Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crawd

  1. I will admit that all the previews of the Crab clan really reflect the Clan mentality, which is working as a team, no matter the cost. I'm really happy to see all of these. I was afraid to see mainly huge strong brutes, my fear was wrong. We are the wall!
  2. Don't try to understand people of the Dragon Clan... Even them don't understand themselves sometimes! Haha!
  3. First of all. Thanks for the answer. I removed the rest of the post to make it easier to read, but I kept the last part and explain why I really think that system is not good for me. I'm a cartesian type of person. In other words, I like to have a pretty good idea of where I'm going before doing something. So when I play a game, I do have a lot of stuffs prepared. And by a lot, I really mean a lot. Most of the time, my players are like: "I'm not sure if I want to pick that way because I don't know if you're prepared for it." and 90% of the time I already prepared something in that direction. So yeah, I do like to prepare a lot of stuffs and branching. Some people says that my games are build a little like a book "You are the hero" where everything is planed, no matter the direction they picked. So yeah, I'm rarely in a situation where I don't know what to do, because I have a lot of stuffs planned. Knowing this and the fact that I rarely request dice rolls, most of the time, it's 4 to 6 rolls per game session, which are around 5 to 6 hours long. So these rolls are really important in my game, since most of them are story branching rolls. And they aren't binary branching, usually they have 4 to 6 outcomes. So yeah, maybe I'm over-preparing me game, but I do like doing it that way. So in those rolls, I prefer them to have to be deterministic, specially since I'm really prepared for it. I will admit that I have adapted my game preparation to the R&K system because, despites it flaws, I really like the way it's done, because it's a huge random. I've seen people rolling 16 on 9k5 rolls while some others getting 57 on 3k2. So it can bring some epicness, specially since I'm not plaing the game "Success or Failure". I like to adapt the result based on the roll, so for me, the result aren't binary at all. Like I've said in another post, I prefer numbers to symbols. I even hated the way universities are giving marks. "Hey look I've got an A in my class!" Even if I know that the average mark is B-, it's not always clear how well you performed to get an A sometime. I've got some A+ when being only 3 points above the class average score and some B while being 15 points above the average. So yeah, for me, symbols doesn't mean much. Of course, I could adapt myself, but reading a number is more natural for me, since I work in software engineering. Adding numbers from dice is pretty quick and natural for me. That being said, I also said that I like the huge randomness of the system. Which is something that I don't see in the narrative dice. I even don't see it in D20 systems. Let's take the simplest roll for the narrative dice, 1 ability dice. The very best result is 2 success. Which is obtainable with a probability of 1 out of 8 rolls. In D20, the simplest roll is a D20, where the best possible result is 20, which is 1 out of 20 rolls. In R&K, the simpliest roll is 1k1 and the best possible result is indefinite. Of course, there's very low probability to roll 20+ on 1k1, but it's still possible never the less. I think that with that kind of randomness, it gives a better balance between the different difficulties, at least, for me and I can understand that not everyone feels the same way. I'll end up with this part of your post for one reason. For me, the system means a lot for an RPG. What I mean is, does the RPG is important enough to have its very own system or is it just an overlay for an overlay? You know, like most mobile games where they all play the same, but just the skin changes with a few changes in mechanism. That's what I'm seeing when I think of L5R using this "Genesys system", even though, there's no official words. I simply hate RPG using the very same system as another one, the only exception I have is when it's in the same universe where cross-play is possible like L5R and Legend of the Burning Sand. For me, if a space pirate attacks with his plasma sword uses the same mechanics as a norvegian fighter attacks with his broadsword. And the norvegian fighter uses the same mechanics that a caveman attack a dinosaure with a club. And the caveman uses the same mechanics as a werewolf attacks with his claws. And the werewolf uses the same mechanics as a samurai attacks with his katana. And the samurai uses the same mechanics as a Musketeer attack with his sword. And so on, I will admit that I'm not very trilled at the mechanics. You can say it's a matter of perception, but for me, it's a matter of "How important the RPG is". R&K having a unique system means that the company wants the RPG to be unique, a one of a kind, not a refurbished one. Just like 7th Sea felt like a reburbished RPG to me because it was using R&K. I've seen a lot of "copy/paste" RPG that doesn't live long because it's only an overlay to a core system. Is it what I want for L5R? No... While it works with SW, I don't think it may works with L5R because SW is enormous outside of the gaming world. SW was used with a D6 system, a D20 system and now narrative. However, when you speak so someone about SW, it's usually well known and they don't look at you confused. But do the same with L5R, I don't think you'll have the same reaction, usually people don't know what you're talking about. When I take a look at every D&D setting, some are know, while some others aren't. Fprgotten Realms and Ravenloft are from the most known, but when you go deeper, there's some that I never heard of. Some returns as often as the Halley's commet. I don't want L5R to be part of that kind of treatment, I want L5R to be a complete and unique RPG. Of course, it's only my opinion.
