Jump to content

sidescroller

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    sidescroller reacted to Magnus Grendel in How do you Koku?   
    For specific mechanics, look to Requisitions, on page 230.
    "...sometimes a character might think of an item their lord has not provided to them. Broaching this subject is not easy, but it can be necessary to success. As a downtime activity or during a narrative scene in which the character has access to their lord (or a representative thereof), a character may make a Courtesy check to request the use of an item they need to perform their work. At the GM’s discretion, the character might have to make a check with a different skill (such as Culture, Government, or Tactics) to convince their lord of the importance of the matter instead. The TN of the check is equal to the rarity of the item minus the character’s glory rank (to a minimum of 1). If the character succeeds, their lord (or the lord’s representative) sees to getting the item for them."
    So if you're going out realistically expecting a big fight, or even specifically heading to an ongoing battlefield, you could requisition lacquered armour from your lord's castle armoury.
    Assuming a starting glory rank of 4 against laquered armour's rarity 6, that makes it a TN2 courtesy check - hardly automatic, but doable.
    The item is technically not 'yours' it's 'loaned', but then technically everything a samurai possesses up to and including their continued survival belongs to their lord anyway. The only real impact is if they're likely to ask for it back (I'd suggest if you want the item indefinitely it might increase the TN, or if you only need it briefly it might reduce it)
    I would suggest that "my lord, we may also need some immediately accessible funds for [credible reason]" is also a sensible request, and the GM can set a TN for a bag of ready cash for the mission.
  2. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from DanGers in ** If you succeed, inflict a critical strike on your target...   
    @Kaiju according to pp. 24 & 25, we resolve opps after successes. So normal damage first (which might trigger a crit by itself), then the double-opp-spend for a crit.
  3. Like
    sidescroller reacted to RMDanks in Rank 2 Kaiu Engineer Auto-Crit?   
    Am I reading this right?
    Masterful Builder says: once per scene, when making a check to use an item you personally crafted, you may add a number of kept <ring dice> set to * results equal to your school rank.
    Kept dice are decided after rolled dice. So, if wielding a weapon they crafted themselves, they can wait until they roll enough successes to hit, then make it an automatic crit.
    Might they be the best iajutsu duelists then? Especially when combined with the right distinctions, like Quick Reflexes.
  4. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Kakita Natsumi in Yoriki for Starting Characters?   
    Are you interested in them being yoriki narratively, or mainly for the advancement table?
    You can always say that yorki must prove themselves before they receive special training. That way, they narratively have the title, but don’t get the table until it’s appropriate. 
    You could also give them some starting XP to buy up to rank 2 and be the right rank for the table.  
  5. Thanks
    sidescroller reacted to RMDanks in First Session Review   
    Our group just finished our first session. Here's what we thought:
    It became painfully obvious early on that stats rule this game. Our first half-dozen or so rolls were resolved with 0 successes scored. But with how fast the PCs built up strife from rolls when they were successful, it might be better to roll less dice. (It's an odd thing that we're learning to play with.) The game does a fantastic job of providing meaningful drama. The group was so concerned about their honor and glory that they didn't act like murder hobos, as D&D had trained them to act. In fact, they felt like there were consequences everywhere, which helped it feel like a real drama and not something forced like some other games. The Scorpion was disappointed that lying pinged his honor, even if it was half of what it does everyone else, but he quickly learned how to speak in circles and half-truths. Our single duel (to first strike) ended with our Kakita duelist victorious over a notable ronin (Trained Ashigaru Investigator stats with a katana). Even people not involved in the scene were enraptured due to the stakes and how the processes kept the tension up. Some things, like intrigue scenes, were hard for us. We ended up reducing the first one to a series of checks, but the second was handled a bit better. We had an amazing scene where one of the players was trying to cool off after almost becoming compromised. He sat by a river bank and meditated. Another PC followed him out of the sak´e house they were in, purchased some tea from a street vendor, and sat with him. She set the cup in front of him and stayed quiet, knowing that calling him out on the emotions he was trying to hold back would dishonor him. They just sat there by the river bank, leaving everything unsaid but supporting each other. It felt perfectly appropriate for the setting.  
    I obviously need to study up on how honor works a bit more, and scheme actions (like can Fanning the Flames be used during a skirmish?). But other than a few mishaps, we really enjoyed the game. Everyone is looking forward to playing the next one, and one of our number who often plays combat-oriented characters is thinking of investing heavily in courtier skills.
    Overall, two thumbs way up from my group!
