Hey everyone! Newbie to the game here – never played 1e but have backed 2e and look forward to running/playing it in the near future.
I’ve read through the draft rules and I’ve noticed that one of the big differences between Legacy and other PbtA games I’ve been exposed to is that Legacy has some moves that give players considerable control over their dealings with one another. Whereas many PbtA games offer positive incentives for following the orders of or suggestions from other players, Legacy appears to have some moves that allow one player to dictate what another player does (assuming they can’t spend enough Treaty and fail a Hold Together roll, at least at the family level).
So I was wondering: does Legacy generally lend itself more to a competitive style of play, or do I have a mistaken impression of the game? Has anyone’s game turned into an all-out war between 2+ players, or do they generally cooperate to accomplish shared goals?
Thanks in advance for your insights!
I noticed that as well, and was clear about it to my players. Here’s a summary of what I said:
* You’re forcing hard choices on another family not another character, and nothing says that have to like it
* Because of that, it’s in your best interest to have allies.
* Your character doesn’t have to like the decisions made at the family level.
* As a player, you still decide how your family acts and can shade things there.
But! All out war between Families seems super rare. It probably won’t go well for either side.
So while it was my intention to have factions more inflexible than characters, it’s intended that triggering Hold Together stops whatever the other faction wants, succeed or fail. The roll represents your family dealing with the consequences of ignoring an obligation, rather than them trying (and maybe failing) to resist the influence. Now, the GM may say on a miss that the influence works, but that’s their choice. I’ll make this clearer in the text.
Also, Douglas Santana can probably tell you more about hostility between families – his group are a lot more cutthroat than mine!
James Iles Thanks for the clarification! That was very helpful.
James Iles interesting. It’s not clear on the text that you can Hold Together to avoid the results of someone else’s family move.
I usually emphasize that at Character-level Legacy is really cooperative – they have history together and usually are up against wide ranging threats. But Family-level, yes it can get a little competitive. The use of Treaties and Wonders all but assure this friction, and most likely there wont be enough Resources in the Homeland for everyone.
In our experience here, we found these patterns:
* With only two players they band together to tame the Homeland. The relationship can become exploitative, but they are too co-dependent to allow that for long.
* With three players, there will always be too much of a balance of power to allow for any control by any one of the Families. If two Families unite against a third, the later seldom stands a chance.
* With 4+ players it becomes a GoT like exercise of shifting alliances, and a fight for the common good. Players will exercise a lot of control on the table through Wonders, and the others may feel this coming and act preemptively to guarantee a desired outcome.
Never in my tables Families have gone into general open conflict. Even if they did, all it would take would be Factions in strength and/or numbers enough or Threats so dire they have little option but to band together for survival.
Aaron Griffin this is a specific case for Call in a Debt, though now that I check that didn’t make onto the reference sheets. Whoops!
Douglas Santana Very insightful – thanks!
James Iles What about The Sentinel’s Command move? Can PCs resist that as well?
No extra resistance from being a PC, as written at the moment. Just the ability to pick the option they least dislike.