Jump to content

Teveshszat

Members
  • Content Count

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Teveshszat

  1. Thats not what will happen. Rings are stil the most effcient way to spend xp. Just bc they can be applied to any skill. So you still go and grab the rings. Also I don´´t say the exsistent exp system is a good one. But if I have the choice I rather go without the change but also without the school spending tables.
  2. To be frank with each iteration of the beta rules book the game got less and less exciting for me. The major dissapointment in the last update was the proposed change to the character progression system. The change was to try and get more freeform xp spending into the progression but these changes don´t do this. Any purchase outside of your current school rank now contributes half of its experience value to your current school rank. Rings are no longer included in school curriculums. Experience to complete school ranks is going to be increased significantly. These changes do not increase freeform xp spending. It is quiet the opposite now you get rings as mandatory non curiculum xp tax and need tos pend even more xp in your curriculum tables to get to the next rank. Since getting to the next rank is the goal of the chracter development this system is in direct opposition to the freeform xp spending that people wanted. But there is a very easy way to fix this. Just let go of the curriculum tables and stay with the xp values for the different ranks. Keep the xp costs for the different aspects of character development and let the players choose freely where they want to spend their xp. You might want to add some school unqiue techniques that reflect the uniqueness of the teaching of the individual school but the currciulum tables clearly hurt more than they help.
  3. The implementation works though a change in thought an generation. So the education of the youth is basicly the basis of the change caus eas they climb up and get into the position the former old guard had they can change the policies and make the difference. Thats why education plays an important part if you want to change anything in our society Change is a graudal and long term thing. It does not happen over night and requires hard work. Yes currently the system works like you describe it but a cooperative system can work if enough people want to make it happen and work towards realizing it. Also there are companies who actually change their systems toward it because, exspecially in the IT business, it reduces the stress of your workforce and gets better ressults and less burnouts. Anyway I think that was enough so thank you for the discussion.
  4. So in this case when the crane does get to know the corrupt guard, the group can decide to go back to the lord where they can trade the information about the corrupt servant against the passage into the shadowlands. Here we havea classical win win situation as the lord got rid of a corrupt servant who endangers the reputation of his family and the group can go through the gate and continue into the shadowlands. Yes these studies sho how cooperation effects learning in school. You can translate it into the business world if you exchange the working enviorment of the school for the working place but I can see that this might be a bit stretched. For a direct intresting read http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016726819190051X this document is probably the right start. These strategies are applicable but need people who want to apply them and you only get these if you educate your children in thsi direction. Also being trampled on and pushed down is not a practice that is an acceptable hbehavior towards a human being so while this defnietly is the case I suppoort any work that wants to change this and makes the work enviorment a healthier one. So I actually see it as a service to our children to teach them fairness because thats the only way to establish it as a widespread practice in the workplace. Ok I agree my phrasing might be a bit off there. So yes in my eyes it is a bad system for the reasons I explained here in the thread. That means I strongly disagree with it and woudl not apply it to any of my games adn go if a gm uses it.
  5. Great than we can give us the hand as I am one year out my bachelo in internation ecnomics nad management, with a minor in european and tax law. Also a win/win situation has nothing to do with the usual useage of the engliush word win. As the business dictionary defines it: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/win-win.html it is a negotion philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not100%) if the benefits or/profit. It is not a 100% equal outcome for both parties buit in fact is the try to get maximize the positive outcome for both sides. Negotiation philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not 100 percent) of the benefits or profit. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/win-win.htmlNegotiation philosophy in which all parties to an agreement or deal stand to realize their fair share (not 100 percent) of the benefits or profit. I wonder why you don´t accept the papers of studies that are puzblished in digital form. It is not like I go and cite anything from a random website. What I use are digitallypublished papers of people who are working in the field of sociology. So one example would be http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08230-001 this publication in the journal or educational psychology. There is also the magazine of higher learning http://naspa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00091383.1987.10570152?journalCode=vchn20#.WhGspjeDNEY Than you get books like Winning Through Cooperation: Competitive Insanity--Cooperative Alternatives. And from there we can deeper into psychology with things like The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior So there are some but not all sources not all of them being wbsiute based ofcourse. Yeah and role playing games can be played in various different way. None of these ways should actually be pnished even if it is the famous roll playing game. So each and every way you play it shoudl net out the same lvl of xp to avoid this punishment. Ah no I did not say you play the gam wrong. I said you xp award system is bad and that I disagree with it for the reasons I posted in the various threads. Bad does not mean wrong as bad is a answer for the question after the quality and not if your are right or not.
