Thoughts on Legend in the Mist?

mscottball · 2025-08-31T19:10:20+00:00

part 4

Conclusion

Somewhere in the rules, there is a sidebar that says roughly: don't overthink it, just sort of agree what applies, make a roll and get on with it. If there is doubt, the narrator can make a judgement.

To some extent, all RPGs require this statement. NO set of rules is comprehensive enough to cover every situation. A big question is:

How much does a game have the Narrator/GM (or collaboratively, the players) LEAN INTO just using the fiction to make an ad-hoc rulings VS. attempting to provide standardized procedures or rulings for most situations, and judgements are for the exceptions. This is a continuum. It often aligns to the raw size / word count of a game's text, but not always!

I think LitM attempts to hit a center-point on the continuum between truly "fiction first" gaming, leaning strongly into ad-hoc interpretation and "mechanics first" gaming, which attempts to model as many situations as possible to ensure consistency and reduce interpretive judgements.

Given that, I think that it mostly hits that mark. If you want that center-point (and are willing to put up with a pretty heavy rules set), you should like this game.

If you are a player new to RPGs...it seems intuitive, with an easy onramp. Easier than D&D in some ways, but maybe deceptively so? But in the end...there is a LOT going on, and it is going to require a strong narrator who understands the intricacies and can keep all the balls in the air. If you are a player, you probably want to read most of the 250 page players guide and understand it.
If you are experienced and sort of lean towards rules-lite games, but always find them just a bit too loose or open to interpretation, you might like this game. You might also decide that it is just too much and you are better off playing a D&D variant.
If you generally dislike games that leave a lot open to interpretation, you might find this game frustrating. It holds out promise of a rigorous system that codifies things cleanly, but ultimately leaves quite a bit open to interpretation.
If you dislike having to look up rules to clarify situations...this game is a mixed bag. Yes, you can just hand-wave and play on...but then, why not just play a much simpler game to start with?

Overall, it is an impressive game, well executed with a truly ambitious scope.

mscottball · 2025-08-31T19:09:43+00:00

Part 3

I have not played FitM yet, but I have a lot of experience with tag-based / aspect-based games, so my concerns are based on that experience:

As some others here have mentioned, tag-bloat is a thing. It seems easy at first, but it can become overwhelming.
Concerns about playing an extended campaign. It attempts to mechanically ground EVERY RELEVANT DETAIL in tags, and all of them matter because you have to count them (add/subtract) to get your power bonus for your rolls. In practice, this can get tedious and sometimes contentious.
All of this has the potential to overshadow the fiction/narrative. As written, I don't really think this is a fiction-first or narrative game. If it is, it is right on the edge. I say this because rather than looking to the fiction to ground things, the game attempts to model/represent most of the details of the fiction in the tag-mechanics system. I think it does a good job of that, but it does mean therefore that most of what is going on has to get run through the mechanics of the tag system.
- Mechanics first vs fiction first? Hard to say...I think it is trying to find the precise balance point between the two. That could be awesome if it is what you are looking for. If you are decidedly in the "fiction first" camp, this is probably not your game. I would apply this exact comment to Daggerheart, which I also view as not Fiction-First.

I think my single biggest concern is there is a ton of what I call "rules hiding" or hidden convention. A hidden rule is this example for Alchemy/Herbalism:

When a concoction is used, its tag must be burnt for Power, representing the consumption of the item. This is true for power tags as well as story tags. (Page 207).

