[Legend] What's Missing? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Geigan

2013-08-06, 12:52 PM

I believe one of the bits I've been interested in exploring in design, were more organic skill challenges. What do I mean by this? Well as one can tell by looking at Legend Skill Games you can see something more akin to a minigame designed in order to change the pace of the game to whatever offbeat situation the PCs might find themselves in. As their own units they work well, but if a group isn't accustomed to them they can slow down the pace of the game while people adjust or make one generally feel like they're not playing the same game anymore. Now a change of pace is certainly nice when it drums up excitement, but we can see why some might want something a bit closer to the typical pace of the game sometimes.

With a more organic skill game I'd most likely want to emphasize less visible mechanics. Most if not all of the structure of the challenge would be purely for the GM's benefit in setting up an encounter that can be approached from a wide variety of angles and solutions based on the PCs typical abilities and resources. This would of course require a somewhat narrower focus since the more flexibility allowed in modeling the situation, the more complicated it gets. This narrowed field lends itself well to the pretext of each game being made to cover a particular sort of encounter or situation. With a structure designed for intuitive use by the GM to design or construct encounters, such a game would theoretically be better for keeping the game at its typical pace outside of combat while enabling GMs to model situations they might not have otherwise had much thought for how to run. In other words, this would be an experiment in GM tools for non-combat encounter design. I'm afraid I don't have any hard examples with me at the moment, but I thought I'd share some ideas we had for feedback.

Note: This is a bit different from what Larkas was mentioning in terms of more descriptive elements for skill game interaction in the world and we have some of that in the works too. I just felt the urge to share something a little different. :smallwink:

cerin616

2013-08-06, 01:33 PM

I think im obligated to try this just because of the "big damn hero" feat.

Ain't I just.

Psyren

2013-08-06, 01:40 PM

That said, I think that... How can I put this... The system is too impersonal. It doesn't have much fluff. The way I see it, it doesn't WANT any inherent fluff. And that's good! But I think that Legend might benefit from a (few) showcase campaign setting(s). Just so we can understand how this codified set of rules can work in that kind of environment! Basically, people might have problems seeing it as much more than a combat simulator, simply because, by default, that's pretty much what the rules are about. A simple example of how a skill challenge might play out in actual gameplay (not the results, but what the GM is to describe!) might make all the difference, for example.

I'm inclined to agree with this assessment, although I doubt my reading of the system is any more in-depth than yours really. More fluff to couch the mechanics would make it more appealing to me; PF for instance has so many concepts already fleshed out that I'm even willing to do extra tweaking on my own if I feel they need to be balanced further.

A smaller-scale and thus more manageable endeavor might be to convert a single adventure path to Legend - capturing all the plot twists and scripted battles therein, and particularly the social and skill checks wherever they come up. Something instantly recognizable or comparable like Red Hand of Doom, maybe?

erikun

2013-08-06, 01:51 PM

The biggest problem I had with Legend is that it doesn't really serve any purpose I'm interested in. It seems like it wants to be a game that you can pick up and play without too much consideration, but if I want to play D&D: The Game of D&D, I am more likely to pick up and play 4th edition or Exalted.

There are still strange mechanical problems in the system, the Rogue class being the most noteworthy. The fact that you may choose any (even unrelated) ability modifiers when you multiclass out, and that you don't even have a KDF until 2nd level, makes me seriously wonder what else in the system might have problems.

Oh, and the terms "KOM" and "KDM" are still far too easy to mistake for one another with written (or even typed) on paper.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 01:52 PM

I agree on the impersonal feel. Much of it feels like a technical document instead of an RPG book. Now, I understand that that is partially the intention, but, well, it doesn't make me want to read it. And I imagine that especially for a new player who has'nt played RPGs before, it would be off-putting. What first drew me into the D&D books where flavourful descriptions of the wonders I could achieve and the art. Not the prospect of dealing +1d6 damage with my melee attacks. The numbers don't mean much without fluff behind them.

Second, the game is very tactical in scale, so far, with almost nothing on the strategic scale. Abilities that are long-lasting, or very large in scale seem almost entirely absent. Things that don't just influence the character's immediate vicinity, but an entire village, nation, world, depending on the level. Eventually, characters will want to change the world, make their place in it. There's no abilities that support that.
This is especially a problem with magic. When I think "what does my wizard want to do at level 20", the answer is something like "Build a flying castle" or "discover immortality". Not "Win combat faster".

Then, Monsters. That's one area where I don't like the track system. I like monsters with weird unique abilities and I don't think tracks really serve them well here. If I have a lot of aberrations in my campaign, as an example, I don't want them all to share the same aberration track and all share 1/3 of their abilities.

afroakuma

2013-08-06, 02:06 PM

The biggest problem I had with Legend is that it doesn't really serve any purpose I'm interested in.

I'm curious: what might said purpose(s) be?

I agree on the impersonal feel. Much of it feels like a technical document instead of an RPG book. Now, I understand that that is partially the intention, but, well, it doesn't make me want to read it.

What specifically gives it that feel, though? Are you put off by the lack of a default setting, or is it just a general tonal thing?

Second, the game is very tactical in scale, so far, with almost nothing on the strategic scale. Abilities that are long-lasting, or very large in scale seem almost entirely absent. Things that don't just influence the character's immediate vicinity, but an entire village, nation, world, depending on the level. Eventually, characters will want to change the world, make their place in it. There's no abilities that support that.

Can you give me an example of such an ability out of 3.5 D&D? Preferably not from a spell list?

Powerdork

2013-08-06, 02:08 PM

Then, Monsters. That's one area where I don't like the track system. I like monsters with weird unique abilities and I don't think tracks really serve them well here. If I have a lot of aberrations in my campaign, as an example, I don't want them all to share the same aberration track and all share 1/3 of their abilities.

Ah, but if you take a look at the core book, there's precedent for a track that is "Pick from these options" at every circle, and that is Sentient Construct. Consider, too, that an aberration might just be a mook with a unique track or two. You don't always have to build a monster as a full three-tracks-plus-items creature.

RFLS

2013-08-06, 02:13 PM

Can you give me an example of such an ability out of 3.5 D&D? Preferably not from a spell list?

Doubtful. 3.5 was centered around magic. Removing the upper echelons of magic, such as Legend does, is a very good start to achieving a system that's fairly balanced at all levels. However, taking them out left a vacuum that was not filled.

I think Eldan's saying he wants there to be the option to build castles or lead nations as abilities native to high level characters, and such a thing has yet to exist.

SowZ

2013-08-06, 02:17 PM

afroakuma

2013-08-06, 02:19 PM

This is my point; outside of having the ability on your personal spell list, how are such things something you need codified and restricted? What about these do Legendary abilities not cover?

jindra34

2013-08-06, 02:21 PM

Whats needed?
1. For it to make up its mind on being a game or a system. If its going to be a game, it needs pretty much all the fluff that was stripped out. If its going to be a system, your going to need more options, guidelines on creating more options (as in the kind of thing that is and is not viable at each circle), and removing designer ideas on what should and should not be in the system.
2. Rules/guidelines for things that take longer than a single encounter/scene/whatever. Simply to expand it past the directly personal scale.
3. Removal of the of [tags], They are quite immersion wrecking, and require either massive memorization or diving for each one. Even though they save space, stating it fully in words would be useful most of the time.

SowZ

2013-08-06, 02:22 PM

This is my point; outside of having the ability on your personal spell list, how are such things something you need codified and restricted? What about these do Legendary abilities not cover?

I think most GMs want specified ways to make floating castles and such. Kind of like 4e rituals. I understand the desire for such a thing. Personally, I am comfortable making such things lost arts the PCs have to rediscover or grand powers that they can do once they reach demi-god type status or deals made with daemons and gods.

But a lot of people would prefer, if not a list of specific spells allowing such actions, at least some guidelines on performing such feats.

erikun

2013-08-06, 02:46 PM

I'm curious: what might said purpose(s) be?
I'm looking for something that is either quick and easy to setup and work with (with a minimal need to drudge through sourcebooks) or that has a comprehensive list good-quality rules that anything the players want to do can be covered reasonably well. Legend doesn't really do either that well, from what I've seen.

For the quick setup, in order to make a character properly, a player needs to familiarize themselves with a ruleset nearly as complex as D&D3e/Pathfinder. Then need to read through eight different classes, the full list of skills and most feats, and several optional tracks before putting it all together. Mind you, recent D&D editions haven't been much better at this sort of thing, but at least 4e make setting up encounters as a DM far easier.

As for the comprehensive part, 3e did this (although not well) while 4e did not, and I'm getting the impression that Legend falls more in line of 4e than it does 3e. Now I don't mean that there should necessarily be specific rules for scavanging for useful items or holding your breath, but there should be some guideline or sensible reason for rolls beyond "roll Nature" and "roll Athletics" (the two most likely fitting skills).

Psyren

2013-08-06, 02:48 PM

Kurald Galain

2013-08-06, 02:59 PM

erikun

2013-08-06, 03:17 PM

The problem is that I have other systems that are also balanced, but are far easier to learn, far easier to use, far easier to teach, and far easier to interpret. If I am playing HeroQuest, or Fate, or Fudge, or A Wanderer's Romance, then I don't need to page through a nearly 200-page document in order to find which set of rules most appropriately fits the action I'm attempting; the rules will either be very clear-cut, or there is only a small single section with such rules details.

afroakuma

2013-08-06, 03:18 PM

there should be some guideline or sensible reason for rolls beyond "roll Nature" and "roll Athletics" (the two most likely fitting skills).

Can you give an example?

cater to the latter group; indeed the only exceptions I can think of are 4E and Legend. This may explain why people think Legend is missing something.

So how can it bridge the gap without jumping out of one pool and into the other?

Amphetryon

2013-08-06, 03:32 PM

How does Legend handle summoning, binding, or even raising monsters from the grave to serve you? Particularly bargaining with a creature that may be equal or even greater in power to the spellcaster for service, or controlling a particularly strong-willed revenant through a contest of wills.

Flipping through the PDF, I haven't found a great deal of information on these departments. The Necromancer track in particular seems to deal exclusively with the debuff/curse flavor.

Early-to-mid discussions in the design phase - as I recall them - indicated that Summons/Bindings etc. were one of the main culprits in making casters obviate non-casters, and as such were things they'd just as soon exclude from Legend. I stopped actively discussing the design well before the release, so that could have changed.

There may be a Summons-focused track in the actual release, but a) I don't recall it and b) I suspect it would be costly, in one way or another, to implement on a Character.

erikun

2013-08-06, 03:33 PM

Can you give an example?
The first thing that comes to mind are the -wise skills from Mouse Guard, such as coast-wise or war-wise. They represent a character's wisdom or know-how relating to a task. For the scavanging example, you would use something like coast-wise to scavange the beach for usable things and then war-wise or hunting-wise to piece the things together into a usable tool - probably a stone knife, in this case.

In the case of treading water, the first instinct is to have players roll a Constitution check to see how long they can keep active and their head above water. However, I'm not seeing a list on appropriate DCs for ability checks and most rolls are apparently geared towards skills, which have a vastly different range. This is kind of an awkward situation, especially if you're trying on making the system D&D3e-convertable, because D&D3e doesn't really handle it very well either.

Kurald Galain

2013-08-06, 03:37 PM

So how can it bridge the gap without jumping out of one pool and into the other?
I don't think these two approaches are reconcileable within one game. Legend has made its choice and firmly engrained it in its fundamentals; it's just that many players prefer the opposite choice. This is roughly the same reason as why 4E has been outsold by Pathfinder for the past two years or so.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 03:50 PM

This is my point; outside of having the ability on your personal spell list, how are such things something you need codified and restricted? What about these do Legendary abilities not cover?

I think that's a strawman argument. I like having rules for things. Because by the same argument, I don't need rules for social encounters, we can just talk. I can just write hte rules for combat myself. I could write any of the rules myself.

And yes, Legendary abilities could cover them. But so far, they don't.

As for the sterile thing, it is really hard to describe. The best thing I can think of is this. The 3.0 books explained what abilities were. And not just the numbers and what they applied to. They gave examples. "Strength X is as strong as a cat. Strength Y is as strong as an elephant. Strength Z is a dragon the size of a house." That's small things. But they help visualize things. And they have that throughout the book. In fact, I'd argue they don't have enough in D&D. Other games I know follow every new rule with a short anecdote explaining what it would look like in a game, with the DM explaining the fluff.

Now, Legend can't really do that, because it was no default world assumption, not even as vaguely as D&D. But that also means that the book feels empty. After a while, I'm just seeing numbers, not adventurers and their abilities.

Eurus

2013-08-06, 03:54 PM

This is awkward, because I seem to have different issues than a lot of people. The fluff thing never bothered me as much, for whatever reason.

I think my main reason for not doing more with Legend is... laziness? That is to say, it's a little too complicated to be picked up and digested in an hour or two, and not really unique enough to grab my attention and make me want to put in the effort. It's mechanically similar to D&D, on a base level, which is fine; it's just that if I want to play D&D, I'll just play D&D, because I know it much better.

I think that any system needs a niche. No system can be the best at everything, unfortunately, and trying to improve in one area often results in backlash from another, as pretty much every new edition of D&D has shown us. But an imperfect system with a unique feel and playstyle can be very entertaining. Even dropping out the fluff entirely, you can certainly see that 3.5 has a different niche from M&M, which is markedly different from WoD, which is different from Nobilis, etc. All of these systems have obvious problems, but fill distinct roles. We compare Legend to D&D, for obvious reasons, but what's its actual niche?

The main advantage Legend has over 3.5 D&D, to my understanding, is that it doesn't require the same kind of "gentleman's agreement", spoken or unspoken. Because really, 3.5 as written is a game that does not really work unless you make it work, and requires a fair bit of cooperation between players and DMs. This is kind of a bad thing, we've just gotten so used to it that it's barely an issue anymore. And it does do interesting and unique things, often because it's such a train wreck of balance. If you're looking for ridiculous magic effects (outside of a more free-form system), D&D 3.5 is pretty much the best. If you're looking for a massive variety of magical trinkets, spells, and add-ons, 3.5 has that in spades. It's sloppy, messy, and held together by duct tape and nostalgia, but it fills a niche.

On the other hand, Legend vs. 4e is probably a closer comparison. They're both much cleaner and more streamlined, they fill roughly the same niche, and I'm not entirely sure which one I like better. 4e has the advantage in amount of content, although Legend's content is probably still better balanced. Because they're both so polished and tightened up, mechanically, they get some flak, often from a more emotional and difficult-to-articulate level.

So as far as a niche goes, Legend seems to fall in with 4e's goal of "balanced, abstracted, and relatively uncomplicated tactical gameplay". (I'm not weighing in on whether 4e succeeded in this goal or by how much, I'm just saying that's the idea.)

For this niche, what I think Legend needs to beat out 4e in my mind is easier encounter generation. That's the big one. Not even counting the lack of pre-generated monsters, I just don't like Legend's rules for enemies that much. I can understand the desire for monsters to be generated similarly to players, for transparency and parity... but when I'm DMing and running a field full of monsters, each of those monsters being as mechanically complex as a PC isn't necessarily a good thing. I really do prefer 4e's style, where every monster has a small handful of tricks and a clearly defined niche, and monsters having the same abilities as players doesn't really register as a perk to me.

(The Mook rules are a little too simple, although the Expert and Elite fall right about where I think a happy medium would be. I'm just not sure if that leaves enough room for variety, considering that there are only so many tracks and some of them aren't really ideal for a one-time monster anyway.)

I have no idea if I'm alone in this thought, or if it's shared by others. But it's definitely the biggest thing that comes to mind right now. If your goal is to beat out 3.5, on the other hand... I have no idea. I don't really think that's workable, to be honest. The design philosophies are just too fundamentally different.

EDIT: I think Legend could make a version of summoning work, but it'd be the sort of version where a summoner doesn't have much personal power and acts/fights almost entirely through his minions. A wizard who raises zombies or binds djinn that fight while he commands them is almost a refluffed fighter -- a wizard who summons minions who fight you while he himself rains magical doom on you and your family and can flee without risk if you beat them is an issue.

Psyren

2013-08-06, 03:58 PM

Legend's approach is strictly crunch-to-fluff, and combat-as-sport, and it assumes the purpose of the rules are to be balanced, and it's up to the GM to have the world make sense.

Whereas many players like fluff-to-crunch, and combat-as-war, and rules that have the purpose that the world makes sense (where it's up to the GM to make the game balanced).

Almost all RPGs on the market cater to the latter group; indeed the only exceptions I can think of are 4E and Legend. This may explain why people think Legend is missing something.

So in other words, it's not lacking anything... it's just that its design goals/intent simply cater to a specific audience.

I'm very much in the "world first, balance second" camp, and while I think Legend does a better job than 4e did at not sacrificing texture in the pursuit of balance, it's still lacking the level of texture that I want to see.

A 3.P wizard can trap an outsider for vast (if incredibly risky) wealth, or transform himself into a mouse to escape a prison cell, or project his soul into the body of a troll and rampage against his foes before returning to his body safe and sound. There's a lot of stories you can come up with out of that, and because they aren't nebulous rituals or plot-magic you can immediately start designing a campaign or character in your head with access to those abilities, the challenges that would entail, how the world would react to them etc. Legend, to be blunt, doesn't have such meaty fare in its ruleset, and that's okay.

I don't think these two approaches are reconcileable within one game. Legend has made its choice and firmly engrained it in its fundamentals; it's just that many players prefer the opposite choice. This is roughly the same reason as why 4E has been outsold by Pathfinder for the past two years or so.

I have to agree. And like I said, Legend has a lot more texture than 4e, so given equal exposure I have no doubt it would outperform it.

But they're ultimately in the same bucket, and it's one that I will walk by every time.

Early-to-mid discussions in the design phase - as I recall them - indicated that Summons/Bindings etc. were one of the main culprits in making casters obviate non-casters, and as such were things they'd just as soon exclude from Legend. I stopped actively discussing the design well before the release, so that could have changed.

There may be a Summons-focused track in the actual release, but a) I don't recall it and b) I suspect it would be costly, in one way or another, to implement on a Character.

Which is ultimately the problem I have with balance-focused systems. Somewhere along the way, very interesting concepts have to get thrown on the pyre in pursuit of that goal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it will keep me from becoming truly invested in such fantasy.

How about planar travel? Are there rules for coterminous/transient planes like Astral, Ethereal, and Shadow? Whether getting there, seeing what's there, attacking from there (and retaliating) etc. Come to think of it, I'm having trouble locating Incorporeal as well, and I don't see ghosts or wraiths listed under the Undead.

The feat names I think I mentioned having a problem with in the last Legend feedback thread. I was told to "just rename them" but I'm uncertain all the same why terms like "hemoglobin" and "napalm" need to be in the base rules of an ostensibly setting-neutral system.

Larkas

2013-08-06, 03:59 PM

So how can it bridge the gap without jumping out of one pool and into the other?

You don't need to, IMHO. You just need to come up with fluff that can conform to crunch well enough as an example. That's why I think that Legend could benefit from some sample campaign settings. It doesn't have to be something endogenous for the system (if you're going for "system" and not "game", as jindra34 defined), mind you. GURPS do very well without an intrinsic setting. It does have some settings to get you started, however. I think that might benefit the system as a whole. It stops being "with these tools, you can do this" and starts being "you can do these awesome things using these tools".

Eldan

2013-08-06, 04:23 PM

The feat names I think I mentioned having a problem with in the last Legend feedback thread. I was told to "just rename them" but I'm uncertain all the same why terms like "hemoglobin" and "napalm" need to be in the base rules of an ostensibly setting-neutral system.

To be fair, it's incredibly hard to stay entirely neutral like that. In the last Legend thread, I once threw out the question why, if we aren't assuming any worlds and fluff, there are "dwarf" and "elf" as races, instead of "tough race" and "dextrous race". The game assumes a lot of fluff just by naming things. Sure, you can rename them, but you get an immediate assumption upon reading and it sticks. And I don't think I'd like the game better if that bit of fluff were gone.

Turalisj

2013-08-06, 04:28 PM

How about planar travel? Are there rules for coterminous/transient planes like Astral, Ethereal, and Shadow?

Why do you absolutely need rules for that?

RFLS

2013-08-06, 04:34 PM

Why do you absolutely need rules for that?

...because they aren't nebulous rituals or plot-magic you can immediately start designing a campaign or character in your head with access to those abilities, the challenges that would entail, how the world would react to them etc.

I believe he addressed that. "Need" is also not something he said; in fact, he went out of his way to make it clear that everything said was opinion and that he believes Legend does what it set out to do pretty well.

Psyren

2013-08-06, 04:36 PM

To be fair, it's incredibly hard to stay entirely neutral like that. In the last Legend thread, I once threw out the question why, if we aren't assuming any worlds and fluff, there are "dwarf" and "elf" as races, instead of "tough race" and "dextrous race". The game assumes a lot of fluff just by naming things. Sure, you can rename them, but you get an immediate assumption upon reading and it sticks. And I don't think I'd like the game better if that bit of fluff were gone.

I agree, but the solution, it seems to me, isn't to just throw in science and fantasy concepts into a chunky stew of random. Rather, it's better to pick a default theme, and then alter it via expansions. Many other setting-neutral games do this - take Munchkin for example, the rules themselves are very setting-neutral, but the default trappings are fantasy, with elves and dwarves amd wizards etc. Then you're free to play space munchkin are replace them with mutants, cyborgs, aliens etc.

Why do you absolutely need rules for that?

Because the less I have to make up myself when I'm reading your system, the more likely I am to use your system.

The thread is asking for things I feel are missing. Obviously, if I mention something, it's because I want it.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 04:46 PM

Why do you absolutely need rules for that?

Again, why do I need rules for anything? Why do I need skills? Can't I just decide if a character can climb a certain structure or not or write my own rules for skills?

It's a game system. It's there to give me rules so I don't have to write them myself.

Edit: the default theme is still very clearly fantasy. 90% of all the names are fantasy. It just throws in something more science fictiony or pulp sounding here and there and the end result seems incongruous.

afroakuma

2013-08-06, 05:08 PM

Let me try a different angle on the same question:

Do you need rules for things that don't incorporate numbers or involve balance? If so, what do those rules need to entail?

Master_Rahl22

2013-08-06, 05:13 PM

What does it need? More people willing to run PbP games! I have made several characters for it while it was in various stages of development and have yet to play anything other than an arena battle or two.

That said, it doesn't seem to cater to the serious crowd with all kinds of pop culture references and puns. I for one love those, but I can see some people being turned off by that alone.

Also, to go with someone's remark about flying castles and such, why not a ritual system like in 4E? I know there were problems with it, but it did clearly delineate combat magic from non-combat magic.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 05:19 PM

That would be pretty perfect, yes. I'd love to see a ritual system.

Edit: I don't have anything against humour in games. But it seems weird when something that is apparently humour (but rarely very funny) pops up in the middle of a rules section.

afroakuma

2013-08-06, 05:21 PM

What does that entail?

Draz74

2013-08-06, 05:24 PM

A smaller-scale and thus more manageable endeavor might be to convert a single adventure path to Legend - capturing all the plot twists and scripted battles therein, and particularly the social and skill checks wherever they come up. Something instantly recognizable or comparable like Red Hand of Doom, maybe?
I'm workin' on it (still)! I'm pretty much done with 1-1/2 Chapters so far, plus the stat blocks for all the non-MM creatures in the remaining chapters. (Stat blocks being the most time-consuming part.)

How does Legend handle summoning, binding, or even raising monsters from the grave to serve you?

Either with Legendary Abilities, or with re-fluffing. Particularly bargaining for services from entities more powerful than oneself -- that pretty much can't be balanced, so it's left to the GM to adjudicate via roleplaying.

In Red Hand of Doom, I'm mostly using Mechanist Savant to represent summoning-heavy creatures. It can absorb damage like a meatshield, and auto-deal damage from a specific point out on the battlefield, so with some heavy re-fluffing, it can work.

Psyren

2013-08-06, 05:26 PM

Let me try a different angle on the same question:

Do you need rules for things that don't incorporate numbers or involve balance? If so, what do those rules need to entail?

Er... can you give an example of a rule in 3.x that doesn't involve numbers or balance in some way?

Everything that had a rule in 3.x needed to. Hell, one of the primary complaints about 3.5 is not enough rules, where gaps and ambiguities lead to exploits and arguments.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 05:27 PM

What does that entail?

At the very basis? Hermetic magic. The idea that you can achieve larger magical effects by investing more time and resources into it.

A lot of the stuff that I think is missing in Legend and that I'd really like to see could go there. Permanently transforming one creature into another creature. Laying a brutal, long-lasting curse on someone. Spreading a plague. Curing a plague. Raising buildings from the ground. Levelling a city. Calling upon daemons to answer your questions. Immortality. Resurrection. The kind of abilities that make stories, instead of encounters. That really change the way a world works.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-06, 05:34 PM

A lot of the stuff that I think is missing in Legend and that I'd really like to see could go there. Permanently transforming one creature into another creature. Laying a brutal, long-lasting curse on someone. Spreading a plague. Curing a plague. Raising buildings from the ground. Levelling a city. Calling upon daemons to answer your questions. Immortality. Resurrection. The kind of abilities that make stories, instead of encounters. That really change the way a world works.
The kind of stuff that really should be big, dynamic rituals and not standard spell/class abiltiy #237, in other words.

If such a system were made, I'd like to see interesting material components, at least as an option. Rather than resurrection requiring 5000 gp worth of diamond dust, what if it requires a diamond that's been blessed by a solar? Or an earthquake ritual that requires a handful of dirt from the depths of the Elemental Plane of Earth. Plot hooks-- things to make preparing a ritual an adventure of its own.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 05:47 PM

Those would be near impossible in a non-setting dependent manner, though.

Though I guess so would be the rituals themselves.

But yeah. I think the defining aspect of a ritual from the metagame perspective would be that you wouldn't use them often. Maybe only once in an entire campaign.

Psyren

2013-08-06, 05:50 PM

Let me try a different angle on the same question:

Do you need rules for things that don't incorporate numbers or involve balance? If so, what do those rules need to entail?

Er... do you have an example of a rule in 3.x that doesn't involve numbers or balance in some way?

It seems to me that everything that had a rule in 3.x needed it. Hell, one of the more common complaints about 3.x is that it needed more rules - there were too many places with gaps or ambiguities that led to arguments, uncertainties, exploits, and frustration.

That said, it doesn't seem to cater to the serious crowd with all kinds of pop culture references and puns. I for one love those, but I can see some people being turned off by that alone.

Indeed, and I'm one of them, though I will give Legend props because the version linked here seems very much toned down from how it was originally.

Either with Legendary Abilities, or with re-fluffing. Particularly bargaining for services from entities more powerful than oneself -- that pretty much can't be balanced, so it's left to the GM to adjudicate via roleplaying.

It can actually - for instance, the matter of risk vs. reward.

Say I'm a powerful evil cleric, and I Command a Vampire Lord. He wants nothing more than to break free of my control and slay me, dominate me himself, or even both. Through my supreme force of will and training, I can prevent that from happening, but only just. It's a life-or-death struggle every single day, and the balance sits on a razor's edge. My similarly evil deity doesn't care - she fulfilled her end of the bargain by giving me the powers I need, it's now up to me to use them properly and put this undead predator in his place by calling it to heel. Her dogma demands nothing less.

This is a powerful interaction, the sort of hook you could build an entire campaign around. Any cleric strong enough to have a Vampire Lord at his beck and call is powerful enough to threaten nations, and I know that because there are rules giving me a pretty good idea of how powerful he'd need to be to pull something like that off.

Now, I could freeform this entire scenario, or cobble together some kind of homebrew ritual to explain how it works. But an existing system (3.5/PF) already gives me an excellent framework to adjudicate this sort of thing - I merely have to tweak a few knobs and voila. Not only that, but I automatically gain a ton of extra rules without even trying. I know how strong the party has to be to take them both on in a straight-up fight, and what kind of defenses they'd need to survive; I know several ways the party can break the link, or subvert it; I know how the Vampire himself can break free, the depth of his master's control, whether the master knows he is plotting rebellion, whether the PCs can find out about it, and the weaknesses of everyone involved. As a result, I have a number of ways this conflict can play out, several points of entry for the players, places I can insert knowledgeable NPCs to help them learn their options etc. And as far as balance, very few PCs are going to want to try this because of the danger involved, despite (or perhaps because) of the rules governing it.