  6. Like
    sidescroller reacted to RMDanks in Yoriki for Starting Characters?   
    Thanks for the advice. I’m going to have the invitation to become Yoriki extended, but they’ll be doing grunt work that won’t earn them anything special (no title mechanic) for at least a full adventure, which should get them to rank 2 before they can start to seriously invest in the title.
  7. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Void Crane in Yoriki for Starting Characters?   
    Are you interested in them being yoriki narratively, or mainly for the advancement table?
    You can always say that yorki must prove themselves before they receive special training. That way, they narratively have the title, but don’t get the table until it’s appropriate. 
    You could also give them some starting XP to buy up to rank 2 and be the right rank for the table.  
  8. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Endwaar in Yoriki for Starting Characters?   
    Are you interested in them being yoriki narratively, or mainly for the advancement table?
    You can always say that yorki must prove themselves before they receive special training. That way, they narratively have the title, but don’t get the table until it’s appropriate. 
    You could also give them some starting XP to buy up to rank 2 and be the right rank for the table.  
  9. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Schmiegel in Demeanors   
    No you were perfectly clear, I just got sidetracked by what I thought was a question I needed to answer for myself before I could answer yours. 
     
    I could see social rolls changing whether I reveal the TN pre-declaration-of-intention, though. Been awhile since I ran the beta. Can’t remember. Got a campaign of this coming up soon tho. 
  10. Thanks
    sidescroller reacted to Franwax in Yoriki for Starting Characters?   
    ^ this! they can be "deputized" and get the title without having the Title (in mechanical terms)
  11. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Franwax in Yoriki for Starting Characters?   
    Are you interested in them being yoriki narratively, or mainly for the advancement table?
    You can always say that yorki must prove themselves before they receive special training. That way, they narratively have the title, but don’t get the table until it’s appropriate. 
    You could also give them some starting XP to buy up to rank 2 and be the right rank for the table.  
  12. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Avatar111 in Demeanors   
    I’ve always outright told the PCs the TNs. I’m not saying that’s right, but here’s why:
     
    So let’s say I’m a player and I want my PC to jump a gap between two buildings. How do I gauge the difficulty before committing to the jump? That’s something I can do IRL, and intuitively my character should be able to do it as well. In other words, there must be some way I can compare my ability to the task before beginning the making-a-check procedure, beginning with declaring an intention. (RAW, there is no way to bail out of this procedure once you start).
    I could ask my GM how big the gap is. But that’s pretty useless on its own, because the game doesn’t translate fitness checks into distance jumped (this isn’t GURPS). 
    So I basically need to ask “how difficult is this jump?” and then listen for verbal clues that indicate how difficult it is on the TN scale of 1-8.
    If the GM is consistent in their descriptions, I can figure out the TN, and they might as well have told me (there’s only so many ways to say “this is an average task” without sounding ridiculous). 
    If the GM is *inconsistent* in their descriptions, then I cannot effectively gauge the difficulty of the jump before committing to it (which is the first step of the making-a-check procedure, which will eventually reveal the TN). 
    So the GM might as well have told me the mechanical difficulty (say, Average, TN 2) along with the narrative difficulty (“it’s not too big a gap; most adults could probably jump it”).
    I might not tell them the optimal TN, specifically because there’s mechanical ways to find it out, but I can’t think of a good way to hide the normal TN while also giving the players enough information to help them decide whether to commit to action or not. 
  13. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Schmiegel in Demeanors   
    I’ve always outright told the PCs the TNs. I’m not saying that’s right, but here’s why:
     
    So let’s say I’m a player and I want my PC to jump a gap between two buildings. How do I gauge the difficulty before committing to the jump? That’s something I can do IRL, and intuitively my character should be able to do it as well. In other words, there must be some way I can compare my ability to the task before beginning the making-a-check procedure, beginning with declaring an intention. (RAW, there is no way to bail out of this procedure once you start).
    I could ask my GM how big the gap is. But that’s pretty useless on its own, because the game doesn’t translate fitness checks into distance jumped (this isn’t GURPS). 
    So I basically need to ask “how difficult is this jump?” and then listen for verbal clues that indicate how difficult it is on the TN scale of 1-8.
    If the GM is consistent in their descriptions, I can figure out the TN, and they might as well have told me (there’s only so many ways to say “this is an average task” without sounding ridiculous). 
    If the GM is *inconsistent* in their descriptions, then I cannot effectively gauge the difficulty of the jump before committing to it (which is the first step of the making-a-check procedure, which will eventually reveal the TN). 
