TheVeteranSergeant, all of your arguments against Disadvantages and Strife seem to be based on the notion that PCs have an unlimited number of checks they'll be making that they don't care about the outcome of. Why are there so many unimportant rolls in your game?
While Water Stance does allow you to remove Strife, outside of allowing for some mobility tricks, it doesn't actually make you better at whatever it is you're trying to do. Same with Void stance. Earth and Air make you harder to affect by enemies in various ways, while Fire lets you risk Strife to succeed by a larger margin than you would have otherwise. If your game is full of rolls your characters can either easily succeed at or don't care about the outcome of, it probably isn't very dramatic and I guess Strife probably won't matter -- since Strife is a measure of stress and all your characters do is trivially succeed at things or don't care about the things they're attempting.
The examples a few people have painted of spending time outside of stressful situations making checks to get rid of Strife are being silly. You mean that doing calm, low-stress activities in times when things aren't on the line relieves stress? It almost sounds like that's the idea. Strife is something that becomes a problem in times of conflict, not when you're "driving home from work".
Similarly, with Disadvantages, it seems silly to assume that characters can just take Disadvantages to things they don't care about and just continually refill their Void points that way. If the players are making a check for something, it should be something they want to succeed at. A failure on a check should represent a missed opportunity, a delay, or some obstacle for the PCs to overcome. If a failure doesn't matter, why was there a check in the first place? The Void point you gain from one of your disadvantages causing you to fail/suffer an Outburst is meant to mechanically take the sting off of failing when you would have rather succeeded, as well as rewarding the players for roleplaying flawed characters. Someone who picks a disadvantage that isn't going to cause them to fail often gets the benefit of not suffering its effects as often; someone who picks a disadvantage that will actually disadvantage them gets more Void points. I think it works pretty well.
The main thing I disagree with as it relates to these things is the fact that Void points reset each session and are not entirely predictable to acquire, which makes it seem like having a high Void score isn't that useful because why would you need to store 5 Void points if you probably won't get that many most of the time?

TheVeteranSergeant, all of your arguments against Disadvantages and Strife seem to be based on the notion that PCs have an unlimited number of checks they'll be making that they don't care about the outcome of. Why are there so many unimportant rolls in your game?
While Water Stance does allow you to remove Strife, outside of allowing for some mobility tricks, it doesn't actually make you better at whatever it is you're trying to do. Same with Void stance. Earth and Air make you harder to affect by enemies in various ways, while Fire lets you risk Strife to succeed by a larger margin than you would have otherwise. If your game is full of rolls your characters can either easily succeed at or don't care about the outcome of, it probably isn't very dramatic and I guess Strife probably won't matter -- since Strife is a measure of stress and all your characters do is trivially succeed at things or don't care about the things they're attempting.
The examples a few people have painted of spending time outside of stressful situations making checks to get rid of Strife are being silly. You mean that doing calm, low-stress activities in times when things aren't on the line relieves stress? It almost sounds like that's the idea. Strife is something that becomes a problem in times of conflict, not when you're "driving home from work".
Similarly, with Disadvantages, it seems silly to assume that characters can just take Disadvantages to things they don't care about and just continually refill their Void points that way. If the players are making a check for something, it should be something they want to succeed at. A failure on a check should represent a missed opportunity, a delay, or some obstacle for the PCs to overcome. If a failure doesn't matter, why was there a check in the first place? The Void point you gain from one of your disadvantages causing you to fail/suffer an Outburst is meant to mechanically take the sting off of failing when you would have rather succeeded, as well as rewarding the players for roleplaying flawed characters. Someone who picks a disadvantage that isn't going to cause them to fail often gets the benefit of not suffering its effects as often; someone who picks a disadvantage that will actually disadvantage them gets more Void points. I think it works pretty well.
The main thing I disagree with as it relates to these things is the fact that Void points reset each session and are not entirely predictable to acquire, which makes it seem like having a high Void score isn't that useful because why would you need to store 5 Void points if you probably won't get that many most of the time?