any D&D game as the times I've played 4e. Your Shadowrun example is much better, because Shadowrun simply is not fantasy, and you have to really break away from the core themes and mechanics of the game to make it heroic.

Sidenote the Second: I'm an ardent opponent of the 3.x system. But frankly, from what I've heard here, I'm really excited to try Legend. I'll run it by my group. And if we have fun, once y'all get a real hard-copy book, we'll gladly throw money at y'all!

You make a number of fairly good points. Lord Tylenol's main error was in mentioning three systems (M&M, Lo5R, and 3.5) that really have no way to be compared except on subjective grounds. If he had said, oh, Shadowrun vs. Cyberpunk, or 3.P vs. 3.5, or After Sundown vs. oWoD, those would not have been especially questionable statements.

Essentially, he was doing the only thing worse than intentionally ignoring objective data: he was trying to objectively compare things that we have no real way of objectively analyzing. He was trying to be Metacritic, which is never a good idea.

And I'm not surprised your group had a lot of fun with 4E. I did too. In terms of objective flaws, 4E is probably up there with 1E for being bad. But it's still possible to have a bunch of fun with it if you have the right group and an MC good at magic tea partying.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Really? Comparing things cross-genre = trying to be Metacritic = bad? So my opinion that, say, Troy* is worse than The Godfather is invalid because one's an ancient epic and one's a mob drama? I think you're just slightly overstating the case. The less alike two things are from one another, the more a distinction is based on personal preferences. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater when two RPGs diverge at all in genre or style.

*I tried to choose something bad, but not the worst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst), so that I wouldn't run into an "exception proves the rule" non-argument.

[GreyMantle]

Really? Comparing things cross-genre = trying to be Metacritic = bad? So my opinion that, say, Troy* is worse than The Godfather is invalid because one's an ancient epic and one's a mob drama? I think you're just slightly overstating the case. The less alike two things are from one another, the more a distinction is based on personal preferences. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater when two RPGs diverge at all in genre or style.

*I tried to choose something bad, but not the worst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst), so that I wouldn't run into an "exception proves the rule" non-argument.

Just for the record, I've never seen Troy, but I found the Godfather to be incredibly boring. You're totally allowed to say that you didn't like Troy, though. (That being said, I was using a bit of hyperbole in my argument.)

The point is, most art critiques end up being primarily subjective in nature. And everything that is not explicitly mechanical and objective in nature in RPGs probably warrants inclusion in "art." Just concerning moviefilms, I would not be surprised if our brains are wired to view some styles of (dialog, art direction, themes, etc...) as inherently "better" than others, but I suspect that most of it is very situational and based on prior experiences.

(Aside: Metacritic is bad because all the critics are not even trying to share their prior notions. A 6/10 from Person A could mean something totally different than a 6/10 from Person B. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but people like numbers. The trouble rises when people expect these numbers to be expressly objective just because they're numbers. Which is sort of what Lord Tylenol was doing.)

Back to RPGs: It's not totally impossible to objectively compare systems of different genre and style. For example, After Sundown's method of handling wounds in a dicepool system is better than SR4E's is, in that it is simpler, more intuitive, and scales better. But most decisions are ultimately going to come down to how well a game fulfills your personal goals.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I was thinking of putting this into a tangent, but I think it's a good metaphor for the discussion surrounding Legend. Metacritic is useful because it's a pretty good signal of what reviewers in general think of the film. Like any set of statistics, it aggregates things that would be at best tedious and at worst bias-prone for a single individual to do. Of course, it's not a perfect signal - there's "measurement error" in the way they configure ratings, along with the implied "error" of your own personal tastes differing from those of the aggregated reviewers. That said, it provides useful information without pretending to be authoritative. Maybe people who misuse metacritic pretend it's authoritative. (As an aside, Lonely Tylenol was not necessarily trying to do this.)

When the OP, or Doc Roc, or anyone else asks for feedback about Legend, they're at least partly looking for the general distribution of opinions. Sure, they're mostly based on taste, but more often than not people tend to like some things and dislike others. If everyone's saying "Print the monster book already," that's a useful signal, even if people are only saying that because they like the pretty pictures and are too lazy to make their own stat blocks; perhaps I'm projecting...

[GreyMantle]

I was thinking of putting this into a tangent, but I think it's a good metaphor for the discussion surrounding Legend. Metacritic is useful because it's a pretty good signal of what reviewers in general think of the film. Like any set of statistics, it aggregates things that would be at best tedious and at worst bias-prone for a single individual to do. Of course, it's not a perfect signal - there's "measurement error" in the way they configure ratings, along with the implied "error" of your own personal tastes differing from those of the aggregated reviewers. That said, it provides useful information without pretending to be authoritative. Maybe people who misuse metacritic pretend it's authoritative. (As an aside, Lonely Tylenol was not necessarily trying to do this.)

When the OP, or Doc Roc, or anyone else asks for feedback about Legend, they're at least partly looking for the general distribution of opinions. Sure, they're mostly based on taste, but more often than not people tend to like some things and dislike others. If everyone's saying "Print the monster book already," that's a useful signal, even if people are only saying that because they like the pretty pictures and are too lazy to make their own stat blocks; perhaps I'm projecting...

Minor quibble (because I haven't threadjacked this thread enough already): A lot of people saying that they want the Monster Manual is not an objective numerical measurement. Customer input is really important for any product, but it doesn't necessarily

Regarding Metacritic: Metacritic's main problem is assuming that each reviewer has basically the same initial conceptions. Which is really not the case. Some people think that 10/10 should never been given. Some people think that 10/10 should be given fairly often. Some people review a wide variety of genres and styles. Some people usually only review styles that they already like. All of these are valid methods, but their not by any means equivalent. But Metacritic basically does that. And the problems come from when publishers want games to have a Metacritic score in the high 80s, when that means literally nothing. It's okay to expect some sort of measurement error, but we're talking about errors that are so large as to render aggregate conclusions more detailed than 0 or 1 mildly futile.

