[Focus Topic] School Abilities (Week 8)

[[Focus Topic] School Abilities (Week 8)]

Per scene bushi abilities like Shiba end up feeling way less awesome then constantly useful ones like Akodo or Mirumoto. If it's going to be once a scene it needs to be amazing.

[Are you enjoying this game?]

18 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

If you can be bothered to actually broaden your sample to account for all of the posters, both active and inactive, in this sub-forum, then perhaps your snide little observation might be worth a ****.  Of course, that by its nature excludes those beta playtesters who don't bother posting to these boards (not that I can really fault them given how toxic this place can get), so again you're left with a very biased sample.

The irony, it burns.

[Are you enjoying this game?]

I'm still trying to grit my teeth and find the good parts, and see if I can get improvements to smaller things I don't like even if I won't change the core problems since I'm likely to have to play in this system regardless of my preference for it. As it stands for anything of my own preference it's easier to just port over the improvements I like from this edition to 4th ed.

[Week 6 Content Update and Survey Link]

15 hours ago, Doji Meshou said:

The name "Mirumoto Two-Swords School" is really bad.

I know what insult I'm using for dragon for the rest of time.

[[Focus Topic] Intrigue and Duels (Week 6)]

4 hours ago, Doji Meshou said:

I like this way -- that blends mechanics and player thought -- better than a purely mechanical system. It feels more engaging to me.

Yeah, I just don't like forcing people out of sections of systems if they're not themselves skilled at something.  The character is the one who's good at the task, punishing duelists who don't like guessing games seems punitive. At least for me the engagement was always the fact that my characters reputation, honor, and often life were on the line. I've never once had a problem of not being engaged in a duel.

[[Focus Topic] Intrigue and Duels (Week 6)]

2 hours ago, Exarkfr said:

- Duels : the "Center until someone has too much Strife" game is no fun. But going "Strike, strike, strike" doesn't look better.

Duelling should be a nerve game for the characters, not for the players. They should involve the characters' skills, not the player's skill to bid right during staredown and guess the other player's Ring.

This has kind of been my experience. I want my characters skill at dueling to be more important and not my abilities at playing paper rock scissors.

[School Techs; The fundamental issue of timing balance]

Current akodo tech does certainly feel like matsu bushi more than akodo, but it's not like akodo weren't murder machines in their own right. The school title makes it feel like an advanced school from past editions.

[How much am I really expected to memorize?]

16 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

That’s not a matter of having a gazillion different mechanical options to memorize though. Also, how much do you really need to know about these? Minions are simplified and weak NPCs, Adversaries are NPCs with mostly the same kind of workup as PCs. That’s really all my players would need to know about them.

I mean, you need to know everything that's reasonable or you're going to make poor choices. Not understanding the different weighting of criticals on minions vs adversaries or understanding that you don't need to counter play minion stance opportunities will cause problems. I didn't say it was a gazillion rules, but every additional exception and every type that doesn't play by the rules adds to the overhead.

[How much am I really expected to memorize?]

3 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

It is a bit complex for my tastes too, yes. That said, this is mostly so for the GM. Combat can be convoluted for the players too, but assuming they are familiar with their own character and the Strife system it’s not too bad. The other stuff is mainly complicated if the players are trying to game the system and/or make decisions “by committee”. Just tell the GM what your character is going to do and let the GM translate that to mechanics. I really advise GMs to have exhaustive cheat sheets to consult while running a game in this edition though.

My character can't make reasonable decisions if he doesn't understand his opponents, which means knowing minion, adversary, and other rules.

[Keeping dice before exploding]

5 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I don't see a reason why you can't batch-roll all the explodes in a single check at once. 

I believe he was talking about in the context of my proposal to roll them out before selecting kept dice. In which case you'd need to track the die 'path' through each explosion. The complexity of doing that is a reasonable if personally unfulfilling argument to not let explosions resolve before deciding to keep dice.