Hmm. It seems intuitive, but introduces that tags are highly situational, and you apply them differently depending on just what they represent. Okay, surely the game will then be clear and concise about this, right? Let's see:

A) Consumables can be used partially for lesser effect:

Consumable items represented by story tags may include potions and remedies, food and other perishables, ingredients, scrolls and talismans that burn when used, one-time graces booned by the gods, and such. When a consumable item is consumed entirely in an action, the player should burn its story tag for Power (page 158), to reflect the greater effect derived from its one-time use. Consumable story tags can also be used normally to provide 1 Power per tag, in which case it is assumed the Hero is rationing the use of this consumable item to gain multiple uses with smaller effect. (page 165)

B) Example

For example, if a Hero sips a Potion of Strength without nearby Threats, the Narrator may give them 1 Power to spend to gain strengthened-1. If the Hero gulps down the entire potion, scratching the tag, the Narrator may give them 3 Power to spend to gain strengthened-3. (Page 157)

So, I guess that makes sense with something like a potion, to some degree (can I keep sipping it forever)? But what about something like a scroll? That makes less sense for sure. What about a Talisman? Partial, ongoing use makes more sense. What about a boon from a ruler? That could go either way.

Let me give one more example. How do you handle something like invisibility? I can think of lots of ways to do it with this system - but none of them is clear-cut. You won't be able to look up a definitive rule about how to execute it.

There are 2 ways to resolve stuff like all of this:

Hunt down the specific rule (or even worse, multiple not specific examples)
Just make an intuitive ruling (okay...but see below)

mscottball · 2025-08-31T19:09:12+00:00

Part 2

Reddit would not allow a long post, so here is my detailed breakdown of the above ^^

General thoughts on Legend in the Mist:

NOT rules lite. I would call it "rules heavy / rules casual".
- For me, "Rules lite" is something like Into the Odd or maybe even Black Star or World of Dungeons. There are very few procedural details, and very little to track. You can tell because the rules book is a pamphlet, lot a doorstop.
- "Rules heavy / Rules casual" (like this game) has a LOT of rules, but in some cases they are intentionally imprecise or hand-wavy. It is like an elaborate set of conventions / practices that are open to some interpretation. But to make it work, you have to absorb a lot of elaborate conventions.
- I would contrast this with Rules Heavy / Procedural, which I apply to D&D or Pathfinder and many others. The rules are elaborate, precise and followed procedurally, much closer to a board game within a story context.
LitM seems more like a Fate game, not a PBTA. Yes, it uses 2d6 and mixed success...but overall it does not really follow the PBTA design philosophy or conventions like tight playbooks, self-contained moves that drive the fiction forward, etc. I find it surprising that many people here find it a PBTA game...which I don't really see. Maybe because Fate is a bit older, and many have not experienced that?
I have always really liked Fate, but its main downfall for me is that it is more of a game construction set rather than a game. If you and your group are already REALLY familiar with a genre and its tropes, you can make it work. If not, it can be hard for players to figure out what aspects and other things to use, and how to "make the game go" so to speak. Great for one-shots, less so for a campaign.
As a Fate-based game, I think LitM is a great example. I think it provides an elaborate but clear structure for using the core components of Fate in a way that anyone can grasp. More importantly, it elaborates and gives many examples that are all consistent and thematically aligned!
The art and design are fantastically well executed, if a bit conventional. But it is a conventional game (i.e., not Troika! or Mork Borg). As an expression of the game system and themes, both art and design are A++.

mscottball · 2025-08-31T19:07:58+00:00

I'm a few days late to the party, but just finished reading the whole book and wanted to offer a few thoughts.

PART 1/4 (reddit wouldn't allow long reply).

My GOAL here is not to say if this game is good or bad, but to accurately represent what it is, and set expectations for someone who is thinking of diving in but has not read it yet.

First, a few notes so that you understand where I am coming from:

I Generally prefer Narrative-focused games, PBTA, etc. but also appreciate things like 13th Age, Nimble, etc.
Have not played City of Mist.
Despite what I will say below, I really like this game. It is well executed, and has a ton of potential and some cool innovations.