Amazon's customer reviews have much of the same problems, except of a significantly worse magnitude.

But I too want a Monster Manual. Like, a lot.

[Lonely Tylenol]

(In reference to Lord Tylenol.)

I've been called many things, but this is a first for "Lord".


That's a really stupid argument. Objective comparisons of most RPG systems are extremely difficult. It's totally possible to see if any system's basic math is broken, but beyond that you can't really say much.

I think you're missing the point here. (You're also being dismissive and rude, but I'm going to let that slide, because, you know, internet.) Beyond my making the ultimate concession (which was only even necessary to show that, even if I made every possible concession, my argument is a valid one), there is no need to make an objective comparison. There is, however, a need to draw a comparison.

The idea that Legend can be compared to 3.5 and only 3.5, because Legend is mechanically similar to (and a derivative of) 3.5, is patently absurd because the fundamental premise of it is absurd. If you say "3.5 is a terrible system, but at least it's better than 4e", for example, and both of those statements are true, then 3.5 may be a better system than 4e, but it's still also a terrible system. That is why a comparison (objective or subjective is entirely your call) not only between the two systems, but between all systems, is necessary: 3.5 can be objectively and/or subjectively worse than almost every other system on the market today (or yesteryear, as it were, since 3.5 is an older system), and that fact can be easily glossed over if you don't hold 3.5 under a fine lens, or you only compare it to a very incomplete field of competitors, ignoring the wide variety of other systems that are also competitors. It is for this reason that people can and do compare 3.5 to other systems, and not just other editions, because the level of fun that one can derive from other systems can be greater than 3.5 (but you wouldn't know it unless you looked).

Legend is no different. It may change, or even improve upon 3.5 in a wide variety of ways, so much so that you may (or may not) say that it is an objectively better system than 3.5 (and don't lie: people have). The point is, even if you accept the premise that Legend is objectively better than 3.5 in every conceivable way, it still needs to be compared to other systems than 3.5 in order to get a better evaluation of its objective merit. Those saying that Legend shouldn't be compared to any system but 3.5 make me wonder why they think it shouldn't be compared to any system other than 3.5, and if the answer to that question is "it won't hold nearly as well when compared to another system other than 3.5", then that means that it isn't a better system--it just so happens that it puts makeup on a lot of the ugly blemishes 3.5 has, which makes it look prettier than that one system (but not necessarily any other) in a one-to-one comparison.

I'm not saying that this is the sum of my evaluation of Legend. I flipped through the system earlier this year and liked it, so much so that I tried to convert my group to Legend, which I mentioned in this very thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13039492&postcount=83). What I am saying is that comparisons to still other systems need to be made on all levels, just as they are with 3.5 (because we don't only compare 3.5 to one other system, nor should we), and if you refuse to do so, and instead look through the system through a filtered lens, then you are doing the system and its developers a disservice, because you could be ignoring what could be gaping flaws in their system (that could even be done well by others) because "it's better than system X".


You make a number of fairly good points. Lord Tylenol's main error was in mentioning three systems (M&M, Lo5R, and 3.5) that really have no way to be compared except on subjective grounds. If he had said, oh, Shadowrun vs. Cyberpunk, or 3.P vs. 3.5, or After Sundown vs. oWoD, those would not have been especially questionable statements.

Basing your whole counter-argument around the fact that I chose M&M and Bo5R as my systems, even though I never actually listed comparative merits or drawbacks on the system, but very obviously just used their names as placeholders for generic examples (and in fact just listed two of the only three systems for which I owned rulebooks that were in the room I was typing in--the third was WH40K, for those keeping records, which would be none of you), is highly pedantic. I even made the leap from specific to general within the very same post that you referenced; why didn't you?


Essentially, he was doing the only thing worse than intentionally ignoring objective data: he was trying to objectively compare things that we have no real way of objectively analyzing. He was trying to be Metacritic, which is never a good idea.

No, I wasn't. :smallannoyed:


(Aside: Metacritic is bad because all the critics are not even trying to share their prior notions. A 6/10 from Person A could mean something totally different than a 6/10 from Person B. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but people like numbers. The trouble rises when people expect these numbers to be expressly objective just because they're numbers. Which is sort of what Lord Tylenol was doing.)

...

:smallannoyed:

You didn't even read my post long enough to get my name right, did you?

You got as far as "3.5 vs. M&M, 3.5 vs. Bo5R", also known as the introduction of my argument, and then launched into a long-winded rant about that one sentence and missed the point entirely, didn't you?

Well, it's listed above. If you actually read this far this time, quote this part of the post in your response. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time again.

[Malachei]

objective or subjective is entirely your call

If we humans are involved, it will not be objective.

This may sound insignificant, but I think the majority of debates on this board (which can get heated) are based on misunderstandings of terms (such as objective) and people claiming that their opinion equals fact, while the other person's opinion equals a mistake. :smallbiggrin:

[imperialspectre]

Well, the lack of [a Monster Manual] is quite possibly the one thing stopping me from running this game, so take that as you will.

I've been working on the Legend Monster Guide for some time. Expect it sometime this year, hopefully by the end of the summer. From what I know, a gap of a few months to a year between the player's guide and the bestiary/monster book is pretty typical in the industry.

On the question of comparing systems with each other:

Since we can only compare things insofar as they are similar, we'll have the easiest time comparing a game like Legend with the games that are most similar to Legend in terms of design concepts, tropes, and mechanical principles. Explanation in the spoiler, TL;DR version immediately follows.

Some systems are broad and generic in their mechanics, allowing for many different settings under one system (Legend, all D&D editions, Pathfinder, FATE). There are certainly differences in design and execution, but you can compare these systems in a lot of different ways. FATE's narrative-driven mechanics are pretty unique and work very well in some of the game concepts that Legend doesn't cover so well, but I don't think that any of the D&D editions or Pathfinder really do anything that Legend can't do just as well (I mean, if you want your game destroyed by 9th-level spells, you could add in a couple more Legendary abilities and have them all just about covered).