That's what I'm paying for - and in the case of PF, I'm not paying anything at all.

Also, I've been through the Legendary abilities, and they barely touch on summoning at all. Certainly not binding or necromancy.

Amphetryon

2013-08-06, 06:06 PM

Draz74

2013-08-06, 06:08 PM

Also, I've been through the Legendary abilities, and they barely touch on summoning at all. Certainly not binding or necromancy.

The Summoner ability lets you summon Mooks. Mooks can be [Undead]. It's not hard to fluff a Summoner as a necromancer.

If you're set on interesting special abilities that your summons can use, rather than just being a block of numbers that can attack, then the Minions [Legendary] ability is better. It lets you have 5 followers at a time that you build almost like a PC; they can easily be Undead or Outsiders to represent whatever you want to bind. Since binding typically doesn't happen mid-battle, and that's one of the big limitations on the Minions ability, it's particularly good for representing that. Or with a bit of handwaving, they can represent more in-battle styles of summoning, too.

As for your commanded Vampire Lord example ... it's not balanced, if I'm understanding it right. It's overpowered in most encounters, and very much underpowered in the encounters where the "risk" part of "risk vs. reward" comes up and the Vampire Lord drinks your blood and probably kills you.

It might (theoretically) be balanced on average, when you factor in being overpowered and underpowered in entire [Encounters], but that doesn't count as balanced for Legend's purposes.

Honestly, if I were GMing a Legend game and one of my players had a character concept like that, I'd tell them "just build the Vampire Lord as your actual character, and have a Summon Mote feat or a Cohort or even just a Mook to represent the actual binder character -- something practically useless in combat, who in-character is controlling and directing the VL."

Eldan

2013-08-06, 06:20 PM

Let's assume, for the moment, that Legend isn't designed to handle planar travel in any way that would make it a satisfactory aspect of the game. Could you explain why this is more bug than feature?

Is the general lack of planar travel a bug or a feature in Deadlands, or Shadowrun, a bug in those systems?

Deadlands, I assume, does not need them for its setting. Shadowrun, I'm pretty sure, has other planes.

Rules are useful for storytelling. Look at Psyren's vampire example. It's the same with planar travel. In D&D, I have spells for planar travel. Especially if I add planescape resources, I have ways to block them, confuse them, redirect them, places where they don't work, special ingredients that might be necessary to make them work... all of those are story fodder.

In some settings, you may not need rules for planar travel. But Legend seems to cleave very closely to D&D, still, while also allowing the DM to make up their own setting. I play Planescape, or planescape-inspired things. So I'd like planar travel rules.

Apart from that, travelling to other worlds is a staple of myth and legend. Orpheus travels into Hades. Prophets catch glimpses of heaven and hell. Celtic heroes travel to fairy. Thor regains his hammer from the giants or from Hel.
By extension, it's also a staple of fantasy literature. Examples are too many to name. But spirit worlds, fairy worlds, heaven, hell, the astral plane, divine dominions, all those would be sorely missed in a game trying to model fantasy.

As for hte Vampire Lord example again: the balance lies in the fact that the player has to be more careful. He has to invest resources and time into keeping himself safe in such a situation. That can come in many forms. Spell slots for control spells. A sacrifice of blood (HP). Expensive ingredients. Or just concentrating on the link all the time without being distracted. You are paying something for power.

Draz74

2013-08-06, 06:42 PM

As for hte Vampire Lord example again: the balance lies in the fact that the player has to be more careful. He has to invest resources and time into keeping himself safe in such a situation. That can come in many forms. Spell slots for control spells. A sacrifice of blood (HP). Expensive ingredients. Or just concentrating on the link all the time without being distracted. You are paying something for power.

OK, so it's not just the risk of the Vampire escaping that's supposed to keep things balanced?

Great. The Vampire still shouldn't be more powerful than the controller could have been without his nasty undead pet.

And if he's anywhere close, are you talking about, like, trading your abilities from more than one Track for the privilege of controlling this thrall?

I dunno, this is still kinda sounding more and more like, in mechanical terms (not roleplaying terms), it should be the Vampire rather than the controller that's the PC. Perhaps a campaign where the player can switch between the two PCs, depending whether he's currently binding the Vampire Lord or not. (Some people have been running Mecha games of Legend with that sort of organization.)

Eldan

2013-08-06, 06:45 PM

I don't know how to write hte rules for something like that, that was never my forte.

That said, I wouldn't want to play the bound monster in that set-up. Playing the controller would, in most cases, be much more interesting. The vampire, here, is a tool. The character is the controller.

There's a difference, there. For one, the vampire might be banished or slain by enemies and the campaign could still continue with the now depowered cleric. Not so much the other way around.

SowZ

2013-08-06, 06:47 PM

What I like about Legend is that everyone has interesting things to do in combat, (fighters don't just swing swords,) and it feels fairly tactical. 4e did these things too, and was fairly balanced, but I just liked it better in Legend. I do think a longer list of heroic/legendary abilities that were more plot based would be a good addition.

Amphetryon

2013-08-06, 06:55 PM

Deadlands, I assume, does not need them for its setting. Shadowrun, I'm pretty sure, has other planes.

Rules are useful for storytelling. Look at Psyren's vampire example. It's the same with planar travel. In D&D, I have spells for planar travel. Especially if I add planescape resources, I have ways to block them, confuse them, redirect them, places where they don't work, special ingredients that might be necessary to make them work... all of those are story fodder.

In some settings, you may not need rules for planar travel. But Legend seems to cleave very closely to D&D, still, while also allowing the DM to make up their own setting. I play Planescape, or planescape-inspired things. So I'd like planar travel rules.

Apart from that, travelling to other worlds is a staple of myth and legend. Orpheus travels into Hades. Prophets catch glimpses of heaven and hell. Celtic heroes travel to fairy. Thor regains his hammer from the giants or from Hel.
By extension, it's also a staple of fantasy literature. Examples are too many to name. But spirit worlds, fairy worlds, heaven, hell, the astral plane, divine dominions, all those would be sorely missed in a game trying to model fantasy.

As for hte Vampire Lord example again: the balance lies in the fact that the player has to be more careful. He has to invest resources and time into keeping himself safe in such a situation. That can come in many forms. Spell slots for control spells. A sacrifice of blood (HP). Expensive ingredients. Or just concentrating on the link all the time without being distracted. You are paying something for power.
My point is that - from my perspective - the complaint is that Legend can only model the kinds of game that it's designed to model. That's. . . a relatively difficult complaint for any system to overcome. It'd be like complaining about the lack of tactical combat simulation in Munchkin.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 06:59 PM

The question is what game it is supposed to handle. I've never seen a list in the books which said "This is what this game does, this is what it doesn't". That would be helpful. As it stands, it is mostly a tactical scale encounter simulator. The question is, what world-building beyond that does it assist you with?

Yes, so far, Legend can not really model world-travelling. The question is, should it? I think it would be nice if it did. Some settings don't have world-travel, but many do. And Legend, from what I've been told, tries to be setting-versatile.

Afro was asking for things that seem to be missing. This is one.

Turalisj

2013-08-06, 07:39 PM

That said, I wouldn't want to play the bound monster in that set-up. Playing the controller would, in most cases, be much more interesting. The vampire, here, is a tool. The character is the controller.

Who would you rather play, Integra or Alucard? Shiro or Saber? The Golem or one of half a dozen rabbis? The hypothetical you are describing is where the vampire is the one who fits the PC-bill; Goes out and kicks butt, gets in harms way, and does the heavy lifting. The controller? A minor, side character.

The Rose Dragon

2013-08-06, 07:41 PM

Who would you rather play, Integra or Alucard?

Integra, natch.

Psyren

2013-08-06, 08:03 PM

The Summoner ability lets you summon Mooks. Mooks can be [Undead]. It's not hard to fluff a Summoner as a necromancer.

Mooks are mere interchangeable blocks of numbers that lack the texture (there's that word again) that templates provide. It's just not interesting. You're telling me that I can shape my tofu into a patty, color it brown and add meat flavoring, but no, I want a burger.

Again, I didn't show up and just start ragging on Legend - Afro wanted feedback. What is it missing? Mook archetypes are dull and uninspired. If I want some troll skeletons or a swarm of zombie roaches in PF, I stat them up in no time. If I want them in Legend, I have to figure out if they're Minion Mooks, Grunt Mooks or Striker Mooks, do I really only want them having one attack each or should I advance them a bit, how do I get them some believable damage reduction etc.

Hell, even the word "Mook" is a turnoff. This is high fantasy, not 1930s Brooklyn.

If you're set on interesting special abilities that your summons can use, rather than just being a block of numbers that can attack, then the Minions [Legendary] ability is better. It lets you have 5 followers at a time that you build almost like a PC; they can easily be Undead or Outsiders to represent whatever you want to bind. Since binding typically doesn't happen mid-battle, and that's one of the big limitations on the Minions ability, it's particularly good for representing that. Or with a bit of handwaving, they can represent more in-battle styles of summoning, too.

What if I want more than 5? How about a lots and lots of weaklings? What if I don't care so much about how many I can control, and I just want to leave pockets of wandering monsters around the landscape? What if I want minions I have to cajole or who think for themselves instead of "blindly obeying my orders?"

OK, so it's not just the risk of the Vampire escaping that's supposed to keep things balanced?

Great. The Vampire still shouldn't be more powerful than the controller could have been without his nasty undead pet.

Why not? This is a common trope in fantasy. (Example: The "King and his horse" speech from Bleach.) Are you more concerned with game balance than complex storytelling?

Even if you are, you should accept that other people think mechanical balance should take a backseat to interesting. If you're going to ask people "what do you think is Legend is missing?" that is one of the answers you're going to get.

I dunno, this is still kinda sounding more and more like, in mechanical terms (not roleplaying terms), it should be the Vampire rather than the controller that's the PC. Perhaps a campaign where the player can switch between the two PCs, depending whether he's currently binding the Vampire Lord or not. (Some people have been running Mecha games of Legend with that sort of organization.)

Actually, in my example, neither of them were the PC. They were the BBEG and his Dragon, both run by the GM. And because 3.P has so many textured rules to govern a relationship like the one I described, the players have all kinds of ways to deal with what would otherwise be a nearly insurmountably powerful combo.

The complex relationship between these two characters dovetails with the mechanics. It's no different than what the Giant is doing in OotS - there's so many rules that can give you great ideas in how to craft a plot. Tsukiko's death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) is a perfect example of creating plot from mechanics.

Let's assume, for the moment, that Legend isn't designed to handle planar travel in any way that would make it a satisfactory aspect of the game. Could you explain why this is more bug than feature?

Is the general lack of planar travel a bug or a feature in Deadlands, or Shadowrun, a bug in those systems?

I've never played either of those so I wouldn't know. But I have played D&D, and the existence of planes both coterminous and distinct adds layers of strategy to the game for both DM and players.

For starters, ghosts are a fantasy staple - just about every fantasy RPG includes them. But obviously, they are inherently imbalanced - a monster that can attack corporeal targets while being mostly safe from the same. How would you make them in Legend? I can't even find the word "incorporeal" in the book.

afroakuma

2013-08-06, 10:15 PM

At the very basis? Hermetic magic. The idea that you can achieve larger magical effects by investing more time and resources into it.

Oh I understand the basic notion; my question regards execution.

Draz74

2013-08-06, 11:17 PM

Mooks are mere interchangeable blocks of numbers that lack the texture (there's that word again) that templates provide. It's just not interesting.
OK, but that's what a lot of summoned creatures in PF are like too. :smalltongue:

I brought up Summoner because, in spite of mooks' simplicity, there is more design customizability in them than I realized -- especially in Beta, when the rules for creature types weren't public yet. So I thought I'd share that realization. If your Necromancer wants a horde of skellies and zombies, the mook rules make it perfectly easy to have Mooks who are healed by [Negative], harmed by [Positive], and immune to [Mind-affecting].

Mind you, I'm still somewhat dissatisfied with the customizability of mooks myself. Especially Myriads -- but for all their annoying limitations, they do a better job than the headache that is running dozens of independent stat blocks in 3.5e.

Mook archetypes are dull and uninspired. If I want some troll skeletons or a swarm of zombie roaches in PF, I stat them up in no time. If I want them in Legend, I have to figure out if they're Minion Mooks, Grunt Mooks or Striker Mooks, do I really only want them having one attack each or should I advance them a bit, how do I get them some believable damage reduction etc.
Fair enough. For me, and AFAIK most D&D players, that level of detail in expendable summons was always a colossal headache that we're glad to be rid of. But, whatever floats your boat. :smallsmile:

Hell, even the word "Mook" is a turnoff. This is high fantasy, not 1930s Brooklyn.
... :smallannoyed:

... Languages change. "Mooks" has become a perfectly setting-generic term among gamers.

What if I want more than 5? How about a lots and lots of weaklings? What if I don't care so much about how many I can control, and I just want to leave pockets of wandering monsters around the landscape?
Then yes, these are valid answers for things that could use filling out in Legend.

But it's better to point them out specifically (as you have now done) rather than complaining that there aren't summoning rules in general, when in fact there are; they're just more limited than you would like.

Incidentally, I've had some success using some re-fluffed abilities to represent a horde of creatures with one "creature." Like the deific Multitude of minor demons in the Incursion pantheon (http://www.incursion-roguelike.org/man/Pantheon.html) -- Water Elemental, Fire Elemental, and Vampire tracks do a good job of turning one creature into "the one who is many."

What if I want minions I have to cajole or who think for themselves instead of "blindly obeying my orders?"
Why do such relationships need any more special rules to govern them than any other NPC interactions? I'm not seeing the need on this one.

Why not? This is a common trope in fantasy. (Example: The "King and his horse" speech from Bleach.) Are you more concerned with game balance than complex storytelling?
First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about in your example; I'm not an anime watcher.

Second, yes, Legend is more concerned with making combat balanced (when it should be balanced) than it is with providing rules for complex storytelling. The Legend creators figure that a lot of the esoteric story-frames you're asking about can be handled by GM fiat -- and so can wildly unbalanced combat encounters, for that matter.

If that's not the kind of thing you want GM fiat to have to cover, then Legend probably isn't the system for you ... but on that, I'll defer to Amph's comments about the difference between "what's missing?" and "what don't you like about ...?"

Actually, in my example, neither of them were the PC. They were the BBEG and his Dragon, both run by the GM. And because 3.P has so many textured rules to govern a relationship like the one I described, the players have all kinds of ways to deal with what would otherwise be a nearly insurmountably powerful combo.
Hmmm, like various "mechanical" weaknesses to disrupt their relationship with each other? Yeah, that's the sort of thing Legend counts on GM fiat to storytell.

The complex relationship between these two characters dovetails with the mechanics. It's no different than what the Giant is doing in OotS - there's so many rules that can give you great ideas in how to craft a plot. Tsukiko's death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html) is a perfect example of creating plot from mechanics.
Yep, that too. Nothing prevents the GM from inventing such rules between necromancer and undead "children" on a fiat basis ... but I don't think the devs want such rules to be a part of the system, since it comes with many limitations as well as many story opportunities.

I've never played either of those so I wouldn't know. But I have played D&D, and the existence of planes both coterminous and distinct adds layers of strategy to the game for both DM and players.
Hmmm, again, I've always found the specifics more annoying and limiting than advantageous. There's a reason none of my homebrew settings use standard D&D cosmology ...

For starters, ghosts are a fantasy staple - just about every fantasy RPG includes them. But obviously, they are inherently imbalanced - a monster that can attack corporeal targets while being mostly safe from the same. How would you make them in Legend? I can't even find the word "incorporeal" in the book.
A whole track to represent Incorporeality is rumored to be in the works, but in the meantime, you can actually do OK with re-fluffed abilities again. Lots of [Miss chances] and so on.

And I imagine they'll be balanced by similar methods as in 4e: the abstraction of having them take less damage rather than no damage. For what it's worth.

Oh I understand the basic notion; my question regards execution.

Idle thought: I wonder how hard it would be to convert Kellus's magitech rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291019) to Legend?

They always seemed like too much bookkeeping to me, but a lot of people like them ...

Powerdork

2013-08-06, 11:22 PM

This is high fantasy, not 1930s Brooklyn.

Well, it appears you do not see Legend as it is intended to be seen. You seem to expect it to be some shiny repackaging of 3.5 core, whereas it actually strives to be a generic ruleset for a great number of settings with minimal modification.

By the by, Osaka Street Stories, the first module for Legend, is set in 1995 Japan.

EDIT: And just because it doesn't have any solutions for ghosts doesn't mean it won't in the future. Consider that there are two supplements in the works, a monster guide and a magic book.

chaos_redefined

2013-08-07, 12:14 AM

The biggest thing missing is the monster manual/bestiary/etc..., but I assume that will be fixed in time.

After that... You guys could take the current articles you are spitting out on the main site, turn them into books covering settings, and hence giving all the tropes of that setting example fluff.

The other thing it needs is 2 types of minion tracks: One strong minion (animal companions, golems, etc...) and one weak minion track (skeletons/zombies, hordes, etc...). There is already some basic stuff on the main site about the animal companion, and there has been talk on some tracks to represent swarms, but they are missing little details like the effect of having a second body on the table. Put the second body on, give it a "When you would make a [bonus] attack, you may instead have the other creature make it instead", and then you need to find 6 other abilities to flesh out the track with.

Gralamin

2013-08-07, 01:22 AM

Better editing, but people who hang around in the chat know all about the typos.

Encounter Design needs work, which more fixing should be done at some point (My fault there).

One of the people working on a Legend character builder should finish it at some point. It'd speed up monster and character creation immensely. AGain this is something I should work on.

Another thing we really need is a good, complete adventure, example of [Quest], [Scene], and [Encounter] separation, including variable number of [Encounters].

[Encounters] as attrition is definitely not the way to go with Legend, which changes around the structure.

Psyren

2013-08-07, 01:32 AM

OK, but that's what a lot of summoned creatures in PF are like too. :smalltongue:

In some ways, yes - but they're also pre-statted, so I never have to think about actually making one. I just look it up, grab and go.

I brought up Summoner because, in spite of mooks' simplicity, there is more design customizability in them than I realized -- especially in Beta, when the rules for creature types weren't public yet. So I thought I'd share that realization. If your Necromancer wants a horde of skellies and zombies, the mook rules make it perfectly easy to have Mooks who are healed by [Negative], harmed by [Positive], and immune to [Mind-affecting].

Undead are more complicated than even that though, even relatively simple ones like zombies and skeletons. The best weapon to use against a skeleton is something blunt - how do I represent that? The best weapon to use against a zombie is something sharp - how do I represent that? Zombie flesh is stiffened with decay, which simultaneously strengthens their unarmed blows and hampers their movements - how do I represent that? A zombie Roc can still fly while a zombie hydra can't - how do I represent that?

PF may be more complicated, but I'll take that any day over simple and uninteresting.

Fair enough. For me, and AFAIK most D&D players, that level of detail in expendable summons was always a colossal headache that we're glad to be rid of. But, whatever floats your boat. :smallsmile:

It's not that much of a headache, especially these days when finding just about any creature's stats (especially in PF) is a few keystrokes away. "Summoner" is a fun archetype to play, and players/DMs alike will do the necessary prep work to make it as efficient as possible.

... :smallannoyed:

... Languages change. "Mooks" has become a perfectly setting-generic term among gamers.

That's kind of the problem; it's a gamer term, not a game term. It would be like opening up a sourcebook and seeing terms like "gish," "BBEG", or "crit" being used in rules entries, rather than commentaries or sidebars. Sure I know what they mean right away, but the effect is still jarring.

Legend seems aimed at people who don't mind that kind of... overlap? Which is fine, but it does alienate those of us who do, and I'm not sure what it gains in the process. Is it an attempt to appear hip or cool? Is it funny to the designers?

Why do such relationships need any more special rules to govern them than any other NPC interactions? I'm not seeing the need on this one.

This goes back to Eldan's "why have rules at all?" But to be more precise than that, there are relationships where the creature is a minion in your service, but still has set limits on what it is either willing or able to do for you. Animal Companions are a great example - in general they are eager to help you achieve your goals, but still require special training to carry out complex instructions. Furthermore, you yourself require training (or at least practice) to be able to convey your intent clearly in a stressful situation. 3.P represents this dynamic admirably by via the Handle Animal skill, and gives classes with an animal companion a bonus representing the unique link/bond they share. But there is still that chance you can fail to command it properly if things are chaotic enough, never mind external influence such as hostile magic.

First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about in your example; I'm not an anime watcher.

Second, yes, Legend is more concerned with making combat balanced (when it should be balanced) than it is with providing rules for complex storytelling. The Legend creators figure that a lot of the esoteric story-frames you're asking about can be handled by GM fiat -- and so can wildly unbalanced combat encounters, for that matter.

If that's not the kind of thing you want GM fiat to have to cover, then Legend probably isn't the system for you ... but on that, I'll defer to Amph's comments about the difference between "what's missing?" and "what don't you like about ...?"
...
Hmmm, like various "mechanical" weaknesses to disrupt their relationship with each other? Yeah, that's the sort of thing Legend counts on GM fiat to storytell.

No Bleach? How about Soth and Kitiara from Dragonlance? Or the growing antagonism between Xykon and Redcloak?

PF proponents think the opposite approach is better - let the rules enable complex stories and leave balance to the DM. I'm not here to say one approach is definitely better than the other; rather, I'm here to say "this is why Legend will only ever appeal to this set of people over here, and not that set of people over there."

Yep, that too. Nothing prevents the GM from inventing such rules between necromancer and undead "children" on a fiat basis ... but I don't think the devs want such rules to be a part of the system, since it comes with many limitations as well as many story opportunities.

Limitations are not a bad thing; constraints often empower the creative process. Remember, freeform has no limitations at all, either mechanically or on plot. It's also, well, free. But there's a reason just about nobody does it, and even turn around to spend money tying themselves down with rules!

It's like if someone stops you in the street and says "hey, tell me a funny joke." You may have memorized whole stand-up sets of several comedians, but chances are you'll draw a blank without some criteria to focus your thoughts.

A whole track to represent Incorporeality is rumored to be in the works, but in the meantime, you can actually do OK with re-fluffed abilities again. Lots of [Miss chances] and so on.

Do they [Miss] the walls too so they can float through them? Or [Miss] the air so they can hover? Here again I'm having to fill in a bunch of blanks just to get a pretty basic/iconic fantasy concept. When, with another system, I can just pick up a statblock, nod, and get back to storycrafting.

And I imagine they'll be balanced by similar methods as in 4e: the abstraction of having them take less damage rather than no damage. For what it's worth.

I'm not sure that being more like 4e is necessarily a wise course of action for this game, but Legend at least has being OGL going for it. And as Kurald pointed out, that's pretty much the path Legend has chosen, so there's no real going back now anyway.

Eldan

2013-08-07, 02:10 AM

Altaria87

2013-08-07, 02:39 AM

Beyond the Monster Guide which I'm aware is in development (but is also so incredibly needed), it's clear from the comments here that while the system does seem to support the idea that plot or RP limitations have no place in the mechanics, such purely-plot and RP powers do have a place.

The two things I can think of that could address this are also the two things in the rules that, in my opinion, are the least fleshed out.

First of all, Guilds. For all the people talking about planar travel, there was a reference to it once, when the Knight Track was first revealed, it came with the Order of the Black Dragon Guild, which among its benefits included access to limited planar travel for high-level members. What if these Guilds were expanded upon to provide these sorts of important powers which are mostly constrained to storytelling and would ruin game balance if widely available as abilities?

Perhaps some form of point-buy Guild system with low-level and high-level powers, such as the Church of Pelor giving access to healing of disease and stuff to low-level members and access to Resurrection to high-level members, and those that spend the Feat (and perhaps an RP-tax as well whereby they had to live by Pelor's tennets) to Initiate fully into the Guild gaining access to Celestial cohorts and unlimited travel to the Heavens at high level. Then the Artificers' Guild could instead provide one-use spell turrets or tools to build minor fortifications at low level, and at high level access to Construct cohorts and magic item creation, and the materials to make the much-lauded Flying Castle to Initiated high-level members. This could also fulfill the role of the 'non-combat Track' idea people have thrown around before. And if the fact it is a Guild is problematic, it could simply be refluffed as something else - a person may not be a member of the Church of Pelor or the Artificers' Guild, but she is a devotee of Pelor who religiously follows his every command, or he diverts all his loot towards working on his engineering projects. Of course, it could stay as an optional rule for those groups that want to have RP-taxes for vairous 'packages' of themed powers.

Also, my other minor complaint is actually the lack of Items. In one Campaign I made use of pretty much every Greater item in the document, and the point-buy armour and weapons doesn't really solve the problem because players won't be interested in another set of armour when they already have one they like. These additional items could provide other minor out-of-combat abilities, not those which damage balance like summoning and enchantment but those small 'cool' abilities in DnD and PF which don't have a place in Legend rules due to the focus on combat balance. There is precedent for this, especially in the Lesser Items like the Cloak of the Endless Journey which, while it has been given a mechanical benefit in 1.0 it previously had only its out of combat ability. This model could be followed with more items, a small but worthwhile in-combat ability and an out-of-combat effect which is the main focus of the item.

Draz74

2013-08-07, 02:55 AM

Too lazy to quote, just two quick points:

"The DM can write these rules himself"
Let me throw that back around at you. If I need to write all the rules myself, why should I even use Legend?
You shouldn't, if they are "all" the rules you need.

If you should be using Legend, then it is because the 337 pages of rules that are there are 337 pages you don't have to write.

Stuff like "Tsukiko's control over her Wights can be stolen by a character who has learned Secret X, and has Y and Z prerequisites" is more setting-specific than Legend wants to get, and is not exactly the kind of rule that requires long hours of writing and playtesting for an aspiring homebrewer to get right.

Essentially, Legend tries to worry about the stuff that does relate to game balance, because game balance is one of the hardest things for a GM to succeed at on-the-fly. All systems have stuff they leave up to the GM; that being the case, I think Legend makes a sensible choice about which areas should not fall into that category. Not the only choice, by any means, but a sensible one.

"Execution"
Are you familiar with Invocations, from that obscure corner of the d20srd? That's pretty close, I think.

You mean Incantations, actually. Invocations are the things Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts do.

Also, my other minor complaint is actually the lack of Items. In one Campaign I made use of pretty much every Greater item in the document, and the point-buy armour and weapons doesn't really solve the problem because players won't be interested in another set of armour when they already have one they like. These additional items could provide other minor out-of-combat abilities, not those which damage balance like summoning and enchantment but those small 'cool' abilities in DnD and PF which don't have a place in Legend rules due to the focus on combat balance. There is precedent for this, especially in the Lesser Items like the Cloak of the Endless Journey which, while it has been given a mechanical benefit in 1.0 it previously had only its out of combat ability. This model could be followed with more items, a small but worhtwhile in-combat ability and an out-of-combat effect which is the main focus of the item.

That reminds me. I'd really like to see more Consumables. Especially at the Relic level. Although the Greater level would be nice too.

I often have characters pick starting Consumables that are lower-tier than the ones they are entitled to, just because they don't have any good choices from the higher tier. And I find myself using some of the Osaka Street Stories Consumables fairly often, despite them being rather out-of-date at this point.

Lanaya

2013-08-07, 05:34 AM

In my opinion, the main two things Legend is missing are flexibility in monster creation and attrition. There are a number of other things it lacks, which have been gone over thoroughly in this thread, but most of them are concepts that Legend was never supposed to have. I prefer 3.5's stance of "throw in everything we can think of and let the DM balance it", but Legend's system of focusing on balance first and foremost is perfectly valid too, that's just a playstyle preference. My two critiques are areas in which I feel Legend fails to live up to what its own strengths should be.