  4. Oh gosh... another discussion about: "What is a Shugenja?" Last time, we had a 17+ pages thread about it without any result... A shugenja is not a priest. A shugenja is not a wizard. A shugenja is not a shaman. A shugenja is not a druid. A Shugenja is simply a shugenja.
  5. Sorry to interrupt, even though we'll never agree on which dice system is better. However, I would like to know from which point of view are you expressing your opinion? Player or storyteller? I'm simply curious, because I know that I'm better at number crunching than at symbol crunching. It's a mindset I have based on my domain of studies. Because I could agree with the system being interesting if I knew it wouldn't slow me down, but I do know it will slow me down, way more than adding numbers. My point of view is mainly from a storyteller side because I barely played. I'm asking, because it's always easier to have good experience for a player than a storyteller...
  6. I've quoted this because this has nothing to do with the dice system at all. This kind of stuffs can happen with the R&K, with D20, with Narrative Dice, with [ENTER_ANY_DICE_SYSTEM_HERE]. While I agree with some stuffs, you shouldn't blame the dice system for that kind of stuffs, because this isn't a problem on the dice system. Let's not compare mechanisms with the dice system...
  7. In fact, his #2 is valid, it's not possible to have a real random on computers. There's simulation of a random and it's not good enough because it can be manipulated. It will only be true the day we'll have quantum computing, which is still far yet. So the way of simulating the randomness is basically by changing the seeds, and under small apps, it's typically by using the datetime, which goes really fast that looping around is quickly done. So yeah, his point is valid.
  8. I'll be honest, if FFG goes with that system, I'll keep my money since I have all books from the 4th edition and I'll stick with it. tenchi2a said exactly why I don't like the narrative dice and at that point, it won't change because I simply don't like it. I will not force myself to like something that I simply cannot like. I don't play D20 systems because I simply don't like the system since it feels way too static. Also, seeing the whole story reset is another reason for me to be careful with it. While some people like that, I don't. Why? Simply because I don't need to buy anything to have an empty story. Sure, there's stuffs with the old timeline that I simply didn't like, I just tweek them in a way to make it more plausible. Also, while it's a huge timeline, I saw a lot of plotting hooks to start new campaigns. I also followed the following rule: "Once I picked a point in the story, the rest may diverge from the official storyline." That way, my players never complained that my campaign doesn't follow the main story. Anyway, we'll see, but right now, I'm seeing this as "L5R, a FFG RPG like any others" At some point, why don't they only sell a core system book and some setting supplements? Because that's what they are doing... Copy pasting the system on another setting. A quick and cheap way. I've misread the objectif of Genesys, it is that already. Which means that RPG will all have the same system, all you do is just picking your flavor... So yeah, L5R will only be a low graded setting, just like Oriental Adventure for the D20... I'm really sad with this.