    So the GM might as well have told me the mechanical difficulty (say, Average, TN 2) along with the narrative difficulty (“it’s not too big a gap; most adults could probably jump it”).
    I might not tell them the optimal TN, specifically because there’s mechanical ways to find it out, but I can’t think of a good way to hide the normal TN while also giving the players enough information to help them decide whether to commit to action or not. 
  14. Like
    sidescroller reacted to Franwax in How good is this game?   
    Actually, one of the reasons I like roll and keep systems much more than D20 or percentage roll systems is the non-linear distribution of the results. It’s much more elegant and does a good job representing the likely outcome of an action depending on skill level (i.e. the higher the skill the less likely it is to utterly botch an easy task). In D20, however great you are, you always have 5% chance at a fumble. The density function of previous L5R editions was really neat to look at (kind of a skewed bell curve, climbing sharply on the left side and tapering off more slowly to the right). 5e is less granular, but I expect the odds to follow a similar pattern. The main difference is that you have several parameters to a roll rather than just an overall numerical result, and I think it works pretty well while keeping the probabilistic elegance of roll & keep. 
  15. Like
    sidescroller reacted to AK_Aramis in How good is this game?   
    Definitely.
    Yep.  
    One can achieve a very similar effect by simply treating dice as success-based: 5-9 = success, 10= explosive success.
    Or, add raises, and go 1-2 null, 3-5 raise, 6-8 success, 9-10 explosive.
    Strife would be harder to deal with in Old-5R...
  16. Like
    sidescroller reacted to AtoMaki in How good is this game?   
    A VERY different system if I may add. It is essentially Roll & Keep with a special dice fix on Raises and an extra resourcing system strapped onto the deal for good measure. 
  17. Haha
    sidescroller reacted to Franwax in Dueling Question?   
    Also note that Predict is an attack and scheme action, so even as your bonus action in Water stance, there isn’t much you can do... certainly not strike. 
    Hehe sorry. The ritual had been performed ! But @Avatar111, I did PREDICT your reaction, right?  Ok it was not that hard. 
  18. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Matrim in How good is this game?   
    Yes, this is a good game. And like any edition of L5R, that's largely because of a compelling setting. The major selling point of L5R has always been the setting, not the system. I think @Avatar111 made getting into the setting sound more daunting than it really is; don't feel like you *have to* read more lore than the core book provides; if your particular implementation*** of Rokugan looks different than other peoples', that's fine. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.
    As others have noted, it started with some great ideas, and followed up with mediocre execution--so, it's just a *good* game, not a great game. 
    Recommended for someone that has never played before? Depends on what that person has never played. Never played an RPG? Maybe, if the GM knows the system well. Never played L5R? Sure.  
    IMO, the game shines through 3 main concepts: 1) the setting, 2) the approach system, 3) multifunctional dice.
    Primarily, though, I think it shines in comparison to past editions of L5R; in my own observation, L5R is the RPG that gets most frequently and extensively house-ruled to try to fix the game (as opposed to just add more to it, like additional classes in D&D). I expect that will be true for this edition, too, but I'm glad they took the game to a different system. 
     
    ***keeping in mind the major sources of drama will make the setting accessible: different clan "personalities", samurai are servants with lords, and the game is interesting when tenets of bushido conflict; if you focus on those three things, you'll have a good game of L5R. If everyone is new to the game, I'd start everyone in one clan (maybe 1 or 2 PCs on loan from a neighboring/allied clan), focus on conflicts of a provincial daimyo. After a few sessions, introduce a couple characters from another clan, and then as your campaign reaches a climax, introduce a third clan. No need to feature every clan in your first campaign. 
  19. Like
    sidescroller reacted to Franwax in How good is this game?   
    One feedback I got from some players - not big L5R buffs but otherwise experienced RPG players - is that the learning curve is steep at the beginning. The custom narrative dice are great and very well suited to the setting, but having to chose among 6 or more different possibilities on how to spend the opportunities you rolled can lead to a form of “analysis paralysis”. I think it gets better as the player gets used to their character and to the system, but it definitely demands an effort of them. It matters less in narrative scenes than in conflicts because a) you tend to roll less checks and b) you feel less compelled to find the best way to spend those opportunities, mechanically. So narrative scenes have been more fluid and enjoyable so far. The big end-of-adventure fight we had dragged on for longer than anticipated for that very reason. 