  6. No I don´t tell myself that as, as a business maijor, I know better and have been taught better than this. You want to give into the level where your advanatge is big enough to make the trade worth it while still providing a grat enogh advnatge for the other side so that this side is willing to do busniess with you in the future. Again win/win situations are not true equality they are a comrpomise that ensures that each side gets at least something out of the trade. Yes and the very foundation of a capitalistic system is a very short sighted view on the maximisation of profit. The m,ost extreme form being "heuschrecken Kapitalismus" which is not sustainable over a long time period becasue he eats up all resoruces and than breaks down very fast. And yes adversaial competition is a aspect of capitalism, which btw is also and outdated model. Funny hmm how the aspect of a failing system is also a failure. And no thats not just my opinion as there are sutied about the fact that coperative competition is a better way for learning than adversarial compettion . One I btw linked. So it is discussed as possible theory in the field of sociology and education. The people I mentioned in my example are the result of the system you are supporting. You basicly cpunish them for being affected by the problems capitalism is creating. And all of that also increases your cost for human resources as recuiting new staff and incooperating them into the workforce is pretty expansive and time consuming. In the end adverserial competition not only damages the workforce of your company it also increases the cost. Yes right both players showed up to have fun and play the game according to what they want out of it. Not everyone want to focus on the acting aspect of a role playing game, which you call role playing, some also like to hang out with their friedns and roll soime dice to have fun. The point I make is that I want to avoid to treat people different because they like different aspect so fthe game. Thats why people get equal xp so no one is forced into doing things for more xp and the main goal can remain having fun and hanging out with your friends instead how how to maximize my xp income so I don´t get left behind by the other charatcers.
  7. For L5r you also can get some cool impressions out of Drifters, Niho, Sengokuku Basara, Samurai Shamploo, Brave 10, Samurai 7 Gintama, Red Cliff, The emperor and the assasin, the curse of the golden flower, Hero, Konfuzius (yes there is a Konfucious movie), House of flying daggers. Crouching Tiger hidden Dragon and new Dragon gate Inn. if you go for the more larger than life and magical aspect of L5r. There are also some nice drama scenes in some of these movies.
  8. Ah but there are negaotioations where both parties win. Infact thats the case when both parties are going to achieve some of their goals to a certain degree. A Win win Situation is not 1-1 and only that. A win win situation is a situation in which both parties and look at the treaty and say ok thats something we both can life with as it achieves the maximum of goals for both parties possible in this negoiation. A quick reference for that http://www.globalnegotiator.com/international-trade/dictionary/win-win-strateg/ The Win/Win situation is favoring long term cooperation and future earinings through multiple good deals. The Win/lose situation favors short term sucess with little to no regard to future relationships or long term stagetgies. The Win(Win is clearly the better way to go here because you get to get most of your goals and also get a good relationship with the other party so you have good absis for long term projects that involve the cooperation of this party. Yes I say a player who puts all into his character should get as much as a player who just sits the and rolls. The reason for that is that not every game night can actually favor every player. Not everytime you cab give every player the room to play their character to the fullest or even let the make a difference with. Because there is not allways a house to sneak in or allways a court to persuade etc. In addtion to that I don´t punish players for having a different playsytle/expectation for roleplaying. Some want to go all out with their character and some just prefer to role some dice, kill some monsters and get the loot. both people played a roleplaying game and used their time for it so they both also get the same xp. I go even a step further and say that people who can´t attend the night because of real life reasons still get the XP for their character as it would be unfair to throw them back bc of an event they could nothing do against. Supporting competitiveness is damaging for your work force.It creates unecassary soruces for stress and increases the possibility for burnout. It also lowers the trust between employees and with that creates