  9. Well... maybe, we don't know. The Dragon Clan were always very "mysterious" and maybe at some point, they were soo mysterious even toward themselves that they forgot they had some! That or they spent too much thoughts on the idea of having any that they were always interrupted with other stuffs because of Togashi. Haha!
  10. Actually, they aren't the only one. Crab had the Hiruma Stalkers. Crane the Daidoji Spymaster/Harriers Lion had the Ikoma Lion's Shadow Phoenix had the Sesai Ninja Sure, they are deep and very limited, but they have to be in order to not compromise the family. However, I have a feeling that people are seeing ninjas as people being overpower like in Ninja Gaiden...
  11. If there's a Shadowlands deluxe box, there will have Jade & Tetsubo Deluxe Box for the Crab to smash those in the Shadowland's face!
  12. Correction, Crab don't have the time to do so. In order to keep most of the Shadowlands away from the Empire, they have to sacrifice something, which is the time to do political. It's a task Crab decided to do with very few recognitions by the Empire, except for the Scorpion, who understood it once they had to deal with the second festering pit. I will agree that Crab are at the bottom of the political aspect though.
  13. Ninjas don't exist you know? However, you would be surprised how many Clans have access to ninjas. In the Old L5R, the Crane, Lion and Phoenix also had a very small organization of ninjas. So yeah, learn your enemies! Anyway, for me, I feel like almost all Clans are awesome, but for different reasons. At least, every Clan feels different, which is even better.
  14. Honnestly, I don't care too much, every Clan will have their turn.
  15. I've seen a good amount of movies like that and there's some very nice bushi character being killed by a random and generic soldier out of nowhere. It's not because the bushi is good that mistakes cannot happened, quite the opposite. Also, as I've said and I'll quote myself: I do want to have some of those moments, but do I really need to roll dice in order to do a Mob-Slaughterfest-O-Mania 2017? Nope, I really feel like those moments are taking way too much time. Simply by storytelling those moments, my players are really enjoying the scene while adding their actions into it. When I do want to roll dice, I do want to have impact in the game, not for a meaningless impact. It falls in the "roll for anything syndrome". At some point, we can adjust the game without the need for rules to do what we want to achieve. Geez! I don't need a system that tells me everything that I can do and causing the game to have no random death. If the player dies to a meaningless goblin, it should happen. Heck, I've placed the goblin in the skirmish, not just for fun. Otherwise, I wouldn't have place it or I wouldn't roll for that goblin. As far as I know, the Storyteller's job is to maintain the narrative flow of the game. I'll take example in video games, there's fight were the player doesn't even do anything and kills a couple of stuffs. A Storyteller can do this too. I play a lot of video games RPGs, as far as I know, there's very few fights where the enemy cannot kill my characters. Even if they aren't the huge big boss and they aren't always easy fights. The main question is do we really want a game where the lethality is high, like it is right now, or a game where most of the fights are swords vs noodles? I really prefer to have my players thinking on their actions before rushing in fights knowing that, if there's no important NPCs, it's meaningless and no chance of dying. For me, the game had this mentality and atmosphere where fighting is not always the solution. A system where every actions can have deadly consequences. I don't want to see a list of enemies with special rules: "Cannot kill players" or "Damage dealt to players are maxed at 10" just because a few people cannot alter the game as they want. Heck, even a rule layer has trouble with L5R because there's a lot of place in the corebook that encourage to alter the game to fit in your gamestyle. We don't need more than this. I don't want a book that holds my hands on: "Meaningful death vs meaningless death", "How to handle a non-lethal skirmish", "When a skirmish should be lethal", etc. As a supplement, fine, but not the corebook. Some people are against the death of player's character, I'm not. I've played a couple of games in different setting with deathseeking moments, my goal was to have fun, even if it means that my character dies and those moments are really fun. I learned to stop caring for my characters because it restrained me from doing fun stuffs. Some people around us wasn't agreeing with me because they cared too much on their characters. So yeah, sure it's fun to see movies with Mob-Slaughterfest-O-Mania, it's fun to narrate scenes like that, but I don't need rules to narrate those scene. I don't need to slow the game pace with dice rolling just to have those moments. Sure, the first time a player tells me: "I take my katana and slice the goblin in two." and I narrate the action without letting him roll the dice, he's stunned and not sure why he didn't roll, but after a while, they enjoy that kind of stuffs because the game flows better and can have a lot of fun. I'll repeat myself, if I roll dice, I want to impact the game, not slowing the flow of the game for meaningless consequences...
