Legend - a 3.5 improvement (doing it right - PF is now obsolete)

[Zerith]

I would not say that, old school fighting games were perfectly fair (as it was a mirror match-up) and were fun, an RTS is fun and if you're the same race on a mirrored map its perfectly fair.
Fair and boring are not soul-bound to one another, it's just a common pairing. :3

That said, I do agree that unfair and enjoyable can be very close friends. I personally love making 'gimmicky' characters; I love my characters being able to do something better then anyone else's character. I like them having a flaw that can be, by a smart opponent, hammered mercilessly. I love doing things to unintended extremes; in fair games this is generally harder, if even possible.
In a PvE game though, 'fair' is a very relative term and one I ignore as long as one party member is not able to do the entire campaign basically by themselves or can't do anything useful. As such I tend to favor the system that lets me make a pixy barbarian while another player is a stone giant wizard and others are simply exceptional humans over the one that limits you to med/small humanoid 1-7 and just a few different +1-6s to distinguish the PCs from one another.

Also, I still want to make a kangaroo rat who is a sorcerer
... I am insane, I am, am insane

back onto point: Legend distinctly lacks the massive options of DnD, but has the benefit of being a more streamlined game and not being burden by levels and feats used for little more then to get the one you really want, and 'empty' levels and feats is something that DnD is plagued by, but I would be up for games of Legend, I don't think it will ever be my main PbP system.

 

[Walking Dad]

The "massive options" for one are "rules bloat" for another. I'm all for just trying it intead of over analyzing it in advance (even if I usually enjoy such things).

 

[Zerith]

But over analyzing is sooo amusing :3
And yes, from what I can tell, comparing DnD 3.5E to Legend is like comparing chess to checkers, both are good, both are turn based, both are basically even, yet one is more complex, and the other is more streamlined.

In the end its about preference. I just like endless options to ooh and ah over myself :3

 

[Walking Dad]

For endless options, I still prefer classless point-buy systems like M&M. 3.5 has to many trap options for my taste and fluff-less speed bumps. But for each his own.

 

[Zerith]

Yeah, I like M&M as well for that reason, and empty levels and feats are just kinda stupid if you ask me "you just want to do an AoE melee attack around yourself? I hope you have Alot of feats ready for that ability!" >_<

 

[GreyICE]

Well reading through it, it's definitely a huge improvement on 3.5 and Pathfinder. I see a lot of influence of 4E, though if it's the crowd I know they'd probably deny it.

Regardless, looks like it could be fun for a lark.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am not sure it's an improvement, but it certainly is interesting, especially the concept and implementation of tracks and multiclassing.

I would definitely like to try playing a character, but at the same time there are so many unnecessary rules changes to combat, exploration and interaction, that I am afraid I'll end up making lots of mistakes in-game...