a very bad working envoiroment. In addtion it also lowers the motivation of the worker to show up to work in the long run and increases sick notices. The resulkt is that your burn through your workforce much quicker and need to employ more people to make of for the ones calling in sick or/and leaving. What you want to have is cooperative competetiveness as when people help each other that generally also brings out very good results but avoids all the drawback you have with non cooperative competetiveniss. That everyone theoretically can get the xp is not a really fair treatment. Because it does not account for the real chance behind this idea. You might say yes everyone can get it but than you have a person who is just not that good at acting so as soon as you have a good actor at the table the person with bad acting will get less xp and never really has a chance to get the good acting xp. See only because it works fine does not mean that it is a good way. That it is still being thought says nothing about how good the quality of the model is or if it is outdated or not. Because the drive behind effective teaching is motivation and you can motivate people more effectively with positive influences. Thats why you want a positiveenviorment for you kids because it makes them learn faster if they are motivated. Adverserial competition is directly working against that. It fact there are indications that cooperation actually gives you more positive results overall. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08230-001 One quick thing to add. While I say I think you are wrong with everything you say, I don´t say you should feel bad about doing it your way. No offense taken. The thjing is that L5r 4th ed had advanced schools. My expectation for a complete progression therefore is 8 school ranks. 5 normal ranks and 3 advanced school ranks. It is quiet possible that my recent expirience with the xp in games like FRO had brought me to the misscolusion that l5r 4th ed is slow in the progression because the faster version with 3 to 5 sessions per IR sounds reasonable. Still not sure if that also works fine for higher levels. The beta advancement might look faster but for the normal gaming group that clocks in like 3 to 4 hours it is not that much faster than the highest lvl of xp rewards from 4th ed since it turns out as 6 to 8 xp.
  9. Competetive drives more than stready awards is a outdated theory. It comes froma point of view that actually does not acount for things liek quality of life, personal security, social acceptance and other aspects that all tie into the motivation ofa single individual. Gaps facilitat unequality which is a bad thing as unequality is a reason for envy and distrust which is something you want to avoid to support and create.Exspeically at a gaming table were you sit down with your friends. It also cna damage the fun everyone has. I also am not intrested to be part of a group run by you as a GM as most of these so called strenght are just bad or outdated models of thought. Atleast thats my opinion about them.
  10. That what remains. You just give out the table with costs and restrictions they allready have in the rulebook and say how much xp is needed for the next school rank. When you reach the next rank you get 1 technqiue for free as part of the advancement. Thats what I would go for as it provides the most flexibilityin xp spending and helps to create unqiue characters.
  11. Thats plain out wrong. The best possible outcome for a negoiation is one that enables you not only to get what you want but also ensures you that shoudl the need arise you can get what you want again. Win/win situations are also not everyone gets what they want it is a compromise of 2 or more parties based on what they all can agree to give to the others. On this premise a win/win situation is far more preferable because it not only serves the short term goal in getting what you want but also is serving the long term goal in ensureing that the party, you made the deal with, will engage into negoiations with you in the future. On contrast if you go for a win lose situation you might get what you want now but will not get anything from the party in the future. Win/win situations therefore are the best deal and should be awared with more xp than the one that only gets you the short term goal. That it is not an uncommon practice does not say that it is a good one. It creates a gap between the players as they have to choose whom to give the xp to and also is a reason for frustration as people can get the wrong idea about what people think of their actions in the game, for exampel missunderstanding that people give xp to others as my character is useless/ has done nothing that worth it etc. It is also fairer to just treat all people equally and if 1 person is qualified to get the xp give them out to everyone.