First, flexibility in monster creation. I like the idea of monster creation and PC creation using (almost) the same rules, but in practice it just doesn't work out for a fantasy setting. In a realistic setting where every enemy is some variation upon 'human with a big scary weapon' it can work, but there are simply too many fantasy monsters and archetypes that require specific abilities to function. Vampires, for instance. How are you ever supposed to make a proper vampire if you can't make them vulnerable to sunlight? Even if sunlight vulnerability were added to the vampire track, that's only one iconic monster out of who knows how many. Plus you're never going to open up opportunities for the GM to make their own custom monsters with unique abilities.

But the real issue with the inflexible monster creation is that it directly hurts the main thing Legend is meant to be good at - creating interesting and enjoyable encounters. Unique monster abilities help with this immensely. A fight against vampires when the PCs don't have access to any easy ways of killing them is much more challenging and memorable than your average "here's some bad dudes, go kill 'em" encounter. Furthermore, it gives variety. A game can have as much in the way of balance and varied, interesting combat-related abilities as it wants, but if every enemy works basically the same it's going to become boring fast. Obviously Legend does allow for varied enemies, but in a very limited manner. There are only so many tracks to give monsters, and considering your average non-mook enemy uses four of them you're going to run out of new ones to throw at your players very quickly.

My other issue was attrition. Basically, healing is too easily available at very low levels. As long as you have a single player who takes a single track with a single healing ability you're going to be able to fully heal the entire party between every encounter, and this makes interesting encounter design a nightmare. Each PC's post-combat condition is binary - alive on full HP and totally ready for whatever else you might throw at them, or dead. At later levels it can even become a party-level binary - the only options being 1) everyone is alive and completely unfazed by the battle or 2) a TPK. Per scene abilities go some way towards dealing with this issue, but it's totally viable to have an entire party without a single ability that doesn't refresh every encounter, and anything short of a double spellcaster PC is going to have enough at-will or per encounter abilities to contribute at close to their full potential in every fight, even after all their per scene abilities have been used.

Again, this directly goes against the core ideas of Legend. Any encounters not threatening enough to outright kill PCs are meaningless, and making a whole adventure's worth of encounters threatening enough that they may result in PC death is begging for a TPK. If you go for meaningless encounters then all the time and effort spent making a balanced and interesting combat system is wasted, if you make meaningful, threatening encounters then good luck making a campaign last longer than two sessions. Now I'll confess I don't have very much experience with this, maybe it's not as bad as I thought and I just ran into one particular party that was particularly good at this style of combat, but it ruined my interest in playing.

Psyren

2013-08-07, 08:09 AM

Stuff like "Tsukiko's control over her Wights can be stolen by a character who has learned Secret X, and has Y and Z prerequisites" is more setting-specific than Legend wants to get, and is not exactly the kind of rule that requires long hours of writing and playtesting for an aspiring homebrewer to get right.

Rebuke Undead is setting-specific now? :smalltongue: That doesn't make much sense.

I think what you meant to say is that ability is difficult to balance, at least for Legend's standard of balance. But the trope of the evil priest having dominion over the dead is near-universal - as is the trope of that control one day slipping (or being subverted) and said priest going from master to prey.

Essentially, Legend tries to worry about the stuff that does relate to game balance, because game balance is one of the hardest things for a GM to succeed at on-the-fly. All systems have stuff they leave up to the GM; that being the case, I think Legend makes a sensible choice about which areas should not fall into that category. Not the only choice, by any means, but a sensible one.

I disagree, balance is easy to do on the fly. Often all it takes is a gut feeling; the DM says "I don't think you should be able to do that," or even better "let me see that rule" and then noticing all the areas that require interpretation (or were misread) that the player glossed over to get what he wanted.

Crafting a believable story on the fly is much, much harder. The DM for example may present players with a puzzle that has solutions A, B, and C - but the players, being players, come up with solution Q. If solution Q is described in the rules - and with 3.P, it almost always is - the DM can much more easily make a decision about how it's supposed to work, and even get an idea of the kinds of ramifications there'll be.

For example, say the players are fighting a giant insect with a very thick carapace; try as they might, their blows aren't having much effect. The DM may have thought of these solutions:

(a) run away (can't win 'em all),
(b) lure or push it off the ledge behind it,
(c) discover it has a vulnerability to cold and take it down with elemental attacks, such as by using the freezing longsword and wand of polar ray he left in a prior treasure cache for just this occasion.

The players instead decide on (q) get it to swallow the halfling so he can shank its vitals from the inside. The DM didn't plan on this, but there are all kinds of rules telling him what should happen if the monster swallows the character - how much damage he'll take each round he spends inside, how long he can stay in there, how (un)protected the monster will be from attacks originating in his gullet, and even how the halfling can get out (either after finishing the job, or even just if he needs to escape before dying). Those rules make the DM confident he can adjudicate this unforeseen scenario and he allows it.

First, flexibility in monster creation. I like the idea of monster creation and PC creation using (almost) the same rules, but in practice it just doesn't work out for a fantasy setting. In a realistic setting where every enemy is some variation upon 'human with a big scary weapon' it can work, but there are simply too many fantasy monsters and archetypes that require specific abilities to function. Vampires, for instance. How are you ever supposed to make a proper vampire if you can't make them vulnerable to sunlight? Even if sunlight vulnerability were added to the vampire track, that's only one iconic monster out of who knows how many. Plus you're never going to open up opportunities for the GM to make their own custom monsters with unique abilities.

Agreed - this is the same problem I pointed out with Ghosts. Sure you can simulate incorporeality with a lot of miss chances, but how can we represent the other iconic ghost abilities, like haunting locations, possession, walking through walls, and unnerving animals? Without those iconic powers, can we really say we're fighting a ghost?

But the real issue with the inflexible monster creation is that it directly hurts the main thing Legend is meant to be good at - creating interesting and enjoyable encounters. Unique monster abilities help with this immensely. A fight against vampires when the PCs don't have access to any easy ways of killing them is much more challenging and memorable than your average "here's some bad dudes, go kill 'em" encounter. Furthermore, it gives variety. A game can have as much in the way of balance and varied, interesting combat-related abilities as it wants, but if every enemy works basically the same it's going to become boring fast. Obviously Legend does allow for varied enemies, but in a very limited manner. There are only so many tracks to give monsters, and considering your average non-mook enemy uses four of them you're going to run out of new ones to throw at your players very quickly.

I do love the simplicity and modularity of Legend's track system, but applying it to every iconic fantasy monster out there is going to be a chore. At some point you just end up having to make a specific track for the monster you want, like "Vampire" track or a "Ghost" track, and before you know it you're right back to statblocks.

Turalisj

2013-08-07, 08:14 AM

Do they [Miss] the walls too so they can float through them? Or [Miss] the air so they can hover? Here again I'm having to fill in a bunch of blanks just to get a pretty basic/iconic fantasy concept. When, with another system, I can just pick up a statblock, nod, and get back to storycrafting.

Teleport for moving through walls (there's a feat you can pick up at first level called Shadow Blink that covers all sorts of teleporting, you can use it for any incorporeal movement) and one of the Monk tracks gives you flight fairly early on.

The lack of pre-built monsters I believe is currently being worked on, from what I've heard there's a monster book in the works that is going to have a lot of stuff in it. Barring that, asking around the forums will usually get you a critter as soon as someone pops on.

Amphetryon

2013-08-07, 08:16 AM

I disagree, balance is easy to do on the fly. Often all it takes is a gut feeling; the DM says "I don't think you should be able to do that," or even better "let me see that rule" and then noticing all the areas that require interpretation (or were misread) that the player glossed over to get what he wanted.

Crafting a believable story on the fly is much, much harder. The DM for example may present players with a puzzle that has solutions A, B, and C - but the players, being players, come up with solution Q. If solution Q is described in the rules - and with 3.P, it almost always is - the DM can much more easily make a decision about how it's supposed to work, and even get an idea of the kinds of ramifications there'll be.

For example, say the players are fighting a giant insect with a very thick carapace; try as they might, their blows aren't having much effect. The DM may have thought of these solutions:

(a) run away (can't win 'em all),
(b) lure or push it off the ledge behind it,
(c) discover it has a vulnerability to cold and take it down with elemental attacks, such as by using the freezing longsword and wand of polar ray he left in a prior treasure cache for just this occasion.

The players instead decide on (q) get it to swallow the halfling so he can shank its vitals from the inside. The DM didn't plan on this, but there are all kinds of rules telling him what should happen if the monster swallows the character - how much damage he'll take each round he spends inside, how long he can stay in there, how (un)protected the monster will be from attacks originating in his gullet, and even how the halfling can get out (either after finishing the job, or even just if he needs to escape before dying). Those rules make the DM confident he can adjudicate this unforeseen scenario and he allows it.
As soon as you disagree with the premise that balance is harder to do on the fly than fluff, you've pretty much disagreed with the basic design philosophy behind Legend. Changing the game to suit an entirely different premise than that upon which it was built is impractical. I think it's safe to say that Legend never tries to be "all things for all people;" perhaps it's simply not the game you're looking for.

Psyren

2013-08-07, 08:24 AM

As soon as you disagree with the premise that balance is harder to do on the fly than fluff, you've pretty much disagreed with the basic design philosophy behind Legend. Changing the game to suit an entirely different premise than that upon which it was built is impractical. I think it's safe to say that Legend never tries to be "all things for all people;" perhaps it's simply not the game you're looking for.

I know it's not; I'm just explaining why. (The thread was asking, after all.)

Teleport for moving through walls (there's a feat you can pick up at first level called Shadow Blink that covers all sorts of teleporting, you can use it for any incorporeal movement) and one of the Monk tracks gives you flight fairly early on.

What about hiding inside walls, or objects (like a painting?) Ghosts are known for their lurking. And then we also have the issues of possession and haunting - these are iconic abilities for a ghost to have.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-07, 09:49 AM

What Legend is missing is a companion game to get all the not directly combat encounter related material from. If you were to combine for example, Legend with (Damn it, I can't remember the name of the book, it's usually recommended for better economic modeling, barbarians and warlords and such), you'd probably end up with something overall solid. But there's the issue. Legend isn't a self contained system. It's more of a combat module to replace existing ones for better balance. All that Legend does is model adventuring. But even adventurers do things besides that. What if my hero wants to settle down for a while, or buy some property, or raise an army, or create some masterful art? Such things are an integral part of nearly all good tabletop RPGs regardless of setting. If I want to play a game with my friends that has solid balance because of a very limited number of options, where all I can do is adventure, there are dozens of online video games offering that. People play tabletops so they can play outside of that very limited scope, without just being freeform.

EDIT: Adventurer Conqueror King's, that's the game.

Larkas

2013-08-07, 10:03 AM

To the guys defending the system, I think you're missing the point quite thoroughly. Afroakuma asked us what we think is missing. We're telling him what we think is missing. If that is relevant or not, or can't be reconciled with the design philosophy behind Legend, is up to Fro to decide. He might ask us to better elaborate our concerns, as he has done a few times in the past couple of pages. And we might try to make our concerns better understandable. That's it. The system doesn't need defenders here as no one is throwing flak at it. We are not saying it, or its design phylosophy, is wrong, we are merely saying it is missing something, in our opinion. Maybe we are misinformed, and then someone can show us that X can be achieved fully using Y. But comments like "perhaps it's simply not the game you're looking for", while they might be true, are not contributing in the least to the discussion. As I said, this is up to the OP to decide.

Anyways, just my humble opinion.

Amphetryon

2013-08-07, 10:06 AM

To the guys defending the system, I think you're missing the point quite thoroughly. Afroakuma asked us what we think is missing. We're telling him what we think is missing. If that is relevant or not, or can't be reconciled with the designed with the design philosophy behind Legend, is up to Fro to decide. He might ask us to better elaborate our concerns, as he has done a few times in the past couple of pages. And we might try to make our concerns better understandable. That's it. The system doesn't need defenders here as no one is throwing flak at it. We are not saying it, or its design phylosophy, is wrong, we are merely saying it is missing something, in our opinion. Maybe we are misinformed, and then someone can show us that X can be achieved fully using Y. But comments like "perhaps it's simply not the game you're looking for", while they might be true, are not contributing in the least to the discussion. As I said, this is up to the OP to decide.

Anyways, just my humble opinion.
Allow me to vociferously disagree with your "humble" opinion. If you believe that, for example, a valid complaint about Munchkin is that it doesn't support tactical combat well, then I suspect that our POV will continue to be incompatible.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-07, 10:09 AM

Allow me to vociferously disagree with your "humble" opinion. If you believe that, for example, a valid complaint about Munchkin is that it doesn't support tactical combat well, then I suspect that our POV will continue to be incompatible.

That's not what he said though. What he said was that if someone asked you what Munchkin was missing, then stating it was missing good tactical combat is a valid opinion, which it is.

Larkas

2013-08-07, 10:14 AM

Allow me to vociferously disagree with your "humble" opinion. If you believe that, for example, a valid complaint about Munchkin is that it doesn't support tactical combat well, then I suspect that our POV will continue to be incompatible.

Luckily, this discussion isn't about Munchkin. Regardless, if Legend is supposed to model only a very small part of what is widely considered an RPG (that is, combat simulation), then it should be said so from the get go. That way, we would know from the start what to not expect from it. The same way we don't expect Munchkin to tell a deep and complex story with only its own rules.

I don't believe that is the idea behind the system. If it was, Afroakuma wouldn't be asking us "what's missing".

Regardless, those were some very unnecessary quotation marks.

Psyren

2013-08-07, 10:19 AM

Well actually, I'd say Munchkin is quite tactical, particularly when it comes time for your friends to screw you over :smalltongue:

For myself though, I have no problem being told Legend isn't for me since I came to that conclusion during the beta. But if I can get the designers to better understand who they should (and shouldn't) be targeting with the game, it can only help afroakuma answer the questions being asked in the OP.

I think Kurald has been completely on the nose in this thread when he likened Legend combat to a sport and 3.P combat to war. Sports are designed to be fair and balanced; war can be, but doesn't actually care whether it is or not, and as a result it can capture a much wider range of experiences, strategies and situations.

jindra34

2013-08-07, 10:19 AM

The issue thats being brought up is essentially for how narrow a band of play (and yes it is very narrow, only really handling a few small parts of each setting type) the lack of fluff plays bloody murder on it. Adding a world/setting would quelch almost all the complaints about 'you can't do x,y,z that are common in genre's' because you could give justifications for WHY you can't outside of game balance. Which really isn't a good reason. Now why you can't at say level W is, but ever? No, you need something more there. The design decisions (and to a degree designer investment of what they feel is right for play) has stuck it in a bad spot where it will have choices that repel a majority of the people. So commit to one side or the other, and stick with it, not flounder in the middle.

afroakuma

2013-08-07, 11:25 AM

When you refer to the lack of fluff though, are you referring to the lack of fluff abilities or the lack of a native setting depicted inside the core book? Or both?

Eldan

2013-08-07, 11:30 AM

Both. That and fluffy descriptions of things. You can be setting-independent and still fluffy.

MeiLeTeng

2013-08-07, 11:40 AM

When you refer to the lack of fluff though, are you referring to the lack of fluff abilities or the lack of a native setting depicted inside the core book? Or both?

For me at least (should be noted I last looked at the 1.0 release, I don't know if there's a newer one that might have this) but there's no description of what abilities on tracks (honestly I even found the ones on the feats to be pretty not super useful.) actually do in terms of visualization.

I get that the game is trying to be sterile in terms of setting, but honestly I think for me at least I'd be more inclined to want to play the game if there was a bit more fluff. It doesn't even have to be setting specific fluff, just something explaining what is actually happening when a character uses whatever ability beyond the actual crunch of it.

Something else that I personally would like to have, though I know it's already been said, is not necessarily a default setting, but maybe some minor descriptions of possible settings defining/describing how the classes/abilities would appear/look within that setting.

I guess the gist of what I'm trying to get across is when I look at it, I have a hard time doing much in the way of visualization beyond the crunch. Which is a turn off.

jindra34

2013-08-07, 12:07 PM

When you refer to the lack of fluff though, are you referring to the lack of fluff abilities or the lack of a native setting depicted inside the core book? Or both?

With what I'm saying, its mostly the second. You don't need abilities to reflect things that are just roleplay. You do need something (or some more things) to help bridge that gap. But mostly the fluff needed is putting meat on the bones of the implied world your current choices have resulted in.

Larkas

2013-08-07, 12:14 PM

When you refer to the lack of fluff though, are you referring to the lack of fluff abilities or the lack of a native setting depicted inside the core book? Or both?

Lack of general fluff, though it doesn't have to have an intrinsic setting. Sample settings could help get the point across, though you don't need to commit to a "native" one if you don't want to. Like people said, a short, general description of abilities would probably already go a long way.

Novawurmson

2013-08-07, 12:20 PM

Random example of the fluff/crunch interaction:

A player of mine's first character ever was a PF Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner). In the eidolon description:

The eidolon also bears a glowing rune that is identical to a rune that appears on the summoner’s forehead as long as the eidolon is summoned. While this rune can be hidden through mundane means, it cannot be concealed through magic that changes appearance, such as alter self or polymorph (although invisibility does conceal it as long as the spell lasts).

It's a very minor note of fluff, but it could have enormous consequences. What if a powerful wizard starts searching out young children with strange glyphs on their foreheads and offers a hefty sum to anyone who finds such a child? What if a country was at one time ruled by an evil summoner who was overthrown just a few years ago, and now they attack people with runes on their foreheads on sight?

In our current campaign, I introduced two children with a strange invisible guardian, and one of the first things the character did was check to see if the twins had any strange marks - they didn't, but it would make sense that someone in a world that contains summoners would look for it.

The fluff is obviously mutable (see the First Worlder archetype for one simple fluff switch), but the suggested fluff is still intriguing enough to be incorporated into almost any D&D world on its own merits.

Rhynn

2013-08-07, 12:49 PM

Reading Legend felt very... disconnected. A lot of rules about abilities, but none of them felt like they related to much of anything. In the case of GURPS, the abilities are usually shorter in description, and feel more generic; the game also lacks any setting in the base rules, but because the rules make a pretty good attempt at simulating reality, they feel connected to... well, the real world, and anything that is based on it. Legend felt very game-y.

This is just from a quick read-through of the core book; it didn't grab my attention enough to actually read it thoroughly. A "better" 3.X/4E D&D hybrid is pretty far from anything I'm interested in.

Incidentally, while GURPS is very generic in the rules, it also has tons of setting-books (vague and specific) available. Obviously, it has the advantage of years in this area.

What Legend is missing is a companion game to get all the not directly combat encounter related material from. If you were to combine for example, Legend with (Damn it, I can't remember the name of the book, it's usually recommended for better economic modeling, barbarians and warlords and such), you'd probably end up with something overall solid. ... EDIT: Adventurer Conqueror King's, that's the game.

Not in a million years. ACKS is very tightly designed around that economy, and PC advancement, for instance, is part of the economy (you level up by finding treasure or earning GP from fiefs or trading), as is magic (researching costs to learn new spells, particularly the powerful/unique rituals like resurrection).

The design philosophy of ACKS is also pretty much diametrically opposed to Legend's, as far as I can tell. It is an old-school game in a very true sense of the term ("emergent-story resource-management fantasy-adventure simulator"), while Legend is pretty much alone in the same category with D&D 4E ("tightly-balanced combat/encounter game").

Never mind that ACKS is just about perfect as-is. :smallcool:

Speaking of ACKS, something that ACKS has as a huge strength, and Legend lacks by design, is world-building. ACKS is full of ideas, rules, and guidelines for creating worlds, and these ideas, rules, and guidelines create adventures and stories almost without trying. Someone else upthread was talking about this: emergent story from rules is very cool. Another game that did this well for me was RuneQuest 6, where, by just reading the rules, I got ideas on how to use them to create interesting vampires/liches (immortal but only so long as they stay within range of their soul-hiding object), three different kinds of undead (sorcerous automatons, divine minions, and free-willed spirit-possessed corpses), and many dangers shamans face (possession of their dormant body by hostile spirits, etc.). Most of this stuff wasn't spelled out for me - but the rules inspired and helped me to create setting elements and story seeds.

Fable Wright

2013-08-07, 01:05 PM

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thread through yet, so if I start talking about something already discussed, that's why.

My problem, and the problem a lot of other people have, is generally defined as "out of adventure" abilities, as coined by the previous thread on this topic. What is an out of adventure ability? Something you can do that doesn't relate to combat but helps to build the world itself. These are useful to GMs as a hook to develop along a plot line, flesh out a world better, and can be used by players to add something new to the world, their own personal contribution to the setting. A good example of something like this is the Siege Walls item or Shape Earth consumables; both of them leave something lasting that isn't related to an adventure, though they're not the best as they both do roughly the same thing. For example, the way Siege Walls worked in the original Legend, where it didn't specify the action needed, I wound up thinking about an interesting set piece where a Dwarf wound up with the power, and his subconscious started using it by himself, so that every 5 rounds, a new wall would pop up around him. Over time, he got trapped in a giant, 3-dimensional maze that wanders and meanders over the countryside. Something like that: an idea that begs to be explored more (even if the only thing you're exploring is "how does this work" and thinking about possible answers) is a good thing. One more thing that would be nice is The Sun Grows Dim not ending at the end of a scene, and an ominous note about what happens to such objects when left in the open. It might make characters try to think about where to put their leftover objects; if it's the same waste dump that eventually turns into a small nightmare realm trapped inside of a closet, throwing them away all over a city, causing strange effects to follow the character, or repeated trips to a hidden incinerator that, unbeknownst to the characters, now holds hellfire instead of regular fire due to the unnatural influence of the ashes burned there. Suddenly, plot hooks everywhere.

The Pathfinder Eidolon is a great example of a worldbuilding hook that isn't tied directly into a setting. One of things I most want to see happen with Legend are optional rules, a la the Ritual of the Grave from the Undead track to be added in for more tracks, and for more description of what items are. (For example, canned lightning could be described as the feather of a Thunderbird, willingly given, or a small, highly agitated stormcloud trapped in a bottle.) One example I mentioned last thread was of the optional rule that Iron Magi, when they reached third circle and became Beloved of the Dirae, could find one of the Dirae to bond to and get a small ability as a result. This may be the ability to hijack an electrical device 1/day in a modern-era setting, the ability to create a thunderstorm (aka Control Winds with all of the factors randomly determined) 1/quest, or the extra damage from The Sky Empties to go up to 3 damage per level while fighting in a Thunderstorm, so long as they kept that Dirae's favor. This adds a plot hook (Dirae disappearing or someone seeking out a very special Dirae), worldbuilding (what, exactly, a Dirae is, be it a Thunderbird, intangible spirit, or even a sentient AI that lives in an ATM), out of adventure abilities that could become awesome (something as simple as running scams as a scam as an electrical repairman, or something as complex as an operation to temporarily hijack the entire internet for some nefarious or heroic purpose) and just generally be interesting. Something like Esoterica Radica track people having the ability to find and make contacts in with exceptional ease (being able to find characters within 2 levels of themselves to initiate a Negotiation encounter with for an objective) or something like Basion aura-bearers being able to physically touch magic auras, and do things like Disarm someone of their buff spells, or slide down lightning bolts as though they were poles, and so on. Mechanics that lead to players pulling out interesting, unexpectedly awesome stunts no one sees coming, GMs can use to really flesh out worlds, and things that players can use to actually have some impact on the world.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-07, 01:13 PM

Speaking of ACKS, something that ACKS has as a huge strength, and Legend lacks by design, is world-building. ACKS is full of ideas, rules, and guidelines for creating worlds, and these ideas, rules, and guidelines create adventures and stories almost without trying. Someone else upthread was talking about this: emergent story from rules is very cool. Another game that did this well for me was RuneQuest 6, where, by just reading the rules, I got ideas on how to use them to create interesting vampires/liches (immortal but only so long as they stay within range of their soul-hiding object), three different kinds of undead (sorcerous automatons, divine minions, and free-willed spirit-possessed corpses), and many dangers shamans face (possession of their dormant body by hostile spirits, etc.). Most of this stuff wasn't spelled out for me - but the rules inspired and helped me to create setting elements and story seeds.

Disclaimer, I know next to nothing about AKCS and this is what I had intended to say. I had just heard regularly that it was good for simulation of Out of Adventure stuff, and made the connection.

Rhynn

2013-08-07, 01:33 PM

Disclaimer, I know next to nothing about AKCS and this is what I had intended to say. I had just heard regularly that it was good for simulation of Out of Adventure stuff, and made the connection.

I think this sort of illustrates something I feel is true and applicable: you can't have a total separation between the two. Some RPGs give no rules to the out-of-adventure stuff (possibly out of a sense that it isn't important, which is a ridiculous idea to me), but bolting on another game's is not that easy. Some rulesets can be modular (An Echo, Resounding), but integration is usually superior.

This is a good jump to another issue: IMO, rulesets designed for a specific purpose (setting) are usually superior to generic rulesets, unless you really like the generic ruleset and want to use the same ruleset for all your many settings. For instance, because I don't play GURPS (too fiddly), I wouldn't like to use it for an Arthurian game; I'd rather use the admirably straightforward Pendragon; for a cyberpunk game, I'd use Cyberpunk 2020 (pending the completion of my own Fuzion hack thereof); and for a sci-fi game, I'd use Stars Without Number.

I think creating a good universal ruleset is much harder than creating a good game (setting + rules, or even genre + rules).

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-07, 02:45 PM

I think creating a good universal ruleset is much harder than creating a good game (setting + rules, or even genre + rules).
I would expand that to say that "any setting/genre, similar feel" is quite reasonable (GURPS, M&M, and so on). It's only when you try to use one ruleset to cover multiple "feels" (gritty verses heroic, tactical verses cinematic, etc) that it gets difficult.

TexAvery

2013-08-07, 03:11 PM

What does [Legend] need? It needs a group in Austin for me to play with!

Ok, more seriously, I think it needs an iconic fantasy monster, or better yet, a set of them. D&D has the beholders, illithids, and technicolor dragons. [Legend] needs something like that. Right now, what I want to do is take Dragonlance or Planescape and shove the [Legend] rules into them. A monster, or set of monsters, that makes serious intrinsic, mechanical use of the track system (equivalent to aging of dragons or promotions of demons and devils) to make people want to play [Legend] instead of just using it to run someone else's system.

Don't get me wrong, I still really want to use it, but I think something like that would help with general gamers (look how popular FR is for D&D, or Eberron for 4E). Most people don't homebrew campaign settings in my experience, and you don't want to try to have someone buy your rulebook and someone else's setting and do the work of porting... they're likely to just go with the other guy's rules as well.

Right now, it's like you're BeOS. Great, in it's day, but... with no software, so you boot into it, look around, and go "nifty" before returning to Windows, Linux, or MacOS to actually have something to do.

Icewraith

2013-08-07, 03:43 PM

I think what may be needed for monsters is circle substitutions.

There are a whole bunch of dissasociated iconic monster abilities, and you can come up with some weird ones to inspire new monsters- figure out what circle each one should be and let the DMs pick the appropriate abilities or put them together in the monster guide. Alternatively, vary the effect's strength depending on the circle it requires.

To make a "standard" monster of an appropriate category, you use the one-track option as written, cherry-picking from the list of track and monster abilities or using the existing racial tracks as written. That should result in a bag of HP with no more than seven abilities the DM needs to track at high level. Un-needed circles can go to defensive abilities or the monster can gain static bonuses based on the number of unused circles it has. The full on three-track character treatment is reserved only for major unique bosses and baddies.

For example, you could do flavors of the Beholder's antimagic eye that come in third, fifth, and seventh circle strength. Have "barrage" be a first circle ability and pick a bunch of spells or spell like abilities that can be used as part of a barrage as higher circle effects- with the limit that a single character may be the target of no more than (number) spells from a barrage. Give it flight as a fourth circle ability and maybe extra hp for each unused circle (if any) and you're good. If you need to use two or three tracks (say you really want three sixth circle abilities but don't care about most of the other circles) then the thing just has a boatload of hp and is really tough, but still about as dangerous as any other three-track monster.

Edit: I suppose this is sort of the "Toughness Tarrasque" route of monster building.