    That’s where having a GM who knows the rules very well helps a lot. When the players hesitates, you need to be able to narrow down their choices to 2 “good” ideas. 3 is too much and does not really narrow it down much, and 1 may give them the feeling that they don’t have much agency in playing their character. Even then, this can break the flow of the game so ideally, players should learn the patterns that “work well” on their own sooner rather than later. 
    In short, it’s a lot of work and takes some getting used to... but it’s worth it!
  20. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Franwax in How good is this game?   
    Yes, this is a good game. And like any edition of L5R, that's largely because of a compelling setting. The major selling point of L5R has always been the setting, not the system. I think @Avatar111 made getting into the setting sound more daunting than it really is; don't feel like you *have to* read more lore than the core book provides; if your particular implementation*** of Rokugan looks different than other peoples', that's fine. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.
    As others have noted, it started with some great ideas, and followed up with mediocre execution--so, it's just a *good* game, not a great game. 
    Recommended for someone that has never played before? Depends on what that person has never played. Never played an RPG? Maybe, if the GM knows the system well. Never played L5R? Sure.  
    IMO, the game shines through 3 main concepts: 1) the setting, 2) the approach system, 3) multifunctional dice.
    Primarily, though, I think it shines in comparison to past editions of L5R; in my own observation, L5R is the RPG that gets most frequently and extensively house-ruled to try to fix the game (as opposed to just add more to it, like additional classes in D&D). I expect that will be true for this edition, too, but I'm glad they took the game to a different system. 
     
    ***keeping in mind the major sources of drama will make the setting accessible: different clan "personalities", samurai are servants with lords, and the game is interesting when tenets of bushido conflict; if you focus on those three things, you'll have a good game of L5R. If everyone is new to the game, I'd start everyone in one clan (maybe 1 or 2 PCs on loan from a neighboring/allied clan), focus on conflicts of a provincial daimyo. After a few sessions, introduce a couple characters from another clan, and then as your campaign reaches a climax, introduce a third clan. No need to feature every clan in your first campaign. 
  21. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from Avatar111 in How good is this game?   
    Yes, this is a good game. And like any edition of L5R, that's largely because of a compelling setting. The major selling point of L5R has always been the setting, not the system. I think @Avatar111 made getting into the setting sound more daunting than it really is; don't feel like you *have to* read more lore than the core book provides; if your particular implementation*** of Rokugan looks different than other peoples', that's fine. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.
    As others have noted, it started with some great ideas, and followed up with mediocre execution--so, it's just a *good* game, not a great game. 
    Recommended for someone that has never played before? Depends on what that person has never played. Never played an RPG? Maybe, if the GM knows the system well. Never played L5R? Sure.  
    IMO, the game shines through 3 main concepts: 1) the setting, 2) the approach system, 3) multifunctional dice.
    Primarily, though, I think it shines in comparison to past editions of L5R; in my own observation, L5R is the RPG that gets most frequently and extensively house-ruled to try to fix the game (as opposed to just add more to it, like additional classes in D&D). I expect that will be true for this edition, too, but I'm glad they took the game to a different system. 
     
    ***keeping in mind the major sources of drama will make the setting accessible: different clan "personalities", samurai are servants with lords, and the game is interesting when tenets of bushido conflict; if you focus on those three things, you'll have a good game of L5R. If everyone is new to the game, I'd start everyone in one clan (maybe 1 or 2 PCs on loan from a neighboring/allied clan), focus on conflicts of a provincial daimyo. After a few sessions, introduce a couple characters from another clan, and then as your campaign reaches a climax, introduce a third clan. No need to feature every clan in your first campaign. 
  22. Like
    sidescroller reacted to JBento in Fixes to the Game (version 8.5 w/ Ref Sheets) post errata 1.0   
    @omnicroneAir LOOKS bad, because it doesn't bump either Composure or Endurance and it has the worst Kata (it's saving grace is Thunderclap Strike, which is the only Bushi melee AoE and is therefore mandatory if you intend to use Styles to their maximum efficiency; it looks especially bad at the start, because Striking as Air is, well, crap), but it has the best Invocation package, and good-to-great Shuji and Kiho. It also has the utterly fundamental Analyse approach, plus some really good base Opp expenditures (like wall walking for maneuverability).
    The REAL issue people have with Air is that you need to play smarter, not harder, because it utterly fails at playing harder.
  23. Like
    sidescroller reacted to Arolem in Fixes to the Game (version 8.5 w/ Ref Sheets) post errata 1.0   
    "I would recommend playing the game rules as written for a little while before you go mucking around with it. "
    It is up to individual tables to do as they wish with it, after all. 