  12. This strikes me as a bad practice to give out xp as it opens the door to the question who actually was the best. Most of the time this will be highly subjective and basicly every player will have a different opinion on it. Which in turn can lead to maijor frustrations when people reward others with the xp that do not have done more than you in your eyes. Thats wrong on so many levels. You reward a bad outcome of a negotiation (win lose deal) with more xp than a good outcome (win win deal). Yes the situation where only your side gets the advanatge is the bad outcome as it will hinder future negotiations or make them even impossible. In addtion it also will likely lead to the problem that others are not wanting to negotiate with you because you are know to exploit others. Furthermore it increases distrust not onyl against you but also against the party you represent, whcih in l5r can lead to your clan using face, and also opens up possibilities for revenge and sabotage based on bad feelings. Also it does get the problem that the game teaches that shortterm exploitation is better than long term stategies and mutually cooperation. Therefore I would rethink this xp distribution here as it clearly is misrepresenting a usefull diplomatical outcome. That said I don´t think the xp reward in this game is to high. For me it is actually pretty resonable as for example 4th edition often was to slow and never gave out enough xp to truely get into the high tiers. In contrast to 4th ed this game is actually providing a nice xp reward model that enables you to see the end of your school and also get some nice extras in on the way there. Sicne it rewards per time played it is also a very fair model as it treats every equally per default rules so the xp reward is actually something I don´t think needs changes. Still get rid of the school advancement tables they are the bad part of the xp system.
  13. I see it like this. I don´t want to have only 1 way of resonable defense. In 4th Ed you allready had the problem that earth ring was an XP tax for everyone who at somepoint got dragged intop combat bc the TN to be hit system did not scale very well with the attack rolls you had to expect on a given level. Now thats something I don´t want to see again. For me a scaling of the TN is an important factor to provide different angles for different playsytles and avoid forcing people into the 1 way to build a fighter. So for me a way to increase you TN to a lvl where it is very hard to hit is a good thing to have in a game. Ofcourse it should come with drawbacks like for example having a worse resilence than the guy who opted for that to prevent that people go for both ways. So what I think is the problem is that it is tied to the stance. It has no cost of opportunity and also is difficult to get one asigned to. Instead of tying it to the air ring I would go for a technique. Swift like the wind Rank 1 Techniquce Requirement: Air Ring 3, Resilence lower than 10 Required Stance: Air Effect: As a move action you can activate the technique you increase the TN of all actions targeting you by your school rank until the next turn. Passive Effect: Your resilence can´t increase beyond 10. Something like that. Yes it makes the practioner hard to hit at all lvls but if you hit him he also is in a world of trouble as his resilence is pretty low. In addtion you also could put that in no school training table so that people also get an xp disadvnatage from it if you don´t liek ahrd to hit. Also since it is a tecnqiue NPCS should not get it as their technqiues are built differently and now you also don´t have the problem that you can´t really hit the NPCS.
  14. Page 190 ongoing disagrees with you as that are actually Npc creation gudielines. It shows you how to deal with abilities rings skills Derived attributes Advantages/Disadvantages Demeanors Void Points differences between minion and adversaries conflict ranks and gives examples for standard enemies. The mechanical differenc eis in the Skills, in the abilities in the rings etc. They also don´t get school technqiues and ranks That makes them different from pcs in creation and playstyle.
  15. Ok first that the Npcs have differenbt technics is explained in Abilities part. It is intendedd that they have these and not a part left over from the alpha version. Second yes these How to read are explainations but are also guidelines so that you can build you own after you understood how the npcs prsented there work. Third there is no indication that these rules are not intended for long term use or that they get changed significantly. All the other rule systems are build with the thought in mind that you use them for PC vs Npc conflicts as that is what the expected player group/ normla player group will play with the system. Thats why they did not need to make a difference between pve and pvp because it was never intended to be played as pvp rulebook as that is not the what people are likely to play with the system. Why is that so bc an rpg designer looks for the most likely to do with the rules and that is playing a game where the 5 guys at the table work together against some npc factions. Thank Dnds influence for that. So no it PVP is still not the focus or intended playstyle for the game.
