Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5045360" data-attributes="member: 54707">I thought Weapons of Legacy was awesomesauce!!!No, not really. I'm with those who thought it pretty much sucked.But I liked the more general idea behind the concept. Yet as others said, execution, not so much.Though to answer your question what I did was this:1. Created Weapons with natural (inherent) limitations to prevent the weapons from becoming an artifact. Occasionally adding curses or at least hindrances that had to be overcome before the weapon could be fully exploited.2. Forgot bonuses (like combat bonuses) altogether in favor of adding capabilities to the character. When the weapon was in the possession of the character then the character's capabilities increased rather than those of the weapon, and as the character progressed in levels often the weapon would compensate where the character had failed to advance. Say the character wanted to be more skillful in some way, but had lacked the points to dedicate to that skill then the weapon would compensate.3. To assure the weapons were matched to the character, then abilities and advantages offered always matched those of the user-character.4. Found out what kind of weapons the players most liked to use so that the WOL matched the character rather than trying to make the character match the weapon. For instance if one character liked using a spear best then that WOL which was a spear would work best for that particular character and would obviously favor being used and exploited by that character/player.5. Allowed more subtle possibilities, such as enhanced good fortune or luck when possessed by a particular character, a sense of enhanced intuition, dreams and visions associated with the weapon, etc.6. Occasionally the weapon would have an agenda of its own. 7. No rituals (these always struck me as highly artificial and contrived and not at all useful to the character himself) but rather occasional quests related to both the nature of the weapon and the nature of the character.8. Often made them <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/257415-where-has-all-history-gone.html#post4822461" target="_blank">heirlooms and what not</a>. Ancestral treasures. And employed mythological and ancestral backgrounds and legacies and capabilities rather than purely gaming ones.9. Sometimes disguised the weapon's true nature.10. Weapon wouldn't always transfer the same abilities or powers, and over time powers and abilities would change to fit the situation with the character. This could be used both beneficially to enhance the character, and on occasion malignantly, to limit what they had expected they would be able to do, but couldn't anymore.And so forth and so on.I think the problem with WOL, and I got the book, is that it was overcomplicated and micro-managed. As others have already said, no flexibility, no real bonding or individual association with the character (it was all about what the weapon could do through the character rather than what the character could do through the weapon) and so the progression of power was not organic, and character-centered, but artificial and device-centered. In short the legacy seemed a contrived and artificial thing in which the character played a secondary role, rather than the character shaping the legacy of the weapon with the help of the weapon. To me personally it was like so much else produced in that time-frame of D&D, all about superpowers and ever increasing power-scales, rather than heroism and characterization. Or put another way, power is a thing in and of itself, rather than something that arises naturally from the interplay between man and his world, and man and the things he creates.To me the book was all about gaming and how gaming over-rulerization limits the imagination and limits characters, rather than enhances them. And that attitude did the same basic thing to the weapons.Anywho, good luck with what you're doing. I'm off to bed cause tomorrow it's back to a normal work-week. First of the year.</blockquote>

Verification