  16. Why bandits should be a slaughterfest? I don't see why it should be done that way. L5R is not Dynasty Warrior RPG Edition. Samurai aren't immortals. Also, some bandits are ronins, which are also samurai, so why should they be weaker just because they are bandits? I'm not saying that every bandits should be as strong as the players, but I don't think they should be very weak neither. Otherwise, here's the lethality? I know that you don't want "Joe the Nameless Bandit" to kill someone important, but anyone can kill anyone in life. There's stories where babies kills adults (just as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3560674/Woman-driving-Milwaukee-highway-shot-killed-child-sitting-backseat-gun-floor-car.html ), so I don't think it should be removed from the game just because: "It should not happened!" So what if a goblin kills a player or important NPC? Underestimating the enemy is a huge flaw in the human mind. I'll take another example using the real life. Why is there a lot of stories where great people are killed by peasant revolts? Hey, they are only peasant, they shouldn't be able to kill important people? It may affect your story, but for me, it's part of the game. To me, if I don't want any surprises in meaningless skirmishes, I don't use dice to solve it, I only storytell the fight, letting my players to say a couple of actions they want to perform and auto-succeeding. I only use dice in fights where everything can happened. This is a way to solve your problem without altering the game in some strange ways. By strange ways, I want to say about: "Bandit A cannot kill NPCs or players but Bandit B can!" Why? The first one is normal...
  17. Isn't it the idea behind the school skills? I really feel like if a player is not too sure about how to build their character, he should focus on these school skills. But yeah, it wouldn't be bad to add up the informative blurb on useful Skills in general. I do like the idea. Another thing that I like in my group, people are talking each others on their character and asks for suggestions. Of course, it's easier when the players are playing as a group. Some situations makes it harder to do it, specially in a game where there's some PVP aspect. Since I prefer a group working together, I usually see people helping each others while spending their XP, the Storyteller included.
  18. Of course, a Storyteller should allow some changes, if that change doesn't impact what has been done until the last point. However, if you read the main point of what I've said, I'm just pointing out that both way of doing it has the same problem. But one allows an quicker way to solve the problems when played "by the book". My games aren't played "by the book" but I know some people who's really "by the book" and requesting changes are out of question and their answers would be: "Tough luck!". So the XP Spent way is better when playing with those kind of people. As for the "Unlearn skill" thing, I don't want to argue on that because I'm not aware of a RPG that has those kind of mechanism. Also, unlearning doesn't mean to regain those XP for something else and it takes times to learn something. Of you want to apply some stuffs as applied in real-life, then you mostly agree that you cannot do this by the "Level progression" since you do not wake up one morning and feels more agile and more skillful in a couple of fields all at the same time. It's a gradual ways and not all at the same pace. I just prefer a linear progression to a stair progression. It just feels more alive.
