Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Some concerns about the Avatar: Legends RPG
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CubicsRube" data-source="post: 8461117" data-attributes="member: 6848185"><p>Now that I've had some sleep, a repost here:</p><p></p><p>‐---------------------</p><p></p><p>So I got a chance to play the quickstart adventure of Avatar Legends. The GM was great and the players all contributed well, but I have to say that I had some initial concerns with some of the rules that have only heightened after the playthrough.</p><p></p><p><strong>Number 1</strong> is the balance mechanic. I really like the idea of it and I think it could be a great way to simulate the emotional turmoil characters go through in the show, I really don't like the implementation.</p><p></p><p>Firstly the range is between two competing ideals. If one is at +1 the other is at -1, if one is at +2, the other is at -2. You can spend a fatigue point to use one of these ideals instead of your normal stat. There is no reason you would ever do this unless the bonus was better than your stat. So the question becomes, why have the negatives and the scale? It feels unnecessary and confusing. It also effectively seems to add busy work where you are not only looking at one set of stats, but now two.</p><p></p><p>I actually would prefer if there were no stats at all and ONLY the balance track was used. In addition, that track moved further towards that ideal every time you use it for a roll. So for example an Icon has the ideals of their "duty" and their freedom. They could act only using their principle of freedom to get out of trouble, but at some point they will need to act on their duty (now at a considerable minus) or go to the end of their balance track which is kind of a temporary lose control state.</p><p></p><p><strong>Number 2 </strong>is the combat phases. I really wanted to see how this worked, but in my opinion for a PbTA game is that it's not great. You lose the reactivity of npcs reacting to what the PCs are doing because they are locked into their phase of movement. The phases effectively turn it into an initiative system that feels at odds with the rest of the system to me. Some people may indeed prefer this, but it feels like a more traditional mechanic that doesn't sit with the rest of the system.</p><p></p><p><strong>Lastly number 3 </strong>is the 3 separate tracks each character sheet has. A character can have lose fatigue, but they can also spend it for some things (and get it back for some other things). They also have conditions which give penalties to certain kinds of rolls. And lastly their principles can also be challenged in an attempt to take them to one extreme.</p><p></p><p>This to me seems like it'd be hard as a GM to think about which one each NPC is going to try and challenge in the PCs. furthermore major NPCs have all these items too. So the players have to keep in mind that they are imposing conditions on npc A while trying to fatigue npc B, and the GM has to keep track of it all.</p><p></p><p>To me that is a mess. I would rather use either fatigue, or conditions, but not both. For this game I feel like conditions are hematic and appropriate, but fatigue feels kind of tacked on.</p><p></p><p>I feel like if I houseruled the game to only use the balance track instead of stats, got rid of fatigue and just used conditions and got rid of the combat phases (but kept the moves) I'd have a much more streamlined and on point game.</p><p></p><p>In summary that's my opinion. I'm obviously not a game designer and my tastes may not align with the rest of the player base. What do you think?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CubicsRube, post: 8461117, member: 6848185"] Now that I've had some sleep, a repost here: ‐--------------------- So I got a chance to play the quickstart adventure of Avatar Legends. The GM was great and the players all contributed well, but I have to say that I had some initial concerns with some of the rules that have only heightened after the playthrough. [B]Number 1[/B] is the balance mechanic. I really like the idea of it and I think it could be a great way to simulate the emotional turmoil characters go through in the show, I really don't like the implementation. Firstly the range is between two competing ideals. If one is at +1 the other is at -1, if one is at +2, the other is at -2. You can spend a fatigue point to use one of these ideals instead of your normal stat. There is no reason you would ever do this unless the bonus was better than your stat. So the question becomes, why have the negatives and the scale? It feels unnecessary and confusing. It also effectively seems to add busy work where you are not only looking at one set of stats, but now two. I actually would prefer if there were no stats at all and ONLY the balance track was used. In addition, that track moved further towards that ideal every time you use it for a roll. So for example an Icon has the ideals of their "duty" and their freedom. They could act only using their principle of freedom to get out of trouble, but at some point they will need to act on their duty (now at a considerable minus) or go to the end of their balance track which is kind of a temporary lose control state. [B]Number 2 [/B]is the combat phases. I really wanted to see how this worked, but in my opinion for a PbTA game is that it's not great. You lose the reactivity of npcs reacting to what the PCs are doing because they are locked into their phase of movement. The phases effectively turn it into an initiative system that feels at odds with the rest of the system to me. Some people may indeed prefer this, but it feels like a more traditional mechanic that doesn't sit with the rest of the system. [B]Lastly number 3 [/B]is the 3 separate tracks each character sheet has. A character can have lose fatigue, but they can also spend it for some things (and get it back for some other things). They also have conditions which give penalties to certain kinds of rolls. And lastly their principles can also be challenged in an attempt to take them to one extreme. This to me seems like it'd be hard as a GM to think about which one each NPC is going to try and challenge in the PCs. furthermore major NPCs have all these items too. So the players have to keep in mind that they are imposing conditions on npc A while trying to fatigue npc B, and the GM has to keep track of it all. To me that is a mess. I would rather use either fatigue, or conditions, but not both. For this game I feel like conditions are hematic and appropriate, but fatigue feels kind of tacked on. I feel like if I houseruled the game to only use the balance track instead of stats, got rid of fatigue and just used conditions and got rid of the combat phases (but kept the moves) I'd have a much more streamlined and on point game. In summary that's my opinion. I'm obviously not a game designer and my tastes may not align with the rest of the player base. What do you think? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Some concerns about the Avatar: Legends RPG
Top