• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Silverfox13

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

306 profile views
  1. This is why we need the community to help promote and advance the system. I am not going to lie, when the Star Wars Edge of the Empire beta book came out, I scoffed at the game and these strange symbol covered dice. I only picked up the game when they release Force and Destiny. After just one session I quickly discovered the power of the narrative system and dice, and now I have the hardest time playing other games. I keep rolling my D20 in my D&D game and wishing that there were a couple advantage on them so I could trigger my weapons knockdown quality. Nostalgia aside, I think that Genisys has very solid potential to really take hold in the RPG community, and the more visibility we give it, the more viable that potential will be reached.
  2. Is it possible, that back in the 70s, players didn't need a mechanic to have their characters get mad or sad? and why wouldn't these amazingly brilliant, imaginative, fun designers not add a mechanic like strife to their games? Maybe because they were already roleplaying? I wouldn't be too dismissive about the foundation of all the games before this one. They were already designed to allow players to escape to fantastic worlds, do amazingly heroic feats, and overcome challenges that are fun and exciting. I am starting to wonder whether or not the new L5R game is just so different and innovative that it is harder for some gamers to get comfortable with. Maybe is targets a different style of roleplayer, which isn't a bad thing, but is the setting of L5R enough to break down the normal walls of the average person who roleplays?
  3. I believe that a flowing scene is a good thing for a story, as long as it isn't something that derails it completely.
  4. Then this comes down to personal choices of each GM/Player. Perhaps they are actually guarding, maybe they are a yojimbo. Why would a guard not be an acceptable target for an Intrigue action? Wouldn't having them leave add additional burden to the GM? Not saying it can't be done, but do most GMs wants to have to design every encounter with an exception for a character because they aren't optimal for the situation? Isn't the idea that the Strife Mechanic is supposed to bring out these type of situations? Is sending them away contrary to the concept? Anyways I think I am actually digressing myself away from the original point. It seems that most the replies I am seeing consist of groups that contain both GM and players that are capable of using work-arounds to prevent the situation I described from ever happening. I have dissimilar experiences, like the strife mechanic, some of my players are prone to having real life outbursts themselves :).
  5. Just playing devil's advocate here: The player made the character exactly how he wanted to. The player is playing the character exactly how they want to play them, and lets be honest, exactly in the spirit of a Crab Clan berserker. If your argument is that they didn't pad their Strife threshold, then wouldn't that seem like a choice taken away from every player? Will this lead to every character being forced to take make decisions for their character they don't want? I think it may be an unfair assumption that the player wouldn't make attempts to stop from being "strifed". Maybe the payer had bad rolls, but causing characters strife isn't a hard thing to do and can have little to no bearing on what the player choose to keep during his own rolls. I understands that that there are mechanisms in place to prevent outbursts, but if the players have the ability to stop any character from going over their wound threshold all the time then the mechanic has a completely different problem, because a mechanic that never actually does anything is just book keeping overhead. I did describe the scenario that the player would only accept the enraged outburst. The player doesn't feel like they deserve to be forced into a different outburst. The player may feel it wouldn't be in character, or that they didn't want to take a hit to Honor or Glory, or maybe they have a chaotic personality (and let's be honest, every GM has players like this). Let's say, for the sake of preventing a continuous circular argument, that the player is amicable to changing the outburst this time. A second situation arises and it is nearly the same thing, an intrigue that cause the same player an outburst. Do you continually make the player change his desired outburst? How often do you have to do this? When does the player finally get to frustrated to play? To the other reply, the character is in court, or any other game scene because he is at the table. Do other GM's players frequently sit out of scenes because their character's aren't optimal for them? Mine would rather go home and play a video game before sitting more than hour watching other people play the game.
  6. I'm not sure I entirely agree, every player character should be well above the baseline of an average person. In your example, the knight isn't a human in plate armor, he's a super hero that is powered by magical plate armor. In Star Wars, force wielding Jedi and Soldiers that wield vehicle mounted weaponry are exceptional beings in the galaxy, and I don't believe should be considered average. If your world consists of beings that are all born/gained extraordinary abilities then sure, you would have to put in some sort of measurement to the baseline, and then scale your players up to become extraordinary again. I like your idea of adding qualities, and think that it would have a solid fit in a Super Setting. Additionally, the setting could contain rules for Cosmic level super powers by including rule that could take into account vehicle style abilities. Someone already suggested vehicle type damage (X10) and that could be the same with armor, movement, sensors, etc.. I'm sure there is a way to grow Super Powers that wouldn't be difficult, but may be hard to keep balanced.