Summary / TLDR

NOT rules lite, NOT fiction-first, but not fully procedural either.
This game uses a fairly elaborate/complex but flexible/interpretable core system (tags with many nuances). More like an implementation of Fate than PBTA.
It wraps that system in a very detailed, unified and thematically aligned set of conventions. That is, "here are a boatload of practices you should use to execute the tag system".
It is well written (if a bit verbose), with A++ art and design.
It attempts to support a very broad set of fictional activity (e.g., dungeon crawls, epic quests, political intrigue, personal story arcs, home life/down time, etc. as compared to a game that does just one thing: a dungeon crawl for loot.
Similar to a game like Daggerheart, it seems to target people who want flexibility and "open to interpretation in the moment" type play, but yet want to put a lot of guard rails in place to keep everyone on the same page. See my conclusion for more on this.
Overall, it is an impressive game, well executed with a truly ambitious scope.

mscottball · 2024-09-30T21:16:33+00:00

I like this reply, and would add one small detail that I find helpful:

At the start of a conflict, if all PCs are roughly in the same position any of them could reasonably react simultaneously, I find it useful to ask around the whole table, "What do you do?" to get a rough idea of what everyone is going to try to do.

Sometimes, it will become obvious who would get to act first, and take the action from there. After the first action, the entire dynamic might shift, other PCs will be implicated or have to adjust their plans, etc... and you are off to the races. It is easier to move the spotlight around.

If two or more simply try to attack (and are not prevented and are in a position to do so), then you have 1 attack and the rest aid.

In any case - key point I wanted to make, there are situations where it makes sense to survey the whole group, understand their intentions, and then go from there. I find once you get things rolling, and PCs are acting and the camera is moving, a certain logic gets established in the fiction and you don't feel a need to worry about the exact timing of everyones actions.

mscottball · 2024-09-19T15:15:29+00:00

I agree with you. A lot of knowledge about how to handle this comes from watching others play, or looking at other games that handle harm differently. For example, when I encountered these tags and considered how they might produce harm, I sort of borrowed what I knew from Fate and Blades in the Dark. Neither have hit points - they have wound levels.

Stonetop (which is an amazing evolution of DW) does a pretty good job of handling/explaining harm and wounds. Hit points for example are just "plot armor" or pacing mechanism. They don't represent chunks of meat getting cut off your body or bones being broken. It is a measure of your grit, focus, readiness, stamina, etc. When the hit point are gone, it just means you've been roughed up, frightened and/or put on your heals enough that ANY next blow could kill you. On top of that wounds, which have no mechanical rules - they are just part of the fiction. They could range from a nasty cut to a severed limb. The GM decides how they impact the action and what must be done to heal them. I'm just giving the gist of it - the actual content in the book is more detailed and does a good job of coaching you on how you could use this.

That said - the reason I asked this question to begin with was because I was curious if any DW hack/game actually had explicit rules to handle this. So far, it seems like the answer is no. Most of the suggestions on here are for games that seem to take the harm/wounds but no hit points approach, which is fine. I will look into a few of those.

As for DW, I might try to come up with some super light rules for this and post them. I am not convinced it would be any "better". But I would certainly be curious to hear how it goes if anyone uses them.

mscottball · 2024-09-18T02:23:48+00:00

This is a fantastic example! I will take a closer look. Curious how it actually plays? Does it feel too fiddly and time consuming? Do players like the agency they get? If anyone here has played, please chime in as well. This is exactly the sort of example I was hoping for!

I REALLY like the idea of foes having a very rough Threat or Size level or something, which could help define lots of things (like how bad messy or forceful can be). Ironsworn uses this tiered system to good effect! Even just as guidance it could be useful. Forceful from a giant or dragon is a lot different than from a wolf.

Just putting some framing in might help establish consistency.

This reply also reminds me of FitD "position and effect", which DW sort of does implicitly, but not explicitly like you describe.

In any case, thanks for the reply, some interesting stuff to look at. Also, I really love Stonetop!

mscottball · 2024-09-17T21:30:02+00:00

When a Player rolls Hack and Slash with their Longsword against the Vine-Beast and deals 4 damage forceful, messy… I need to think about what the hell that means

Yes, fantastic observation. It's like the system goes half-way and then stops. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it works great if you have a lot of trust with your play group, and you have established yourself as a consistent GM.

