Hei lexy here, got some questions about the rules
-how can i diffrentiate the non physical attacks from ranged attacks besides changing defense used or the area of effect?
-there is a horrible lot of banes that are determined by agillity and might, making them pretty op and verstaile (like agillity is just op and gives access to attacks, most banes and initiative rolls), any good way to balance this?
-is it legitimate to limit the possible actions for each player to prevent abusing of the variety of the technically available banes
Hi Lexy, Iâd be happy to help you out.
In game, the most immediately noticeable difference is in how the attack is described. Thereâs a huge separation between firing arrows from a bow and causing the shadows around your target to rise up and slice at them, for example.
The key mechanical difference between ranged and non-physical attacks is versatility. A ranged attack usually only has access to either single targets or one method of multi-targeting, a non-physical attack (usually from an Extraordinary attribute) can be melee, ranged, or use any kind of multi-target attack depending on what the attacker thinks is most useful at the time.
Iâd suggest that you donât try and âbalanceâ this. Agility certainly has slightly more uses than Might, but you canât use Agility to lift a portcullis or smash down a wall. Itâs definitely not OP, so donât worry about that. Not all attributes are equally powerful, because no two attributes have the same uses. Agility and Might have a lot of Banes because theyâre key attacking attributes. They donât have any Boons, so they canât access the most powerful effects in the game, like Shapeshift or Summon Creature. Remember also that this isnât a videogame, the GM is running the world so if the party are genuinely abusing a particular attribute then the GM can start throwing them challenges that canât be solved with that attribute; or just let them abuse it, as long as everyone is having fun it doesnât matter if itâs âbalancedâ.
Itâs certainly legitimate, but please, please donât do this. Open Legend is supposed to give players a wide variety of options. Players will probably end up self-limiting, in that not every Bane or Boon makes sense for every character. For example, I have a PC who is an illusionist with the Influence attribute; she can easily use Phantasm or Fear, but Charmed doesnât really make sense for how her abilities are described so she never uses it.
If it comes down to it and your players make characters that do use every Bane and Boon they are allowed, what exactly is the problem youâre fearing? They will have a lot of options, which will lead to them doing a lot of different things. Sounds like fun to me! Combat will be varied and interesting, other encounters will depend on what you decide to throw at them. Please come back here if youâre struggling with planning these encounters, the community are always happy to help budding GMs.
3 Likes
alright, but by limiting the player actions i dont mean not telling them that they cant use certain abillities, but that they cant use more than 8 diffrent boons, isnt that fair? maybe i am too âvideogame orientedâ when it comes to these things, but when it comes to immersion i think its wrong to let players go âoh it says i could do that, i got 7 entropyâ.
but again, as you could guess im only preping my session with these questions, so i do pay much notice to the âgo easy on itâ tips
This was what @SamWilby was saying, and what the Core Rules say as well. Just because you can do something, doesnât mean it makes sense for your character. Open Legend is about self-limiting. You create a character, and then pick the things that help and fit to make that character a reality.
Thatâs why even though the Illusionist has access to the Charm bane, they donât choose to do it, b/c it doesnât make sense for the character.
Thatâs not to say that some characters will make perfect sense to have access to everything.
The biggest thing is this, donât take away from players. They can be creative, and surprise you with the things they do. Open Legend isnât balanced around the fact that you can only do X of this per day for Boons or Banes. Itâs balanced in the requiring them to have rolls, which can fail.
Just b/c you have a boon isnât a guarantee you will succeed at invoking it. And you can generally only do a single boon or bane invocation a round anyways (some feats will allow a variance to this of course).
And also, as is common advice, not just for Open Legend, but for all TTRPG, actually play in the system some as is before looking at modifying/homebrewing the system some so you get a feel for how it works to better understand the balance that is already there.
The game is really well balanced as it is, but it is something youâll have to see through playing it.
3 Likes
It is expected that the players limit themselves, by sticking to their character concept and itâs certainly alright if a GM points out if certain action doesnât fit well with their character, or even better asks the player to explain how it would work within the confinements of their concept. That way you avoid icemages throwing around fireballs and other shenanigans that seem out of place.
Limiting players with a numerical number of boons or banes is generally a bad idea though, as it goes against the spirit of the game of empower players and narrative.
3 Likes
I donât think I can say it better than that. Iâm having a problem with one player who has always built powerful mechanics into a character and then designed their story to explain why they could do all these things. He likes playing powerful characters so I didnât want to limit him too much, but sometimes you do need to step in and say âYou canât use presence to heal yourself, especially when youâre character is an illusionist!â 
Or, if all your players are the type to enjoy creating broken characters, design more difficult encounters. Unfortunately, sometimes a GM has to give up on their dream of a story in the name of what the players want and if they arenât interested in story driven characters, then a story driven campaign may just not interest them.
2 Likes
Players are allowed to do powerful things if thatâs what they enjoy doing, so donât stress about saying ânoâ unless theyâre actually spoiling someone elseâs fun. Itâs definitely important to have a discussion about expectations though, session zero is vital any time youâre running with a new group or in a new style.
1 Like
The moment you realize itâs a ton more fun to invent the story around the characters and actions of your players than to make a pre-set narrative, the more fun you will have.
3 Likes
It depends on the GM and the players. Some players will love a pre-written narrative, and some GMs will have a miserable time trying to improv a story. The key is reacting to what the players want from the game as well as what theyâre doing. There is no âone size fits allâ approach to GMing.
I have 2 games running side-by-side at the moment, a Star Wars game and a Supers game, and they couldnât be more opposite. Both are amazing.
- The Supers players often end up floundering when they donât know what to do, so their superior has stepped in and is commanding them more directly. Tactical decisions are still up to them, and theyâre having a blast being told âraid this warehouseâ and trying to work out how to do it with minimal harm or casualties. They donât fully trust their boss, and theyâre probably right not to, but theyâre only just realising that the team of superhero watchdogs who they spied on their boss for arenât who they say they are eitherâŚ
- In the Star Wars game I introduced the players with a bounty on an exiled Jedi, during which the Empire turned on them. Rather than team up with the Jedi or try and escape offworld to join the rebellion - like I expected - they killed the Jedi and then bartered with the Empire into hiring them. They now own an orbital dockyard and are doing their best to undercut the Tarkin Doctrine by selling stealth Corvettes with ship-destroying energy weapons to a rival Moff.
Two completely different methods for two different groups. Improv is fantastic if done well, but not every campaign will benefit from it.
2 Likes
Like Sam Wilby, I have a high influence character. But FEAR isnât her thing. Her phantasm is dancing pink elephants rather than something scary (so people think they are drunk) and she likes CHARM a lot unlike Samâs char who doesnât use it.
As the others are trying to say here, let the characterâs actions make sense. Ask your players to explain to you why the character is doing what itâs doing and how itâs doing it. They can come up with some pretty creative and hilarious explanations.
1 Like