  16. And that conclusion you draw from where? Page 190 say you can make up your own Npcs but does not say ignore the rules that say how to make them. The thing is the Npc section constists of 2 parts. 1 Part is the minion list for quick reference how some staple enemies look like. The other part is the tool kit you use to build your own Npcs. Also adversaries are expspecially emntioned for long term play as they are the Npcs with substential narrative influence. while minions are intended to be used for the significant bigger part of the npcs without narrative influence. In addtion to that there is no mention that these Npcs are not intended for long term play. So what 190 shows is how they want to build the Npcs in the game independent of the lenght you play it.
  17. But none of the tehcniques for players are used by Npcs. All npcs have their own and different version of them. The specification for characters actually can refer to NPC as NPCS are NON player Characters. So indeed the refer to npcs. They just don´t refer to NPCS only they because depending on the tehcnique something else might be the target of it. In addtion the building method for Npcs is different and the fact that they don´t get the same techniques as PCS indicates that it is not intended for players to be target of their own techniques as the enemy types you fight regularly against minions/adversaries does not have them. As result that indicates that PVP was not planed as part of the game and in combination with different creation rules for Non player characters this also shows that it was not a foucs of the game.
  18. than go and prove it. Because without providing prove what your thoughts will be nothing more than that your thoughts and with that will stay non relevant for this discussion.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Isn´t that what people allways tend to critize when talking about role vs roll playing? What you describe is that the dicerolls matter more than the roleplaying and storytelling and that the dice shape the story. As far as I understand narrative focuesed systems don´t want that they want a story telling exp where the player and GM are telling a story in a colaborative effort so that dice have less impact. And for me Roleplaying is more than roiling dice as the interaciton with the world, the exploration of the world and its inhabitants and ofcourse the tale I want to tell inside of this world and watch how this interacts with the tales my friends at the table want to tell is far more important than dice to me. And a game system is important for this as it give clear lines for what is possible in context of the world and what not. It also prevents a GM from behaving abitarily and making stuff up on a whim. For your example if a pllayer wants to be shogun and it was agreeded on such a high level of campaign before the game started than I don´´t see why the player should not should get there after a extended struggle and character arc.
  22. Because it is still fun. It is not like everything before was a straight line of victories withou struggles. Most of the time the final boss is the one you never were abel to beat and therefore the one did horrible things to you and the rest of your group. A good example is practically most final story bosses in an RPG videogame. Some have really great fights, no not you Yu Yevon, but all a large pushg overs that pratically have no chance at all against you. Even the last bosses in the Dark Souls series are not that big of a deal if you look back at what you fought before them. The thing that all these have in common is that the fight in it self is a rewards for the sucessfull struggle that came before it and is there to give you one last point of satifactions as you shove your sword through the heart of the enemy you never had a chance to win against until now and that put you through so much misery. Btw one reason why mayn people loath the fact that Kujia is not the final boss in Final Fantasy 9.
  23. I think you need a bit more creative here to really get the potential of the approach system running. Yes creating a standard sword from scratch is Fire but you also could use your smithing to acutally recreate an old family sword that was lost or recreate a tressured relic of your family. This would still create a new item but would fall under teh earth approach as this is a restorative task you are trying to acomplish. In the end the trick with the system is how you describe your action. You need the right description for the right ring focus to make it work but in the end you can use any ring you want for a given task if you phrase it the right way.
  24. But that does not change the fact that this system does not have PVP as focus and never had. And thats why it will also be not balanced arround it. I know what he was refering to and thats also not a thing the game will be balanced arround because these large scale games are not what you expect to happen. The ttpycial group of players is 4 to 5 man and thats the number you ballance the systeme arround. As you can see there is more than nough room for enemy npc factions. So yeah no balancing for 50 + players is to be expected from the offical side and the same counts for PVP.
×
×
  • Create New...