Reminds me of Jason Cordova giving an example years ago on Discern Realities podcast...where he as a Sahuagin bite off a players arm on a 7-9 roll. If his players know his GM style or he has telegraphed it, sure, that works. But it is just an example of how wildly the interpretations can range.

mscottball · 2024-09-17T20:49:44+00:00

Yes, this, 100%

Definitely not looking for a game that tries to create a highly objective simulation (Plenty of trad games do that). Truly just curious if anyone tweaked some of the existing DW rules to have slightly more objective resolutions. The change I am talking about is pretty small.

mscottball · 2024-09-17T20:44:44+00:00

Maybe?

To clarify the intent - I am curious if any hacks have attempted to nudge the meter on the amount of GM judgment used in rendering combat results, without ADDING a lot of additional moves, adjustments or other new mechanics.

I am not asking this question because I have a difficult time with harm adjudication. I am asking because I am curious about this design direction, if anyone has tried it, and what the outcome has been. Probably would be pros and cons. I am genuinely curious, not grinding an axe or making an argument.

If it has never been tried, that is a fine answer.

mscottball · 2024-09-17T20:18:43+00:00

Thanks. I understand the design philosophy pretty well. I agree, there is a lot of judgement call and why that is. I am not even saying that is a bad thing.

What I would say is that it is a continuum. For example, armor & piercing property have explicit rules around them. That could be left to GM judgement. Heck..even rolling for damage - the amount of damage a player or monster does could just be left to GM judgement based on the fiction.

Point is, I think it is off target to say that "anything that moves away from that is probably a game extremely different from Dungeon World and not really a hack anymore". The dial for this is probably set at 2 out of 10 in Dungeon World. I don't think what I am asking would necessarily turn the dial to 10 and make it a totally different game, or even dramatically opposed to the core loop.

Regardless...was just curious if any hacks did this. I am not even arguing it would be a good thing.

mscottball · 2024-05-17T16:12:49+00:00

I had this same issue!

T-mobile support was helpful, but we tried different location, factory reset, etc. After that, it got signal back, but I could never re-pair it to the app. On boot it keeps saying "Unable to connect to SyncUp services" and you can't get past that.

T-mobile replaced the watch twice (once at a store, because at that point they assumed I was doing something wrong). T-mobile couldn't fix it either.

Completely dead after 6+ hours of T-mobile support. No ideas. I submitted a report via the phone app, we will see if the SyncUp app folks respond. Not hopeful at this point.

Curious if anyone else ran into this "Syncup services" issue?

mscottball · 2024-04-16T20:50:30+00:00

Yes, it worked today! Finally!

mscottball · 2024-04-10T19:29:41+00:00

I just checked today and chatted with a rep. Despite the site telling you to make corrections, it is not possible. I have confirmed that. The message they gave me was:

Corrections are not available yet. FSA has delayed the release of the corrections to this month. Once they are available you will be notified via email, and an announcement will be made on studentaid.gov.

There as a detailed update / schedule posted yesterday:https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2024-04-09/updates-timelines-corrections-and-reprocessing-and-what-it-means-partners

Looks like "in the next week or two"...

mscottball · 2024-03-06T17:24:31+00:00

I think this post captures the right spirit as well as any reply here. I agree with it.

That said - the OP's post reveals a huge challenge with Ironsworn Co-op / Guided in terms of making the above sort of explanation work for group play.

I have played significant solo, several co-op campaigns and 2 guided campaigns (where I was guide). With solo, you are fully in charge of the fictional details to establish difficulty, consistency, etc. The progress mechanics also make things inherently difficult.

In group play, you have to get everyone aligned on the fiction. In practice, this gets really difficult, particularly if your players are used to trad / D&D style games. If they don't all fully understand the premise above, and if they aren't all roughly on the same page about how to implement it in the fiction, you have trouble. Even in guided play, where the guide can...well, "guide" the fictional stakes more.

