Lejendary Adventures - Anyone played it?

[Numion]

Quite, although there can't be so much of either going into the game if the rules dictate how things are to be handled, and the GM isn't "flying by the seat of his pants"

By that statement is the cop and robbers kids are playing in the yard the most creative and imaginative RPG around, since there's close to no rules ivolved?

How the mighty have fallen...

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Celtavian,

I am not one given to comparisons. However, as a quick check on the matter take a look at how a character or creature in 3E must be quantified.

What Joseph Elric Smith noted is another example, the quantification, and to me both the de-mystification and proliferation of magic.

The only fair comparison between LA and 3E, though, id playing both. Then the individual can decide for himself which is preferable for his gaming

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

By that statement is the cop and robbers kids are playing in the yard the most creative and imaginative RPG around, since there's close to no rules ivolved?

How the mighty have fallen...

That is a baseless analogy, of course, and thus a complete mis-characterization of the matter. Having fewer rules is not the same as having none. However, I must note that children playing that sort of "Let's Pretend" game are indeed role-playing and having fun, so they are engaged in as valid a game form as those who espouse 3E or the LA game.

We can all learn from the imaginative ability of children, no?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[dcas]

"Rules Heavy"

I have seen two different definitions of "rules heavy":

(1) The game has lots of rules.

(2) The game may not have lots of rules, but it has rules to cover just about every situation and leaves little for the GM to adjudicate.

HackMaster (and to a lesser extent AD&D), for example, could be considered "rules heavy," depending on the definition you use -- there certainly are a lot of rules in HackMaster and none of them are optional. However, there are still many situations that call for a GM call. Also, it's important to note that many things that people consider "rules" are really just tools to aid the GM. For example, random dungeon generation tables are not "rules" but are simply a tool to aid GMs in the design of dungeons.

D&D 3e, OTOH, could be considered "rules heavy" under the second definition. There certainly aren't a lot of rules -- even a new splatbook doesn't generally have rules per se but stuff designed according to the rules. But I believe there is less for the 3e GM to adjudicate. In that sense it could be viewed as "rules heavy."

 

[reveal]

Well, since I asked the initial question, I think I have the right to weigh in with my two cents.

I don't think 3E is rules heavy. I think people put too much stock into what is in the PHB and DMG. I've always looked at the "rules" not as "rules" but as "guidelines." You use what you like and don't use what you don't like.

For example, firing into melee and cover. Basically, there is a whole section devoted to firing at an enemy who is engaged by one of your comrades. Your comrade gives them a certain amount of cover and it is possible you could hit them. That makes sense to me but it's a convuluted topic in the book and I still don't understand the "rules" as written. So my group comprimised because it makes sense that if you are firing into melee and your comrade is standing between you and the target there should be SOME chance you can hit them. So now, if you roll a nat 1, 2, 3 or 4 you hit your comrade. That's it.

All I'm saying is I don't think any system can be too "rules heavy" if you look at them more as a guide to playing, and a good way to quell arguments, than a strict set of rules you MUST play by.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Firing into Melee

FWIW, I use this system:

Fire into melee and miss, check again for a hit on a friendly target, same chance as to hit the one aimed at.

Seems to work well, and nobody firing complains, because after all a hit is a hit Fact is that my lone Avatar got laid low that way a while back, but fortunately she wasn't dead, just at death's door, so a quick bit of Extraordinary healing brought her around. She doesn't know that one of her comrades missed his target and got her instead...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[tieranwyl]

I am going to take a shot at rules-heavy...Compare Basic D&D to 3E in an attack roll. In Basic D&D you are going to add:

1) THACO
2) Ability Modifier
3) Magic Enhancement

There might be an occasional class ability in Basic that will factor into the attack roll.

Look at what goes into an attack roll in 3E.

1) Base Attack Bonus
2) Ability Modifier
3) Size Modifier
4) Class Ability
5) 1-3 Feats
6) Magic Enhancement
7) AoO's
8) Flanking
9) Charging (Edited to add charging)

Now I am not saying 3E is un-workable. But when you compare it to its predecessors, it is rules-heavy.