Rhynn

2013-08-07, 04:06 PM

I would expand that to say that "any setting/genre, similar feel" is quite reasonable (GURPS, M&M, and so on). It's only when you try to use one ruleset to cover multiple "feels" (gritty verses heroic, tactical verses cinematic, etc) that it gets difficult.

That wouldn't be my main stipulation, though. The point I'm getting at is that settings and genres can benefit from, or even require, specific mechanics and design decisions.

In Pendragon, play is structured around one adventure per year, accompanied by some solo activities (courting, etc.), followed by a Winter Phase where your family situation is tracked and you improve yourself. This works wonderfully, especially with the rules about creating your heir as your next character (possibly starting out as the squire to another PC), and the assumption that a campaign will cover decades and PCs will actually die of old age (and the "great campaign" spans the entire reign of King Arthur, possibly from before his coronation).

You can't get the same kind of play with GURPS and the Arthurian sourcebook as with Pendragon, and not just because Pendragon is a better Arthurian sourcebook (it may or may not be, really); the mechanics just create different kind of stories. You certainly can't get anything like that with D&D 3.X (or even the fairly excellent third-party Arthurian supplements).

Similarly, Trail of Cthulhu's sanity, stability, and investigation mechanics with its point-pool spends for clues, etc., create a very different investigative Mythos story than GURPS would, or even the more generic Call of Cthulhu (a stripped-down RuneQuest with sanity rules).

A long-winded way to try to illustrate the fact that I think mechanics matter for story, and that a good game has mechanics that support the kind of stories it is meant to tell.

I think a lot of people in this thread may be wondering what sort of stories Legend is supposed to tell, because they can't quite see it from the mechanics. "All" is a valid answer, but that's the hardest one to accomplish.

Larkas

2013-08-07, 04:39 PM

Another thought: the system as a whole will benefit a lot from the monster book that is in the works. It might help get the point of "generic" system better, however, if that book comes with sections aimed at different kinds of campaigns: Fantasy Monsters; Sci-Fi Monsters; -punk Monsters; Mechanical Monsters (Mecha), etc. Of course, given the "genericness" of the system, you could use a monster from a section in another kind of campaign with just minor refluffing; however, giving the monsters fluff to be stripped off is important to give... Life to the system.

TexAvery

2013-08-07, 05:28 PM

Larkas

2013-08-07, 05:45 PM

Don't you mean "give... [Life] to the system"?

:smallbiggrin: The excess of tags are certainly a problem too, but let's take one step at a time, shall we? :smallwink:

TexAvery

2013-08-07, 05:55 PM

:smallbiggrin: The excess of tags are certainly a problem too, but let's take one step at a time, shall we? :smallwink:

I actually like it. There are arguments in 3.5 over terminology and whether words are mechanical terms or just plain English descriptions.

Blueiji

2013-08-07, 05:58 PM

I don't really have anything to say, but I was just reading throught the entry on Jump in the skills section and noticed what I believe to be an Order of the Stick reference.

Cool. :smallbiggrin:

Loki_42

2013-08-07, 06:08 PM

I don't actually have a lot of problems with Legend. I've been playing in a game of it for a month or two now, and it's going very smoothly, and all the players seem to enjoy it. I don't think you necessarily need to bridge any kind of gap. Legend is good at what it does, and so that's what I use Legend for.

I don't want a game to be good for ever system. Legend is what I want to use for Rules-heavy action. It's excellent character generation and combat rules aid that. The Skill Games provide an interesting change of pace that lets you minigame out of stuff if you don't want to get too bogged down in the roleplaying. The entire thing is also elegant, and easy to use and run, which helps it be the best roleplaying game for when I want to do D&D-esque rules-heavy action. Which I don't always want to do, but I have other games that work for those better, and I'm not looking for Legend to replace them. If I had one game to rule them all, it would probably get boring playing that game.

To actually address the question in a way that might help you more, I guess you could improve on the skill games to bring them more inline with how the rest of the game works. I like them in concept, but I like universal mechanics in game. If you could make skill games work a bit more like combat, somehow, I'd really like that.

erikun

2013-08-07, 06:12 PM

Eldan

2013-08-07, 06:20 PM

I tried it with my group in a much earlier version, since back then, I was actually pretty excited about it, but we ended up dropping it halfway through the first adventure and watching a movie instead. It just wasn't really our thing.

Larkas

2013-08-07, 06:29 PM

I actually like it. There are arguments in 3.5 over terminology and whether words are mechanical terms or just plain English descriptions.

Oh, I happen to like them too! I just think there are way too many of them, and/or they're referenced too much.

jindra34

2013-08-07, 06:33 PM

I actually like it. There are arguments in 3.5 over terminology and whether words are mechanical terms or just plain English descriptions.

There has to be a better way to handle it though. Especially with the LACK of fluff yet given. Sticking reference markers that seem like they were supposed to be replaced with the full functioning term so often (I'd bet there is even a sentence somewhere just made up of [tags]) is jarring.

chaos_redefined

2013-08-07, 10:10 PM

afroakuma

2013-08-07, 10:21 PM

How many people have actually played Legend? Would it be more practical to have someone start a game and have everyone weigh in on the system's strengths and weaknesses afterwards?

I'm hesitant to say too much, because I'm not that familiar with the system. Things that look like they could be a problem might not in actual play, so it's a lot of "seems like this might be an issue" from me rather than anything definitive.

The issue that I'm seeing is that, well, a beverage featuring fennel, araza, rambutan and tangerine might be exceedingly pleasant and immediately appealing, but as long as the can says FART Juice, the prospective number of people willing to actually taste the drink shrinks rather dramatically. Legend may actually be more appealing to some of its critics than they might expect, but if it can't persuade them to give it a go, then it will never grow beyond its small core audience.

Aharon

2013-08-08, 01:23 AM

Both. That and fluffy descriptions of things. You can be setting-independent and still fluffy.

I agree that you can be setting-independent and still fluffy, but Legend tries to be genre independent. I think that is a lot harder - see GURPS, where the main system is relatively unfluffy and they added all kinds of sourcebooks for different genres.

As I doubt Legend wants to go that way (seeing how it's free and, AFAIK, intends to remain so), the best way to add more fluff would probably be to settle for one genre (presumable high fantasy, considering its close relationship to3.5 and 4.0 D&D), and try to fluff it that way.

@the original question:
A player base, or a good way to convince players to try it. My current gaming group is entrenched in 3.5, I would like to try Legend, but I don't really know how to go about convincing them, since 3.5 has many advantages over it, currently.

Graybender

2013-08-08, 09:08 AM

I have played Legend and my players had quite a bit of fun with it, they were mostly new players and didn't find it hard to quickly learn how to use their tracks. The only complaint so far that has been thrown up, has been the skill games, since it takes some time to explain them in detail and clogs up the game a bit, with skill games that were a bit more cohesive with the combat and track system it may work out better.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 10:42 AM

Ok, first off, I'm not trying to say the points are addressing are wrong and shouldn't be applied to Legend, I'm just trying to give some food for thought about why you think these abilities are necessary and how well other systems actually support them.

First, the "DM should balance and the system should create story" perspective. I'd say that about 90% of the DMs I've worked with have been atrocious at maintaining balance. Including myself for most of my campaigns. It is an extremely high burden to place on the DM to establish balance. I've found that things work much better if the system provides that balance to start with, and the DM just acts as a fail-safe to correct any issues that may arise anyways. The burden it places on a DM to make both a fighter and a wizard relevant is kinda absurd. I've also seen DMs who made balance issues worse because they are trying to correct perceived issues, and those corrections were misguided. It takes a high level of system mastery for a DM to know how to add balance to a system.
On the flip side, I have never seen a system provide the story. There are adventure modules which provide a story, but that is pretty much separate from the system itself. It still relies on the DM to tell the story and make it engaging, and adapt it to whatever the players do.
So when you have DMs who are bad at balance and who have to create the story, what sense does it make to have a system designed for DMs to create balance and not story?

Second, who actually uses D&D rules for their world building? Does the leader of the evil cult have enough leadership to manage a world-wide organization? Does the necromancer have enough minions to command the undead army at the border? Are there rules for the ritual to summon the dark god and merge the planes into one?Are there rules for creating a giant rift from the abyss for demons to assault the material plane? Are there rules for the ritual to ascend to godhood for the player's to stop? Are there rules for magically engineering a new creature?
I have never found such rules necessary. I wouldn't even want them. Why should my abyssal rift function anything like someone else's? Its my story, my campaign, I should be able to add in whatever narrative elements I want. This seems to me to be completely separate from the mechanical concerns of the system.

Third, is the lack of planar travel really a lack? That seems to be extremely setting specific. Even with different settings that have planes the rules for interacting with them can be very different. One setting may give you a network of fixed portals to move between worlds. Another may let you plane shift where ever, another may only let you planeshift from specific planes or specific points. One may send you to a random spot on a plane, another may have the relationship between points to be fixed. Another may only allow transitions between worlds as a result of complex rituals requiring virgin sacrifice, and another may let you slip between worlds by accidentally falling through a crack.
And what is special about planes? What about rules for interplanetary travel? Intergalactic? Time travel? Highways? Do we need rules for hyperspace jumps, FTL travel, warp gates, and wormholes?
All of these are based on setting. Having rules for them in core doesn't make a lot of sense. Would it be a good idea for a setting to establish its own rules for unusual forms of transport? Absolutely. But in core? How can you claim the system is lacking just because it doesn't have prewritten rules for the specific element you want?

Fourth, the argument that if you don't need rules for out of combat things you don't need rules for combat seems rather fallacious to me. One is providing the structure of gameplay, providing a framework for tactics and a challenge to be overcome. It can even function as the sole mechanic of a game; people will run tournaments and battle-centric games because that is where the gameplay is. The other is a purely narrative concern, and can be done freeform easily. Trying to roleplay combat without a structure leads to a mess of "I attack" "he blocks" "I avoid his block" "he dodges and counterstrikes" "I summon a nuke" "he summons a nuke-proof box" "I kill him anyways" "he doesn't die". Even if you manage to get people to stay within the bounds of some established capabilities and fairly dole out failures, the combat lacks meat and depth. In contrast, you can easily have engaging games which consist of nothing but people sitting around the table explaining their actions, investigating the circumstances and talking to people, without ever needing to roll a die. The limitations are narrative ,the obstacles are narrative, and the solutions are narrative. Is it wrong to have rules for such things? No. It is just less necessary than rules for combat.
In a video game, you can have fully fleshed out gameplay, with cool mechanics and requiring skill and mastery to overcome challenges, and have it be really fun. Then you run into the limitation that your narrative is all prescripted dialogue or maybe a few dialogue choices. There is a clear demarkation between gameplay and story. When you move to tabletop game, you gain the advantages of a live person running it- namely that the story doesn't have to be fixed, it can be dynamic, and increase your freedom. The gameplay half of the dynamic can remain fixed, and it becomes a matter of how you incorporate the story half. You can try to extend the gameplay mechanics to encompass it, you can leave ii freeform, heck, you could even leave it to a preset script(though you lose the advantages of a ttrpg over a crpg, and you should feel bad about your railroading).
Yes, it is fair to want mechanics that extend to the storytelling half too. I don't feel a need for it, but that is just my preference. The lack of mechanics for storytelling does not remove the need for mechanics for combat, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to invalidate that approach to gaming with such arguments.

Eldan

2013-08-08, 10:45 AM

Mystify

2013-08-08, 10:57 AM

You misunderstand. The system shouldn't provide a complete story. It should inspire the DM. You should be looking through the book and end up at some monster or spell or item that makes you tihnk "Man, a bad guy could use this in fashion X and that would create a very interesting adventure."
Many things help with that. Fluff, art and mechanics that do unusual things.

That sounds more like you want a setting that is evocative and inspiring.

You say planar travel isn't in every setting. Neither are elves, dwarves, swords, magic, elementals or constructs. But they are all in many settings. At least having some outlines and how they interact with different character abilities would be a lot of help.

elves, dwarves,swords, magic, elementals, and constructs are all merely default fluff. Elves and dwarves can easily be other races, and the racial rules already provide rules for creating any race you want. Swords are completely fluff in Legend- it has one section with same example weapon property configurations to represent various weapons, and apart from that lets you freely mix and match weapon properties to represent whatever you want. Constructs can easily be anything from a golem to a high tech battle mech, elementals provide mechanics for a classic element which can be refluffed as other things. Magic is setting dependent, but it is so highly mechanics based that rules for it are necessary if you want players to use it.
There is a large gulf between "Here are setting based reasonable default explanations for these mechanics which are widely applicable" and "here are mechanics for a setting". Many systems are built around the latter, and it becomes easy to interpret things in that light, but Legend is the former.

And yes, I try to stick as much as possible to the rules while world building. IT provides more consistency and allows players to retro-engineer things, if necessary. If I can't build the world I want in the rules, I start by changing the rules, not ignoring them.
I always found that trying to build things to follow the rules just made everything worse. They were bad at creating a reasonable setting.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-08, 11:14 AM

elves, dwarves,swords, magic, elementals, and constructs are all merely default fluff. Elves and dwarves can easily be other races, and the racial rules already provide rules for creating any race you want. Swords are completely fluff in Legend- it has one section with same example weapon property configurations to represent various weapons, and apart from that lets you freely mix and match weapon properties to represent whatever you want. Constructs can easily be anything from a golem to a high tech battle mech, elementals provide mechanics for a classic element which can be refluffed as other things. Magic is setting dependent, but it is so highly mechanics based that rules for it are necessary if you want players to use it.

That is a fallacy, if we can refluff swords as lightsabers, why can't we refluff planar travel portals as warp drives? If magic needs rules for players to use it despite being setting dependent, why doesn't trading? Trading can hire you an ally, who would have a giant bonus on combat.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 11:31 AM

That is a fallacy, if we can refluff swords as lightsabers, why can't we refluff planar travel portals as warp drives?

Alright them, refluff a teleportation circle as being interplanar. There, you have your planar travel rules. Lets also say teleport will take you between planes.

If magic needs rules for players to use it despite being setting dependent, why doesn't trading? Trading can hire you an ally, who would have a giant bonus on combat.

Allies are covered by the cohort rules, independent of how you came about them. Legend has specifically avoided having an economy integrated into its balance, which is tremendously freeing. I can buy a castle without worrying that I will get killed in combat because I don't have my magic armor. I can live as an ascetic monk with no possessions without being underpowered, or be rich brat without being overpowered. The GM is free to handle wealth in whatever way will work best for their campaign without being concerned that it will unbalance things.

jindra34

2013-08-08, 11:39 AM

Allies are covered by the cohort rules, independent of how you came about them. Legend has specifically avoided having an economy integrated into its balance, which is tremendously freeing.

Freeing for someone. And mostly from the players side. Now look at it from the side of the person running it and try to figure out if allowing all those things at the same time is benefically to the story, the game world, and the game itself. Kinda gets weighty there. Which is the problem with Legend as it stands, it weighs HEAVILY on the person running it (close in fact by my experience to GURPS) without really giving anything back for all that weight. Its rules, or more accurately/commonly decided lack there of, pull down on the person running the game if you so much as step out of heavy action.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 11:43 AM

Freeing for someone. And mostly from the players side. Now look at it from the side of the person running it and try to figure out if allowing all those things at the same time is benefically to the story, the game world, and the game itself. Kinda gets weighty there. Which is the problem with Legend as it stands, it weighs HEAVILY on the person running it (close in fact by my experience to GURPS) without really giving anything back for all that weight. Its rules, or more accurately/commonly decided lack there of, pull down on the person running the game if you so much as step out of heavy action.

And you think the system would be in any better of a position to decide when allowing such thing will be beneficial to the story, the game world, and the game itself? Are you just looking for an answer, any answer, right or wrong, as long a you don't have to come up with it?

Eldan

2013-08-08, 11:45 AM

I'd call it guidelines, not answers. You can still adapt them to your purposes, if necessary, but having nothing at all isn't very helpful.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 11:47 AM

I'd call it guidelines, not answers. You can still adapt them to your purposes, if necessary, but having nothing at all isn't very helpful.
I don't see how guidelines are helpful when you could have anything from "we are stranded on islands with nothing " to "we are running around in space with giant mechs". Both games that people are actually running.

jindra34

2013-08-08, 12:05 PM

And you think the system would be in any better of a position to decide when allowing such thing will be beneficial to the story, the game world, and the game itself? Are you just looking for an answer, any answer, right or wrong, as long a you don't have to come up with it?

I think the people who designed it are going to be better at setting default expectations that don't risk disrupting everything than your average person. And even if I don't like or use those expectations they provide an foundation from which to work and produce better fitting elements. So, I guess, yes?

Zombimode

2013-08-08, 12:09 PM

I don't see how guidelines are helpful when you could have anything from "we are stranded on islands with nothing " to "we are running around in space with giant mechs". Both games that people are actually running.

Well, yeah, maybe thats the problem, or rather the difficulty of games with such a broad spectrum of supported settings like Legend.

For the question in the OP, I can just reiterate what Kurald has already said: Legend is firmly rooted in a combat-as-sport paradigm, while I am much more interested in games that lean towards a combat-as-war paradigm.

It is important to realize that these paradigms have a much greater impact than the actual combat. They shape the range of abilities the PC can acquire and have implications on the setting the system can support.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 12:13 PM

I think the people who designed it are going to be better at setting default expectations that don't risk disrupting everything than your average person. And even if I don't like or use those expectations they provide an foundation from which to work and produce better fitting elements. So, I guess, yes?

I think that is their role for mechanics, but not story. The possibly stories you can do are wide open. The game isn't even restricted to a genre, any assumptions it adds to that would be limiting things. A setting may provide a framework to operate in, but Legend provides a solid, mechanical foundation that you can build whatever you want on top. D&D would disrupt things for your average person because it was mechanically unbalanced. Legend does 99% of the work for avoiding that, and is generic enough to do whatever you want with it. I don't see how the player owning castles or such is disruptive, unless it goes against the DM's intent for the game, and only the DM can make that call.

subject42

2013-08-08, 12:19 PM

Having played Legend and run Legend, here are a few of the complaints that I and my players have had.

A few of my players disliked the complete lack of an economy. I love it, but I figured I'd note it. Placing the setting in a post-scarcity but weirdly bureaucratic world helped.
The lack of track-based abilities that have pure-utility or dual-use functions. Some feats and legendary abilities grant this, but not everyone uses [Legendary] and feats are precious.
A few players dislike the once-and-done nature of the skill system. I can understand this to some respect, since it makes it difficult to make jack-of-all-trade characters.

Eldan

2013-08-08, 12:19 PM

I don't see how guidelines are helpful when you could have anything from "we are stranded on islands with nothing " to "we are running around in space with giant mechs". Both games that people are actually running.

True. But then, I could also run games without magic, without melee weapons or without elves. Are you going to take all those out of the core book, too, because they aren't in every setting?

All the rules in any RPG book are optional. That doesn't mean they aren't nice to have as a suggestion.

jindra34

2013-08-08, 12:23 PM

The game (whether intended or not) is limited in terms of genre. Try running Pulp Noir, Investigator, or other Low Action games. It won't work well, if it works at all. And a game is more than the rules, it also includes the world into which the players, as and through their characters, step into, or at least for RPGs. And there, in either helping build or out right providing a world in which to play, is where Legend falls short of being a game. And it really can't compete as a system because of how heavy it is for its benefits. You really can't tweak things as it stands to get everything to work in line. It just doesn't offer the tools, and options to allow it.

Drachasor

2013-08-08, 12:53 PM

No summons seems weird.

Couldn't you just implement stuff like that with special [Extra Action] abilities everyone gets? You just choose whatever flavor of extra action you want.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 01:04 PM

True. But then, I could also run games without magic, without melee weapons or without elves. Are you going to take all those out of the core book, too, because they aren't in every setting?

All the rules in any RPG book are optional. That doesn't mean they aren't nice to have as a suggestion.

But why should planes be a sticking point? From my experience, that is a very D&D specific thing to have, and even in other settings with multiple worlds, they tend to be handled in a very different manner. Is the problem here that it is missing something important, or that it is missing something D&D has?

The game (whether intended or not) is limited in terms of genre. Try running Pulp Noir, Investigator, or other Low Action games. It won't work well, if it works at all. And a game is more than the rules, it also includes the world into which the players, as and through their characters, step into, or at least for RPGs. And there, in either helping build or out right providing a world in which to play, is where Legend falls short of being a game.

So? Every game system is limited in what it can do. Legend is far broader than most, but because its not 100% universal it has to suffer for it?

And it really can't compete as a system because of how heavy it is for its benefits. You really can't tweak things as it stands to get everything to work in line. It just doesn't offer the tools, and options to allow it.
I've also found it generally needs few tweaks, unless you are trying to do something very specific, and in that case no system would be adequate. These are complaints that, after a year of playing in Legend, I have not encountered in practice. As I've said, I've seen people run pokemon style where they command other creatures to fight, giant mech games, games based on Tower of God, generic fantasy, magictech, and XCOM, off the top of my head.

The main thing I am getting out of this is "Legend needs to provide a good setting". I'll agree, that would be a good thing to have. It would allow it to provide more evocative subject matter, more specific rules for how the world works, and something easy to pick up without having to do the world building yourself.

Psyren

2013-08-08, 01:16 PM

The burden it places on a DM to make both a fighter and a wizard relevant is kinda absurd.

No group I have ever played in has had this problem. The guy playing the fighter wants to be first in line, chop foes to bits, and be a target for all the foes. He also doesn't want to negotiate with the king, point out the traps, or solve the puzzle. If he did, he'd play something else.

It takes a high level of system mastery for a DM to know how to add balance to a system.

This is only the case if he is playing with (or more accurately, against) other system masters who are actively munchkining the system so they can "win." If you have players like that, then yes, hamstringing them with a narrow game system is probably your best hope short of not playing with them, but the reality is that people like that are more likely found on a message board than at a table.

On the flip side, I have never seen a system provide the story.

Does that include the several examples in this very thread? How about OotS itself, which frequently derives plot points from game mechanics?

Never? Really? :smallconfused:

Second, who actually uses D&D rules for their world building?

I do, the Giant does, plenty of other people do.

I have never found such rules necessary. I wouldn't even want them. Why should my abyssal rift function anything like someone else's? Its my story, my campaign, I should be able to add in whatever narrative elements I want.

Mechanics give you an idea of what narrative elements can be possible. They give you a way of adjudicating actions by your players that you may not have planned for, that they can still consider fair rather than being an arbitrary decision by you. (I rule "X" because of similar situation "Y" and specific circumstance "Z". Look at the rules here, here and here. Do you agree with my conclusion?") They provide common ground for gaming forums to discuss and interpret, thereby generating even more narrative ideas. They help you combine effects or abilities to create brand new circumstances.

Anyone can do this on their own; freeform is available to every group and is free of charge. The question you need to ask yourself is why people don't just freeform everything. Rules provide consistency and justification.

Third, is the lack of planar travel really a lack?

Yes, it is very much a lack. A fantasy roleplaying game with no ghosts, no afterlife and very rudimentary summoning/calling is only the start of the problems that not having a cosmology can cause.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-08, 01:19 PM

I've also found it generally needs few tweaks, unless you are trying to do something very specific, and in that case no system would be adequate. These are complaints that, after a year of playing in Legend, I have not encountered in practice. As I've said, I've seen people run pokemon style where they command other creatures to fight, giant mech games, games based on Tower of God, generic fantasy, magictech, and XCOM, off the top of my head.

Several of those run perfectly under Legend rules. But the magitech example sticks out a bit. Sure Legend handles the whole fighting during magitech, but the genre has so much more. What about building stuff? What about inventing? Legend doesn't cover that sort of thing, so the DM had to create it. And don't say those rules can't be created in an applicable way, here's an example of totally cross platform rules:
Crafting skill:
DC to create common item within this crafting set; 10
DC to create rarer but known item within this crafting set; 15
DC to create masterwork common item within this crafting set; 20
DC to create masterwork rare item within this crafting set; 25
DC to create item while knowing only purpose; 35
DC to create masterwork item while knowing only purpose; 50

subject42

2013-08-08, 01:35 PM

No group I have ever played in has had this problem. The guy playing the fighter wants to be first in line, chop foes to bits, and be a target for all the foes. He also doesn't want to negotiate with the king, point out the traps, or solve the puzzle. If he did, he'd play something else.

In my group, we have a guy who can't help but crank his optimization up to 8/10 at minimum. He's almost always a spellcaster, and without DM vigilance he'll frequently end encounters before any other player can act. The fighter gets a little annoyed when he doesn't get the opportunity to fight.

While that is more of a social problem than a system problem, the relatively compressed optimization band of Legend actually helps a lot here. Even the best, most optimized "wizard" in Legend can't pull too far away from everyone else.

Psyren

2013-08-08, 01:40 PM

In my group, we have a guy who can't help but crank his optimization up to 8/10 at minimum. He's almost always a spellcaster, and without DM vigilance he'll frequently end encounters before any other player can act. The fighter gets a little annoyed when he doesn't get the opportunity to fight.

While that is more of a social problem than a system problem, the relatively compressed optimization band of Legend actually helps a lot here. Even the best, most optimized "wizard" in Legend can't pull too far away from everyone else.

And that's great. 4e/Legend exist for people like that, who can't control themselves.

It's the notion that 3.P is somehow unusable, because it doesn't do as much to curtail bad players, that miffs me.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 01:52 PM

Several of those run perfectly under Legend rules. But the magitech example sticks out a bit. Sure Legend handles the whole fighting during magitech, but the genre has so much more. What about building stuff? What about inventing? Legend doesn't cover that sort of thing, so the DM had to create it. And don't say those rules can't be created in an applicable way, here's an example of totally cross platform rules:
Crafting skill:
DC to create common item within this crafting set; 10
DC to create rarer but known item within this crafting set; 15
DC to create masterwork common item within this crafting set; 20
DC to create masterwork rare item within this crafting set; 25
DC to create item while knowing only purpose; 35
DC to create masterwork item while knowing only purpose; 50
Check out the engineering skill.

No group I have ever played in has had this problem. The guy playing the fighter wants to be first in line, chop foes to bits, and be a target for all the foes. He also doesn't want to negotiate with the king, point out the traps, or solve the puzzle. If he did, he'd play something else.

But they aren't even relevant in combat without extreme optimization on the fighter's part and very suboptimal play on the casters part. I have seen many 3.5 games crash and burn because of problems created by a fundamental imbalance in the game. You can still play a beatstick in Legend if that is what you want, but the system makes it so its actually a valid option next to the tactician/shaman spellcasting hybrid character

This is only the case if he is playing with (or more accurately, against) other system masters who are actively munchkining the system so they can "win." If you have players like that, then yes, hamstringing them with a narrow game system is probably your best hope short of not playing with them, but the reality is that people like that are more likely found on a message board than at a table.

Oftentimes its the opposite issue. The people with enough system mastery can do reasonable things and cooperate, its the people who don't invest that much effort into the system who make useless characters, typically by accident. Or people who try to engage in character building fully but just end up being bad at it.
I also would not call Legend "hamstringing" them. There is a ton of room for customizing and optimizing characters. That was one of my favorite parts of 3.5, and its why I disliked 4e and why I love legend. The optimizers will end up better than the people who don't care, but not to such a degree that it causes a breakdown of party dynamics.
You've said it should be the DMs responsibility to ensure balance, but your method of doing so seems to be to exclude players who have a different level of optimization skill.
I found it very liberating to be able to optimize a character as much as I want without fear of invalidating my teammates, or conversely to build purely from my concept without needing to concern myself with whether I was shooting myself in the foot.

Does that include the several examples in this very thread? How about OotS itself, which frequently derives plot points from game mechanics?

Never? Really? :smallconfused:

Oh, yeah, I totally forgot how Rich Burlew didn't write oots and just let the D&D system write the story.
I'm not saying the mechanics won't influence the story. But they will not create it. They have no creativity. Ultimately, the DM needs to be a storyteller.

I do, the Giant does, plenty of other people do.

And how do you do any of the things I listed with the mechanics of D&D? Or are you saying they shouldn't be possible because the system doesn't support it?