Some systems have a lot in common with Legend, such as some level of vertical advancement and relatively heavy rules, but are more narrowly tailored to fit a specific setting. Star Wars Saga Edition, Exalted, and the World of Darkness games come to mind here. (A lot of people think that the White Wolf/Storyteller games advance mostly horizontally. I disagree, because they feature a mechanic that scales vertically in a game-changing way, such as Essence in Exalted or Potency in V:tR. An Essence 3 Exalt will have a very difficult time against an Essence 4 Exalt and has no real chance against an Essence 5 Exalt. This sounds like highly granular vertical advancement to me.) I think that Legend can model many of these games, and models some of them very well, but there will always be corner cases that Legend doesn't handle as well because it wasn't designed from the ground up to fit a different setting. If you really dislike the mechanics of White Wolf games (as I do), you might try to shoehorn some other system's mechanics into the World of Darkness or Exalted settings, but you'll experience some complications.

Finally, some systems are both narrowly focused and very different mechanically from Legend; they may use mostly horizontal advancement (Shadowrun and L5R) or leave a ton of room to GM adjudication (Savage Worlds). You may like one system better; if you get to know a more generic system, you may stick with it just because of its mechanical familiarity (this is the D&D effect that some people have already mentioned). But if your group likes to switch back and forth between different systems, or is particularly attached to the default settings in a game like Shadowrun or L5R, you probably don't want to stretch Legend to fit another game's custom-fitted box.

I think that Legend is a better game than any D&D edition or Pathfinder. I can support this claim with actual reasons; for example, we understand the math behind our system far better than the designers of Pathfinder or any D&D other than 4e, and I think Legend offers a lot more versatility and character agency than 4e does.

I think that Legend has fewer deep mechanical problems than Exalted or (to a lesser extent) Star Wars: Saga Edition, but the latter systems are designed to fit specific settings that Legend isn't. I don't care to argue that Legend is objectively better at handling a given setting than a game that was explicitly designed to fit that setting, even if I think that the other game has serious mechanical flaws.

Finally, I can't compare Legend objectively to a game like Shadowrun, because the two systems lack any real mechanical similarity. You can have a lot of fun playing Legend in a cyberpunk setting, but you won't be playing Shadowrun, and you can adapt Shadowrun to a highish fantasy setting, but you won't be playing Legend. At that point, you're talking entirely about a matter of convenience and personal taste.

[Malachei]

I can't compare Legend objectively to a game like Shadowrun

You, just like me, as a subjective individual can't compare objectively anyway.

But of course you can compare Legend to Shadowrun, much like you can compare apples and oranges.

[Blisstake]

I think that Legend is a better game than any D&D edition or Pathfinder. I can support this claim with actual reasons; for example, we understand the math behind our system far better than the designers of Pathfinder or any D&D other than 4e, and I think Legend offers a lot more versatility and character agency than 4e does.

[Warning: lengthy explanation on minor point]

Ah, now here's where I disagree. Many people have said that the developers of 3.5 and PF didn't really understand the system they were working with. While I can see that as being true for the early parts of 3.5, I think it's actually closer to the fact that they realize what they're doing... but their design goals are simply headed in a different direction.

For example, one commonly brought up point is the damage disparity between monks and two weapon fighters (let's use PF versions as the example since their developers have had a lot more time with the system). Even with equal strength, there's a good chance that a fighter using a greatsword will have better DPR than a monk allowed to use flurry. Does that mean mathmatically monks are weaker than fighters (at, say, level 1)? Perhaps, that's only examining one aspect of a class (damage potential). Monks are constantly armed (good for stealth or trying to appear non-threatening), don't need armor, have a decent skillset, can do a stunning attack, and have good saves all around.

So this leads to an interesting situation: are the designers simply not understanding why monks have lower damage outputs, or is that intentional due to out of combat versatility? While it could honestly be a mistake on their parts, there's also the explanation that they do understand the system perfectly well, but choose a different level of balance than what some players are expecting. After all, with such a varied system as 3.5/PF, isn't something such as the level of optimization a huge factor over what is considered balanced/imbalanced by a player group? For example, new players might find Warblades from ToB to be horrifically imbalanced, while experienced players realize that they still pale in comparison to an optimized wizard. Well, what if inexperienced or low-optimization groups vastly outnumber high-optimization ones? Then, wouldn't it make more sense to balance it around the majority even if the minority of players are arguably more correct?

I get the feeling the designers of PF know a lot more about the system than many imagine, but don't design it with high-optimization in mind. That could be why it's been so successful.

[Lonely Tylenol]

If we humans are involved, it will not be objective.

Not for systems as a whole, but aspects of it, yes; imperialspectre touched on that, quoted below:


I think that Legend is a better game than any D&D edition or Pathfinder. I can support this claim with actual reasons; for example, we understand the math behind our system far better than the designers of Pathfinder or any D&D other than 4e, and I think Legend offers a lot more versatility and character agency than 4e does.

If spectre can, indeed, back this claim up with facts, then an objective comparison of the two can be drawn based on those facts.

More importantly, I said that because GreyMantle made my use of the word "objective" a point of contention of his (even though I only used "objective" to state that, even if I concede that Legend is objectively better, the point remains valid, and never actually made an objective comparison), and I just want to make it absolutely clear that I am not recommending an objective comparison. Which I feel you understood, so that's all I have to say on that.

imperialspectre:

Since we can only compare things insofar as they are similar . . .

I actually disagree with this, in a manner of speaking. You can't compare, but you can certainly contrast, an element that is a (necessary) part of any comparison.

Take the Legend flight system vs. 3.5 flight system. This is a smaller, slightly hyperbolized example, and I concede that right out of the gate (as this is a general argument with a specific example, and I am lacking in specific examples at this point), but I digress. If you can only compare them insofar as they are similar, then you'd get about as far as "they are both mechanical rules for flight" before they begin to diverge. We can, however, contrast differing elements of the flight system, and draw the conclusion that, based on the differences, Legend's 2d flight system is easy to understand, but immersion-breaking, and 3.5's 3d flight system is easy to immerse yourself in, but requires more trigonometry than should be necessary in a game where most of the math is basic arithmetic, and then draw a comparison based on those contrasting elements. I could draw this example as far as possible, to a system that has absolutely no flight (does d20 modern have innate, single-person flight?), and contrast their flight systems on a binary "flight/no flight" basis, and then compare them based on their differences and what they mean ("if you prefer a system where everyone keeps at least one foot on the ground 99% of the time, and gravity is something that means something, then play system X over system Y!").