  7. So, the option here is to ignore the choice portion of the mechanic and tell the player they are bad? Are there multiple options for a player to choose when their Wounds reduced to zero? Do people think that wounds and strife are equivalent mechanics?
  8. Why do you think the player is at fault? Did they not build their character right? Are they not role playing their Crab Berserker correctly? Why does the spirit of what the player intends to do have any bearing on a choice of Outbreak? Why is enraged not in the spirit of a front line Crab Bushi character? and lastly how do you ultimately tell the player that the choice they want to make, isn't available because you don't agree with it, and didn't want it int the first place?
  9. Let me pose a scenario and a question and see what responses you can provide: You have a player that doesn't care about the stats that would increase their strife threshold, The player has decided to play a Crab Berserker. An Intrigue takes place and includes the other 3 players at your table. The outcome of this Intrigue is very important to at least one other player. The NPCs engage the group and social skills start being resolved. The Crab player takes enough strife from sources in the conflict to cause an outburst. The Crab player choose enrage as the outburst choice and proceeds to fight an NPC that was part of the Intrigue. The fight will end the Intrigue and cause the NPCs to either fight the PCs or flee. The other players do not want this to happen. The Crab player will not take another outburst. How do you resolve this issue at any given point in the scenario?
  10. I'm not sure you can eliminate 1/4 of the mechanics and not run into more problems later down the road. The NPC/Encounters are surely meant to play off of them as well. Is all of this just speculation or does anyone have any experience in the mechanics success or failure?
  11. Talents that add dice (usually boost) are common enough and could be a starting point. Then there can be talents that graduate into bigger bonuses, such as a talent that add advantages or even successes to the result of a roll. Additionally, the setting could have Heroic Abilities that are tailored towards Super Powers, we haven't seen much about them though, so I can't give a great example of how I would create one, but they look like Signature abilities you get at character creation and spend points into as you progress. Lastly, if it doesn't fit into either of those two, a re-tooled spell could emulate a super power stat, something that has more impact but shorter lived, Like a Hurl Something Large spell. Examples: Super <Stat> I When your character makes a roll using <stat> you may add one boost dice. Super <Stat> II When your character makes a roll using <stat> you may add one advantage to the results. Super <Stat> III When your character makes a roll using <stat> you may downgrade the difficulty by 1. Super <Stat> IV When your character makes a roll using <stat> you may add one success to the results. Heroic Ability: Unmatched Strength Once per Session, your character may spend one Story Point to activate this ability. Your character gains +2 Brawn until the end of the scene. This increase allows your character to go above the normal characteristic limitations. Super Power: Hurl Something Large Super Action: Attack Additional Effects: Deadly, Empowered, Range Hurl Something Large is a super attack, and follows all the normal rules for a combat check. Your character chooses a target at short or medium range (but not engaged) and makes an average <super skill?> check. If the check succeeds, the attack deals damage equal to the silhouette of the object + 1 damage per success, with a Critical Rating of 4, and the knockdown quality.
  12. I am not trying to take either side here, but in my experience a game mechanic should add something to the game, and should usually be fun and enjoyable, even if it is a mechanic that punishes the player. What experiences have GM/Players had with the mechanic in actual game play that has been good or bad? In other words, what does the mechanic bring to the table? Example: In Star Wars, strain is a similar mechanic, it is used as a buffer to non lethal damage, as a resource to fuel powerful abilities, and when depleted causes the character to become unconscious. In my experience Strain is well balanced, it impacts the game in almost every situation and in most ways is an enjoyable mechanic in the game.
  13. I don't think this is accurate: Each character is able to adjust their position on the battlefield slightly each turn, either at the beginning of their turn or at the end of their turn. When a character sets their stance (at the start of their turn), they may move up to two range bands. At the end of their turn, if a character has not moved already during their turn, the character may move up to one range band. This means that they can move from range band 0 up to range band 2, or 0 - 5 meters or 0 - 2 meters if they do it at the end of the turn. I believe the wording may need to be looked into. They use the terminology "Range Band" either incorrectly or it has multiple meanings and isn't well defined when to use each.
  14. If this is the case, then the game has a wholly different problem, and a mechanic that never has an impact probably shouldn't be there.
  15. The biggest difference is that it is a conscious choice versus the luck of the dice. Plus, they'll live with the consequences, the main issue is everyone else at the table having to also.