Mechanics give you an idea of what narrative elements can be possible. They give you a way of adjudicating actions by your players that you may not have planned for, that they can still consider fair rather than being an arbitrary decision by you. (I rule "X" because of similar situation "Y" and specific circumstance "Z". Look at the rules here, here and here. Do you agree with my conclusion?") They provide common ground for gaming forums to discuss and interpret, thereby generating even more narrative ideas. They help you combine effects or abilities to create brand new circumstances.

Here are what narrative elements are possible: All of them
You want an evil king from 10000 years ago to be revivied? Do it, don't try to figure out how to game the mechanics to extend the Resurrection spells to effect things 10000 years ago.
People have been making stories for millennia without a game system to give them ideas. We have more written word than anyone could hope to read containing a rich source of narrative ideas. The game system is not the best source of inspiration for that. If you want ideas for how to make something that works well in a setting, then that should be part of the setting work.

Anyone can do this on their own; freeform is available to every group and is free of charge. The question you need to ask yourself is why people don't just freeform everything. Rules provide consistency and justification.

I've already gone into how combat doesn't work well freeform. The groups I play in DO freeform everything else as much as possible. It works wonderfully.

Yes, it is very much a lack. A fantasy roleplaying game with no ghosts, no afterlife and very rudimentary summoning/calling is only the start of the problems that not having a cosmology can cause.
who says you can't have ghosts, an afterlife, or summoning? The cosmology is a setting specific thing by its very definition. Legend was made with Hallow in mind, which didn't have planes, because it didn't need them. If I want to run a LotR game, I don't need planes.if I want to run a space game, I don't need planes. You are placing a lot of emphasis of on one possible element of a setting. The only reason why planes would even be expected is that D&D has them. Guess what? Legend isn't D&D. its not trying to be, it doesn't have to do things the same way or include the same elements.

Eldan

2013-08-08, 02:03 PM

But why should planes be a sticking point? From my experience, that is a very D&D specific thing to have, and even in other settings with multiple worlds, they tend to be handled in a very different manner. Is the problem here that it is missing something important, or that it is missing something D&D has?

Odysseus and Orpheus both went to Hades. Tam Lin went to fairyland. Gilgamesh travelled across the skies. Various norse characters travelled across the nine worlds. In the Mabinogi, a prince made a deal with Arawn so he could rule over Annwn for a year. King Arthur went there, too. I remember a tale of a Hindu sage travelling to the underworld of Patala. With some research, I could probably find another two dozen other worlds humans can travel to in mythology. It's everywhere in legend.
And in fiction? Let's look at my bookshelf. Frodo is pulled into the spirit world by the Ring and in the end, everyone leaves to Valinor. Kvothe travels to the fairy lands. Rincewind's been to hell and outside of creation, Tifanny Aching went to the desert the dead must travel and to fairy, as did other witches. Dresden is in various fairy lands all the time.
Or other RPGs? Shadowrun has astral spacde, from what I remember. Exalted has hells and heavens and more. World of Darkness? Chock-full of it. Warhammer has the Warp.

It's an extremely common trope in fiction. It's everywhere. Yes, I tihnk the lack of rules for other worlds and how to interact with them is a gap in Legend.

So? Every game system is limited in what it can do. Legend is far broader than most, but because its not 100% universal it has to suffer for it?

Who's talking about suffering? Legend is not complete yet and Afro asked us what we think is missing. I think this is something that's missing. I didn't say Legend was good or bad because of it.

Does that include the several examples in this very thread? How about OotS itself, which frequently derives plot points from game mechanics?

Never? Really?
Oh, yeah, I totally forgot how Rich Burlew didn't write oots and just let the D&D system write the story.
I'm not saying the mechanics won't influence the story. But they will not create it. They have no creativity. Ultimately, the DM needs to be a storyteller.

Dude. How many times have we said this now? Of course the rules won't write the campaign for you. But they will help. Even just small things. Let's assume a fictional game system where wizards can't cast spells if they touch iron. That's a rule. From that rule, we can make a lot of setting assumptions. Wizards will fear iron. A wizard's house probably won't have iron tools. In a wizard-ruled society, iron might be outlawed. There will be little magical help in iron mining, but it will still be popular as an anti-wizard measure. Perhaps there will be special wizard prisons with iron cages instead of stone cells.
See? That's not a story written. But that's a lot of setting ideas developed from a simple rule.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-08, 02:09 PM

Here are what narrative elements are possible: All of them
You want an evil king from 10000 years ago to be revivied? Do it, don't try to figure out how to game the mechanics to extend the Resurrection spells to effect things 10000 years ago.
People have been making stories for millennia without a game system to give them ideas. We have more written word than anyone could hope to read containing a rich source of narrative ideas. The game system is not the best source of inspiration for that. If you want ideas for how to make something that works well in a setting, then that should be part of the setting work.

So if that ancient king can be revived after 10,000 years, why can't my player character? Why can't the ancient heroes that killed him last time? That certainly seems like a useful ability, why don't more people use it?
It ends up just being that random important NPCs get random important powers because shut up, I'm the DM. This in and of itself goes very much against the idea of parity between PCs and NPCs, which is one of the integral parts of the Legend system.

Zombimode

2013-08-08, 02:11 PM

Oh, yeah, I totally forgot how Rich Burlew didn't write oots and just let the D&D system write the story.
I'm not saying the mechanics won't influence the story. But they will not create it. They have no creativity. Ultimately, the DM needs to be a storyteller.

And yet, can you imagine an OotS based on Legend rather than D&D?

Neither do I.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 02:18 PM

Odysseus and Orpheus both went to Hades. Tam Lin went to fairyland. Gilgamesh travelled across the skies. Various norse characters travelled across the nine worlds. In the Mabinogi, a prince made a deal with Arawn so he could rule over Annwn for a year. King Arthur went there, too. I remember a tale of a Hindu sage travelling to the underworld of Patala. With some research, I could probably find another two dozen other worlds humans can travel to in mythology. It's everywhere in legend.
And in fiction? Let's look at my bookshelf. Frodo is pulled into the spirit world by the Ring and in the end, everyone leaves to Valinor. Kvothe travels to the fairy lands. Rincewind's been to hell and outside of creation, Tifanny Aching went to the desert the dead must travel and to fairy, as did other witches. Dresden is in various fairy lands all the time.
Or other RPGs? Shadowrun has astral spacde, from what I remember. Exalted has hells and heavens and more. World of Darkness? Chock-full of it. Warhammer has the Warp.

It's an extremely common trope in fiction. It's everywhere. Yes, I tihnk the lack of rules for other worlds and how to interact with them is a gap in Legend.

Do you need rules for other countries? Most of those cases are not really any different. Its another plane, but you aren't planeshifting between them, you just travel to them, or they aren't so much a place as an intermediary for other travel. If you are there,you can't affect things here, and visa versa. What rules do you need for planes that won't be setting specific? People travel there, and its just another place.
Its easy enough to use what is already in the system for interplanar travel. Teleport can take you to another place. a teleportation circle can be an interplanar gate with the destination as another plane. But all of that will depend on the setting.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 02:29 PM

And yet, can you imagine an OotS based on Legend rather than D&D?

Neither do I.
Thats a setting issue. Given a setting, I can easily write a comic based on Legend.

So if that ancient king can be revived after 10,000 years, why can't my player character? Why can't the ancient heroes that killed him last time? That certainly seems like a useful ability, why don't more people use it?
It ends up just being that random important NPCs get random important powers because shut up, I'm the DM. This in and of itself goes very much against the idea of parity between PCs and NPCs, which is one of the integral parts of the Legend system.
I'd say the same thing about every story ever written that invokes something like that. Why does Sauron have the ring of power and get to come back when the fellowship doesn't? Why has nobody else done that? You either cut out such things entirely, and thereby limit drastically the stories you can tell,make them widely available, which defeats the point, or leave them a narrative concern, which iswhat such things are and always have been. Its a storytelling element, not a mechanical one. Do you really want to say nobody could be working on a massive project to create a new monster unless the system has provided rules for that research and development? There are no such things are dark rituals unless there is a chapter in the manual about performing them? Nobody in the world can lead an army because there aren't leadership and command rules? There can't be any nations because there are no rules on how to manage them? There are an infinite number of things which could have rules, and most of them would be pointless to codify because they won't come up or be widely applicable.
Narrative powers don't have to be limited to the bad guys either. I've had my own players channel the ancient spirits of the long lost heroes, or gathering the 5 mcguffins to seal away the great evil . None of which a game system has ever told me how to make work, nor would I expect it to. Its the narrative element I decided I wanted to add to my game. Its not something widely available, its a specific occurance.

Amphetryon

2013-08-08, 02:30 PM

Mystify

2013-08-08, 02:35 PM

Dude. How many times have we said this now? Of course the rules won't write the campaign for you. But they will help. Even just small things. Let's assume a fictional game system where wizards can't cast spells if they touch iron. That's a rule. From that rule, we can make a lot of setting assumptions. Wizards will fear iron. A wizard's house probably won't have iron tools. In a wizard-ruled society, iron might be outlawed. There will be little magical help in iron mining, but it will still be popular as an anti-wizard measure. Perhaps there will be special wizard prisons with iron cages instead of stone cells.
See? That's not a story written. But that's a lot of setting ideas developed from a simple rule.

That is a setting element. You are asking for the generic system to provide a setting. What if that was a rule, but none of that made sense for my setting?
In contrast, one of m GMs set up a setting for Legend. It involved many races, guilds,orders, nations, etc. One of those was the augmenters, which used magic augment their own bodies. I was then able to make mutant lizardy scientist who was an augementor, because the setting offered the inspiration for my character.
Or look at cathexis (http://www.ruleofcool.com/worlds-end-cathexis/). It offers a rich, compelling idea for a campaign world. It didn't need some rules about how all these things function handed to them, it just needed an idea.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 02:37 PM

While I agree with Mystify's points, I'll point out that it has been previously hinted at that any attempts to support or otherwise justify design decisions in Legend are missing the point of this thread.

I think what is literally being asked for is missing the underlying issues, and i'm trying to offer a counterpoint to them to show that their requests are misaimed.

Drachasor

2013-08-08, 02:37 PM

I'd say the same thing about every story ever written that invokes something like that. Why does Sauron have the ring of power and get to come back when the fellowship doesn't? Why has nobody else done that? You either cut out such things entirely, and thereby limit drastically the stories you can tell,make them widely available, which defeats the point, or leave them a narrative concern, which iswhat such things are and always have been. Its a storytelling element, not a mechanical one. Do you really want to say nobody could be working on a massive project to create a new monster unless the system has provided rules for that research and development? There are no such things are dark rituals unless there is a chapter in the manual about performing them? Nobody in the world can lead an army because there aren't leadership and command rules? There can't be any nations because there are no rules on how to manage them? There are an infinite number of things which could have rules, and most of them would be pointless to codify because they won't come up or be widely applicable.
Narrative powers don't have to be limited to the bad guys either. I've had my own players channel the ancient spirits of the long lost heroes, or gathering the 5 mcguffins to seal away the great evil . None of which a game system has ever told me how to make work, nor would I expect it to. Its the narrative element I decided I wanted to add to my game. Its not something widely available, its a specific occurance.

That said, the more limited in scope the system, the more difficult arbitrating these kinds of things become. Sure, some stuff will just be Big Plot Stuff that doesn't need much if anything in the way of mechanics (e.g. like the Gates in OotS). However, that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other things like crafting, summoning, mind control, social encounters, etc, etc, that don't become a headache to regularly deal with. Unless of course you make your own rules for it -- which is admitting there's a problem.

I've not played or read Legend, but from this thread it seems like this sort of thing might be a problem.

I'm curious if it has the same problem 4E had in my games. The way the rules were written really stiffled the creativity of my players. They felt if they weren't granted permission to take an action, then they couldn't attempt it. It's a problem games can have, I think, when they're a bit too focused on nailing down and clarifying narrowly defined actions.

Do you need rules for other countries? Most of those cases are not really any different. Its another plane, but you aren't planeshifting between them, you just travel to them, or they aren't so much a place as an intermediary for other travel. If you are there,you can't affect things here, and visa versa. What rules do you need for planes that won't be setting specific? People travel there, and its just another place.
Its easy enough to use what is already in the system for interplanar travel. Teleport can take you to another place. a teleportation circle can be an interplanar gate with the destination as another plane. But all of that will depend on the setting.

For a game focused on balance, rules for other planes is kind of important if they are changing how reality works. Otherwise you might create an imbalance if you make up your own. It's pretty easy for most DMs to do.

jindra34

2013-08-08, 02:38 PM

Mystify

2013-08-08, 02:42 PM

Mystify: GURPs 4e Core provides a setting. Yet its still generic. And in fact most people DON'T play in the setting it provides. So saying generic means no setting provided... gets highly confusing to people.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a setting. I'm saying that most of the issues people have with Legend would be addressed by having a more detailed setting.

Larkas

2013-08-08, 02:43 PM

I'm curious if it has the same problem 4E had in my games. The way the rules were written really stiffled the creativity of my players. They felt if they weren't granted permission to take an action, then they couldn't attempt it. It's a problem games can have, I think, when they're a bit too focused on nailing down and clarifying narrowly defined actions.

I don't think that's a problem, actually. Legend only tries to be really structured at combat and character generation, with the latter being really open.

The main thing I am getting out of this is "Legend needs to provide a good setting". I'll agree, that would be a good thing to have. It would allow it to provide more evocative subject matter, more specific rules for how the world works, and something easy to pick up without having to do the world building yourself.

It's what I've been getting at too. It doesn't need a default setting, but it could really use a(some) sample setting(s). Does anyone know if there will be a book about the Hallow?

Psyren

2013-08-08, 02:54 PM

But they aren't even relevant in combat without extreme optimization on the fighter's part and very suboptimal play on the casters part. I have seen many 3.5 games crash and burn because of problems created by a fundamental imbalance in the game. You can still play a beatstick in Legend if that is what you want, but the system makes it so its actually a valid option next to the tactician/shaman spellcasting hybrid character

Mystify, I have news for you - unless you are playing Pun-Pun in every game you are being suboptimal in some way. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, and the desire to usurp everyone else's role in the party is not universal nor even widespread in 3.x.

Oftentimes its the opposite issue. The people with enough system mastery can do reasonable things and cooperate, its the people who don't invest that much effort into the system who make useless characters, typically by accident. Or people who try to engage in character building fully but just end up being bad at it.

Which is why the more experienced players help them get started. Take Magic, we all built that really terrible Timmy deck starting out full of gigantic creatures we'd have no hope of casting that contained every card we owned. It didn't stop people from learning the game and getting better at it. Not only that, but Magic isn't even a co-op game (barring specific variants like 2HG, and even then you are still trying to "win.")

I also would not call Legend "hamstringing" them. There is a ton of room for customizing and optimizing characters. That was one of my favorite parts of 3.5, and its why I disliked 4e and why I love legend. The optimizers will end up better than the people who don't care, but not to such a degree that it causes a breakdown of party dynamics.
You've said it should be the DMs responsibility to ensure balance, but your method of doing so seems to be to exclude players who have a different level of optimization skill.

I give Legend full credit for being as balanced as 4e while being more customizable. With all of that, and being OGL to boot, it deserves any success it receives and more. But it is still not varied enough.

I found it very liberating to be able to optimize a character as much as I want without fear of invalidating my teammates, or conversely to build purely from my concept without needing to concern myself with whether I was shooting myself in the foot.

But not all concepts are possible, without freeform anyway. See my cleric/vampire example earlier in the thread for instance, or my "adjudicating unexpected player action."

Oh, yeah, I totally forgot how Rich Burlew didn't write oots and just let the D&D system write the story.
I'm not saying the mechanics won't influence the story. But they will not create it. They have no creativity. Ultimately, the DM needs to be a storyteller.
...
And how do you do any of the things I listed with the mechanics of D&D? Or are you saying they shouldn't be possible because the system doesn't support it?

Mechanics and plot are not mutually exclusive; rather, they organically flow together (or should, anyway) in any roleplaying game and even any story based on a roleplaying game.

A clear example from OotS is Malack's death scene. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html) We know from our fictional tropes that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight, therefore Rich needed to establish a reason why Malack would risk himself by being out in the daytime. Answer - he researched a spell to let him do this. "But wait," I hear you cry, "that Protection from Daylight spell is homebrew isn't it?! So the DM did just deviate from the rules to make a story!" Yes, he did, but note the rules he left in place - that Malack's protection is from a spell, and can therefore be dispelled (in less than 6 seconds), that the specific amount of such protections must be anticipated and prepared in advance. and therefore can't simply be cast as many times as Malack might want to even though he invented it, that he has enough time before dying for a final futile attack on/very dramatic speech by Nale rather than being incinerated instantly, but not enough time to actually alter his fate etc. All of these are game rules, and all of them are relevant to the plot.

Had the Giant not been using D&D rules, he would have had to do all this manually - establishing that magic spells need to be prepared in advance in his world, that they can be dispelled, who is capable of doing so, what they need to do (and how quickly) in order to do it, why the spell couldn't simply be recast before it was fatal etc. Could he have established all this freeform? Sure, but one of Rich's key complaints about his own comic is how wordy/clunky he feels it is at times. Having to spend even more precious expository real estate explaining the entire magic system as a precursor to this moment would only make it feel worse to him. Everywhere he can lean on the mechanics he does so; Tsukiko's wights, Kubota's defense, Redcloak taking out La Resistance solo etc. The places where he deviates from the rules are not nearly as important as the places where he follows them unspoken.

Imagine then, how much more complicated it can get to try and invent this stuff on the spot with actual players, who have various strategies and solutions they want to attempt to problems (both in and out of combat) and simultaneously telegraph it far enough in advance so that it doesn't feel like Calvinball. And then to justify that knowledge (or lack thereof) in character - not only would the audience have to know what Z and Nale can do to Malack, Z and Nale themselves have to know it too, all for the plot to make sense.

Here are what narrative elements are possible: All of them.
*snip*

Freeforming everything narrative-related is certainly possible, but easily leads to inconsistencies and incredulities. For the story to make sense, all of these things need to be established up front, such as the ability for spells to be dispelled in less than 6 seconds from the Malack example above, or the inability to cast spells more times than they've been prepared.

Certainly storytelling has existed for millennia, but the cooperative storytelling of an RPG is something else. Players need to know what is possible to play properly, and clear mechanics are a good piece of that. Combat is, I agree with you, the most important place for such mechanics to exist, but there are plenty of non-combat, pre-combat and post-combat scenarios that could use adjudication too.

who says you can't have ghosts, an afterlife, or summoning? The cosmology is a setting specific thing by its very definition. Legend was made with Hallow in mind, which didn't have planes, because it didn't need them. If I want to run a LotR game, I don't need planes.if I want to run a space game, I don't need planes. You are placing a lot of emphasis of on one possible element of a setting. The only reason why planes would even be expected is that D&D has them. Guess what? Legend isn't D&D. its not trying to be, it doesn't have to do things the same way or include the same elements.

In addition to Eldan's great post, I'd like to remind you that the point of this thread was a question about what Legend is missing. Your retort seems to be "MY Legend games don't need that stuff!"Which is fine and all, but other people do.

Amphetryon

2013-08-08, 02:59 PM

I think what is literally being asked for is missing the underlying issues, and i'm trying to offer a counterpoint to them to show that their requests are misaimed.

All I'm saying is that I was told that a similar effort on my part was contrary to the point of the thread.

EDIT: See also, the closing argument of the post directly above this one.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 03:22 PM

Mystify, I have news for you - unless you are playing Pun-Pun in every game you are being suboptimal in some way. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, and the desire to usurp everyone else's role in the party is not universal nor even widespread in 3.x.

There is a world of difference between "I must make the best possible build in the system" and "I have to make really stupid choices for this character to not overshadow other players". I don't want to usurp the rest of the party, nor do the other people I play with. We just want to be able to actually utilize the character building options presented to us. I find designing characters fun, so I put effort into it. Against anyone who doesn't, I will overshadow them. The system barely has the faintest semblence of balance, and it causes problems constantly. Its just a matter of whether a given group can accept those issues or not.

Which is why the more experienced players help them get started. Take Magic, we all built that really terrible Timmy deck starting out full of gigantic creatures we'd have no hope of casting that contained every card we owned. It didn't stop people from learning the game and getting better at it. Not only that, but Magic isn't even a co-op game (barring specific variants like 2HG, and even then you are still trying to "win.")

But you don't make a character and play it for the next 2 years in Magic.
Let me ask you this: what is the point of having bad options in pathfinder? So people can learn to avoid them? Why not just have those options be stronger so they are also viable?

I give Legend full credit for being as balanced as 4e while being more customizable. With all of that, and being OGL to boot, it deserves any success it receives and more. But it is still not varied enough.

I see more varied characters from Legend than I do from pathfinder.

But not all concepts are possible, without freeform anyway. See my cleric/vampire example earlier in the thread for instance, or my "adjudicating unexpected player action."

Oh no, I don't have an option to add an entire new character on top of mine, the horror
Yeah, there are a few things which legend doesn't deal with (yet). I could turn around and list a ton of concepts that Legend handles wionderfully that pathfinder will cringe at . Robotic dragons, cybenetic skeletons,

Mechanics and plot are not mutually exclusive; rather, they organically flow together (or should, anyway) in any roleplaying game and even any story based on a roleplaying game.

A clear example from OotS is Malack's death scene. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html) We know from our fictional tropes that vampires are vulnerable to sunlight, therefore Rich needed to establish a reason why Malack would risk himself by being out in the daytime. Answer - he researched a spell to let him do this. "But wait," I hear you cry, "that Protection from Daylight spell is homebrew isn't it?! So the DM did just deviate from the rules to make a story!" Yes, he did, but note the rules he left in place - that Malack's protection is from a spell, and can therefore be dispelled (in less than 6 seconds), that the specific amount of such protections must be anticipated and prepared in advance. and therefore can't simply be cast as many times as Malack might want to even though he invented it, that he has enough time before dying for a final futile attack on/very dramatic speech by Nale rather than being incinerated instantly, but not enough time to actually alter his fate etc. All of these are game rules, and all of them are relevant to the plot.

Had the Giant not been using D&D rules, he would have had to do all this manually - establishing that magic spells need to be prepared in advance in his world, that they can be dispelled, who is capable of doing so, what they need to do (and how quickly) in order to do it, why the spell couldn't simply be recast before it was fatal etc. Could he have established all this? Sure, but one of Rich's key complaints about his own comic is how wordy/clunky he feels it is at times. Having to spend even more precious expository real estate explaining the entire magic system as a precursor to this moment would only make it feel worse to him. Everywhere he can lean on the mechanics he does so; Tsukiko's wights, Kubota's defense, Redcloak taking out La Resistance solo etc. The places where he deviates from the rules are not nearly as important as the places where he follows them unspoken.

Who cares about how oots does it? 99.9999% of stories don't do it like that. That hardly enthralls me about how necessary it is.
Heck, half of the time he uses the mechanics its to point out how absurd the result is. Haley with glibness, the ogre who could keep 5ft stepping back to remain safe until he fell off a cliff, etc.
Every mechanic in the game has this kind of impact.

Freeforming everything narrative-related is certainly possible, but easily leads to inconsistencies and incredulities. For the story to make sense, all of these things need to be established up front, such as the ability for spells to be dispelled in less than 6 seconds from the Malack example above, or the inability to cast spells more times than they've been prepared.

And Legend has rules for casting and dispelling spells

Certainly storytelling has existed for millennia, but the cooperative storytelling of an RPG is something else. Players need to know what is possible to play properly, and clear mechanics are a good piece of that. Combat is, I agree with you, the most important place for such mechanics to exist, but there are plenty of non-combat, pre-combat and post-combat scenarios that could use adjudication too.

I don't see what you think pathfinder has that Legend lacks in this regard.

In addition to Eldan's great post, I'd like to remind you that the point of this thread was a question about what Legend is missing. Your retort seems to be "MY Legend games don't need that stuff!"Which is fine and all, but other people do.
No, my retort is "This stuff is setting specific", and me trying to figure out what D&D had that Legend didn't in this regard. I've played a lot of D&D and Legend, and I don't see a huge difference in that regard.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-08, 03:26 PM

Which is why the more experienced players help them get started. Take Magic, we all built that really terrible Timmy deck starting out full of gigantic creatures we'd have no hope of casting that contained every card we owned. It didn't stop people from learning the game and getting better at it. Not only that, but Magic isn't even a co-op game (barring specific variants like 2HG, and even then you are still trying to "win.")
While that's a good paradigm for a competitive card game, it's a terrible way to approach an RPG. In Magic, your games last anywhere from a few minutes to an hour. In D&D, your games last anywhere from a few hours to a few years. In Magic, there's nothing to stop you from completely redesigning your deck between games. In D&D, it's way more complicated. In Magic, the optimization is the point of the game-- it's a competition; you're trying to build the most powerful deck you can. In D&D, the story is the point, and the optimization incidental.

Sorry to be off-topic; I've seen the argument before and it bugs me every time.

jindra34

2013-08-08, 03:30 PM

No, my retort is "This stuff is setting specific", and me trying to figure out what D&D had that Legend didn't in this regard. I've played a lot of D&D and Legend, and I don't see a huge difference in that regard.

Sadly with your mentioning of Mecha games, even including DISTANCE measures has become setting specific. Which Legend does do. So why not other relatively common setting aspects?

Mystify

2013-08-08, 03:39 PM

Sadly with your mentioning of Mecha games, even including DISTANCE measures has become setting specific. Which Legend does do. So why not other relatively common setting aspects?

It is trivial to file off the distance unit and replace it with something else. Legend isn't trying to avoid referring to setting things when explaining its mechanics. It is trying to establish mechanics which can be widely applied. The distance is a firm mechanic, but the unit is fluff and can be refluffed(assuming you do it uniformly).
But a lot of the things requested are not general things, or at least they aren't satisfied with the general things legend already has for that aspect. People want rules for an economy- well, that is unrelated to the balance of the system, and can vary anywhere from "I'll trade you my coconut for your crab" to "I'll buy that capital ship for 10 trillion imperial credits", and offering guidelines doesn't make sense because the only determining factor is what you want it to do. People want rules for planes, which are not in most settings, and in settings that do have them their usage and implications are so different that it would be hard to make a single mechanic for them, yet any individual setting would have really easy mechanics to sort out, and a lot of setting specific stuff as to the nature of each plane and what they are like.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-08, 03:41 PM

No, my retort is "This stuff is setting specific", and me trying to figure out what D&D had that Legend didn't in this regard. I've played a lot of D&D and Legend, and I don't see a huge difference in that regard.

Gravity is also dependent on your setting. Does that change the fact that climbing rules are included?

Additionally, what is your response to complaints regarding the lack of out of adventure abilities such as plant growth, which increase the prosperity of an area? One of the most popular pieces of homebrew on this site by far is Gramarie (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291019), which is nearly wholly unconcerned with adventuring abilities, focusing nearly entirely on providing world building tools to the player. However, Kellus goes out of his way to ensure that the material is at least generally setting independent. It is shown to be well liked. Legend has nothing of even the same genre of ability, which is generally the biggest concern that nearly all of us are voicing in some way or another.

Eldan

2013-08-08, 03:43 PM

So, the answer is "We don't care, what you want is not the kind of thing we should put in Legend anyway, stop talking about it?"

Yeah, I think I'm done with this thread.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 03:49 PM

So, the answer is "We don't care, what you want is not the kind of thing we should put in Legend anyway, stop talking about it?"

Yeah, I think I'm done with this thread.
Thats not what I'm trying to say at all.
I'm obviously not making my point and I'm driving people away. I'll go away now.
Note that I am not affiliated with Legend, I'm just a fan, so my stance doesn't necessarily reflect that of the Legend devs.

MeiLeTeng

2013-08-08, 04:05 PM

It is trivial to file off the distance unit and replace it with something else. Legend isn't trying to avoid referring to setting things when explaining its mechanics. It is trying to establish mechanics which can be widely applied. The distance is a firm mechanic, but the unit is fluff and can be refluffed(assuming you do it uniformly).
But a lot of the things requested are not general things, or at least they aren't satisfied with the general things legend already has for that aspect. People want rules for an economy- well, that is unrelated to the balance of the system, and can vary anywhere from "I'll trade you my coconut for your crab" to "I'll buy that capital ship for 10 trillion imperial credits", and offering guidelines doesn't make sense because the only determining factor is what you want it to do. People want rules for planes, which are not in most settings, and in settings that do have them their usage and implications are so different that it would be hard to make a single mechanic for them, yet any individual setting would have really easy mechanics to sort out, and a lot of setting specific stuff as to the nature of each plane and what they are like.