I expect to get flamed here. But I want everyone to know that I like 3E and I play it. I am just going to call it what it is.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I am going to take a shot at rules-heavy...Compare Basic D&D to 3E in an attack roll. In Basic D&D you are going to add:

1) THACO
2) Ability Modifier
3) Magic Enhancement

There might be an occasional class ability in Basic that will factor into the attack roll.

Look at what goes into an attack roll in 3E.

1) Base Attack Bonus
2) Ability Modifier
3) Size Modifier
4) Class Ability
5) 1-3 Feats
6) Magic Enhancement
7) AoO's
8) Flanking
9) Charging (Edited to add charging)

Now I am not saying 3E is un-workable. But when you compare it to its predecessors, it is rules-heavy.

I expect to get flamed here. But I want everyone to know that I like 3E and I play it. I am just going to call it what it is.

You are mistaken.
The only two on your list that aren't in previous editions is Feats and Size modifier. The previous ediitons often had 'miscellaneous' bonues that varied by monster or situation with little consitency.
Flanking: +1 to hit from flank, +2 to hit from rear.
AoO's: Free attack for fleeing foe; you couldn't cast a spell or use a missile weapon in melee.

Geoff.

 

[cimerians]

Preference

You will not get flamed tieranwyl, other than by ignorant or should I say immature fans of 3rd ed.

I beleive most D&D 3rd edition players realize the amount of rules that now exist in the game as compared to the game that was played 20 years ago and most I think do not mind it. A lot of others do.

Another small example is:

- Try to play an any character class of 8th level or above with 3 or 4 magic weapons and a few spells.
You will be looking up modifications constantly during combat and during the game. Even if you are not, its a lot of more work than with the old D&D rules.

Monte Cook also knows about the rules "problem" or the "monster" they have created as he calls it. He has a nice post about it on his website.

He basically mentions that it was not intentional. All the rules in 3rd ed. he reminds, were mainly created to be able to resolve almost any situation, unfortunately some 3rd edition players use every single rule in the game and stick with it to the teeth. Cook reminds people that the game's the thing, not the rules.

I agree completely.

Even though, I still have left third edition and D&D almost altogether (although I still play 3e with a few friends as a player and A/D&D now and then).

Nowadays I try to stick with LA, it truly is a different type of game and a breath of fresh air.

It really takes me back to when the game and story was the thing that was the most enjoyable and the stats/modifications/charts/tables/dice rolls/rulebooks were second.

 

[Nathal]

I love Lejendary Adventure, but my experience illustrates the importance of finding the right playing group. I was writing an adventure module for LA and ran it through two playtests. The first lasted seven months and was a fun game, the only exception being a few players that did not like how the book was layed out. My second game was a total nightmare because I was running LA for a group of players that hate any combat system that does not facilitate specific attack forms or attempt to become a "realistic" combat simulation.

The first playtest was wonderful because the players enjoyed my ability to run "on the fly" and trusted my judgment. If there was some confusion with the rules as written I would make a quick judgment and the game would move forward. I would review impromptu rules decisions over the course of the week and decide which to stick with, and that was that.

The second playtest dissolved in less than four months. The players picked apart the game system, bemoaning that they could not create the uber-powerful super hero style characters they were accustomed to playing in Palladium games, and complaining that LA lacked the sort of quantification that made GURPS "cool". They challenged my every ruling, claiming I knew less of combat than they did and therefore should defer to their knowledge because the Lejendary Adventure game had no standing rule.

I have since learned that those players would have been happy if I had allowed "defense rolls" changing the system, or applying penalties to the actions of foes in response to specific attack modes and excessive description of every swing of the sword. LA is NOT the game to play for such people.

I read "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering" and thought a bit about different playing styles and how different the systems can be. Some favor DM fiat and others favor player control of the characters, but the trick is ultimately to find the right mix of player versus GM style.

I have learned that if a group of players do not enjoy my game it is not necessarily through any fault of my own, or even the game system. What other explanation can there be for having one successful playtest with one group, only to have a disaster with another group with different preferences?

One has two choices in such cases. A) Change the game to suit the group. OR, B) Change the group to fit the game. Either is possible.

LA is a great game, but make sure your players are not the type to get obsessed with minutia.