[Minimum TN]

4 hours ago, WHW said:

Page 13 has a sidebar about TN0.

Short answer is: TN cannot be reduced to 0. If a roll had a TN of at least 1, it will never be reduced to 0. It something has TN of 0, it's not worth rolling for.

Most things agree with that, other then some weirdness in the GM approach difficulty section "the GM should reduce the TN by 1–3 (to a minimum of 0)" which I assume just means if they pick a super relevant approach they don't roll anymore?

[Week 6 Updates]

Ah well Shiba, maybe next edition.

[New Air Stance is busted]

2 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

They do because you build the opposing samurai with the npc adversery rules. The game does not intend that you build opponents with player rules thats clear as day if you look at what players can do. It also is clearly not a pvp focused system as all the rules want you to build
npcs/opponent with different rules than you build PCs with.
This is not a PVP system and therefore it is not balanced arround it.
I agree that this is not the best way to go for a game like L5r but thats what they want to do with it.

Fair, let me re-state. I don't like the direction it's going with minions, adversaries, and other minutia. I like when everything follows the same set of rules and consistency is maintained. I don't want everyone to have to know 3-4 different sets of rules to play the game and to have to inform my players what 'type' of enemy they're competing against each time. It seems like a large portion of the rules are built around it so it's unlikely to change, but it's not something I'm a fan of.

[New Air Stance is busted]

9 minutes ago, Teveshszat said:

The question is : What is the intended play style of the game. And the answer here is clearly not PVP.
The result is that the design team does not balance the abilities arround the idea of PVP. 

I'm going to have to disagree, having your opponent as a samurai is super common in my experience. The core mechanics for samurai vs samurai combat need to work properly and having a second hand waved set of rules for 'non PC samurai' is super underwhelming.

[Keeping dice before exploding]

10 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

No, it is unusual. Getting a critical strike on a keep 3 roll when not using a technique such as Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade is a lucky occurrence and something players should not expect as normal.

What? Out of character gen bushi can crit on strike almost a third of the time and after a few sessions can crit more often than not.

Quote

Both rolls are stupidly lucky and don't factor in how many of Explosions each roll also has a Strife on it (most of them will). The "lucky" 5 explosions is actually more likely to have 1 or more explosions without strife. The person who rolls 3 Skill and 2 Ring and gets 5 Explosions + Strife should be considered both lucky and unlucky.

I mean even on 4 dice rolled in a quiet session (10 total rolls) will see two explosions, and 3 or more every other session. They're not super common but it's not like the 4+ explosions on the same die for d10 rare. Strife has yet to be an issue in any combat I've run, having my choice of an explosion without strife doesn't really feel lucky.

Quote

Would you keep an Explosion+Strife over a Success w/o Strife if you knew it would explode into a Blank?

Would you keep an Explosion w/o Strife Skill die over a Success+Opportunity Skill die if you knew it would explode into a Blank or Success+Strife?

Explosions are supposed to be semi-risks not sure things.

That's my point, that slows down the game and isn't interesting to me. I've already gambled by deciding my action for that round, I don't want a second round of gambling on potential outcomes. I want to play faster and have rare results that are far down the bell curve that no sane person would gamble on because the EV just isn't there.

 

 

[Keeping dice before exploding]

35 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

Considering that getting 2 successes and 2 opportunities with 3 kept dice without explosions requires keeping a skill die with a success+opportunity roll (a 1/12 chance per skill die) your 2 successes + 2 opportunities plan with 3 kept dice was a long shot all along.

A "normal" successful Strike roll was going to be 2 successes + an opportunity/bonus success. The smart thing to do when you rolled 2 explosions and 2 opportunities is to keep both explosions and roll them hoping for the 33% chance of getting an opportunity on each for a 55% chance of a crit.

No one said it wasn't a long shot? I don't think trying to get criticals with a 3 ring is exactly unusual in this system as written though.