I mean the original post was specifically asking what out of adventure or non-combat stuff was missing. So yeah, of course things unrelated to the balance of the system are being mentioned. I can't think of very many games that don't at least have a basic economy, and it is pretty conspicuous with Legend that it's lacking.

Personally, I think its biggest issue is the lack of setting/fluff, because the game is still in the phase where it's trying to expand and get a base. The need for a base is obvious in that I can't seem to go five threads without someone saying to try legend every time someone has a complaint about D&D (incidentally, this behavior is probably in a lot of ways related to the desire to see more D&D related things in the system.) The lack of setting is going to be an issue there because while I'm sure there's plenty of people that are willing to take the time and do all the necessary world building, I and I suspect many other people are not willing to do so just to try out a new game.

That said, I mean if the point of this thread wasn't an area for people to voice issues with the system and suggest things they'd like to see, what was the point of the thread? Just so fans of the system (or people involved in creation it would appear) can argue with people about how the things they want to see aren't necessary? Like, you don't have to just sit there and take everything that's said, that's silly, but right now it looks like no one is really listening to anyone.

*edit* Partially swordsaged

Psyren

2013-08-08, 04:11 PM

There is a world of difference between "I must make the best possible build in the system" and "I have to make really stupid choices for this character to not overshadow other players".

I'm glad you recognize this, because it's true. And dozens, hundreds, thousands of gaming tables play happily between these two extremes every single day, even in the so-called broken systems of 3.5/PF. Mandating egalitarianism from the rules is not needed for it to happen.

But you don't make a character and play it for the next 2 years in Magic.
Let me ask you this: what is the point of having bad options in pathfinder? So people can learn to avoid them? Why not just have those options be stronger so they are also viable?

A wide spectrum of options means great variety, but it also means that not everything has equal value. For the record, I don't think 3.P handled the degree of variation as well as it could have. No system is perfect. But I would rather have the breadth of options available, and beef them up myself if needed, than be forced to fiat very commonplace fantasy concepts.

I see more varied characters from Legend than I do from pathfinder.
...
I don't see what you think pathfinder has that Legend lacks in this regard.

Aside from the concepts I already mentioned - where is Legend's "army of the dead" necromancer (divine or otherwise)? Where is the skinchanging serial killer that ends every murder with the face of his victim? Where is the planeswalking archivist who wishes to catalogue the entirety of space and time? Where is the ancient elven music box that contains a tortured revenant? Where is the hunted manbeast who must rely on his shapeshifting powers to stay alive, but slowly loses another piece of his humanity every time he gives in? You can make Vampires in Legend by cobbling together various abilities, but where are their iconic weaknesses? etc.

I can sort of start to put some of these concepts together, but have to resort to freeform to fill in the gaps, and now my players have no idea what to expect. Nor, in many cases, do I. Therefore, they are something the system is missing. You can argue that this was by design, but it doesn't change the facts.

Oh no, I don't have an option to add an entire new character on top of mine, the horror

Again, that example was intended for the DM (though a player could certainly use it in a high-powered campaign too - which is part of the beauty of it.) The mechanics built in there give both the players and DM ideas on how to deal with them, and the DM also gains plausible avenues of attack the players might try that can be anticipated (or encouraged.)

Yeah, there are a few things which legend doesn't deal with (yet). I could turn around and list a ton of concepts that Legend handles wionderfully that pathfinder will cringe at . Robotic dragons, cybenetic skeletons,

Come on, even 3.5 can handle those, much less 3.P. Effigies for the former, slapping some small modifications onto a skeleton for the latter.

Who cares about how oots does it? 99.9999% of stories don't do it like that. That hardly enthralls me about how necessary it is.
Heck, half of the time he uses the mechanics its to point out how absurd the result is. Haley with glibness, the ogre who could keep 5ft stepping back to remain safe until he fell off a cliff, etc.
Every mechanic in the game has this kind of impact.

1) I don't see how either of those examples are absurd. Haley used magic to augment her already high proficiency at something beyond levels that her opponents could anticipate. The half-ogre was so focused on his combat technique that he failed to account for terrain. Those are humorous examples of narrative from mechanics, but both are plausible. And incidentally, these are two more scenarios not possible in Legend, so thanks for bringing them up.

2) Obviously the Giant cares, since he relied on it. So do the fans. And OotS doesn't even have players to feel cheated by an unexpected houserule, it's just one man telling a story.

And Legend has rules for casting and dispelling spells.

I know it does - but my point was that mechanics are a useful tool to generate believable narrative. Even if Legend has some mechanics that can be used this way too, it doesn't change my point.

No, my retort is "This stuff is setting specific", and me trying to figure out what D&D had that Legend didn't in this regard. I've played a lot of D&D and Legend, and I don't see a huge difference in that regard.

See 3rd point.

Eldan

2013-08-08, 04:23 PM

I've been thinking. You know what's perhaps lacking as well?

More general explanation. Perhaps we don't just need fluff for things. What would help a lot would be an introduction along the lines of "In Legend, many more things than are represented directly by the rules can be done by refluffing."

Then, we could have a bit of default fluff for ever class, etc., followed by a short sidebar with a name like "Alternative ideas: what this could be in other settings", with some alternate fluff ideas. "

Not sure if something like that exists, already, I've never read the entire text.

I know the forums are full of it, but it would be very helpful if it was directly in the text.

Psyren

2013-08-08, 04:28 PM

Eldan

2013-08-08, 04:30 PM

Exactly. And the advantage, I guess, would be that you aren't prescribing any fluff. The abilities itself could be just as much written in legalese as they are now. You'd instead make a few suggestions.

I mean, I'd still prefer books that mixed their fluff with their crunch organically in the thext, but that's obviously not what you are going for with Legend.

Zombimode

2013-08-08, 04:34 PM

What would help a lot would be an introduction along the lines of "In Legend, many more things than are represented directly by the rules can be done by refluffing."

I think such a line actually is somewhere in the opening paragraphs. Iirc anyway.

Larkas

2013-08-08, 04:45 PM

Mystify

2013-08-08, 04:51 PM

I'm glad you recognize this, because it's true. And dozens, hundreds, thousands of gaming tables play happily between these two extremes every single day, even in the so-called broken systems of 3.5/PF. Mandating egalitarianism from the rules is not needed for it to happen.

A wide spectrum of options means great variety, but it also means that not everything has equal value. For the record, I don't think 3.P handled the degree of variation as well as it could have. No system is perfect. But I would rather have the breadth of options available, and beef them up myself if needed, than be forced to fiat very commonplace fantasy concepts.

That is the thing. A wide spectrum of options doesn't mean that they have to be unbalanced. I am seriously contending that Legend handles a wider variety of thing while maintaining its degree of balance.
Also remember, Legend has its core book, and 3.5 and pathfinder have a zillion splat books to draw upon. A lot of the things it doesn't cover, but will as more content is released. 3.5 core had a pittance of options compared to Legend 1.0, and it still couldn't get the balance to be reasonable.

And I content that the rules DO need to make those options balanced for them to be meaningful. If I am unable to utilize the concept I want because it is too strong or too weak for the current party, then that is depth of the system which goes unutilized. Legend has all of its options available at all times to everyone without issue, with the one exception of Legendary vs. non Legendary campaigns. If you run a D&D game of wizard/cleric/druid/monk, someone is about to have a very bad time.

Aside from the concepts I already mentioned - where is Legend's "army of the dead" necromancer (divine or otherwise)? Where is the skinchanging serial killer that ends every murder with the face of his victim? Where is the planeswalking archivist who wishes to catalogue the entirety of space and time? Where is the ancient elven music box that contains a tortured revenant? Where is the hunted manbeast who must rely on his shapeshifting powers to stay alive, but slowly loses another piece of his humanity every time he gives in? You can make Vampires in Legend by cobbling together various abilities, but where are their iconic weaknesses? etc.

From pathfinder, where is my robotic dragon? Where is my Kamen rider? Where is my mageslayer who can actually slay mages? How do I play a being with the combined power of all 4 elements? How do I play the fusion of a demon and an angel? How do I play a dinosaur? Heck, how do I play a vampire in a functional way? How do I play a giant mech? How do I play a demonic wrestler? Can I play sonic the hedgehog? How about a steampunk robot? An elemental demon?

Ritual of the grave covers your first one
Senseshift magus the second
Give me a setting with planes and I'll easily make a planeswalker in it.
The shapeshifter is mainly a matter of roleplaying. What does D&D do for that? Lycanthropes must make a will save or turn evil? Its laughably inadequate and just as likely to harm the narrative. Whoops, failed the save first time, I'm completely evil, no struggle there. And of course non of that will actually make the person role play it well.Not to mention you end up weaker for all of this do to how borked LA is.
make a revenant, to whatever specifications you expect a revenant to be, and stick it in the music box.
You can play a Vampire in D&D and you will suck and be useless because 8 LA. Legend lets you play a vampire, and only devote 1/3 or 1/4 of your character to it, so you can be a vampire ninja, a vampire wizard, or whatever else and have it be playable.

If there are monstery concepts you can't do well yet, keep in mind the monster guide hasn't come out yet and it will have a lot of content for that direction

Also bear in mind that there are a lot of things which may make a good story, but are awful for a RPG. Like the vampire in sunlight thing. If Malick was a PC, it would have been a really awful and cheap way to kill off a character, and would just generally suck. At that point you are just adding in some arbitrary "I win" button for other characters.

I can sort of start to put some of these concepts together, but have to resort to freeform to fill in the gaps, and now my players have no idea what to expect. Nor, in many cases, do I. Therefore, they are something the system is missing. You can argue that this was by design, but it doesn't change the facts.

Again, that example was intended for the DM (though a player could certainly use it in a high-powered campaign too - which is part of the beauty of it.) The mechanics built in there give both the players and DM ideas on how to deal with them, and the DM also gains plausible avenues of attack the players might try that can be anticipated (or encouraged.)

Come on, even 3.5 can handle those, much less 3.P. Effigies for the former, slapping some small modifications onto a skeleton for the latter.

I can't play as either of those.

1) I don't see how either of those examples are absurd. Haley used magic to augment her already high proficiency at something beyond levels that her opponents could anticipate. The half-ogre was so focused on his combat technique that he failed to account for terrain. Those are humorous examples of narrative from mechanics, but both are plausible. And incidentally, these are two more scenarios not possible in Legend, so thanks for bringing them up.

The entire point of those scenarios is that they shouldn't have been possible! They were pointing out and mocking places where the mechancis of D&D fell on its face, and you are making it out to be a benefit? I can't make a hulking hurler that can explode the earth either, that is not a problem with the system.

2) Obviously the Giant cares, since he relied on it. So do the fans. And OotS doesn't even have players to feel cheated by an unexpected houserule, it's just one man telling a story.

so one guy decides to make a comic based on the D&D rules, half of which is mocking the absrudity of those rules, and this somehow proves your point?

I know it does - but my point was that mechanics are a useful tool to generate believable narrative. Even if Legend has some mechanics that can be used this way too, it doesn't change my point.
See 3rd point.
Is Legend missing a handful of specific mechanics that you like or is there some general rule it is missing? 'Cause I feel like you are getting hung up on a bunch of specific things while ignoring all the stuff Legend does allow you to do.

Mystify

2013-08-08, 04:52 PM

I will point out that Rule of Cool has been running articles on their site, one category of which take existing mechanics and presents alternative fluff for them

Icewraith

2013-08-08, 05:14 PM

The lack of a player resource system is becoming more of a bug than a feature in my mind. Wealth and economy are integral to 3.5 character power and so the players have strong incentives to seek out wealth, which is also the primary way characters interact with the world via magic item creation and spellcasting.

Legend can't do that without throwing out the combat balance it has acheived, but it could incorporate a sort of token/favor system that players can use to find or acheive plot or world related goals.

Things like running a spy network, having enormous wealth, being well-connected... these are things that can be roleplayed but often neither the GM nor the player are sure how much influence shuch things should have on the plot. Since there's already skill games where people recieve tokens, just standardize a plot token system with some well-defined ways players can spend personal resources.

Players start the game with a cetain number of wealth and influence tokens. Additional wealth and influence tokens are acquired by completing quests - clearing out a dungeon is usually a quest that rewards wealth, magic items at the GM's discretion, but usually no influence. Performing a favor for an npc can result in the GM granting the player an influence token.

There should be some way for players to convert tokens into longer-lasting organizations, strongholds, noble titles, magic items they really want and the dm is willing to let them get, item customization, fame, or they can blow everything on hedoinsm. These achievements can generally be called upon once or twice a session and refresh. There's a bit of overlap with some of the more metaplot related [legendary] abilities, but there's a big difference between having a sweet mansion and having the Batcave or the legion of doom's mobile darth vader head.

This way, you get a way to quantify player power relative to the rest of the world and the player has a better idea of how much influence he really has. It's still setting independant, doesn't positively or negatively affect player combat resources, and the DM still has complete control over how much detail he wants to go into, or whether using the influence in the way the player wants to is reasonable. You could also implement negative tokens to represent debts or favors the pcs owe the npcs.

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-08, 05:19 PM

Larkas

2013-08-08, 05:29 PM

I don't know if it was used before, but that's an intriguing idea!

Mystify

2013-08-08, 05:31 PM

Psyren

2013-08-08, 06:07 PM

@ Mystify:

That is the thing. A wide spectrum of options doesn't mean that they have to be unbalanced. I am seriously contending that Legend handles a wider variety of thing while maintaining its degree of balance.

I know what you're contending, and I disagree. Legend is certainly broader than 4e but definitely not as broad as 3.x.

I agree that variety does not mean imbalance is inescapable; but the level of effort/[legalese] required to eliminate all imbalance while maintaining all the variety of prior editions has yet to be pulled off, and for me at least, isn't really worthwhile to try.

If you run a D&D game of wizard/cleric/druid/monk, someone is about to have a very bad time.

Only if you play with munchkins.

From pathfinder, where is my robotic dragon? Where is my Kamen rider? Where is my mageslayer who can actually slay mages? How do I play a being with the combined power of all 4 elements? How do I play the fusion of a demon and an angel? How do I play a dinosaur? Heck, how do I play a vampire in a functional way? How do I play a giant mech? How do I play a demonic wrestler? Can I play sonic the hedgehog? How about a steampunk robot? An elemental demon?

Ritual of the grave covers your first one
Senseshift magus the second
Give me a setting with planes and I'll easily make a planeswalker in it.
The shapeshifter is mainly a matter of roleplaying. What does D&D do for that? Lycanthropes must make a will save or turn evil? Its laughably inadequate and just as likely to harm the narrative. Whoops, failed the save first time, I'm completely evil, no struggle there. And of course non of that will actually make the person role play it well.Not to mention you end up weaker for all of this do to how borked LA is.
make a revenant, to whatever specifications you expect a revenant to be, and stick it in the music box.
You can play a Vampire in D&D and you will suck and be useless because 8 LA. Legend lets you play a vampire, and only devote 1/3 or 1/4 of your character to it, so you can be a vampire ninja, a vampire wizard, or whatever else and have it be playable.

You can build all of that in PF (and FYI, PF Vampires are +2 LA, not +8, invalidating several of your other points). Make another thread for any that you're truly interested in and I'll oblige, so we don't derail this one. And best of all is that the building blocks are there for the DM and player to brew something easily, without having to invent an entire track if one doesn't already exist.

If there are monstery concepts you can't do well yet, keep in mind the monster guide hasn't come out yet and it will have a lot of content for that direction

That's keen and all, but Afro is asking what's missing right now.

Also bear in mind that there are a lot of things which may make a good story, but are awful for a RPG. Like the vampire in sunlight thing.

Why is that bad for an RPG? As you saw, in the end all Malack's protection did was make him overconfident and stand around in a sunny desert. That can happen as easily in a game as in a pure story.

I can't play as either of those.

Bone creature then, and use the effigy template as a base for the other. Still less work than Legend.

The entire point of those scenarios is that they shouldn't have been possible!

Why not? A trickster using magic to be even trickier. An overconfident warrior focusing on the fine details and missing the big picture. Both are/use pretty common fantasy tropes.

They were pointing out and mocking places where the mechancis of D&D fell on its face, and you are making it out to be a benefit?

The mechanics didn't "fall on their face," they worked. Quite the opposite.

so one guy decides to make a comic based on the D&D rules, half of which is mocking the absrudity of those rules, and this somehow proves your point?

That mechanics can make narrative? Of course it does.
"X can't be used to make Y!"
"Here is an example of X being used to make Y."

Yes, just one counterexample (OotS) is all I need to prove your blanket statement wrong.

Is Legend missing a handful of specific mechanics that you like or is there some general rule it is missing? 'Cause I feel like you are getting hung up on a bunch of specific things while ignoring all the stuff Legend does allow you to do.

I told you and Afro several broad concepts that are missing:

- Iconic fantasy abilities (e.g. monsters) that are too specific to be captured by broad tracks. For example, Vampires have weaknesses that are too specific to be captured by the general [Undead] track.
- Rules for interacting with a broader planar cosmology, even a setting-neutral one. This includes traveling to, hiding on, or divining information from other planes/realities/locales.
- Rules for summoning or controlling creatures that are or have the potential to be stronger than the caster.
- Rules for making effects or consequences that last longer than one [Scene] and persist to the next.

The lack of a player resource system is becoming more of a bug than a feature in my mind. Wealth and economy are integral to 3.5 character power and so the players have strong incentives to seek out wealth, which is also the primary way characters interact with the world via magic item creation and spellcasting.

Legend can't do that without throwing out the combat balance it has acheived, but it could incorporate a sort of token/favor system that players can use to find or acheive plot or world related goals.

Things like running a spy network, having enormous wealth, being well-connected... these are things that can be roleplayed but often neither the GM nor the player are sure how much influence shuch things should have on the plot. Since there's already skill games where people recieve tokens, just standardize a plot token system with some well-defined ways players can spend personal resources.

Players start the game with a cetain number of wealth and influence tokens. Additional wealth and influence tokens are acquired by completing quests - clearing out a dungeon is usually a quest that rewards wealth, magic items at the GM's discretion, but usually no influence. Performing a favor for an npc can result in the GM granting the player an influence token.

There should be some way for players to convert tokens into longer-lasting organizations, strongholds, noble titles, magic items they really want and the dm is willing to let them get, item customization, fame, or they can blow everything on hedoinsm. These achievements can generally be called upon once or twice a session and refresh. There's a bit of overlap with some of the more metaplot related [legendary] abilities, but there's a big difference between having a sweet mansion and having the Batcave or the legion of doom's mobile darth vader head.

This way, you get a way to quantify player power relative to the rest of the world and the player has a better idea of how much influence he really has. It's still setting independant, doesn't positively or negatively affect player combat resources, and the DM still has complete control over how much detail he wants to go into, or whether using the influence in the way the player wants to is reasonable. You could also implement negative tokens to represent debts or favors the pcs owe the npcs.

I like this, particularly the "negative tokens" idea.

Icewraith

2013-08-08, 06:29 PM

It's sort of been used by a couple systems, most of which I don't remember the names of but have heard thrown around the board. "Plot points" was a table mechanic a couple GMs of mine had but didn't use very often, mainly because people weren't sure how to use them.

My introduction to TT RPGs was actually the mechwarrior/Classic Battletech RPG, which included these sort of ideas of at least quantifying social status, wealth, contacts, connectedness etc... along with a whole mishmash of character power related options that all came out of the same point pool. It's also the only RPG I know of off-hand where your character can die during creation and force you to start over. A bunch of stuff in there didn't work, but the idea of keeping track of plot resources is a good one.

The token idea was mostly drawn from legend's implementation of skill games.

If you had, say wealth 3, you'd have three refreshing wealth tokens you could spend to buy favors from npcs. You could permanently lower your wealth by 1 to customize or acquire a magic item you can't seem to get any other way (if the DM agrees on the modification or acquisition). If there's a nobility system you might need to have a noble rank or certain amount of wealth (but not actually spend tokens) to be admitted into the front entrance of an exclusive club (you can still bluff the doorman or sneak in or disguise yourself as someone with enough rank, there should always be a way to acheive the goal without spending a plot token). If you've acquired enough favors from enough people you can trade them in for a level of influence (or buy one outright), which gives you a refreshing favor token you can use once per session.

If you don't feel like spending your metaplot resources or the DM deems the goal too important to attain by just buying it or flattering the owner, you can still adventure to retrieve the Staff of Doom in exchange for a powerful spellcaster un-cursing your family. You could however spend your spy organization's influence token (or a couple wealth tokens, but spending wealth to get information is liable to tip off your target or whoever's interested in what you are) to get the floor plan of the Keep where the Staff is held, the guard rotation, and the known capabilities of the keep's notable inhabitants. Or you could just roleplay asking around, go kick in the door and hope for the best.

Also regarding long-distance teleportation and planar travel - that's probably a ten minute ritual that someone with (trained skill) and (x caster?) levels should be able to acheive, with reagants maybe costing a wealth token or provided by the questgiver to expedite party travel.

Edit: That actually gave me an idea... custom magic artifacts, curses, and mythals act more like plot devices than they do magic items. You should probably be able to spend plot tokens, probably mostly wealth in the form of magical reagents, to set up or disrupt these sort of things. Generating or destroying longer lasting effects via brute force should probably require the investment of permanent player resources, i.e. a permanent reduction in wealth score/rank instead of just spending tokens.

Larkas

2013-08-08, 06:47 PM

Now that you expanded on it, I kinda think I've read it before, specially the permanent expenditure of a token. Maybe it's something found in GURPS too? Regardless, it doesn't detract from geniality of the idea. :smallsmile:

I wonder if it could be tweaked to encompass something like Rokugan d20's honor system?

afroakuma

2013-08-08, 07:15 PM

The Adaptations idea is already under consideration, because you're absolutely right; while some things are reasonably universal enough that you can give them context in just about any setting (History as a skill, for instance), others seem genre-linked or comparatively limited (Arcana?) I'd like to see that get done.

I'm sort of glossing over the extremely long posts full of debate, so if there were any gleanings of specific constructive ideas in there, please repost 'em sans baggage so I can see.

Icewraith

2013-08-08, 07:21 PM

Yeah, you just track reputation like you would wealth or nobility. The problem is the more you try to model the more complex it becomes.

Sources of major plot-related character power:

Most generically you have:
Resources
Influence

Less Generically:
Wealth
science/magic/magitek/engineering/applied phlebotnium (skill applied resources, Setting Dependant)

Organization member/leadership (applied social resources, grey area between two major categories, Setting Dependant)

Noble Rank (Setting and Region Dependant)
Connectedness (Region Depenant)
Reputation (Region Dependant, also possibly used as a crude alignment scale)

The problem here is the longer you look at this the more complex you can get, and you start bleeding into combat capability, since applied phlebotnists like Tony Stark and Agatha Heterodyne generate both combat effects (the Iron Man Suit, array of energy weapons) AND plot devices (nuke alien fleet, repair Castle Heterodyne).

Edit:

I suppose you could start with the two most generic ones, and then split it into sub-categories based on your setting. Is there nobility in your setting? Use nobility. Reputation I'm not sure is best modeled this way, or if it sort of piggybacks off level and notable quest completion. However, reputation IS a form of social currency.

Gralamin

2013-08-08, 07:37 PM

And that's great. 4e/Legend exist for people like that, who can't control themselves.

It's the notion that 3.P is somehow unusable, because it doesn't do as much to curtail bad players, that miffs me.

3.P isn't unusable, it is merely exceedingly difficult to get right. In 3.P its really easy to accidentally break the system - it isn't noob friendly or veteran friendly. Getting a read on what the power levels of a party are going to be before you build your character is really hard. This means that building to about 8/10 and then gimping yourself is the best way to build a character.

As a DM it is even more difficult. If I do a full Batman Wizard encounter early on, there is a chance I can kill the players off. If the party is weaker then I expect, should I play the wizard like an idiot? If the party is stronger, should I optimize it more? If a creature is so far off its CR and I accidentally kill the party because of it, what should I do?

These sort of questions ruin the engagement in the game for a lot of people - obviously not you, and obviously not others. But for myself DMing 3.5 or playing in 3.5 is a nightmare a lot of the time because I like seeing my entire group have fun whether playing or not. So when one character accidentally over-shines all the others, or stumbles on something that trivializes vast amount of encounters (of any sort), it ruins the game. This isn't a problem of control, or a problem of the player, its a problem of the game. Sometimes negotiation can solve this, but a better solution would be to remove the problem in the first place.

That is what 4e aimed to fix, whether you believe it succeeded or not. That is what Legend aimed to fix, and I believed succeeded at. These attributes make the game a better game, at the cost of some things certain people found fun. I do believe that Legend needs more work for non-combat encounters, but this is by design. The core problem-solving framework in many stories, many RPGs, and many campaigns that people play is combat. Therefore, combat central rules is a good design choice. Adding or expanding other frameworks can be done in expansion books, homebrew, etc.

Also I would like to remind people that 4e is not the subject of this thread. I happen to be a fan of it, but this isn't the place to discuss the merits and problems with it.

georgie_leech

2013-08-08, 08:58 PM

@ Mystify:
Only if you play with munchkins.

When I was introduced to 3.5, I made a minion-based necromancer, based around using Animate Dead to have a ready supply of cheap minions to support the party and as disposable cannon fodder. It's a fairly common archetype, so I didn't think it would be a huge deal, and in fact I thought the fighter would appreciate having flanking buddies. As it turns out, he didn't appreciate having a limited section of my abilities contributing more to walking up and hitting things and "meat-shielding" (his term) than his entire character. He discussed it with me a few sessions in, and I agreed that if he wasn't having fun due to my character choice, I should rework the character. In other words, I accidentally overshadowed another party member, due to the archetype I chose to play. In what way does that make me a munchkin?

Larkas

2013-08-08, 09:03 PM

--snip--

I think that simple is the way to go here. One1, at most two2 resources should be tracked at any one game for simplicity's sake, and the sub-system should be somewhat generalistic and streamlined ("if you move away from a designated area, you suffer a -x penalty to your [resource] score").

1 i.e.: "Resources"

2 i.e.: "Social Resources" ("Reputation", "Honor") and "Material Resources" ("Wealth").

I'm sort of glossing over the extremely long posts full of debate, so if there were any gleanings of specific constructive ideas in there, please repost 'em sans baggage so I can see.

I recommend at least giving some attention to Icewraith's posts. Specifically, 156, 161 and 164.

Psyren

2013-08-08, 09:27 PM

I'm sort of glossing over the extremely long posts full of debate, so if there were any gleanings of specific constructive ideas in there, please repost 'em sans baggage so I can see.

That's why I moved them to spoilers, but since you ask I'll pull out the relevant bit:

- Iconic fantasy abilities (e.g. monsters) that are too specific to be captured by broad tracks. For example, Vampires have weaknesses that are too specific to be captured by the general [Undead] track.
- Rules for interacting with a broader planar cosmology, even a setting-neutral one. This includes traveling to, hiding on, or divining information from other planes/realities/locales.
- Rules for summoning or controlling creatures that are or have the potential to be stronger than the caster. (Note: Legend may intentionally be leaving this out for balance purposes which I perfectly understand, but it's still something missing.)
- Rules for making effects or consequences that last longer than one [Scene] and persist to the next, or even many.
- Rules for making effects that persist past a [Quest]. (The reputation/downtime rules might factor in here.)

@ Gralamin:

3.P isn't unusable, it is merely exceedingly difficult to get right. In 3.P its really easy to accidentally break the system - it isn't noob friendly or veteran friendly. Getting a read on what the power levels of a party are going to be before you build your character is really hard. This means that building to about 8/10 and then gimping yourself is the best way to build a character.