  19. I still don't see any difference between both ways. Normally, upgrading a trait or a skill takes time, it's not done in the between two fights in a battlefield. I don't have the books right now, but I know in one of them, they stated the "time" needed to upgrade a trait/skills. However, most group I've played don't use this way of spending, it's either between games or in a small downtime between games (while sleeping or a few days of freedoms or while traveling). About the fact that "Player B can be smarter abouyt her XP purchase?" No matter the way, it's the same with both system. To be honest, I feel like it's even worst. Here's why. Player A gets his "level" and places his points. After playing a few hours later, he realized he forget to raised a skill he really needed, so he'll have to wait until the next level to get it. In the current way, he'll just have to wait for the next XP gain. So, at the end, a bad attribution in the "level system" is basically worst then in the current system. I've managed a game where I didn't wanted some XP spending slowdown, the way I did it was to inform my player that they'll get XP between huge events and it is also when they'll be able to spend their XP. They've got XP chunks of 15-20 XP between those events, which is also a way of reducing the "mini-game" since I gave XP when a part of the story was completed. Which made a lot of sense because it was in a huge warfare. Now, from your real-life example, I don't see that the main problem is from the XP spending/"level gain" system, it is what most people said (myself included) that the Skills aren't important enough in the way they did the system. Some people are thinking about: "Skill + Trait Keep Skill" instead of "Skill + Trait Keep Trait". My thoughts on this topic is divided. While I agree that giving more power to Skills is needed, I also don't want to see Trait being weak due to the cost of it. However, it's hard to disagree when a character is stronger in a Skill with a Trait of 5 and a Skill of 1(6k5, average of 34.7 per roll), then someone with a Skill of 7 and a Trait of 3 (10k3, average of 32 per roll). Sometime, I wonder if the 2nd edition wasn't a way to solve this, with: "Skill Keep Trait". I know it wasn't the most loved decision, but at some point, people knew they needed to spend some XP in the skills to be effective. Other time, I feel harsh with the idea of using: "Skill + Trait Keep the lowest value of Skill or Trait". This way, a character with 6 in his Skill and 3 in is Trait will roll: 9k3 and another with 3 in is Skill and 5 in his Trait will roll: 8k3. Which way I prefer... Honestly, I don't know, but one thing I do know is that Skills need to be stronger. Maybe something with Skill Mastery may be a good thing, for example, at some point (at least 5), the Skill gives +0k1 on the roll. Just adding this to my previous example, the first one will keep his average of 34.7 per roll, but the second one will now have: 10k4 with an average roll of 38.9. So yeah, I don't think there's a lot of people denying about the Skills being weaker than Traits, but it has nothing to do with "Level" VS XP spent. For the other part of the example, sorry about the Shosuro Infiltrator, but that's the same for most character besides a few exception. Every character wants to be good in their speciallity and doesn't want to be bad everything else. I'll pick another character with the same problem, the Kakita Bushi. He wants more Reflex and Void to be good in his school and duels, which means he'll have low Earth, low Agility. But as I always though, since the bushi has good reflex, he should use his katana in duels and should use a Yumi bow in skirmishes. However, the Shosuro Infiltrator shouldn't have low Agility, since he'll need his Agility for his Stealth, so he should be kinda decent in combat because of this. This being said, changing from XP Spent to "Level gain" won't change that neither, that's how the character is built. In fact, it could get worst, let's say that at a certain point, the Shosuro Infiltrator gains +1 Trait and 5 Skill points, he'll probably won't think about spending his Trait in the Earth Ring anyway, so he'll probably go in Reflex or Agility. His Skill points will probably go at least 1 in Ninjutsu and 1 in Stealth, leaving him with 3 points in other skills... So the problem you've stated still applies. I don't see how changing XP Spent to "Level gain" solved the problem.
  20. And what's the difference with the "Level" perspective? At some point, you end up having that "minigame" of "Why should I spend [EnterWhateverHere] this way to be effective"? I mean, if you change "XP Spent" to "Level gained" or "Milestone gained", at some point, you'll gain attribute, traits, skills, whatever, to spend in your character. So that doesn't change at all, it just moves to another time. To be honest, I really prefer XP Spent systems to level gains systems, but it's a just a question of taste at that point. So, it will be very hard to agree since both has their strengths and weaknesses, so picking one or the other is based purely on opinion. There is no perfect system, otherwise, we would all play it and not have those kind of discussion.
