My private suspicion is Juyo goes to Warrior and one of the Signature Abilities is Vaapad. That gives it a lot of power but puts it out of reach for quite a while.
 
 
I really like that idea...  It would be interesting if even just someone on the forums posted a few things on how they would build various traditions. Maybe if I find some free time...

Honestly, I don't think you can balance one for a player, even if Durge is considered an extreme example with high XP.
 
If I wanted to sick a Gen'Dai on my players however, perhaps as a major solo boss, I'd just say that he doesn't pass out upon exceeding his Wound Threshold, and let him try one Resilience check per round to remove a single critical injury, including The End Is Nigh, but not Death. Any damage that he sustains above and beyond his threshold still translates into another critical, so it's an epic climax as the players get a major critical fest, trying to land a 151+ to genuinely finish him. Give him high soak and a natural -30 modifier to any critical rolls he takes, and you've got a heck of a combat tank that will give the party a lot of grief.
 
The players start inflicting 2 or 3 new critical injuries per round once they've got enough wounds on him, and he makes Resilience checks to deal with the worst. Narratively, he's regenerating almost as fast as they can blast / slice him apart.

What if crossing certain Morality thresholds triggered big narrative moments automatically? Like you talk with the player and establish what those moments look like generally, and how they relate to your emotional strength / weakness. Thresholds could be say, 30, 50, and 70. Morality stops when it would cross a threshold. So if it's at 54, and a player would lower it by 6, it drops only to 50, and triggers for the next session. When it triggers, the session has a distinct moment, and their choice in that moment moves them up or down 5 points of Morality, in addition to regular conflict for the session. It's more drastic.
 
But suppose you have a character with Ambition / Greed, who starts at 69. When, in the course of a regular session, he drops to 50, it shows that he has been falling away from the Light. The GM and the player have discussed this, and the character really, really wants to be a Jedi of old, as wise as master Yoda and powerful as master Windu. In the next session then, the GM puts the group in a Dark Side vergence, where the party is facing tough foes, and gaining extra Dark Side pips is very easy, and could make a character much more powerful. The character must then choose if his ambition of being a powerful Jedi is so great that he allows himself a simple lust for power (greed). He chooses to give in to the Dark Side, and his Morality immediately drops to 45, plus Morality is modified normally after the session ends.
 
Later, he hits 30, the threshold in total darkness. An Inquisitor attacks as the group is on a mission to an old Sith Temple, and destroys their holocron, robing their chance to become Jedi (at least in the character's mind). The party fends of the Inquisitor, and complete their quest, but come away with something truly dangerous: a Sith Holocron. The gatekeeper is a fallen Jedi, and offers to teach the character. Now the player can plunge down to 25 and choose the Dark Side and his greed for power, or refuse, jumping back up to 35. Before he can manage to become a Light Side Paragon, he'll have to face another moment at 50, and a big choice at 70.

Personally, I like it, but haven't tried it it much, and if it rubbed me wrong, I'd probably throw it out and let a player decide if they fall to the Dark Side or not, or have some big skill challenge dictate it.
 
As an alternative, Desslok, one theory I had prior to F&D being released was that Destiny would be the narrative mechanic... Your destiny is some big thing that is in your future, and it is measured for the group, just like Obligation or Duty. When rolled on the chart, you're getting closer to your destiny, slowly, inexorably. Doubles means is a bigger step towards it. It increases whenever it is rolled, with additional bonuses if you work towards it specifically.
 
When group Destiny exceeds 100, whoever has the highest, well, their destiny is coming, whether they're ready for it or not, and they gotta hope so. Then their Destiny resets to the base value and they get a new one.
 
For example, the Heroes of Yavin are the PCs, and Luke's Destiny is "Heir to the Jedi Order", or what have you. It's increasing as Obi-Wan trains him, but sits dormant for a while after Vader puts him down. Then on Hoth, it's rolled, and Ben appears as a ghost, telling him to go to Dagobah. With Yoda's training, it keeps increasing, and by the next adventure, it's rolled, but it's doubles. Now Luke has to face Vader. When, at long last, group Destiny hits 100, he must confront Vader again to become a Jedi Knight.
 