I know that the flight example above draws on a semantic definition of comparison; for that I apologize. I just don't think that systems having differences (mechanical, not setting-based) necessarily voids them from the ability to make comparisons between them. You could say that a d20 system is fundamentally different in the way that it works than an Xd6 system, where you roll a number of d6 based on the difficulty of your task against a fixed DC number, subtract your raw ability score (not the modifier) from the rolled result, and succeed if your check result is lower than the DC (this is as far from d20 as I've played on a dice-based system, and it was for a homebrew system that a friend created himself). I could say that, based on what I know about 1d20 vs. Xd6, that there is an equal chance of rolling extremes on the 1d20, while the Xd6 system favors averages because of the probability curve that comes with rolling more dice, and further that the Xd6 system places greater importance on ability scores (since it uses raw attributes and not modifiers), and based on that fact I could say that the d20 system is more luck-based, but that it is also more skill-based (and modular) because of the importance skills have on your check results, where skills aren't a part of this Xd6 system. These comparisons, which are fact-based, can be proven objectively true or false when held up to scrutiny. They can also help to make subjective decisions based on the system (that little bit is for Malachei :smalltongue:).

Comparisons based on contrasting elements are still valid comparisons.

(I don't mean to undermine your point, and I think it's a good one. I just happen to disagree.)

[Kurald Galain]

Wow, this is turning into an actual Edition War already!

[WitchSlayer]

Wow, this is turning into an actual Edition War already!

Yaaaaaay!

Mint chocolate chip!

[Malachei]

*snip*

Now I will not (not again) delve into the meaning of objective, but just as a small example: even physicists, who often work under more or less controlled laboratory conditions, very rarely claim their findings and conclusions are objective. Objectivity is a concept that implies that everybody who undertakes a certain task will come to the same conclusion.


we understand the math behind our system far better than the designers of Pathfinder or any D&D other than 4e, and I think Legend offers a lot more versatility and character agency than 4e does. (bolded for emphasis)

Subjectivity starts with "we understand". The process of understanding is, of course, subjective.

But again, that will lead us into the field of philosophy. I don't want to start a huge discussion and another topic here, but it was important to point out: The problem with the heated debates is the "me = right, you = wrong" attitude, which is often backed up by "my opinion = fact", and "your opinion = your (wrong) opinion". I am not pointing at any particular poster in this thread here, I'm just saying if we would be more willing to accept our opinion as subjective (but potentially shared by others), we'd probably have an easier time sharing thoughts, ideas, opinions with others (unless we love having an argument for the argument's sake).

[Lonely Tylenol]

Now I will not (not again) delve into the meaning of objective, but just as a small example: even physicists, who often work under more or less controlled laboratory conditions, very rarely claim their findings and conclusions are objective. Objectivity is a concept that implies that everybody who undertakes a certain task will come to the same conclusion.

I know what objectivity is. Further, I'm not sure how my (entirely correct) original use of the word "objectively" (where it underscores exactly the point you are describing above--that finding something objectively better is an absurd extreme--and extrapolates on that point) got us to this point, where I was well and prepared to argue the exact opposite (that in my last post, I was arguing that, if you break down and scrutinize the mechanics of a system, you can find certain values of a system to be empirically, objectively true), so I'm going to back out and swallow my words before they become plentiful enough to choke on.

EDIT: Oh, wait, I get it now. In the four hours that have passed, it became 2AM.

Oh boy. It's going to be one of those nights. :smalltongue:

[Malachei]

*shrugs*
Empirical "truth" is another problem not worth arguing on, at least not in the context of comparing game systems.

My point is that a lot of debates get so heated they actually lead nowhere. You can even find people who freak out when somebody cites the FAQ as an additional, non-RAW source. Often, discussions are so opinionated that the original idea is no longer present. This is when everybody withdraws except for the few people involved in the heated part of the argument, who usually furiously repeat and explain their previous statements several times before they eventually agree to disagree.

[Answerer]

I love Legend.

I also disagree with several people defending it.

Comparisons with other systems are reasonable. Legend isn't that close to 3.5 anyway. Sure, in a lot of cases all you can come up with is "they're different in fundamental ways and you have to decide which fits your group better" and fall in the category of pure personal preference, but it's not valid to say that 3.5 is the only comparison one can make.

It's a false dichotomy. When people sit down to play, the choice is not "Legend or 3.5?" the choice is "Legend, or anything else?" Ultimately, the decision to play Legend is, like almost everything else ever, a matter of opportunity cost: while playing Legend, you cannot be playing 3.5 or Exalted or GURPS or Shadowrun – you have to pick one.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Wow, this is turning into an actual Edition War already!Seems more like an epistemology war to me... or maybe it's a meta-edition war, arguing over whether Legend gets to battle with games outside the D&D editions. *Imagines anthropomorphic RPG rulesets duking it out instead of people arguing on the internet*

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, rewriting 3E using the 4E philosophy. I think I'll pass on that, I'm not fond of "gamist" RPGs. I'll wait and see how 5E turns out, instead.

So you hate 3.x with a passion then? Because it's TOTALLY and COMPLETLY gamist, they put in some fluff descriptions and stuff like craft skills.

NO ONE ever uses 3.x craft as written. Seriously, I've had prolonged discussions with people talking about how nice it was to have craft rules so you could do stuff like repair things. "Where do you get your components?"
"Components?" "You need components to repair, do you carry parts and tools for all your gear with you?" "No we just hand-wave it." "So, if your wagon gets damaged you settle down and spend 3 weeks repairing it?" "No, a couple of hours, why would it take three weeks?" "Because the rules are that it takes half as long and half the components of building something from scratch to repair it, if you're using the rules surely you know that."