It's not "exceedingly difficult" either. Nor do you have to optimize "8/10", unless by 10/10 you mean Pun-Pun. You can be a 10/10 controller or 10/10 buffer/debuffer, but no matter how helpful you're being to the group you're not killing anything on your own. Thus there's still ways for the melee to contribute the role they do best (damage.)

As a DM it is even more difficult. If I do a full Batman Wizard encounter early on, there is a chance I can kill the players off. If the party is weaker then I expect, should I play the wizard like an idiot?

How about, if your wizard beats the party, he takes them prisoner? Nothing says he has to whip out the scythe and start CdGing everyone. Batman doesn't typically go around raining fire and lightning after all. You get a plot hook and a better understanding of the party's optimization level; they get a mortal enemy and a healthy fear of your encounters. No problems, everybody wins.

And as you so excellently suggested, I see no reason to discuss 4e here; what Legend needed to learn from 4e, it already has.

@georgie_leech:

When I was introduced to 3.5, I made a minion-based necromancer, based around using Animate Dead to have a ready supply of cheap minions to support the party and as disposable cannon fodder. It's a fairly common archetype, so I didn't think it would be a huge deal, and in fact I thought the fighter would appreciate having flanking buddies. As it turns out, he didn't appreciate having a limited section of my abilities contributing more to walking up and hitting things and "meat-shielding" (his term) than his entire character. He discussed it with me a few sessions in, and I agreed that if he wasn't having fun due to my character choice, I should rework the character. In other words, I accidentally overshadowed another party member, due to the archetype I chose to play. In what way does that make me a munchkin?

1) Sounds like you talked about and resolved the issue, so you wouldn't be one then, would you?

2) It also sounds like your DM didn't do a very good job of challenging the group. One easy way would be to have your team go up against an evil cleric, who proceeds to Command half your army and turn them against you. Something tells me the Fighter wouldn't have been bored then.

georgie_leech

2013-08-08, 09:39 PM

1) Sounds like you talked about and resolved the issue, so you wouldn't be one then, would you?

In what way does that change the fact that it is evidently possible to overshadow people accidentally without being a munchkin? It could have easily been the other way around, and given my self-esteem at the time, I likely wouldn't have said anything.

2) It also sounds like your DM didn't do a very good job of challenging the group. One easy way would be to have your team go up against an evil cleric, who proceeds to Command half your army and turn them against you. Something tells me the Fighter wouldn't have been bored then.

Given that in that circumstance, he'd have likely been in the middle of the suddenly hostile undead that altogether were more effective at combat than he was, probably not, but then there would be other issues.

Zaq

2013-08-08, 10:00 PM

You know what I want to see in Legend? Detailed, varied examples of how skill games work. I think I like the concept, but I can't really wrap my brain around how it's actually likely to go with a real group. A few really detailed and really varied examples should help with that a lot.

Lanaya

2013-08-08, 10:41 PM

Legend lets you play a vampire

No it doesn't. Legend lets you play a character with the following abilities:

- Bite attack that drains health
- Fly without provoking attacks of opportunity, at later levels you scare people by moving through them
- Immunity to fear, bleeding and being intimidated in combat
- Confuse nearby enemies and stop them from attacking you
- General penalties on pretty much everything to nearby enemies
- Fast healing
- Instant resurrection once per scene

That's a character with some vampire-ish abilities and a few random abilities with nothing to do with vampirism, who lacks many defining features of vampires. Vulnerability to sunlight and turning other people into vampires by draining their blood are the two most important and iconic vampiric traits. A character with the vampire track will have a shadow and a reflection. Garlic and holy symbols have no power over them. The track is named 'vampire', but mechanically it isn't one.

Amphetryon

2013-08-08, 10:48 PM

No it doesn't. Legend lets you play a character with the following abilities:

- Bite attack that drains health
- Fly without provoking attacks of opportunity, at later levels you scare people by moving through them
- Immunity to fear, bleeding and being intimidated in combat
- Confuse nearby enemies and stop them from attacking you
- General penalties on pretty much everything to nearby enemies
- Fast healing
- Instant resurrection once per scene

That's a character with some vampire-ish abilities and a few random abilities with nothing to do with vampirism, who lacks many defining features of vampires. Vulnerability to sunlight and turning other people into vampires by draining their blood are the two most important and iconic vampiric traits. A character with the vampire track will have a shadow and a reflection. Garlic and holy symbols have no power over them. The track is named 'vampire', but mechanically it isn't one.
The issue here is that the vampire mythos is rich and varied, pulling from many different sources which have only increased as vampires have become more popular in modern culture. I have no doubt there are some reading this board who firmly believe that vampires should sparkle or else not qualify as vampires; I have no doubt there are some reading this board who would like to brandish a wooden stake in my direction for even mentioning the sparkling thing.

Terazul

2013-08-08, 10:52 PM

No it doesn't. Legend lets you play a character with the following abilities:

- Bite attack that drains health
- Fly without provoking attacks of opportunity, at later levels you scare people by moving through them
- Immunity to fear, bleeding and being intimidated in combat
- Confuse nearby enemies and stop them from attacking you
- General penalties on pretty much everything to nearby enemies
- Fast healing
- Instant resurrection once per scene

That's a character with some vampire-ish abilities and a few random abilities with nothing to do with vampirism, who lacks many defining features of vampires. Vulnerability to sunlight and turning other people into vampires by draining their blood are the two most important and iconic vampiric traits. A character with the vampire track will have a shadow and a reflection. Garlic and holy symbols have no power over them. The track is named 'vampire', but mechanically it isn't one.
Well, for certain types of vampires. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits_in_folklore_and_fiction) To quote that one guys dad: "How do you kill a vampire? Any ****ing way you want. They don't exist." For some people, this is a perfectly servicable vampire. I really don't think the game needs to be perfectly simulationist for every possible caveat one can think of, but that's just a personal opinion. I think in the grand scheme of things, that this works finee, and covers most of the key abilities they are known for (Providing useful mechanical benefits instead of a bunch of penalties for having fun, too).

Spuddles

2013-08-08, 10:55 PM

And that's great. 4e/Legend exist for people like that, who can't control themselves.

It's the notion that 3.P is somehow unusable, because it doesn't do as much to curtail bad players, that miffs me.

This is a very valid point, but it requires a pretty fair degree of system knowledge to come to appreciate.

I've played in many games that fall apart around levels 8-12 because of the problem with linear warriors and quadratic casters and the assumptions of the DM and players don't mesh with the realities of the system.

WBL becomes increasingly more important as levels go up, and knowledge of how to spend that wealth becomes very very valuable, due to all the save vs. terrible things.

I love 3rd edition, I just wish the designers had been a little more explicit in their presentation of inherently unbalanced material.

The 3.5/PF community is amazing, and between the tier system, online guides & handbooks, and gurus like you, it's an extremely playable, adaptable, and fun system.

But the criticism of the implicit assumptions and the problems they can create are very valid, in my experience and others.

Turalisj

2013-08-08, 11:16 PM

That's a character with some vampire-ish abilities and a few random abilities with nothing to do with vampirism, who lacks many defining features of vampires. Vulnerability to sunlight and turning other people into vampires by draining their blood are the two most important and iconic vampiric traits. A character with the vampire track will have a shadow and a reflection. Garlic and holy symbols have no power over them. The track is named 'vampire', but mechanically it isn't one.

NWoD vampires don't have any particular weakness to garlic, and I'm not sure but I think they just laugh at holy symbols. Shadowrun Vampires don't explicitly say they don't cast a shadow or cause a reflection, and they don't have to be weak to garlic or holy objects if you don't take those disadvantages.

I could probably provide more examples, but I think my point is... would you consider those not vampires? Turning people into a vampire by draining their blood is actually in the optional part; Ritual of the Grave.

Psyren

2013-08-08, 11:28 PM

@georgie_leech

In what way does that change the fact that it is evidently possible to overshadow people accidentally without being a munchkin? It could have easily been the other way around, and given my self-esteem at the time, I likely wouldn't have said anything.

I don't recall ever saying accidents make someone a munchkin - that is entirely your construct. As I said repeatedly, intentional failure to moderate one's potential with that of one's playgroup is what makes a munchkin. Accidents and bad rolls do happen from time to time.

Given that in that circumstance, he'd have likely been in the middle of the suddenly hostile undead that altogether were more effective at combat than he was, probably not, but then there would be other issues.

Which would likely mean that you two would have to work together to handle the increased threat. Which is the whole point of a team game, I would say. Working as intended.

Incidentally, unless he was out to TPK you, it's unlikely he would convert your entire coterie with one Rebuke, so the chances that the fighter would be totally surrounded with not an ally in sight are pretty slim. And even if he was... he's a Fighter, that's kind of their idiom.

No it doesn't. Legend lets you play a character with the following abilities:

- Bite attack that drains health
- Fly without provoking attacks of opportunity, at later levels you scare people by moving through them
- Immunity to fear, bleeding and being intimidated in combat
- Confuse nearby enemies and stop them from attacking you
- General penalties on pretty much everything to nearby enemies
- Fast healing
- Instant resurrection once per scene

That's a character with some vampire-ish abilities and a few random abilities with nothing to do with vampirism, who lacks many defining features of vampires. Vulnerability to sunlight and turning other people into vampires by draining their blood are the two most important and iconic vampiric traits. A character with the vampire track will have a shadow and a reflection. Garlic and holy symbols have no power over them. The track is named 'vampire', but mechanically it isn't one.

All of this.

Well, for certain types of vampires. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits_in_folklore_and_fiction) To quote that one guys dad: "How do you kill a vampire? Any ****ing way you want. They don't exist." For some people, this is a perfectly servicable vampire. I really don't think the game needs to be perfectly simulationist for every possible caveat one can think of, but that's just a personal opinion. I think in the grand scheme of things, that this works finee, and covers most of the key abilities they are known for (Providing useful mechanical benefits instead of a bunch of penalties for having fun, too).

By that logic, why have any iconic monster/racial abilities at all? Vampires don't exist, so why do Legend Vampires need to drink blood in the first place? Elves don't exist - why are they agile and frail? etc.

Clearly iconic abilities do matter. Leaving the trickier ones out may be good for balance, but in the end it makes those creatures feel half-assed. (The line in the LRB about Legend Vampires not sparkling is pretty ironic - they might as well, since sunlight doesn't do jack else to them.) And when entire iconic creatures like ghosts are themselves being dumped, the comparison to other systems that do include them becomes inevitable.

afroakuma

2013-08-08, 11:34 PM

when entire iconic creatures like ghosts are themselves being dumped, the comparison to other systems that do include them becomes inevitable.

I doubt that Legend's Undead track is exclusive and exhaustive; I would expect it's introductory, and that a concept as elemental as a ghost, spectre, wraith or phantom is due for support in a forthcoming product. Possibly the Monster Guide.

Psyren

2013-08-08, 11:45 PM

Thanks AA - when additional material is produced for Legend, I will be sure to evaluate it fairly.

Zaq

2013-08-08, 11:53 PM

Any hints about the Monster Guide, AA? Rough timelines, when we might start seeing teaser material, anything like that?

Terazul

2013-08-09, 12:00 AM

By that logic, why have any iconic monster/racial abilities at all? Vampires don't exist, so why do Legend Vampires need to drink blood in the first place? Elves don't exist - why are they agile and frail? etc.

Clearly iconic abilities do matter. Leaving the trickier ones out may be good for balance, but in the end it makes those creatures feel half-assed. (The line in the LRB about Legend Vampires not sparkling is pretty ironic - they might as well, since sunlight doesn't do jack else to them.) And when entire iconic creatures like ghosts are themselves being dumped, the comparison to other systems that do include them becomes inevitable.

...But those are plenty of iconic vampire abilities. It's just not enough in your particular case (or rather, your vision of what a vampire should be). I'm willing to simply agree to disagree on this front, given alot of what is seen in this thread as "missing" is simply things I considered a credit to the system in the first place (I think the point was to go without huge amounts of fiddly bits, but people seem to want those, so eh).

Though will agree on a completely different point, that a monster guide would be nice, as afaik is in the works.

georgie_leech

2013-08-09, 12:03 AM

@georgie_leech
[SPOILER]

I don't recall ever saying accidents make someone a munchkin - that is entirely your construct. As I said repeatedly, intentional failure to moderate one's potential with that of one's playgroup is what makes a munchkin. Accidents and bad rolls do happen from time to time.

What you had said was the one player overshadowing another can happen "Only if you play with munchkins." My point is that it can happen accidentally, and that this accidental overshadowing is a Bad Thing.

Which would likely mean that you two would have to work together to handle the increased threat. Which is the whole point of a team game, I would say. Working as intended.

The original objection was my character incidentally outshining his. Somehow I doubt the DM taking a large chunk of it away to make him feel better would make him think his character was any more powerful. His objection was not that we weren't working as a team, it's that his character concept was made obsolete by mine in a large section of situations. He objected to the fact that he was made redundant, a back up. The DM having to specifically target myself over the rest of the party reinforces that, not ameliorates it.

Incidentally, unless he was out to TPK you, it's unlikely he would convert your entire coterie with one Rebuke, so the chances that the fighter would be totally surrounded with not an ally in sight are pretty slim. And even if he was... he's a Fighter, that's kind of their idiom.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but Low-op Fighters tend not to do so well when they're facing overwhelming odds without support. The fact that one spell or ability could potentially have him fighting for his life, while the cleric has almost all of his resources left, would not have put him in a good position at all. If I'm busy dealing with the cleric, he still has to deal with the undead that, as mentioned previously, were better in combat than he was.

I honestly don't see why you dismiss experiences like this as anomalous or some form of "you're doing it wrong" when there is nothing in-game to suggest that these can happen, and indeed a multitude of rules like CR and ECL that imply we should be roughly balanced and so they should not happen at all.

Drachasor

2013-08-09, 12:17 AM

I don't recall ever saying accidents make someone a munchkin - that is entirely your construct. As I said repeatedly, intentional failure to moderate one's potential with that of one's playgroup is what makes a munchkin. Accidents and bad rolls do happen from time to time.

That's not really what "munchkin" has meant classically. It's normally been reserved for people who ignore/break/overlook game rules so that they are more powerful than allowed.

And it is far from easy to determine how far one has to lower oneself to fit in with the group. It can also be immersion-breaking, because you are spending a lot of mental resources calculating how to be less effective and then using that lesser effectiveness effectively. And yeah, it is rather complicated like that. At least for players that enjoy a challenge.

To say nothing of how it is an immense amount of effort figuring out what is too good during the character building process.

I think it is rather unkind to characterize someone as a "munchkin" just because what they want out of the game is not the same as what other people at the table want. Sometimes people aren't compatible with a group, but that doesn't make them "wrong" or "bad." It's just an unfortunate circumstance.

Games that are strongly focused on balance do have an advantage in that someone who does like a challenge and doing their best doesn't have to worry about being 10 times stronger than everyone else at the table. I can certainly see the appeal of that.

Though you can run into problems if a system doesn't allow a wide variety of thematic options. Lack of Summoning seems like a bad choice, imho. It's also weird that Legend has no economy. It isn't like these are all that hard to balance.

afroakuma

2013-08-09, 11:27 AM

Lack of Summoning seems like a bad choice, imho. It's also weird that Legend has no economy. It isn't like these are all that hard to balance.

Depends on the flavor of summoning in the former case. Some are easy, some are hard. I doubt we've seen the final word on the subject; it's more likely they're holding back for a future release.

As for economy... economies are hard to balance (cf. real life :smalltongue:). Personally, I'm not a fan of either magic marts or the run-of-the-mill "do X, you will earn Y" structure. If there are to be structures for economic activity, I'd rather see them continually divorced from issues of combat balance. That's my two cents, though.

Larkas

2013-08-09, 11:35 AM

As for economy... economies are hard to balance (cf. real life :smalltongue:). Personally, I'm not a fan of either magic marts or the run-of-the-mill "do X, you will earn Y" structure. If there are to be structures for economic activity, I'd rather see them continually divorced from issues of combat balance. That's my two cents, though.

That's why I liked Icewraith's approach so much, though. Favor/Resources are something that can help you build a castle, but not necessarily adventure. There be gold in those hills!

Psyren

2013-08-09, 12:23 PM

I'm using the spoilers for a reason.

@georgie_leech:

What you had said was the one player overshadowing another can happen "Only if you play with munchkins." My point is that it can happen accidentally, and that this accidental overshadowing is a Bad Thing.

I was under the impression we were talking about a systemic, and therefore routine, flaw - not one-off occasions and mistakes.

The original objection was my character incidentally outshining his. Somehow I doubt the DM taking a large chunk of it away to make him feel better would make him think his character was any more powerful.

Nonsense. You're employing a strategy ("army of the dead") that has very clear downsides and drawbacks that his strategy ("human fighter") does not, and those downsides would be very easy for many enemies to figure out in-universe. Heck, he can even do something simple - like having hostile predators (animals, magical beasts etc.) ignore your wall of decaying flesh and go straight for the juicy fresh meat hiding behind it. In this way, both intelligent and instinctive enemies can put pressure on your defenses while engaging everyone. And you don't have to be some kind of DMing pro to know that a carnivore is likely to prefer live flesh to necrotic, or that an evil cleric should know that the guy at the back with the holy symbol is the real danger.

Ignoring those drawbacks so you can shine 24/7 is bad DMing, full stop. It's not a reflection on your DM as a person, just on his capabilities.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but Low-op Fighters tend not to do so well when they're facing overwhelming odds without support.

That's what WBL/magic items are for. If he doesn't have any, or if you've somehow managed to outfit your minions with enough bling to cancel out his, that's the DM's fault yet again. (I'm going to assume there was quite a bit of wealth to go around since you were keeping several meatshields animated at once.)

I honestly don't see why you dismiss experiences like this as anomalous or some form of "you're doing it wrong" when there is nothing in-game to suggest that these can happen, and indeed a multitude of rules like CR and ECL that imply we should be roughly balanced and so they should not happen at all.

Because these are quite honestly common sense solutions. Ask yourself, what would you do if the DM pitted you against an army of the dead necromancer foe? Just about every strategy you would come up with in that situation can be used against a dread necro et al. And most anti-undead strategies are useless against the living, so it's not as though ramping up the difficulty for you specifically would have any meaningful effect on the living fighter's performance.

In short, I'm glad you guys had the maturity needed to settle it out of game, but the fact that you needed to is not (or at the very least, not entirely) a fault of the system.

As for economy... economies are hard to balance (cf. real life :smalltongue:). Personally, I'm not a fan of either magic marts or the run-of-the-mill "do X, you will earn Y" structure. If there are to be structures for economic activity, I'd rather see them continually divorced from issues of combat balance. That's my two cents, though.

That's why I liked Icewraith's approach so much, though. Favor/Resources are something that can help you build a castle, but not necessarily adventure. There be gold in those hills!

I agree, and for a system like Legend/4e, I can see the value in keeping economy balance and combat balance divorced. They are intertwined in 3.x because (a) the game assumes you have very specific enhancements to keep pace with the monsters you face and (b) 3.x has more of a world-building focus, so it's more concerned that a giant is as strong as a giant should be and an adult dragon is as strong as an adult dragon should be, with the fudge of wealth and magic items to cover for the fact that the very human melee character isn't likely to get strong enough to be a proper threat to them on his own.

georgie_leech

2013-08-09, 12:45 PM

@Psyren

I'm not addressing the other bits here, because it all boils down to "You/he/the DM should have been smarter/better."

In short, I'm glad you guys had the maturity needed to settle it out of game, but the fact that you needed to is not (or at the very least, not entirely) a fault of the system.

I've literally never had the problem of accidentally outshining someone else with any other RPG. 3.5 was not my first, nor has it been my last. Given that, and the experiences many other players are *still* having with 3.P in stumbling upon accidental power imbalance, I'd say the system plays a pretty significant role in that happening, else we wouldn't get weekly threads complaining about how his character was made obsolete or her Wizard is breaking the campaign by being plain better than anything the DM comes up with or other complaints about the excessive power of individual characters.

Eldan

2013-08-09, 01:20 PM

Economy doesn't mean magic items would be available in shops. For some settings, that might be appropriate (Eberron and Shadowrun come to mind), for many it isn't.

Howev,er there are many other things players may want to buy. Houses and land. Hirelings and services. Luxury in any form, such as clothing, food, jewelry, etc. Mounts, ships and other transport. Bribes.

Even just something vague would be nice for that. I like the wealth token system that's been suggested, but there's others. A wealth scale like in d20 modern, but less broken. Shadowrun allows you to buy ranks in Luxury. Anything like that, really.

I'm not saying it should be something fiddly with counting of single copper pieces to pay for drinks in a bar. (Though I like fiddly systems, personally). That wouldn't really be fitting with Legend as it currently is. But something would be nice.

Psyren

2013-08-09, 01:30 PM

@georgie_leech:

I'm not addressing the other bits here, because it all boils down to "You/he/the DM should have been smarter/better."

Just the DM really. I didn't see anything in that story that you or your teammate did wrong.

I've literally never had the problem of accidentally outshining someone else with any other RPG. 3.5 was not my first, nor has it been my last. Given that, and the experiences many other players are *still* having with 3.P in stumbling upon accidental power imbalance, I'd say the system plays a pretty significant role in that happening, else we wouldn't get weekly threads complaining about how his character was made obsolete or her Wizard is breaking the campaign by being plain better than anything the DM comes up with or other complaints about the excessive power of individual characters.

I can certainly concede it plays a role, but given how quickly I came up with both plausible and workable solutions to the "problem" - the significance of that role is up for debate.

The vast majority of "accidental breakage" threads have similarly simple solutions; the rest concern intentional imbalancers, i.e. munchkins, as I said previously.

Economy doesn't mean magic items would be available in shops. For some settings, that might be appropriate (Eberron and Shadowrun come to mind), for many it isn't.

Howev,er there are many other things players may want to buy. Houses and land. Hirelings and services. Luxury in any form, such as clothing, food, jewelry, etc. Mounts, ships and other transport. Bribes.

Even just something vague would be nice for that. I like the wealth token system that's been suggested, but there's others. A wealth scale like in d20 modern, but less broken. Shadowrun allows you to buy ranks in Luxury. Anything like that, really.

I'm not saying it should be something fiddly with counting of single copper pieces to pay for drinks in a bar. (Though I like fiddly systems, personally). That wouldn't really be fitting with Legend as it currently is. But something would be nice.

I agree, but at the same time, a lot of that is very fluffy. It's the Fable/Skyrim problem - you can buy a house and trick it out with bling, but why? You can get married, but why? You can go out and get smashed or gamble your share away, but why? You can sow a field or create a textile plant, but why?

Maybe tie wealth to the ritual system, so you get some really practical benefits by funding research. A "raise dead"ritual for instance, at levels before the Shaman gets Miracle (or even after, so he can use that spell or circle for other things.) Transport is a worthwhile expense, particularly if long-distance teleportation is kept as a costly ritual of some kind.

Are there long-lasting debuffs in Legend? say, diseases or curses that persist for several [Scenes] or even several [Quests], unless cured. That could be something to research as well.

Drachasor

2013-08-09, 01:31 PM

Depends on the flavor of summoning in the former case. Some are easy, some are hard. I doubt we've seen the final word on the subject; it's more likely they're holding back for a future release.

As for economy... economies are hard to balance (cf. real life :smalltongue:). Personally, I'm not a fan of either magic marts or the run-of-the-mill "do X, you will earn Y" structure. If there are to be structures for economic activity, I'd rather see them continually divorced from issues of combat balance. That's my two cents, though.

There are easy ways of doing economics as well. Magical items aren't a problem if you have to bond with one for it to work for you. Add to that a a limitation on how much of the item's power you can use based on your level. Then cap the number of items you can be bonded to based on level. Assume characters are at the cap or soon get to the cap with their items. That gets rid of most of the economic concerns right there. Money can be useful for stuff, but you've pretty much stopped it from being a way to just buy personal power (as far as adventuring goes).

I agree, but at the same time, a lot of that is very fluffy. It's the Fable/Skyrim problem - you can buy a house and trick it out with bling, but why? You can get married, but why? You can go out and get smashed or gamble your share away, but why? You can sow a field or create a textile plant, but why?

Presumably you have roleplaying goals. Money can probably help you achieve them. Whatever you invest in also adds in adventure hooks.

But basically, money is for character fun that doesn't directly impact character power. It can also be used for plot-related stuff.

Larkas

2013-08-09, 01:39 PM

I agree, but at the same time, a lot of that is very fluffy. It's the Fable/Skyrim problem - you can buy a house and trick it out with bling, but why? You can get married, but why? You can go out and get smashed or gamble your share away, but why? You can sow a field or create a textile plant, but why?

Maybe tie wealth to the ritual system, so you get some really practical benefits by funding research. A "raise dead"ritual for instance, at levels before the Shaman gets Miracle (or even after, so he can use that spell or circle for other things.) Transport is a worthwhile expense, particularly if long-distance teleportation is kept as a costly ritual of some kind.

Are there long-lasting debuffs in Legend? say, diseases or curses that persist for several [Scenes] or even several [Quests], unless cured. That could be something to research as well.

I agree with your second and third paragraphs, but let's talk about the first:

"Why" isn't answerable without further information. Getting a house full of bling can be important if status is important in your game (trading "Material Resources" for "Social Resources"). Getting married can be important because it is culturally important or because in your campaign you'll play as your decendants. Losing everything can be tied to addictions, diseases or bad luck. Making a textile industry can be important because you want to improve (or not) your community's lot in life. All of the above can also be done just for the heck of it.

Just because it isn't important to adventuring doesn't mean it can't be important for roleplaying. This usually doesn't have much bearing on a D&D game exactly because the wealth you're spending on " accessory" things is the same wealth you should be spending on your equipment. As that isn't the paradigm in Legend, they can be free to play with the concept.

Powerdork

2013-08-09, 06:49 PM

I feel Legend is missing means of elevation-play. Not "I fly X feet up", but "Alright, 31 to hit, and a DC 23 Fort save or he falls like a rock."

afroakuma

2013-08-09, 09:51 PM

This is worth reading, I think: http://www.ruleofcool.com/worlds-end-fair-trial/#more-712

Psyren

2013-08-10, 03:09 AM

This is worth reading, I think: http://www.ruleofcool.com/worlds-end-fair-trial/#more-712

Well, there's a setting. I'm not sure though what any of that has to do with Legend, since there is no inkling of ruling and precedent there, at least not in the rules I read. Nor is there any mention of fey, other than the very brief "they are a thing" entry in the types section.

Also, "ruling and precedent" governing the laws of magic sounds vaguely silly to me, like voting on physics.

erikun

2013-08-10, 03:42 AM

I have to agree with Psyren. It's a very interesting piece of setting, but has nothing to do with the Legend ruleset and very little to do with Legend itself. I have no sense how to generate rules in the Legend system for fae courts, nor how to create fae lawyer characters or NPCs.

In fact, what makes this a better choice for the Legend system than, say, using it for D&D3e or Fate Core? I realize that setting materials can freely be homebrewed from one system to another, but when it seems like it will be easier to use the setting materials in other systems than as intended in Legend, I question their practicality in selling the system.

Drachasor

2013-08-10, 03:44 AM

Eldan

2013-08-10, 07:16 AM

FATE could probably rule that rather well. You can have your skills be anything, so why not things like "protecting the plaintiff", "convincing the judge", "talking to the jury" and so on. Traits can provide outlandishness. "Really good at chess" "Can taste shadows" are all valid traits. And the trial would go on until one side has put enough disadvantages on the other that the gloom comes to eat them or the judge makes a decision.

Amphetryon

2013-08-10, 07:43 AM

Fascinating to see the discussion shift from [paraphrased] "I don't want to buy Legend because it doesn't have a fully fleshed-out setting that accounts for all the things" to "I don't want to buy Legend - and question the wisdom of trying to market it at all - because the setting that's being worked on isn't one I want to use."

Eldan

2013-08-10, 08:30 AM

They are working on a setting, then? Nice. I like settings.

Anyway. I think I'll have to ask around amongst my players if anyone wants to play a one-off session of fairy lawyer.

Larkas

2013-08-10, 08:33 AM

That's a VERY interesting piece of setting! Maybe doubly so for me, because, as a lawyer, sometimes that's exactly how I feel in court. :smallbiggrin: Regardless, are you guys fleshing out the mechanics in Legend(ary) terms? If so, these mini settings might really help giving life to the rules!