Is it elegant? Nope. But it's an idea. Maybe you could have a Light and Dark Side to your Destiny (Revan's is "Savior" / "Conqueror"), and when Destiny exceeds 100, you'll be forced into one or the other in the coming session.

I think the real issue of emotional strengths / weaknesses isn't "It's a narrative dead fish" - it's a lack of player buy in and actual roleplay. People don't want to do something reckless because it's dangerous and the player thinks about it when his character wouldn't.
 
But incentivizing playing a character with flaws is tough... FATE had a system where the GM or another player could grab a Fate Point token (more powerful than just a Destiny Point in this game) and offer it to a player and say, "I think your character's aspect X means he'd do this." And if the compelled player did it, he got to keep the Fate Point. It gave you incentive to make aspects that were two-edged swords to get you points and let you use the points well. "Brash as he is brave" would not only net you Fate Points from compels because people loved to get you in trouble over it, but is also a great aspect to spend a Fate Point triggering for bonuses on something bravery-related.
 
So how can players who don't actually get into roleplaying the character be given incentive to make poor choices that fit their character? I could probably think up a few ideas... I already offer players up to 3 bonus XP for cool / dramatic narration. Most of the players walk away with all +3 XP, but they still look for opportunities to be creative, especially around Triumph and Despair. So why not offer a similar bonus for playing their emotional weakness well, and it a way that actually hinders them? I.E. Negative dice. It's like motivation, but nasty.
 
For example, the players are landing their ship in an enemy occupied hangar, and might clear out the stormtroopers with the gun turrets before landing. The pilot is Brave / Reckless, so he reaches across the table and grabs a Challenge die. "We're going in full throttle, guns blazing. None of this cautious stuff." The GM nods, grinning. "That's worth a couple bonus XP." The pilot then rolls his Piloting check with the added Challenge die, trying to spin the freighter and flare the sublights, knocking down the troopers in the process.
 
Obviously, cap the amount of XP you can get from it, and give the GM veto power - that way a player can't just get extra XP for negotiating... er... recklessly? It has to be a dramatic moment. And of course this opens the door to players who just want to get their quota of bad choices in and try to minimize the damage they might deal... Maybe, however, to eliminate that, you say that the player can't ask if something will give his character extra XP - it has to be the GM or a fellow player that says, "Hey you should make this bad decision because it'd be awesome and horrible."
 
EDIT: I'm by no means saying a GM should have to dangle cookies in front of his players like this to get them to play a freaking role. He shouldn't. But if it gets the table involved...

I think the real issue of emotional strengths / weaknesses isn't "It's a narrative dead fish" - it's a lack of player buy in and actual roleplay. People don't want to do something reckless because it's dangerous and the player thinks about it when his character wouldn't.
 
But incentivizing playing a character with flaws is tough... FATE had a system where the GM or another player could grab a Fate Point token (more powerful than just a Destiny Point in this game) and offer it to a player and say, "I think your character's aspect X means he'd do this." And if the compelled player did it, he got to keep the Fate Point. It gave you incentive to make aspects that were two-edged swords to get you points and let you use the points well. "Brash as he is brave" would not only net you Fate Points from compels because people loved to get you in trouble over it, but is also a great aspect to spend a Fate Point triggering for bonuses on something bravery-related.
 
So how can players who don't actually get into roleplaying the character be given incentive to make poor choices that fit their character? I could probably think up a few ideas... I already offer players up to 3 bonus XP for cool / dramatic narration. Most of the players walk away with all +3 XP, but they still look for opportunities to be creative, especially around Triumph and Despair. So why not offer a similar bonus for playing their emotional weakness well, and it a way that actually hinders them? I.E. Negative dice. It's like motivation, but nasty.
 