Then we'll get to crafting pay, the PROOF that the writers of that paragraph did not proof read their own paragraph, because craft is usuable untrained yet they include an "unskilled labor" rate which is lower than untrained craft. Since there's NO NEED to have a craft skill to use craft to earn a living at 1d20+skill bonus over 2 GP per weak, and you can take ten on that roll, you can ALWAYS earn more than unskilled labor even if you are unskilled.

Then there's the interaction of the magic system with the world... TOTALLY missed every possible consequence of that magic system run as a simulation.

Then there's the fact that encounters are RECOMMENDED to scale with the party.

All gamist, totally so.

3.x isn't simulationist, it's got a thin layer of versimilitude over a system that can't even simulate it's own genre of fiction!

[imperialspectre]

After all, with such a varied system as 3.5/PF, isn't something such as the level of optimization a huge factor over what is considered balanced/imbalanced by a player group? For example, new players might find Warblades from ToB to be horrifically imbalanced, while experienced players realize that they still pale in comparison to an optimized wizard. Well, what if inexperienced or low-optimization groups vastly outnumber high-optimization ones? Then, wouldn't it make more sense to balance it around the majority even if the minority of players are arguably more correct?

The meme that ToB is laughably overpowered in the eyes of new players really isn't true at all. It's quite solidly within the "unoptimized" power curve of 7 of the 11 core 3.5 classes - four full casting classes (druids are still stronger because loldruid, but it's not that huge of a margin if we're talking "unoptimized"), barbarians, bards, and rogues. Sure, core fighters, paladins, rangers, and monks suck, but it doesn't actually take a heck of a lot of play to figure it out. I figured it out by the end of my first D&D campaign, and my characters were a blaster wizard and a standard core-only fighter.

I'll grant you that fighters, monks, and paladins suck less in PF than in core 3.5 (but more than they did in all-books-open 3.5), but they still don't have a prayer against a ton of CR-appropriate monsters in the PF bestiary. Nerfing monks several times since the release of the PF core books (Improved Natural Attack removal, TWF debacle) hasn't helped matters in this case.


I get the feeling the designers of PF know a lot more about the system than many imagine, but don't design it with high-optimization in mind. That could be why it's been so successful.

PF is successful largely because they had a recognized, somewhat-popular company producing an alternative to a hugely controversial D&D edition and because that alternative allowed people to go to conventions and play something like 3.5 when WotC wouldn't let them anymore. This is a really good business model, and it almost doesn't matter what Paizo publishes as long as it vaguely resembles 3.5 and doesn't violate any legal restrictions.


I actually disagree with this, in a manner of speaking. You can't compare, but you can certainly contrast, an element that is a (necessary) part of any comparison.

. . .

Comparisons based on contrasting elements are still valid comparisons.

(I don't mean to undermine your point, and I think it's a good one. I just happen to disagree.)

I probably didn't phrase what I said as well as I could have. If two systems are trying to achieve dramatically different design goals, this difference limits the amount of comparison we can make. The flight example is really very good, because in that instance the 3.5 designers prioritized simulation over ease of play and the Legend designers did the exact opposite. Personal preference of simulation or ease of play therefore determines which system a person would prefer. I can make arguments that the "flight simulation" 3.5 provides is too difficult to be worth having, but some people will value simulation too highly to care.


Subjectivity starts with "we understand". The process of understanding is, of course, subjective.

This depends on who you read. You can certainly think of "understanding" as gestehen or otherwise the process of deeply personal consideration of shared experience, but you could also think of "understanding" as a process of a dialectic examination of the reasoning behind a proposition. The latter may not get us to definitely-"right" answers, but it may well allow us to eliminate "wrong" answers conclusively.

Oops, sorry. Let a different part of my inner nerd out. Back out of the cave, theory nerd-me!


Seems more like an epistemology war to me... or maybe it's a meta-edition war, arguing over whether Legend gets to battle with games outside the D&D editions. *Imagines anthropomorphic RPG rulesets duking it out instead of people arguing on the internet*

AWWWW YEEEAAAAH.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The meme that ToB is laughably overpowered in the eyes of new players really isn't true at all. It's quite solidly within the "unoptimized" power curve of 7 of the 11 core 3.5 classes - four full casting classes (druids are still stronger because loldruid, but it's not that huge of a margin if we're talking "unoptimized"), barbarians, bards, and rogues. Sure, core fighters, paladins, rangers, and monks suck, but it doesn't actually take a heck of a lot of play to figure it out. I figured it out by the end of my first D&D campaign, and my characters were a blaster wizard and a standard core-only fighter.

Wrong. Let's take a party of a druid, warblade, rogue, and wizard. Low-op. Well, the druid took an eagle companion and prepares Cure Light/Minors Wounds in his spell slots, except for one, which he prepares Shillelagh in, and takes Weapon Focus (Staff) and Spell Focus (Conjuration), aiming for Augment Summoning later, the wizard prepares two Magic Missiles and a Mage Armor and takes Spell Penetration and Eschew Materials, the halfling rogue takes Improved Initiative (which, actually isn't that bad), and the half-orc warblade with a greatclub takes Power Attack and picks any three maneuvers and one stance from: Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw (except he doesn't take Wolf Fang Strike unless he's going for Sudden Leap and/or Hunter's Sense, and can clearly see that Blood in the Water won't be much benefit to him). He still comes out ahead, because at this level, Stone Bones is teh awesome, Charging Minotaur is good fun, Steel Wind is straight-up better than Cleave at this level, Steely Strike+Power Attack one-shots most things at this level, and Sudden Leap... okay, Sudden Leap isn't quite so useful at low levels.