Eldan

2013-08-10, 09:10 AM

It's one of the most brilliant ideas I've heard lately for a short game, actually. Not sure if we really need a lot of rules for it, but I love it.

afroakuma

2013-08-10, 11:41 AM

Well, there's a setting.

You misunderstood; if you read the blurb at the bottom, it's just a concept column run on Fridays. I literally meant "I think this column is worth a read" independent of Legend itself. I know there's a setting scheduled down the line, but I doubt that's it.

Psyren

2013-08-10, 11:54 AM

You misunderstood; if you read the blurb at the bottom, it's just a concept column run on Fridays. I literally meant "I think this column is worth a read" independent of Legend itself. I know there's a setting scheduled down the line, but I doubt that's it.

Oh, I see. Though it seems I'm not the only one who thought it was Legend-related.

Fascinating to see the discussion shift from [paraphrased] "I don't want to buy Legend because it doesn't have a fully fleshed-out setting that accounts for all the things" to "I don't want to buy Legend - and question the wisdom of trying to market it at all - because the setting that's being worked on isn't one I want to use."

Apparently we haven't seen the setting being worked on yet. Also, who are you paraphrasing exactly? It sounds to me that people just want iconic monsters (a reasonable request) not every monster in d20 ever.

afroakuma

2013-08-10, 12:00 PM

Apparently we haven't seen the setting being worked on yet. Also, who are you paraphrasing exactly? It sounds to me that people just want iconic monsters (a reasonable request) not every monster in d20 ever.

Legend did a thing a while back to select its iconic monsters to fill in for things like beholders and mind flayers that they can't use. It was a public vote. Now to just see them published.

Psyren

2013-08-10, 12:23 PM

I wasn't even referring to the product identity D&D ones though. Those would be nice to have, but you can also leave it to 3rd party or forums to assume the risk of trying to port those over. For example, Paizo ignored mind flayers in PF, and DSP came up with a "close-enough" OGL substitute (the Phrenic Scourge) that captured most of the iconic elements - the tentacles, the LE society, the brain eating, the telepathy.

No, I meant purely public domain iconic monsters. We already covered Vampire weaknesses and ghosts/spectres/wraiths - there's also things like genies, mischievous (or malicious) fey, costly automatons (golems, homunculi), ravenous and omnivorous oozes, the iconic ability of fiends to bargain and provide services, Trolls needing fire or acid to be put down permanently, etc. These are all from myths and legends independent of D&D, D&D (and PF) merely found ways to represent this stuff mechanically, allowing for organic play.

afroakuma

2013-08-10, 04:42 PM

Don't think the troll one is on the money, since I'm pretty sure that interpretation came from a book series Gygax liked. Beyond that, though, yes, I see what you're getting at.

Psyren

2013-08-10, 04:51 PM

Eldan

2013-08-10, 05:13 PM

I think it more likely came from taking the hydra's regeneration from Greek mythology, and applying the concept across all regenerating creatures. So that was where using fire to slow down the regenerative process so the beast could be killed came from. Then self-healing trolls themselves would have come from the novel you mentioned.

Nope, the troll's regeneration is from a book, I remember reading that. Can't say which one, though.

The mythological norse troll is quite different.

Psyren

2013-08-10, 05:16 PM

Nope, the troll's regeneration is from a book, I remember reading that. Can't say which one, though.

The mythological norse troll is quite different.

You misunderstand - when I mentioned the hydra I was referring specifically to the tactic of countering regen with fire.

Also, any fantasy novel from the 60's would very likely have been at least influenced by greek myth, so saying "no it's from this decades-old novel, not thousands of years of mythology" doesn't make much sense.

Turalisj

2013-08-10, 05:22 PM

Also, any fantasy novel from the 60's would very likely have been at least influenced by greek myth, so saying "no it's from this decades-old novel, not thousands of years of mythology" doesn't make much sense.

By that logic, we should try to include the Fish Speakers from Chapterhouse Dune in a setting.

afroakuma

2013-08-10, 05:30 PM

Anyway... have we covered all the bases? Is there anything else to add to the "missing" pile?

Psyren

2013-08-10, 05:32 PM

By that logic, we should try to include the Fish Speakers from Chapterhouse Dune in a setting.

The what from where? Mind translating?

Eldan

2013-08-10, 05:51 PM

Chapterhouse Dune is one of hte later Dune novels, which are decades old. The point that he's making is that there can very well be original stuff that *is* from the sixties or earlier.
After all, Aasimov or Heinlein didn't really take much from Greek myth.

Larkas

2013-08-10, 05:54 PM

Anyway... have we covered all the bases? Is there anything else to add to the "missing" pile?

Just one more thing, if you don't mind. An online SRD! I think that d20srd.org and d20pfsrd.com are part of the reason for the success of their respective systems, since they facilitate accessibility so much. Using a wiki for this kind of organization would be neat! And there are ways to make wikis viewable by all and editable by only a few, so you don't have to suffer the fate of a certain other RPG wiki. If you need help with that, I have some experience setting that up, so I can point you to the right way.

Graybender

2013-08-10, 06:01 PM

Given that refluffing is expected for Legend, I think it would be good to see some collaborative setting creation rules. These would inherently be a guide on how to work with the players to refluff tracks and feats they are planning to take and develop the world together with the GM. Maybe have some mechanism to determine narrative powers for the players, based on chosen tracks and their theme. These would need to be defined with the existing system in mind, as to not impose balance breaking elements and/or take away roles from existing mechanics.

Psyren

2013-08-10, 06:05 PM

Agreed on an SRD/Wiki, though that is much less of an immediate concern.

Chapterhouse Dune is one of hte later Dune novels, which are decades old. The point that he's making is that there can very well be original stuff that *is* from the sixties or earlier.
After all, Aasimov or Heinlein didn't really take much from Greek myth.

Greek. Sumerian, Biblical, Indian, Chinese - the point is if you go back far enough in antiquity, just about everything from current fantasy was either inspired by or outright lifted from something back there.

Aren't Fish Speakers based on Amazons, which goes back to Greek myth too? Turalisj's retort isn't making much sense to me.

afroakuma

2013-08-10, 11:25 PM

SRD's definitely a lower priority until the issues of absent and key content are covered.

Larkas

2013-08-10, 11:46 PM

SRD's definitely a lower priority until the issues of absent and key content are covered.

Then, aside from that, I can't think of anything else.

Silva Stormrage

2013-08-11, 01:44 AM

I haven't read the entire thread so I am not sure if this has been brought up before but there isn't much in legend about strongholds and the like especially PC's owning one. A future release like Stronghold Builders guide would definitely be interesting, I am not sure how often it comes into most groups play but I use things like that a lot. For legend I would be fine as a DM but as a player I don't think I could run a stronghold/keep without the DM making houserules for cost of hirelings, how to make traps, etc.

IronFist

2013-08-11, 05:34 AM

I don't think Legend's issues can in fact be handlded while Legend remains Legend.

Legend is a very gamist system, the most gamist system I've ever seen, far above the already high levels of gamism demonstrated in D&D 4e. Legend lacks narrativist and simulationist elements and it has been repeatedly pointed out (in this thread, even) that adding those elements is not something the designers want to do.

I say, leave it as it is. Legend is a balanced combat simulator, like apparentely it was meant to be. It's not going to be anything else. It is good at what it does. Don't go from balanced combat simulator to fantasy heartbreaker (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/), because that is what is going to happen if you try to make Legend more gamist or simulationist (at least with the current design team).

As a sidenote, I don't like the social interaction system. It feels disconnected and too abstract. I would rather not have one than have the one Legend does have.

afroakuma

2013-08-11, 01:35 PM

I don't think Legend's issues can in fact be handlded while Legend remains Legend.

I disagree. I think what we're seeing over and over is a call for examples, guidelines and fluff; not for the system to be simulationist, but for it to acknowledge and contribute to the development of narrative goals.

Just to Browse

2013-08-11, 05:54 PM

There's no checklist in the OP and I ain't gonna read 9 pages of thread, so most likely I'm restating things, but on the off chance I'm not...

Things I want to see (regardless of whether they're in progress or not):
A book that combines flavor and rules, introduces gods and tracks associated with the setting. Right now the rules feel flat without a fluff injection. The setting doc that got written and had suggestions for a librarian track was awesome. I still want to see it.
A book of monsters, adventures, and combat scenarios, also known as oh god why has that not come out yet. Also better help for gauging the EL of encounters (e.g. how many minions equal a miniboss, roughly?)
A book for economy, mass combat, and building things. Divorcing the economy from combat is fine, but I want players to feel unique in their collection of wealth, buildings, and soldiers.
A generic summoning track. Minions officially exist, and need need need to be incorporated into a player's perspective. Mystify's work here (http://www.ruleofcool.com/local-flavor-the-animal-companion/#more-694) just doesn't cut it.
A book of high magic. Like scrying, soloing armies (which you should be allowed to do), destroying big towers, achieving global objectives. Right now it feels like at level 1 you fight orcs with swords, and at level 10 you fight super orcs with super swords. A book of high magic will change the scope and make that game different.
I don't like non-combat things because the token mechanic bothers me and you don't get to use your abilities... but I don't know what you can do about that.

The one thing I really want to see from Legend is more content. Seriously, the website's been up for like 2 years and the illustration kickstarter ended over a year ago (meaning there's been more than a year to request art). Despite all that there's only one book out. Monsters are basically plug-and-chug, and doing 1 a day is more than enough to fill an entire book.

Amphetryon

2013-08-11, 06:17 PM

afroakuma

2013-08-11, 06:45 PM

A generic summoning track. Minions officially exist, and need need need to be incorporated into a player's perspective

I don't know that minion summoning is the best way to do that concept. Mooks of any stripe are pretty awful; putting them on both sides of the table only doubles down on the crap.

Flickerdart

2013-08-11, 06:56 PM

Mooks are basically chaff - the dragon's kobolds, the crime lord's street thugs, the throwaway cultists of an evil god. They get up in your face and prevent you from doing what you want to do, but their primary purpose is draining your actions and resources on killing them, and if they get a few lucky shots in, all the better. Mooks in the hands of a player would be supremely boring in two ways: enemies will either attack the mooks and there's no real danger to the controller's party, or enemies will attack the controller and there's not much mooks can do about it because they lack the abilities and raw numbers to do much beyond extended attrition.

If we ever were to create a summoner track, and I'm not saying we will, it will more likely be like the Pokemon Master in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, who is capable of summoning one of several mons that give him access to a different set of moves. Think Binder, not Druid.

Turalisj

2013-08-11, 07:36 PM

If we ever were to create a summoner track, and I'm not saying we will, it will more likely be like the Pokemon Master in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, who is capable of summoning one of several mons that give him access to a different set of moves. Think Binder, not Druid.

But doesn't that miss the point of being a Summoner, to have more bodies on the table to be a force multiplier?

Larkas

2013-08-11, 07:37 PM

But doesn't that miss the point of being a Summoner, to have more bodies on the table to be a force multiplier?

Nope. There are plenty of examples of summoners that maintain a pact with a single spirit or even that give their bodies to be occupied by the summoned spirit in fiction.

afroakuma

2013-08-11, 07:38 PM

But doesn't that miss the point of being a Summoner, to have more bodies on the table to be a force multiplier?

That's what we're saying though, that mooks aren't actually a force multiplier so much as they are speedbumps that might nick you.

Turalisj

2013-08-11, 07:55 PM

Nope. There are plenty of examples of summoners that maintain a pact with a single spirit or even that give their bodies to be occupied by the summoned spirit in fiction.

Sure. But that doesn't hit the argument that they would be nothing like traditional DnD summoners, which is what seems to be the issue with people who actually want summoners.

They want a horde of underlings that they can summon.

Larkas

2013-08-11, 08:37 PM

Sure. But that doesn't hit the argument that they would be nothing like traditional DnD summoners, which is what seems to be the issue with people who actually want summoners.

They want a horde of underlings that they can summon.

Oh, I understand. It's just that it's not what I see more prevalent in fantastic literature as a whole, so it doesn't bother me too much.

Psyren

2013-08-11, 09:51 PM

Just to Browse

2013-08-12, 01:06 AM

I personally think a pure Summoning military commander track, a book of High Magic fantasy tactics of the sort you mention, and a book on economy(????) are all things Legend made a pretty clear design decision to avoid, in the interest of preventing the "Magic Always Wins" situation that the designers saw as both prevalent and problematic with 3.5.

The first two problems are solved with re-fluffing, because Legend. The last one is totally unrelated to magic. All three can be implemented.

Afro: If the chosen mooks are weak, use stronger mooks. Buffs are literally written in to the Legend system in the form of stronger minions all the way up to a point-buy creature. There's no reason for the chosen summon to be a speedbump when upgrades range to FBI track arrays.

Flicker: Mooks are absolutely not that. They can be physical blocks because they take space, damage proxies (so all summoner damage is effectively through a mook, meaning he can spread his influence but can't take actions. This is the pokemon thing), objective proxies, passive directed/aoe damage (just like class abilities), and can be given abilities through the track that make them effective and interesting.

Drachasor

2013-08-12, 03:17 AM

As I said before, you could allow normal actions to be taken and summons to take actions. You just have to give everyone some sort of extra action ability. That sorts out the main issue with summons -- the action economy. Such abilities would be chosen using their own resource that could only be spent on such abilities.

Obviously in an established system "extra action" abilities would have to be an optional rule.

Though, in truth, I think summons implemented in this way would only be needed for a subset of summons -- ones that have truly effective actions comparable to a notable fraction of PC capability. Depending on what sort of terrain altering and other area hindrancing magic is available.

Turalisj

2013-08-12, 03:57 AM

I have yet to see a game system handle extra action abilities gracefully. Not Legend of the 5 Rings, not Shadowrun, not Mutants and Masterminds, not 3.5/p DnD, not 4e DnD. Not a single system.

Drachasor

2013-08-12, 04:07 AM

I have yet to see a game system handle extra action abilities gracefully. Not Legend of the 5 Rings, not Shadowrun, not Mutants and Masterminds, not 3.5/p DnD, not 4e DnD. Not a single system.

Because none of those systems really understand an action economy, so when they try to balance stuff like that, they fail. Edit: With regards to granting actions extras. At best that handle this by never allowing extra actions.

But one could certainly imagine a D20-esque system where at some level everyone gets an extra standard/full-round action equivalent (you choose what sort you want from a list). In the existing system, this would probably be part of an "extra action round."

From the ground up you'd probably design a system that assumed everyone had an extra action, and the effectiveness of this extra action would scale as everyone gained levels.

Just to Browse

2013-08-12, 05:29 AM

4e has extra actions?

Your opinion of major RPGs aside, spending your own swift action to grant some weaker creature a move/attack is fine if the numbers are adjusted properly.

Amphetryon

2013-08-12, 06:22 AM

The first two problems are solved with re-fluffing, because Legend. The last one is totally unrelated to magic. All three can be implemented.

Afro: If the chosen mooks are weak, use stronger mooks. Buffs are literally written in to the Legend system in the form of stronger minions all the way up to a point-buy creature. There's no reason for the chosen summon to be a speedbump when upgrades range to FBI track arrays.

Flicker: Mooks are absolutely not that. They can be physical blocks because they take space, damage proxies (so all summoner damage is effectively through a mook, meaning he can spread his influence but can't take actions. This is the pokemon thing), objective proxies, passive directed/aoe damage (just like class abilities), and can be given abilities through the track that make them effective and interesting.

As was argued earlier in the thread re: Vampire Lord, Legend's general conceit is that playing the folks who are actually in the thick of the fight is fundamentally more interesting than playing the guy who stays back and issues orders, and "refluffing" doesn't change the notion that a Summoner/Commander/Thrallherd archetype represents a level of power that Legend's designers consider to be generally problematic. "Use stronger mooks" is precisely what they initially said - and appear to still feel - they wanted to avoid, because one of Legend's principle goals is balance between classes, and the stronger the mooks, the harder it becomes to even approximate that goal.

afroakuma

2013-08-12, 10:21 AM

Afro: If the chosen mooks are weak, use stronger mooks. Buffs are literally written in to the Legend system in the form of stronger minions all the way up to a point-buy creature. There's no reason for the chosen summon to be a speedbump when upgrades range to FBI track arrays.

All mooks are functionally speedbumps, even the tracked ones, especially at low levels. Top-grade Operatives are the only ones to break away from that in the least, and even they are pretty crappy. Putting extra bodies on the table in the form of mooks isn't the answer.

Prime32

2013-08-12, 02:24 PM

They want a horde of underlings that they can summon.So use Air Elemental, or Celestial, or Lurking Terror, or Mechanist Savant or Path of Destruction. Heck, use four of them.

Just to Browse

2013-08-12, 03:11 PM

Fable Wright

2013-08-12, 05:04 PM

Actually, what could be cool for this concept are optional rules for playing as a non-Mook myriad. The Necromancer has a horde of zombies following them around (additional bodies to get hit and fall down, and some to get back up) that only attack at certain times, the Druid or Ranger with one really strong Animal Companion (which is just a recurring body), and it supports incredibly oddball concepts like the person who makes copies of themselves, the person who wants to play as a cabal of mages all working together, and so on. Just a thought.

Amphetryon

2013-08-12, 05:21 PM

Afro and Amphetyron, those responses don't make sense to me. Amph's argument seems to be "Mooks are too weak, but if we make them strong then they're too strong" and Afro's is "Mooks are always too weak no matter what. Final Destination." And that doesn't make sense, because if one end is too high and the other is too low then there is a middle ground, and even if there wasn't a "too-high" end, we could just make one by adding buffs. It's like saying "there is no way to write a fighter fix because all fighter ACFs don't bring the fighter up to tier 3". As demonstrated by these boards, people have totally taken the fighter up to T1 and down into the middle-ground.

The middle ground for summonings could be operatives with more HP, myriads with a track ability, or it could be strikers that auto-hit for heavy harass damage. Those are all possibilities, and it just takes number-fiddling and playtesting to get them right.

Amphetyron, if people say they want to play a summoner, then it's obvious that the summoner is an interesting concept. There have been several discussions son the Rule of Cool forums about how to make companions/minions/pokemon, so saying that the designers or audience don't think summoning is interesting is very wrong.
I didn't say they don't think it's interesting. I said they expressed a lack of interest in producing the thrallherd summoner archetype of which I have repeatedly, specifically spoken. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts? I also said that the reason for this was because of expressed and perceived concerns from the original Legend design team regarding how that particular archetype represents a fundamental shift in the balance they very clearly prioritized.

Afroakuna - from where I sit - is saying that, in order to make a summoner that fits into the general balance scheme of Legend AND fulfills the thrallherd/summoner archetype (rather than the pokemon alternative that some in this thread are dismissing as unsatisfactory), the summoned creatures would, de facto, have to fit within the "mook" paradigm, rather than making them as powerful as the 3.5 summoner paradigm. Mooks, by the very nature of how he's repeatedly explained the term, are not significantly dangerous to fulfill the desires of most folks who want to run the thrallherd/summoner archetype. In such cases where they may be strong enough in Legend, it is his contention - which I agree with - that it would be fundamentally more interesting to play the summoned creature than the behind-the-scenes controller. Within Legend's paradigm, wanting to play with a (or several) summoned creature(s) that's as powerful as a Character (as you can in 3.5) AND have its controller be powerful and relevant is asking to play TWO OR MORE Characters, while everyone else plays one. If I need to explain why having two Characters is more powerful than having one (assuming the Characters are balanced otherwise), I'm afraid we're going to be unable to reach an understanding.

Eldan

2013-08-12, 05:45 PM

How about a different summoner concept?

One mind in two bodies. A normal human body and a strong monster body. Your monster body would have monster strength, while your human body has whatever other tracks you have chosen for your character. Now, since they share a mind, they'd also share actions, so every turn, you'd choose which of the two would be acting that turn. And they'd probably have to stay close together.

Would that work?

Mithril Leaf

2013-08-12, 06:14 PM

I think part of the issue with the playing the big guy viewpoint is that it lacks a large part of the appeal of playing a summoner. The safety aspect is being overlooked. When your summon dies, you're still alright. It's a matter of calling a new minion rather than having to get powerful resurrection stuff. There's also some versatility involved, while you don't get to be the most powerful at everything, a summoner is nearly never unable to do something useful.

Icewraith

2013-08-12, 06:21 PM

A two-score wealth/influence system along the lines I initially proposed (and then complicated, all of which is ignorable) and a section showing players and DMs how to use plot resources would probably fill the aforementioned economy lack without compromising combat.

Wealth levels:

1- Peasant or Ascetic (Ascetics don't care and aren't generally bribable). Buy cheap food or a room for the night in a bog-standard inn.

2- The semi-skilled artisans and faceless henchmen of the world will do anything for a buck. Buy a round of drinks for everyone in the bar.

3- The middle class types, information brokers and people guarding gates will generally do what you need them to as long as it isn't too illegal. Buy a fancy meal for a couple people or travel in unexceptional comfort.

4- This will get you a reasonable amount of time, information or goods with/from a top-notch artisan or expert, get the attention of nobles currently having financial issues, or convince someone guarding fine art to look the other way as long as his butt is still covered. Consider putting teleportation, buying a knighthood and 12-day luxury cruises here.

5- People guarding national treasures will take some risks and the genuinely wealthy may act in your favor, especially the corrupt ones. Buy a minor noble title, small fiefdom, conventional fortress, small conventional army, spy ring or sports team.

6- Personal bodyguards to kings or emperors might drop their principles here and even the truly rich will do a lot for you. Huge tracts of land, major noble titles, impressive armies and potent magic are within your grasp.

7- You can probably get the attention and perhaps the time of even the most ancient and treasure laden dragons. Build a floating castle or your own scientific or magical research facility.

Fable Wright

2013-08-12, 07:20 PM

I didn't say they don't think it's interesting. I said they expressed a lack of interest in producing the thrallherd summoner archetype of which I have repeatedly, specifically spoken. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts? I also said that the reason for this was because of expressed and perceived concerns from the original Legend design team regarding how that particular archetype represents a fundamental shift in the balance they very clearly prioritized.

Afroakuna - from where I sit - is saying that, in order to make a summoner that fits into the general balance scheme of Legend AND fulfills the thrallherd/summoner archetype (rather than the pokemon alternative that some in this thread are dismissing as unsatisfactory), the summoned creatures would, de facto, have to fit within the "mook" paradigm, rather than making them as powerful as the 3.5 summoner paradigm. Mooks, by the very nature of how he's repeatedly explained the term, are not significantly dangerous to fulfill the desires of most folks who want to run the thrallherd/summoner archetype. In such cases where they may be strong enough in Legend, it is his contention - which I agree with - that it would be fundamentally more interesting to play the summoned creature than the behind-the-scenes controller. Within Legend's paradigm, wanting to play with a (or several) summoned creature(s) that's as powerful as a Character (as you can in 3.5) AND have its controller be powerful and relevant is asking to play TWO OR MORE Characters, while everyone else plays one. If I need to explain why having two Characters is more powerful than having one (assuming the Characters are balanced otherwise), I'm afraid we're going to be unable to reach an understanding.

A non-mook Myriad is, again, my recommendation to make this concept work. One permanent body (the summoner) and one Myriad-style body (the summon) that share their actions for the turn (in other words, either the summon uses a high-power melee move while the summoner shouts at it, or the summoner casts a spell or SLA while the summon flails ineffectually at the target) with the Summon disappearing after one hit being flavored as it being invulnerable for a turn after that through whatever means (though it can't take AoOs and is going to reappear soon thereafterwards, flavored as just being really fast). When the summon becomes too big a liability from the one hit dealt to it each turn, the summoner simply decides not to remake the body and it just disappears. Alternatively, the minionmancer summoner/necromancer just floods the board with their minions and uses their Standard action to flail at everyone within reach a la an actual Myriad until all of the temporary bodies fall down and the minionmancer starts using their non-minion tactics.

erikun

2013-08-12, 09:03 PM

Isn't that basically how D&D4e dealt with summons? Where the summoner "creates" a creature in play, and then spends their own actions to allow the summon to take actions?

If I recall, a lot of the complaint around D&D4e at that time was that "summons weren't really summons if you needed to spend actions to have your summon take actions" and that it didn't replicate D&D3e necromancer minionmancy. I don't forsee any problem with doing things the D&D4e way, except that I'm not sure that everyone's concerns about summons would be addressed with it.

Just to Browse

2013-08-12, 09:13 PM

I didn't say they don't think it's interesting. I said they expressed a lack of interest in producing the thrallherd summoner archetype of which I have repeatedly, specifically spoken. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts? I do understand, and (like I said before) you're wrong when you say the devs don't like summoning. Afro doesn't like summoning, flicker appears to not like summoning, but Mystify and DragoonWraith are fine with it or even support it, and I'm pretty sure both of them have written Legend content. Can we put this appeal to authority down now?

I also said that the reason for this was because of expressed and perceived concerns from the original Legend design team regarding how that particular archetype represents a fundamental shift in the balance they very clearly prioritized.Right, and that bit is incorrect because it would require there to be a "fundamental shift" in balance, which there would not be if summonings were balanced to the rest of the game.

[more things]Your basic argument is that if the thrallherd is going to be balanced, individual creatures need to be weak, and thus people will not like it because they will have a bunch of weak creatures. Legend solved that with the myriad (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Myriads.pdf), and if one myriad is too weak then you buff it. If it's too strong then you nerf it. All problems are now solved.

Your other alternative assumes that since an army of weak things is impossible to balance, a player's only choice is to be given a full second character, and that's something I debunked in the post you just quoted. You can have hordes of summoned mooks that are so useless they don't even pose a threat to character, and you can have an OP summoner that wields two characters at a time, and since those two extremes exist there must exist a middle ground.

georgie_leech

2013-08-12, 09:17 PM

and since those two extremes exist there must exist a middle ground.

I don't disagree per se with most of what you have, but by that logic there's a middle ground between the on and off positions on a light switch.

Drachasor

2013-08-12, 09:20 PM

I don't disagree per se with most of what you have, but by that logic there's a middle ground between the on and off positions on a light switch.

Since you're designing the light switch and have a lot of numbers to fiddle with, this isn't unreasonable. Use a dimmer.

Amphetryon

2013-08-12, 09:31 PM

I do understand, and (like I said before) you're wrong when you say the devs don't like summoning. Afro doesn't like summoning, flicker appears to not like summoning, but Mystify and DragoonWraith are fine with it or even support it, and I'm pretty sure both of them have written Legend content. Can we put this appeal to authority down now?Could you show me where I said they don't like summoning, please? Go ahead, quote me using those words. "Not interested in producing" =/= don't like. That seems, to me, like there's a fundamental difference in understanding. And, for the record, I specified the original devs, by which I meant conversations DocRoc, among others. I also never said ALL the developers; I never said it was a universal. If you have a quote from outside this response where I specified that EVERY developer said this, please show me. If you believe referencing the stated intent of the developers is an example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, we again have a significant difference in understanding of our terms.

Right, and that bit is incorrect because it would require there to be a "fundamental shift" in balance, which there would not be if summonings were balanced to the rest of the game.Given that the examples asked for are essentially having two equally powerful Characters under one Player's control, while everyone else controls one Character that is as powerful as either of those under the control of the aforementioned Player, explain how changing this would not need a fundamental shift in power, or would not make the person with (at least) twice as many Characters/actions as the others more powerful than the others.

Your basic argument is that if the thrallherd is going to be balanced, individual creatures need to be weak, and thus people will not like it because they will have a bunch of weak creatures. Legend solved that with the myriad (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Myriads.pdf), and if one myriad is too weak then you buff it. If it's too strong then you nerf it. All problems are now solved.

Your other alternative assumes that since an army of weak things is impossible to balance, a player's only choice is to be given a full second character, and that's something I debunked in the post you just quoted. You can have hordes of summoned mooks that are so useless they don't even pose a threat to character, and you can have an OP summoner that wields two characters at a time, and since those two extremes exist there must exist a middle ground.No, I do not think you debunked it. No, I will not repeat the reasons why, because this thread is not just about me debating with you.