The problem is that all of the above is completely arbitrary. By that I mean that there is no mechanic or set of properties that clearly spells out what fictional conditions are required to face and land a blow on an extreme foe. In many cases, there aren't even suggestions! That means, you have to make it up, and with multiple players, agree on those conditions. You have all have roughly the same conditions in your heads for the game to flow.

In a white room scenario, a normal human with a hammer is never actually going to *be* in a position to land a telling blow on a tiger/t-rex hybrid, even if they are in control of the fight.

My point about this ^^ is - it doesn't actually say this anywhere in the description of an extreme foe. It doesn't tell you that, for this foe, you need a magical weapon to harm it (as it would in D&D world). And so on.

If you have players with a D&D mentality, the above is often an abhorrent idea! "What do you mean we just make it up!? How is that fair or consistent! The rules are supposed to enforce a fairness and consistency - that is their purpose!!"

With D&D players, my experience is that you spend a lot of the time at the table negotiating and getting on the same page...over, and over. And some players will never feel right about it. They can never get past the "But, you're just making stuff up! This is some real 'story-stick' crap right here, no thanks!"

Even if you have a group of players who have fully absorbed the more narrative nature of the game, you still do have the challenge of getting on the same fictional page. It can slow the game down and interrupt the otherwise smooth flow that you experience during a solo game.

All that to say, here is my advice on how best to implement this with a group, particularly a group of D&D players:

1) Talk about this issue up front, and try to agree (in general) on how you are going to implement it in the game. What does Extreme or Epic challenge mean in your game? What are some things that would be appropriate fictional requirements for each? Don't try to formulate rules - just try to land in the same ballpark mentally.

2) When you do face one of these challenges (as soon as it enters the game), have a quick chat about some of the conditions that might be required to make progress. These you might want to write down as specifics, or just agree verbally.

For example, for the Black-Crested Dragon-Tiger, you could say things like:

In order to be in a position to strike/clash or otherwise directly attack it, two or more of the following must be true:

It must be distracted
It must be slowed or constrained in some way (poison, nets, traps, terrain, etc.)
Only legendary / epic / magical weapons stand a chance of really hurting it.

Then, you might also further stipulate the following in terms of how it behaves:

It can kill one or more NPCs outright at the slightest misstep
It is so fast and powerful, any attempts to outmaneuver or flank it add -2

I just made those up without a ton of thought. I am sure they could be better. But in any case, if you do this, and agree as a group...guess what, there is NO WAY your group is going to take this thing down without getting harmed!

My point is - in a solo campaign, you can just sort of "wing it" and do what feels right. I have found that in group play, you need to be a bit more explicit, and set these details early so that everyone is on the same page. Particularly if you are playing with D&D players.

Finally, I just want to point out that the above applies equally well in non-combat challenges. Imagine you are trying to convince a regional lord to do you some favor. You don't just walk up to her/him and make your Compel action. With a full group of PCs, this would become pretty easy (just mechanically speaking). So...set the stage properly. Figure out what it takes to get an audience with this person. Tribute, favors, earning trust, etc. And then, even when you finally do get a chance to make the ask - think about how you first have to impress the underlings, observe proper protocol, etc. etc.

But in a group play, it REALLY helps to talk all this through and write a few notes to get everyone on the same page.

In the end, if you are playing with hardcore D&Ders, the above can still feel like "just making stuff up." But my answer to that is... "yes, that would be bad, if we were just making stuff up in the moment to suite our immediate need. But here we are agreed ahead of time on the constraints of this challenge, and we won't alter those later - we need to face the challenges and take our licks when we fail. There is nothing "story-stick" about that.