Keeping both explosions and one opportunity is better odds if the exploding die is a ring die, with a skill die keeping one explosion is more likely to succeed. I assumed at least one skill explosion was more common than two ring explosions. But again, a single random example is less useful then the holistic look at how it feels to pick exploding die before they are fully resolved. Let's say someone rolls phenomenally well, and gets 5 explosive successes, while their buddy gets only two. If they are both keeping two dice there's no benefit to your amazingly lucky roll compared to your buddies average roll, you both end up keeping two die with identical odds.

Can someone put forth an argument for why having to pick die before they've exploded is better that isn't "That's what the system is now."?

 

[Week 6 Updates]

RIP Akodo, gonna be hard to live without that level of awesome. Hopefully Shiba bushi gets replaced with something worth even considering playing one.

[Keeping dice before exploding]

Because keeping the explosion isn't always the most reliable way to reach your goal.

Let's say I'm hitting Hida Yoshi with a strike and I need to crit to win.  I roll 2 opportunities, 2 explosions and I'm keeping 3 die. It's not optimal for my chances of that to pick two explosions, I want to keep two opportunities and one explosion hoping for another success on it. But what if a super lucky attack with 3 bonuses successes also would have worked? Now I'm stuck trying to do the mental math on whether it's better to keep both explosions hoping for that outcome or continue with my original path of just trying to opportunity a crit.

The point of this die system was supposed to be adding in more narrative control over the outcome of a roll, yet blind explosions limit our number of outcomes and control while pushing people away from some of the most interesting results which are exceptional successes.

[Keeping dice before exploding]

Can we talk about the fact that you pick dice to keep before exploding them? It's been really bugging me that not only does this slow down roll resolution by adding a whole second level of mental odds balancing and gambling, but it always ends up feeling super negative that I miss out on occasional super lucky rolls because I'm never going to take that one in a hundred shot at which dice to keep when the safer option more reliably gets me to just where I want to be.

 

It's like if in the old RNK system you could instead of rolling the exploding die just assume it rolls a five. You have to stop and do mental math, and figure out if 5 is enough to hit, and if it is you always take it, but you miss out on all of those situations where suddenly you explode that one die two or three more times more and what was a barely successful event becomes something awesome.

[Ran beta. It didn't go well.]

56 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

1. Step 2.3 of making a check says the GM identifies the approach (singular).

[snip]

So.... why shouldn't they? What's the actual problem with characters rolling their highest ring most of the time?

Again, 2.3 says you pick the singular approach based on their description of what and how they want to do, which means it was a multiple approach roll, and you+they are picking the final ring they are using. " Then, the GM selects which of the five elemental approaches corresponds to the methods the player described. " The GM is literally picking which of the five rings match which means it was a multi approach roll and that's the default status. There are only 5 instances in the entire adventure that don't allow any ring and two of those are optional side notes when dealing with the mass encounter.
 

At least for me, the problem is it kills the systems core principle of rewarding well rounded characters. A 4/4/1/1/1 character is much better off as far as making rolls goes than a 3/2/2/2/2. I like that if I have a weakness as a character it comes up and hinders me in game play. I don't want to be great at everything because then there's not time for my other players to shine. This ties into my other grief at the rank advancement tables where you're now punished in advancement for deviating from the norm and further rewarded for over specialization.

[Ran beta. It didn't go well.]

22 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

So, yes, the GM is looking for keywords about how the player wants to go about doing something. But the player is also responsible for describing an outcome, and not all outcomes are compatible with all approaches.

For example, let's say a character wants to forge a brand new katana:

 

But see that's my  point, you went with an artisan skill which is one of the few where the approaches and outcomes are even close to limiting, and even then it's minimal at best. The player in your example just grabs a broken katana instead of the finest steel and uses earth. Or if they're a water ring they start with a nodachi, or air a serviceable but unimpressive blade. Everyone gets to the same end but just uses whatever ring they want. The other skill groups are even more flexible (with the same normal void isn't a real ring restrictions). Martial? Take you pick, Scholar, take your pick (or even void), social same as scholar, trade skill, anything but void again. 