    Sorry, but reading your comment it felt quite condescending in nature. Not sure if that's what was intended or not. Simply telling folks how to have fun never really comes off as anything else...
    Also, not sure if he specified it in another post, but avatar may very well have played already. He did mention the changes were talked about with the group, and they are changes for his group.
    -----------
    That said: Avatar I like some of the changes on paper. I can't say I'll be able to test them any time soon, but I like the weapon changes, giving some heft and fluff.
    Though I can't speak for mechanical balance, I can understand the reasoning behind the ring changes to secondary stats.
    Hopefully the changes work out at your table.
  24. Like
    sidescroller reacted to gareth_lazelle in Binding Spirits and Kansen   
    Let me go slightly further than that, the first paragraph on page 224 (on the subject of maho) describes kansen as being kami - either kami that began corrupt, or which where corrupted,
    So it isn't a case of looking at them as identical, they are essentially the same,
  25. Like
    sidescroller got a reaction from OB-1 in Reviews? Sell me on/off?   
    As others have pointed out, the book hasn't been widely released yet, so this isn't a "full review", but my FLGS already has em on the shelves, so I got my copy and can offer a few thoughts based on RAW.
     Strife
    Overall I like Strife, but I agree with @sndwurks point that the game missed an opportunity with Strife, because that RAW doesn't assign strife for many personally important events. RAW does say that players or the GM can assign (their) PCs with Strife at narratively appropriate points, but doesn't give any guidelines for doing so. I've got a couple ideas about a little system to determine how much strife is assigned based on the importance/severity of the event, but I've gotta tinker with it. 
    Character Creation
    Tenchi2a exaggerates the extent to which character creation (20 questions) turns L5R into "rigged fill in the blanks" (as long as our reference point is 4e and not, say, Fate). As with 4e, 5e assigns ring and skill values based on choices like family and school; it assigns them at different times, but the process is very similar. 
    The only truly narratively binary choice is #7, "What is your character's relationship with their clan?", where you choose between being a model member for +5 glory, or having a fundamental disagreement for a new skill. Other binary choices aren't narratively binary. There are two other "pick A or B" questions, but they aren't narratively binary (they imply more of a spectrum). 
    Of course, you don't get 40 XP to customize your character with more skills ranks, ring ranks, and advantages/disadvantages; while 20 questions might therefore appear to offer players significantly/meaningfully less freedom than 4e, it doesn't, because: 
    Skills in this edition are broader than 4e; having a skill in 5e represents competence in more activities compared to 4e skills If you find the list too broad, the RAW provides details on adding narrower sub-skills The game is less granular; one skill or ring rank represents more competence than one rank in 4e Advantages and disadvantages use a whole new system. Players can invent their own (what? freedom to make the character you want?) or select from a list. Notably, they don't give or cost XP (4e disadvantage XP values NOT worth the trouble they caused; you could only take 10 XP worth of disads, which is just 1.5-2.5 game sessions, depending on how much XP your GM handed out) The new advantage system also protects player freedom by avoiding "auto buy" advantages--in 4e, if you didn't take Prodigy, you were Doing It Wrong.  Character creation is also probably the most hackable part of the game. No reason the GM can't hand out some extra XP at the end of character creation so players can customize a little. 
    Character advancement
    5e has done away with the silly Insight system. Now, you advance in school rank as you spend XP.
    Derived Attributes (endurance, composure, focus, vigilance) 
    I know some folks wish certain derived attributes were calculated a different way. I'd like to point out a design principle that I haven't seen mentioned: the derived attributes use each of Air, Fire, Water, and Earth twice--once with each "neighbor" element, and never with the "opposite" element. For example, Air is used with Water (to calculate vigilance) and Fire (to calculate Focus), but never with Earth. Thus, these calculations have a sort of symmetry or elegance.
    If you change a calculation, consider how it skews the symmetry. For example, don't simply change Composure form (Earth + Water)x2 to (Fire + Water)x2; this change means fire is used 3 times, earth is used only 1 time, and Fire and Water are used together (opposites).
    The most straightforward house rule would to be to keep the ring pairings the same, just switch which parings are used for which attribute. For example, you could trade Composure's Earth + Water for Vigilance's Air + Water (meaning all four of these rings are used in your "hit points" attributes"), and then come up with some justification for the trade based on the themes of the rings.
    If you change the derived attributes, consider how changing them might impact NPC templates.
×
×
  • Create New...