For example, the players are landing their ship in an enemy occupied hangar, and might clear out the stormtroopers with the gun turrets before landing. The pilot is Brave / Reckless, so he reaches across the table and grabs a Challenge die. "We're going in full throttle, guns blazing. None of this cautious stuff." The GM nods, grinning. "That's worth a couple bonus XP." The pilot then rolls his Piloting check with the added Challenge die, trying to spin the freighter and flare the sublights, knocking down the troopers in the process.
 
Obviously, cap the amount of XP you can get from it, and give the GM veto power - that way a player can't just get extra XP for negotiating... er... recklessly? It has to be a dramatic moment. And of course this opens the door to players who just want to get their quota of bad choices in and try to minimize the damage they might deal... Maybe, however, to eliminate that, you say that the player can't ask if something will give his character extra XP - it has to be the GM or a fellow player that says, "Hey you should make this bad decision because it'd be awesome and horrible."
 
EDIT: I'm by no means saying a GM should have to dangle cookies in front of his players like this to get them to play a freaking role. He shouldn't. But if it gets the table involved...

I loved Mouse Guard. I was thrilled at the idea of a Mouse Guard RPG. Then Burning Wheel happened to it... and Burning Wheel is not something that I enjoy. So I had a thought. Why not strip down Edge of the Empire to have a simple little narrative Mouse Guard RPG? I jotted the following down quickly, and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the matter.
 

 
Resolution
Rolls are resolved as usual for Edge of the Empire. You roll your mixed pool, note success or failure, and spend advantage, threat, triumph, and despair.
 
Characteristics
Characteristics are as follows:
--Health is a measure of physical power, endurance, coordination, etc. It adds to your Wound Threshold.
--Will is a measure of mental acuity, attention to detail, focus, etc. It adds to your Strain Threshold.
--Nature is simply put, what comes naturally to a creature. It describes various actions that are within a creature's nature. Such as a mouse having Nature (Escaping, Climbing, Hiding, Foraging) 3.
 
Taxing Characteristics
On any check, you may take 2 strain to tax the used characteristic, upgrading your check. However, for the remainder of the encounter, you take a Setback die on all checks using that characteristic to represent fatigue, and you may not tax the same characteristic again this encounter. If you tax Nature, it gives you 2 upgrades. You may tax Nature on a check that is not related to your Nature, but this costs 4 strain and gives you a Setback on all checks for the remainder of the encounter.
 
Skills
Skills are as follows: Athlete, Deceiver, Fighter, Haggler, Healer, Instructor, Leader, Loremouse*, Militarist, Orator, Pathfinder, Persuader, Scout, Survivalist, Tradesmouse**, Weather Watcher
* Gain two Wises per rank ** Gain two ranks in one or more trades per rank in Tradesmouse: Administrator, Apiarist, Archivist, Armorer, Baker, Boatcrafter, Brewer, Carpenter, Cartographer, Cook, Glazier, Harvester, Insectrist, Laborer, Miller, Potter, Scientist, Smith, Stonemason, Weaver   Wises Wises are specialized areas of knowledge that you have, and can encompass just about anything, such as Riverwise, Chipmunkwise, Autumnwise, etc. If you have a wise that is applicable to a check you are making, you may give yourself a Boost. Additionally, you may take 1 strain as an action to give a Boost to another character who is making a test where your wise might apply.   Traits Traits are prose descriptions of a character, such as Sharp-Eyed, Born in Barkstone, Fiery Spirit, etc. If you have a trait that is applicable to a check you are making, you may give yourself a Boost.   Conditions Conditions are prose descriptions of negative conditions affecting a character, such as Twisted Paw, Head Ringer, Distracted, or just plain Tired. Conditions are marked as Minor or Major conditions. A minor condition gives you a Setback on any checks that it would interfere with. A major condition upgrades the difficulty of any checks that it would interfere with. You take a minor condition when you exceed half of your Wound or Strain Threshold, and take a major condition if you exceed either threshold. The condition should be appropriate to the effect that caused it. Conditions can also be taken as a result of receiving a critical hit. Conditions can be removed during a Healer check, or via another appropriate check for less physical conditions.   ---------   So, thoughts on the idea? Mouse Guard is a very simple setting, so it's not some vast effort to convert it to a system that you like. Weapons, other creatures, revising critical hits (a d10 chart, perhaps?) and character creation would really be the only things that I would need to do to complete it.   EDIT: Will, not Mind... Silly me.