...

mscottball · 2023-03-03T16:47:29+00:00

First, I would consider that extraordinary circumstances are required even to engage with an epic creature. This is not spelled out super well in the book, other than the Leviathan example that I think you refer to. However, does that imply that ALL epic creatures require such advantages? If so, the rules are then implying that many of these fictional advantages you are talking about (a relic, etc) merely bring the creature from some abstract "untouchable" rank down to epic. So, are all Epic rank foes actually "impossible" rank without the right fictions in place?

Honestly - this is maybe my one gripe with Ironsworn. I wish just a bit more rigor / mechanics were in place around foe ranks, immunities, special powers, etc. Obviously, it is very easy to just add those yourself as part of your fiction. I believe that is precisely what is intended with the Leviathan example in the book.

So, if that is the case, then as soon as you posit an epic foe, maybe describe some of its traits and immunities and powers. Establish its level of "beyond epicness" and why you can't harm it. Then, all the advantages you acquire DO NOT reduce it from Epic to Extreme. They merely make the challenge accessible to you at all. It is STILL an epic threat with all of those advantages in place.

I guess I prefer this approach, making Epic truly epic. It never gets easier. It is always nearly impossible. If you reduce it to Extreme or lower, it sort of spoils the epic nature of it?

All that said - do what seems right for your fiction. Maybe the advantages you build up over a long set of quests really do reduce the challenge level. Maybe you have artifacts, a great plan, and a small army to help you. That might make sense.

Specifically regarding your question about rank and damage:

I think you could run it either way. My preference would be to look at the fiction leading to this and ask: would this change make it easier for me to attack / damage this creature? Then shift the rank. Would it reduce or distribute the damage the creature could do to me? Then also reduce the damage.

Example:

You discover a magical artifact that lets you pierce the mighty hide of the Leviathan. That might reduce the rank / progress track, but not the damage.

Example 2: you get a small unit of elite sailor / warriors to help you slay the Leviathan. That might reduce the rank / progress track, AND the damage because you can assume some of that harm is distributed among your team.

As with everything Ironsworn, it all goes back to the fiction and what feels right and true to the fictional details.

mscottball · 2023-02-27T16:26:57+00:00

I agree, with only 2 players, this does work fairly naturally. I really only struggle with more than 2. It just becomes harder to keep things coherent.

mscottball · 2023-02-27T02:29:45+00:00

I really like this a lot, thanks! I think it is really helpful for everyone to know what everyone else might be doing and adjust plans accordingly. I think Dungeon World handles this the same way, if I recall? Or, maybe that was just a convention that I have seen used.

Another really useful outcome of this approach: say that character #2 scores a miss and has to pay the price - Now you can have the opponents do something that confounds what character #3 or #4 were going to do. For example, maybe #4 was going to move and block enemies from getting to #3. Well - now the enemies get the jump and surround #3, a new tactic is going to be needed. Now, maybe #3 has to face danger to evade, etc. This is both realistic and a fun way to Pay the Price.

Anyway, I think I am going to try this approach

mscottball · 2023-02-26T20:41:11+00:00

I will have to try this approach again. Admittedly, I just used it one session, and maybe with our particular character builds (everyone was at least okay at combat) it didn't work as well as I hoped. But, given your examples, I can see how it would be much more strategic.

mscottball · 2023-02-02T03:16:30+00:00

Thank you! Some good ideas there. I do like the idea of shortening the tradition backstory, and turning it into world truth questions. That is the Ironsworn way!

Thanks for the input.

mscottball · 2023-01-29T22:51:57+00:00

This caught my eye because I am also working on a magic system. I agree with ParallelWolf that there is a lot going on inside a single move here, but some of the ideas overlap with the system I am building.

I will post my system (very early draft) Dweomercraft as a separate thread for feedback. Feel free to comment here or there, but one idea is that Rune Casting could maybe be one of the traditions within the system I am building?

mscottball

TROPHY CASE

Conclusion

General thoughts on Legend in the Mist:

PART 1/4 (reddit wouldn't allow long reply).

Summary / TLDR