[maysarahs]

Just to put my two cents in (I kinda stopped reading all of the longer replies between two people in a "friendly discussion" on the 5th page (my apologies if I am redundant to any of their points (I mean no disrespect)) I just finished reading the Legend pdf cover to cover (I skipped some of the feats pages, so if I missed something important I'm sorry and will amend my opinion once any lack of authority in my opinion is pointed out and I get to those pages) and spent most of my morning coming up with something to say in this thread but unfortunately Draz beat me to my own opinion (for the most part), as did Lonely Tylenol. However in my own words, my problem with Legend is threefold

1. To me building a character in Legend isn't the same as building one in Pathfinder (and by extension 3.5, but I play mostly PF). If making a character in 3.5 and PF are LEGOs, making a character in Legend feels like using those DUPLO blocks we had as kids. I love the Rogue talents, and Magus arcanae, and evolution points and school specialization, and rage abilities of PF. Legend has flexibility with its track system, but ultimately it feels like I'm choosing my slots at birth and then follow a set path for the rest of the game. I know the objection to this is that people usually have 1-20 builds ready at chargen, but in Legend that there is no feeling of change in your character once you enter the "prime levels" of your build. There is no feeling of "coming online" with your character. You just get another level in that choice you made at level 1, some will have cool abilities, but its usually a build upon the mechanics you chose at the beginning. But this is purely subjective, and doesn't really "ruin" anything.

2. My second point, which I suppose isn't mine (it is one of the objections a friend(player I DM for) brought up). The game itself feels skeletal. This is a major good thing for a DM (usually me), since (other than the monster making) it streamlines preparation to an incredible degree. But for my players, this is seen as a problem. There are TONS of ways to fluff any and all of the abilities given in the game, but it gives little suggestions in a few places that kinda try help flesh it out. This kinda amounts to being given little pushes to design a character concept in a system that expects you to make it up as you see fit, and this gets a little confusing. Ultimately though, this is a fluff point

3. I miss the magic. I really like that Legend is a balanced system, but prepared casting was one of my favorite mechanics in 3.5/PF. I can't really call any class a casting class since they all can kinda have spellcasting, But the shaman and the tactician just don't replace the amount of fun I had bookdiving for obscure spells and such. I understand this is a product of balance concerns, so I am willing to make that sacrifice. That doesn't mean I'll miss it. I'm just bummed that the max number of spells any character can know at any given time is 20. :smallfrown:

4. Not enough material! This stems from my third point, but there aren't that many spells for casters (max 10 or so per circle)(I am aware of the necessary restriction due to design philosophy, but I think its possible to increase the number of spells and not give casters more of an advantage). This is where I honestly have to break down and say that I am incredibly impressed with Legend, I was a little hesitant at first, but I am definitely pushing for my players to pick up this system. This "problem" essentially boils down to "I want more Legend" so its not really a problem.

Well thats my opinion, just your average players first impression of this system

[Answerer]

There is no feeling of "coming online" with your character. You just get another level in that choice you made at level 1, some will have cool abilities, but its usually a build upon the mechanics you chose at the beginning. But this is purely subjective, and doesn't really "ruin" anything.
While in several cases, yes, you do not get to make additional choices as you level, having already set yourself into the tracks (though this is certainly not true of every track; many have quite a few options, and I hope to see more options added in future content), I really can't agree with this.

Almost every circle is a major thing (and ideally, all are supposed to be). As such, your character doesn't just "come online" at a certain level – he comes online at every level. Or at least, such is the intent, and I've certainly felt that way about a lot of my characters.

And it's something I really love about Legend.

[JadePhoenix]

No it's not. 3.5 attempts simulationist play and kinda fails at simulating a world supported by it's rules. The only 3.5 derived system I know of that is heavily simulationist is d20 Modern, and only because much of the overhead magic provides is gone.

"Kinda failing" doesn't make it any less simulationist.
Healer is a divine caster. It sucks as a divine caster. It doesn't make it any less of a divine caster.
Rebeca Black is a singer. She sucks as a singer. Doesn't make her any less of a singer.


FATE's narrative-driven mechanics are pretty unique and work very well in some of the game concepts that Legend doesn't cover so well, but I don't think that any of the D&D editions or Pathfinder really do anything that Legend can't do just as well (I mean, if you want your game destroyed by 9th-level spells, you could add in a couple more Legendary abilities and have them all just about covered).


AD&D and D&D 3.5 do simulationism a lot better than Legend, because Legend does not do simulationism.


Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, rewriting 3E using the 4E philosophy. I think I'll pass on that, I'm not fond of "gamist" RPGs. I'll wait and see how 5E turns out, instead.

I'm with you!


Well, that's the thing. I want a system that doesn't leave all the details like that to the GM. That's why I don't think it's exactly friendly to GMs.
I agree completely.


Many people have said that the developers of 3.5 and PF didn't really understand the system they were working with. While I can see that as being true for the early parts of 3.5, I think it's actually closer to the fact that they realize what they're doing... but their design goals are simply headed in a different direction.
Amen. It's good to see there are still players around who wnat more than 'balanced DPR' from a game.


NO ONE ever uses 3.x craft as written.
I do.

[maysarahs]

While in several cases, yes, you do not get to make additional choices as you level, having already set yourself into the tracks (though this is certainly not true of every track; many have quite a few options, and I hope to see more options added in future content), I really can't agree with this.


Legend characters certainly do get new abilities every level, and you get them at levels staggered between the tracks to provide some variety (and since you've had experience playing games, I accept your opinion to be more relevant than mine) but (and I hope I don't get accused of nitpicking) most of the options are pretty binary if I recall correctly.

To clarify, it just feels very rigid to consider that I am locked into an option from the beginning. Especially for a game that was touted as based on the philosophy that all classes were equally powerful at equal levels. I suppose I took that to mean that any choices I make (within reason) would lead to equally powerful characters. I guess in my mind it just followed then that I could make more choices through the game and not have to worry that I'd fall behind because of them, not have less choices to begin with.

Perhaps this was done the way it was because it streamlines leveling up, and there is little down-time between sessions in the middle of a campaign. Or even that I have noticed that it is a great game for beginners to pick up because they can choose any design concept and not have to worry about being outshone. I am not bashing the design, for all my complaints, I sincerely hope that anyone who reads my posts will not be turned off of trying out Legend.