Definitely behind kkuja on this one. Blades in the Dark is a fantastic heist game that boils heist planning down into a super simple question and answer:
What is the first critical part of the heist? This varies by heist a lot, but if you have a 2-3 step plan provide by the players, it's enough to go with. In the original Mission Impossible, the first important point is when they enter CIA Headquarters in disguise. The next is likely drugging a poor sap who will get in their way. Last is the actual infiltration of the room.
Just have players grab some gear, and then roll some skill to see how things are going at the point when the action picks up. This could be good or bad. Then from there on out, if they need to cover a bit of planning (acquiring a critical piece of gear they didn't have) then they flip a DP, narrate a bit, then roll dice to do the thing. If they fail, it costs them two DP to have accomplished the thing, or they accept the failure and narrate why it suddenly doesn't work during the actual heist or some other complication. EXAMPLE: Say they need to have drugged a guy to make him sick and get out of the way. They flip a DP to have the drug, and roll for acquisition. They fail. Now they can choose between flipping another DP to force a success or narrate how say, they got the drug but it doesn't affect Rodians (oops), or it works but they had to promise the dealer a cut of the score and that will come back to bite them.
The reasons this model works so well are that it plays out like heist films (non-linear structure), and avoids the marathon 6-hour planning session that is plagued by analysis paralysis.
An one other pro tip from a long time GM: Failing a Stealth check doesn't mean you were caught with your pants down - it probably means you didn't make any progress towards your objective. A 3 Threat might mean someone is coming to investigate a noise (do something risky, quick!), and Despair is actually being spotted quite clearly, but don't ever hinge the whole heist on one flubbed roll.

Definitely behind kkuja on this one. Blades in the Dark is a fantastic heist game that boils heist planning down into a super simple question and answer:
What is the first critical part of the heist? This varies by heist a lot, but if you have a 2-3 step plan provide by the players, it's enough to go with. In the original Mission Impossible, the first important point is when they enter CIA Headquarters in disguise. The next is likely drugging a poor sap who will get in their way. Last is the actual infiltration of the room.
Just have players grab some gear, and then roll some skill to see how things are going at the point when the action picks up. This could be good or bad. Then from there on out, if they need to cover a bit of planning (acquiring a critical piece of gear they didn't have) then they flip a DP, narrate a bit, then roll dice to do the thing. If they fail, it costs them two DP to have accomplished the thing, or they accept the failure and narrate why it suddenly doesn't work during the actual heist or some other complication. EXAMPLE: Say they need to have drugged a guy to make him sick and get out of the way. They flip a DP to have the drug, and roll for acquisition. They fail. Now they can choose between flipping another DP to force a success or narrate how say, they got the drug but it doesn't affect Rodians (oops), or it works but they had to promise the dealer a cut of the score and that will come back to bite them.
The reasons this model works so well are that it plays out like heist films (non-linear structure), and avoids the marathon 6-hour planning session that is plagued by analysis paralysis.
An one other pro tip from a long time GM: Failing a Stealth check doesn't mean you were caught with your pants down - it probably means you didn't make any progress towards your objective. A 3 Threat might mean someone is coming to investigate a noise (do something risky, quick!), and Despair is actually being spotted quite clearly, but don't ever hinge the whole heist on one flubbed roll.

Deathwatch - the 40k Space Marine RPG - had a similar mechanic; when burning your last "I'm not really dead, honest" fate point, you could instead accept that you were dead, but just not yet - and for a period of time you got immunity to any critical result which didn't explicitely remove the limb, a fate point a turn, immunity to most fear/pinning/psych effects and a few other benefits I forget.
To an extent, the Hida Defender already has this - being able to ignore being dead for as long as his void points hold out - but a properly ruled, school/clan independent 'heroic sacrifice' mechanic makes sense.
Atomaki's Death Before Dishonour rule is very characterful and very simple, and hence I approve; you get one task which can broadly be defined by a single check, and you automatically pass but are killed in the process.
If the level of success matters, I'd use something like your honour or glory ranks, or the sum thereof: so the Oni Lord above would take an irreducable critical of about severity 8 - assuming rank 4 or thereabouts in each, or you'd do 8 casualties and panic to the enemy cohort (coincidentally enough to singlehandedly complete a 'storm a position' objective).
 