  21. I mostly see this feature in the damage roll, but there's some situation where it is very useful. For the damage roll. Some of my games had the concept of capturing someone without killing him. In those kind of situation, it is very important to select the dice correctly. It's also something to consider if someone decide to create a character with a vow of none killing. Also, in some dual, where death isn't acceptable, for example in the Topaz Championship, even if the weapon are blunt, mistakes may happened. In some situation where not keeping the highest roll may be better, mostly in some contested rolls. For example, if a character wants to display restrains in its action toward a weaker target than you. Or even if a character wants to sabotage a situation by slacking off. The way I'm seeing this kind of rolls, it's the same as a talented person who simply doesn't apply at 100%, but mainly at 50% or less. Of course, there's several ways of doing those kind of situation, but that's what I like, the system allows the players more than 1 way of doing the same thing.
  22. At this point, it's really a matter of opinion and preference, but I really don't like the "Star Wars model" because it removes a lot of flavor to the setting. The fact that it create a "Unique path" for each type of School removes all the idea of following the path of the ancestors. Knowing that Rogukan is really strong on honoring their ancestors and following their path, a tree progression removes entirely that feeling. For me, removing that aspect means that immersion is removed. If I don't want that kind of progression, I would play another game. The current 4th edition might have some flaws, but it's still a great version. I don't think there's a need for a totally new system, it just need a few changes. Sorry but I cannot see what works on Star Wars for L5R, it's not the same setting, not the same concept, not the same universe, not the same culture, not the same pace. Geez... Star Wars went through how many different systems? 4-5? Star Wars feels like "another version of Monopoly" at this point. It's not what I want L5R to look like.
  23. That's kinda why I wasn't too thrilled with the idea of a story reset. (In fact, I'm disappointed by it but it's not like I have a choice) Sure, it has some good things, but also some bad things. Right now, chances are the Mantis Clan should return, but there's possibilities that it won't, same with the Spider Clan. We do not know what will happen. For example, knowing what happened in the old storyline, would I really want the Crab Clan to join up the Shadowland and attempt to take the Throne again? I don't think so, which will result a totally different story. Unless FFG will force the Crab Clan to do so, which would be very bad. That being said, the story is now a totally new one and everything may happen. However, I do think that the Mantis Clan will reappear, maybe different to what it was before. As for the Spider Clan, it will surely be different than what it was, if they ever come back...
  24. Clan loyalty and having fun is two things. I'll explain. I am and always be a fan of the Crab Clan. I started with the RPG, so changing characters is fun for the sake of changing. Doing the same character over and over is boring. That's why I like to play different characters. But it doesn't change the fact that I go back to a Crab character more often than any other clans. I think that's why I think it's the same with the CCG/LCG. I did like to have more than 1 Clan because it varies the gameplay and helps to understand the gameplay of the other Clans. Understanding strengths and weaknesses are easier when you play them and when you play against them. It's not because someone plays other Clans, it means he isn't loyal. Also, people can also have fun and try out other Clans for the sake of having fun. The Clan Loyalty doesn't come from the game, it comes from the communauty itself.
  25. Tournament rules are always based on the way the organizer wants the tournament to be. I've hosted a WHFB tournament with different rules that the group used to run, simply because there was some stuffs that I felt wasn't great. Some liked the change, others don't. At some point, it's really a matter of opinion. I'll agree that if the tournament takes a while, let's say 3 weeks to complete, it may be interesting to change the deck based on the new releases and the change of gameplay. Sometime, it's even worst, specially since there's a change and the player must keep 2 mindset, one for the lenghty tournament, the other for the common gameplay. Mixing both gameplay, may harm the player's performance, since everything is based around knowledge of your own deck in a tournament. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? It really depends on the length of the tournament. However, for me, when the tournament is too long, I lose interest. So knowing that online tournament are usually slow paced, I don't even care about those. In the end, what's the most important thing? That everyone follows the same rules. If it's possible to change your deck, in between match-up, it should be allowed to everyone, as long as it stays within the established rules. Just like some CCG tournaments that allows side-decks to adjust your deck between games. Like it, play it. Hate it, organize it.
  • Create New...