I respect the designers and the people who put their effort into making something that solves (AFAIK) the balance problems of 3.5/PF, so I will accept that some of the problems I have with the system are products of necessity (homogeneity of weapons is better than 4e's homogeneity of classes, and I am impressed at the execution of Legend). Thank you Creators of Legend.

[Answerer]

I wasn't really addressing the option issue (one I agree with you on), I was addressing the notion of a build "coming online", which definitely happens in Legend. It just happens constantly, as the choices you made in the beginning start bearing more and more fruit.

[Blisstake]

The meme that ToB is laughably overpowered in the eyes of new players really isn't true at all. It's quite solidly within the "unoptimized" power curve of 7 of the 11 core 3.5 classes - four full casting classes (druids are still stronger because loldruid, but it's not that huge of a margin if we're talking "unoptimized"), barbarians, bards, and rogues. Sure, core fighters, paladins, rangers, and monks suck, but it doesn't actually take a heck of a lot of play to figure it out. I figured it out by the end of my first D&D campaign, and my characters were a blaster wizard and a standard core-only fighter.

It's absolutely true in any of the games I've played. When I allow ToB, one player picked a warblade and suddenly the paladin, fighter, and barbarian feel completely useless in combat, while the wizard felt like his only job was to buff the warblade to increase damage further.

And congrats, you're good at optimization analysis. Not everyone is, which is why ToB tends to horribly inbalance games with the people I play with, even if they're really not that great in comparison to wizards. Speaking of which, the three games where I allowed ToB were only core + ToB if that makes a difference.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

ToB unarguably has a high optimization floor. That said, a core druid who gets a beefy animal companion (not even the best ones, e.g. wolf instead of riding dog) and wildshapes into a noncombat flier, and uses his spells in combat simply on spontaneous SNA, is going to outdo any ToB character and be much more survivable. This isn't an optimized Druid. It's just a Druid who takes obvious, iconic choices. Any lower optimization and you might as well talk about a swordsage with 8 dex/8 con.

[Hiro Protagonest]

ToB unarguably has a high optimization floor. That said, a core druid who gets a beefy animal companion (not even the best ones, e.g. wolf instead of riding dog) and wildshapes into a noncombat flier, and uses his spells in combat simply on spontaneous SNA, is going to outdo any ToB character and be much more survivable. This isn't an optimized Druid. It's just a Druid who takes obvious, iconic choices. Any lower optimization and you might as well talk about a swordsage with 8 dex/8 con.

Iconic? I've never seen the "iconic druid" as something that sics a wolf on people while flying high above them as an eagle, while making other animals come through portals. I've seen it more as the guy with a staff, who has an eagle on his shoulder or a wolf/cat at his side, can call a storm and summon lightning, and can turn into a tiger or wolf.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Iconic? I've never seen the "iconic druid" as something that sics a wolf on people while flying high above them as an eagle, while making other animals come through portals. I've seen it more as the guy with a staff, who has an eagle on his shoulder or a wolf/cat at his side, and who can turn into a tiger or wolf.By iconic I meant the wolf animal companion and summoning other animals into the fight. I don't see portals in the summon nature's ally entry. The druid can stay un-wildshaped and still out contribute a Warblade; he's just more vulnerable.

Maybe "standard" would be a better word.

[Redshirt Army]

I ended up playing a game of Legend with my friends, and this was my general impression:

-The rule book's style made it hard for me to envision playing this in a more serious game - we ended up playing a silly game, but this does strike me as a weakness.

-The combat seemed much slower than 3.5 combat: High level DnD is often compared to rocket tag, whereas here it took several rounds to drop a single baddie (out of six), with the whole group doing focus fire. Towards the end, is started to feel like a dull slog, with most characters having run out of per encounter things and being unwilling to use up per day things, and thus resorting to "at-will attacks", to borrow a 4e term.

-Our GM complained about how time consuming each enemy was to make, since each enemy is essentially a full character. Admittedly, there is a monster book coming out that should alleviate this, but it is a concern until it does.

- We were unfamiliar with the system. I'll admit that this isn't a system issue, and may be responsible for the slowness of combat we experienced, but it still strikes a chord with me: This is 3.5, but with better balance, a bunch of unfamiliar mechanics, no monster book, and less splatbook support. Is it unfair to compare the efforts of a small publisher to a huge company with years more time to expand a product? Yes, but I still have more fun with 3.5 than with Legend, and currently see no compelling reason to switch.

[Greenish]

Barbarians. They are more resilient and more capable than 3.5, but still seems to be capable only of hitting things with other things/people/small houses.Well, skills and feats do more in Legend (and spells do less), but yeah, Barbarian is aimed at a specific style that some people enjoy and others hate.


You shouldn't have to choose between "individually customize the enemies" and "cookie cutter clones".There's a spectrum. Grunts are just numbers. Elites get a single track. Operatives get a track, a pair of feats, and unique offensive/defensive abilities. Full-on monsters are (mostly) built like players.


*Imagines anthropomorphic RPG rulesets duking it out instead of people arguing on the internet*I'd play a game with that as it's basic premise.


I'm just bummed that the max number of spells any character can know at any given time is 20.Actually, 40. :smallwink:


Amen. It's good to see there are still players around who wnat more than 'balanced DPR' from a game.I don't think that's a fair characterization of what Legend has to offer or of its players.


Our GM complained about how time consuming each enemy was to make, since each enemy is essentially a full character. Admittedly, there is a monster book coming out that should alleviate this, but it is a concern until it does.Mooks (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mooks.pdf), operatives (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Operatives.pdf), and myriads (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Myriads.pdf) are all already out (and will be integrated into the core document for the launch). They should do their own part in helping to tide people over for the monster book.

[JadePhoenix]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what Legend has to offer or of its players.
Of course. Maybe that's why I didn't say anything related to Legend in the sentence you quoted. I was just complimenting a fellow playgrounder.
All I meant is that judging a game as well designed or not simply because of math is not a school of thought I subscribe to and I'm glad there's someone else thinking similarly. I meant no disrespect to Legend, its creators, its fans or whomever.