Lets look at a section from the ronins path again.

Quote

The characters can investigate, asking after for the missing soldiers with a TN 3 Courtesy (Earth 2, Fire 4) check or simply looking around the place with a TN 2 Survival (Fire 1, Air 4) check.

As written you can ask about missing soldiers by enlightening someone about a fundamental truth of your need to know about missing soldiers and it's only TN3, or for some reason you're allowed to con mother nature into revealing the soldiers to you? Or you can merely exist in your environment and the soldiers will appear (as long as you roll well enough).

As it stands the times  when players won't just be rolling at their max ring is vanishingly small.

[Ran beta. It didn't go well.]

On 11/2/2017 at 3:40 AM, sidescroller said:

1. Can't help Whiny Player Syndrome  I mean, wouldn't calling for a different trait in an old edition provoke a similar reaction in such players? "What? Kenjutsu/Perception to recognize his sword style? But I'm such a great swordsman I should just knowwwwww!! Kenjutsu is an Agility skiiiiiiiiiiillllll!!! Why not intelligence? My fire ring is so hiiiiiiiiiiiigh!!!" Or god forbid you asked for any other trait on investigation besides perception 
2. I found the opposite to be true. It took my group quite awhile to decide--outside of pre-ordained skill+trait pairings--when to use perception vs. awareness, agility vs. reflexes, etc. There's a fair amount of redundancy among the 8 basic traits, which always struck me as gamist symmetry. (Hold your horses, folks! Didn't say gamist symmetry is bad )
3. This hasn't been an issue for my group. According to Step 2.3 of making a check. the GM identifies the appropriate approach. Singular. Sometimes multiple approaches are viable. (I've definitely said "no".)  If their justification is a flimsy cover for power gaming, no need to indulge them. If, instead, their description enhances the game--awesome! Go for it. Maybe with an adjusted TN. Maybe not.

I've never seen a player complain about requesting a swapped ring that wasn't reasonable. However for your example int/kenj makes more sense unless you're particularly far away or the swordsman in question is trying to conceal his techniques in which case perception makes more sense. Awareness/investigation is super common.

As for point three, I believe you're reading it wrong. The quoted section has the player describing their approach, and the GM identifying which element their phrasing matches. That's the reason the singular phrase 'approach is used.' If someone says "I climb the wall slowly and carefully, making sure each handhold is secure before moving on." You tell them what approach that is, singular. You don't say "Well you can use fire, or earth, or water for climbing this wall, but void and air are right out" which is what you seem to think is going on. It's not saying as a GM you pick the only acceptable ring. All of the examples in the book there are no blocked rings, only a favored ring which is slightly easier and one opposed ring which is slightly harder, but never a reason to not just use your highest ring.

[Jade Strike]

7 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

How did the criticals do nothing? At worst they'll damage (and then destroy) his armour.

They gave the fire based monster disoriented, so it just continued smashing people and didn't use it's aoe fireball in return for an aoe daze+damage at melee.

[Rules system question]

50 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

I quite like the system in star wars...  for star wars and other super-swingy settings. L5R should be more predictable.

I just wrapped up a campaign in FFG's star wars, and man even at the end as a highly skilled character against storm trooper grunts it still just felt like flipping a coin for results most of the time. I love in L5R knowing exactly how competent my character is.

[Ran beta. It didn't go well.]

I mean you're discussing spotting the box, which is right next to 6 different skill checks, every single one of them that works with any ring the players want by the example, and the only difference is a poor ring is a little harder. There's no reason listed to not always use your highest ring in the room, and as long as one person used water the box is probably found (I mean assuming the person doesn't decide to remove strife from themselves or someone else) which raises the question of how do you know there's something useful to spend water on? If the GM tells you ahead of time then someone can make sure to cover the base.