 

A big thing to consider here is that adjusting the text can lead to rules shifting pages, especially where large cuts or additions (like reworking Strife / Unmasking) are concerned, and now every single rules reference page number has to be re-evaluated, or the document will get harder to navigate.
Personally, if the I was on a team that was trying to handle art, design final PDF layouts, mod rules, scour the forums / feedback, and write fluff text, then making the free beta PDF nice would be the least of my worries.

About turning the pdf into an editable document, don't worry about that guys, I'm already on it  !

This had more to do with the licensing then anything else.
The star wars license has not been updates in years and lumps PDF into the game software category.
Due to this FFG does not have the licence to produce PDF of their products.
So to beta test the star wars game they had to print the books leading to cost that had to be recouped.

A big thing to consider here is that adjusting the text can lead to rules shifting pages, especially where large cuts or additions (like reworking Strife / Unmasking) are concerned, and now every single rules reference page number has to be re-evaluated, or the document will get harder to navigate.
Personally, if the I was on a team that was trying to handle art, design final PDF layouts, mod rules, scour the forums / feedback, and write fluff text, then making the free beta PDF nice would be the least of my worries.

Fair enough. I'm not defending the PDFs by any means - just trying to be positive.

A big thing to consider here is that adjusting the text can lead to rules shifting pages, especially where large cuts or additions (like reworking Strife / Unmasking) are concerned, and now every single rules reference page number has to be re-evaluated, or the document will get harder to navigate.
Personally, if the I was on a team that was trying to handle art, design final PDF layouts, mod rules, scour the forums / feedback, and write fluff text, then making the free beta PDF nice would be the least of my worries.

I've not had many issues thanks to the linked Table of Contents at the start of the book.
Also, if it's so bad it need major layout changes, I'm sure the layout people are working hard on that, rather than working on merging rule changes into a crappy old version of the pdf that they're not intending to use.
EDIT: I would also note that the Star Wars beta was a paid beta, so even if the PDF is a little crappy, be happy it's free to participate in the beta.

A big thing to consider here is that adjusting the text can lead to rules shifting pages, especially where large cuts or additions (like reworking Strife / Unmasking) are concerned, and now every single rules reference page number has to be re-evaluated, or the document will get harder to navigate.
Personally, if the I was on a team that was trying to handle art, design final PDF layouts, mod rules, scour the forums / feedback, and write fluff text, then making the free beta PDF nice would be the least of my worries.

I've not had many issues thanks to the linked Table of Contents at the start of the book.
Also, if it's so bad it need major layout changes, I'm sure the layout people are working hard on that, rather than working on merging rule changes into a crappy old version of the pdf that they're not intending to use.
EDIT: I would also note that the Star Wars beta was a paid beta, so even if the PDF is a little crappy, be happy it's free to participate in the beta.

A big thing to consider here is that adjusting the text can lead to rules shifting pages, especially where large cuts or additions (like reworking Strife / Unmasking) are concerned, and now every single rules reference page number has to be re-evaluated, or the document will get harder to navigate.
Personally, if the I was on a team that was trying to handle art, design final PDF layouts, mod rules, scour the forums / feedback, and write fluff text, then making the free beta PDF nice would be the least of my worries.

I've not had many issues thanks to the linked Table of Contents at the start of the book.
Also, if it's so bad it need major layout changes, I'm sure the layout people are working hard on that, rather than working on merging rule changes into a crappy old version of the pdf that they're not intending to use.
EDIT: I would also note that the Star Wars beta was a paid beta, so even if the PDF is a little crappy, be happy it's free to participate in the beta.