[Zeful]

"Kinda failing" doesn't make it any less simulationist.
Healer is a divine caster. It sucks as a divine caster. It doesn't make it any less of a divine caster.
Rebeca Black is a singer. She sucks as a singer. Doesn't make her any less of a singer.

Yes it does. 3.5 simulates reality in the sense that it has physics. That is all. Any game with falling rules is as simulationist as 3.5 is because it's rules don't shape the settings and it certainly doesn't simulate reality. It's not a simulationist game.

[Greenish]

Of course. Maybe that's why I didn't say anything related to Legend in the sentence you quoted. I was just complimenting a fellow playgrounder.:smallamused:

[potatocubed]

Not relevant to anything, but:


...you can adapt Shadowrun to a highish fantasy setting, but you won't be playing Legend. At that point, you're talking entirely about a matter of convenience and personal taste.

Actually, at that point, you're playing Earthdawn. :smalltongue:

[JadePhoenix]

Yes it does. 3.5 simulates reality in the sense that it has physics. That is all. Any game with falling rules is as simulationist as 3.5 is because it's rules don't shape the settings and it certainly doesn't simulate reality. It's not a simulationist game.

Then it's a good thing that you don't have to simulate reality to be simulationist. You have to simulate your game world.
D&D 3.5 has rules for demographics, stats for everyone you meet and rules for basically everything. The settings are not shaped under those rules, except for Eberron, because they came before the rules. That's the problem with legacy games. 3.5 is not perfect, but it is simulationist. Under 3.5, I can use a rule to know the highest level character in a city or how long it takes to forge a sword. I can't do that in Legend and it's frankjy offensive to handwave it away as not a problem.
Toon is also a highly simulationist game. It has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Simulationism and realism are completely different things.

[Karoht]

I dislike Legend's lack of simulationism. Like the group's name says, it runs on rule of cool, and rule of cool only. The game doesn't try to make sense, fluff is separate by crunch.I've never quite been able to put it into words, but this is a very close generalization as to why I don't like Warhammer 40K or most of it's universe. I'm going to have to check out Legend now, I hope I don't get put off by what I see.

[Fatebreaker]

Then it's a good thing that you don't have to simulate reality to be simulationist. You have to simulate your game world.
D&D 3.5 has rules for demographics, stats for everyone you meet and rules for basically everything. The settings are not shaped under those rules, except for Eberron, because they came before the rules. That's the problem with legacy games. 3.5 is not perfect, but it is simulationist. Under 3.5, I can use a rule to know the highest level character in a city or how long it takes to forge a sword. I can't do that in Legend and it's frankjy offensive to handwave it away as not a problem.
Toon is also a highly simulationist game. It has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Simulationism and realism are completely different things.

If a game has rules to simulate a world, and the game world does not reflect those rules, is it really simulationist?

[olentu]

If a game has rules to simulate a world, and the game world does not reflect those rules, is it really simulationist?

Well presumably it depends on what the goal of the system really is. If the goal of the system really is simulation then even if the system fails at that it is just a failed simulationist system. Of course that assumes that the goal of the system is simulation which is not necessarily the case.

[Kurald Galain]

Well presumably it depends on what the goal of the system really is.

Precisely.

3E has different design goals than Legend. If you don't like Legend's design goals, then it's likely you don't like Legend either. That is not the fault of the system, it is simply a matter of fact that not everybody enjoys the same design goals.

That's a completely different matter from liking a game's design goals but feeling that the game doesn't attain said goals.

In other words, strawberry.

[Greenish]

In other words, strawberry.No, chocolate! :smallfurious:

/NERD RAGEEEE!

[Lonely Tylenol]

No, chocolate! :smallfurious:

/NERD RAGEEEE!

Chocolate strawberries. :smallcool:

[Malachei]

Well presumably it depends on what the goal of the system really is. If the goal of the system really is simulation then even if the system fails at that it is just a failed simulationist system. Of course that assumes that the goal of the system is simulation which is not necessarily the case.

I think the point is a "I'm okay, you're not okay" issue.

There's the impression that some people feel it is okay to say 3.5 is flawed, but it is not okay to say Legend is flawed.

[Karoht]

Well then, lets just come out and say it.
All systems are flawed.
There, that wasn't so bad. Kinda felt good even.

Personal preference, yes 3.5 had issues, I feel that Pathfinder managed to deal with at least some of those issues. Flaws are still there though. I would expect nothing less of Legend.

[eggs]

Lies! StickGuy (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/stickguy-the-role-playing-game) is immaculate!

[Malachei]

Well then, lets just come out and say it.
All systems are flawed

...Finally!

[Icewraith]

So, after all of that, and knowing what the design goals of Legend are (at least a bit), are there things it could do better without significantly impacting those goals?

[olentu]

I think the point is a "I'm okay, you're not okay" issue.

There's the impression that some people feel it is okay to say 3.5 is flawed, but it is not okay to say Legend is flawed.

Well it is not like any system is completely without flaw but some things that are flaws in one case can be desired in another depending on the design goal of the system.

[JadePhoenix]

Skipping the bug

[Flickerdart]

It looks like the forums ate JadePhoenix's post, so let's just reveal it. Presto change-o!

[Claudius Maximus]

(I don't think you're supposed to delete posts like that without a good reason.

Here's seeing if it'll eat six...)

In any case I like most of Legend's approaches. Most complaints are fixable specific instances, like this ability is worded weird or this feat is underwhelming. In terms of broader ideas, some have asked why we have class chassis at all instead of a build-your-own system, and others want to look into alternatives for abilities at a given circle. Some of these questions might be explored in later editions, but I haven't heard that they'll be implemented in Legend 1.0.

[Greenish]

So, after all of that, and knowing what the design goals of Legend are (at least a bit), are there things it could do better without significantly impacting those goals?I would happily wave goodbye to ability damage/penalty and medium BAB, say.