Definitely behind kkuja on this one. Blades in the Dark is a fantastic heist game that boils heist planning down into a super simple question and answer:
What is the first critical part of the heist? This varies by heist a lot, but if you have a 2-3 step plan provide by the players, it's enough to go with. In the original Mission Impossible, the first important point is when they enter CIA Headquarters in disguise. The next is likely drugging a poor sap who will get in their way. Last is the actual infiltration of the room.
Just have players grab some gear, and then roll some skill to see how things are going at the point when the action picks up. This could be good or bad. Then from there on out, if they need to cover a bit of planning (acquiring a critical piece of gear they didn't have) then they flip a DP, narrate a bit, then roll dice to do the thing. If they fail, it costs them two DP to have accomplished the thing, or they accept the failure and narrate why it suddenly doesn't work during the actual heist or some other complication. EXAMPLE: Say they need to have drugged a guy to make him sick and get out of the way. They flip a DP to have the drug, and roll for acquisition. They fail. Now they can choose between flipping another DP to force a success or narrate how say, they got the drug but it doesn't affect Rodians (oops), or it works but they had to promise the dealer a cut of the score and that will come back to bite them.
The reasons this model works so well are that it plays out like heist films (non-linear structure), and avoids the marathon 6-hour planning session that is plagued by analysis paralysis.
An one other pro tip from a long time GM: Failing a Stealth check doesn't mean you were caught with your pants down - it probably means you didn't make any progress towards your objective. A 3 Threat might mean someone is coming to investigate a noise (do something risky, quick!), and Despair is actually being spotted quite clearly, but don't ever hinge the whole heist on one flubbed roll.

We have an Advantage like this every samurai gets in our 4.5 homebrew. It is called Death Before Dishonor and it allows the PC to do one thing with absolute certainty, no matter how impossible it is, at the cost of dying during or immediately after the act. You can lift a castle gate to have the rest of the party escape, you can have a heroic last stand and butcher half an army all by yourself, or you can cripple an Oni Lord with a suicide charge. No rolls or stats involved, you get what you want, but you will also die and nothing can help that. 
It is really just a reminder/clarification that this is indeed a thing, but we found it useful to have this spelled out on the character sheet  .

Well, given 'a Ronin's Path' hands you 24 XP to start with, that's enough to get to school rank 2.
Okay...so making a fake 'Miramoto Bushi' we need to cover the following core concepts for early ranks:
[Goes away to read the L5R wiki]
So... I'd use the Kakita Duellist school and take spinning blades as soon as possible (i.e. Rank 2).
Dragon Clan (+1 Fire, +1 Meditation, Status 30)
Mirumoto Family (+1 Water, +1 Fitness, +1 Tactics, Glory 44)
Kakita Duelist School "Mirumoto Bushi School" ((+1 Earth, +1 Air, +1 Martial Arts (Melee), +1 Fitness, +1 Meditation, +1 Courtesy, +1 Sentiment, Iaijutsu, Weight Of Duty, Honour 50)
Mysticism- because, well, Dragon - (+1 Void)
[Sprinkle with Advantages, Disadvantages, Ancestry & Honour/Glory modifiers to taste]
 
Then with the 24XP:
Rank 1
Martial Arts (Melee) 2 - 4xp
Martial Arts (Melee) 3 - 6xp
Fire 3 - 9xp
Rank 2
Spinning Blades Style - 2xp
[1 additional Rank 1 skill or Kata to taste]
 
Resulting character:
Air 2, Fire 3, Earth 2, Water 2, Void 2
Status 30, Glory 44, Honour 50
Courtesy 1
Fitness 2
Martial Arts (Melee) 3
Meditation 2
Sentiment 1
Tactics 1
Iaijutsu
Spinning Blades Style
Weight Of Duty
....plus extras as noted above.
 
That's a pretty decent cardboard cutout standin for a Mirumoto, at least until the 'proper' rules for them turn up.
 
 
 
 

This discussion has drifted a lot from the original topic (modifying the sides of the dice) and may warrant a new thread to discuss the order of mechanics and narrative and the idea of dice exploding differently.