Jump to content

Jennkryst

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jennkryst

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On the one hand, I sort of like the idea of each Pokémon just being an Adversary/Minion and you use your character's stats in place of the Pokémon's for some stuff. But then, I call the Force and Destiny RPG Career Seeker, the Pokémon Master career. On the other hand, I also enjoy the idea of each Pokémon having their own career to learn moves and upgrade some of their stuff and whatnot. I actually enjoy the idea of using both of these together, so your different Pokémon can sort of get upgrades without having to do the normal level-up grind. Unfortunately, this means putting in crazy work in writing up everything.
  2. I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e. Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.
  3. A realization: Ninjo and Giri are not supposed to be compatible. Meaning you are rarely going to be working towards both at the same time. You have this inner pull of your own desires, fighting against your cultural NEED to adhere to your Lord's commands. And this internal struggle is ever present. Thus, also: to strife. Strife is an ever present possibility, where your constantly reminded that your actions likely go against either your Ninjo or Giri, if not both. L5R is not a setting of Work/Life balance, so stress builds as Strife, until an outburst occurs.
  4. If you're going to call out someone on their spelling, be sure to not mix up 'stupid' with 'amazingly adorkable'. Kudos to missing the point with Tyler Durden, though.
  5. L5R 1-4 May not have been. FFG L5R looks to be a good one, though. And I say this as someone who has a good... half of the 4e books. I played it, but it seemed lacking. I will not repeat the flaws that I encountered, because they have been stated elsewhere, by myself and others. As for mechanics making 1-4 popular... WHICH ONES? 4e is filled with optional rules on how to make the game your own. Who is to say that your Rokugun is the same as someone else's? Every Fantasy Flight game I have ever played, I have had fun. Sometimes it was a bewildered fun, as it took time to learn the rules, but always fun. So I will ALWAYS give them the benefit of the doubt.
  6. The problem is the game currently equates any break of On as an outburst, regardless of if that break is a soft chuckle, a smirk, slamming your fist onto the table, or challenging someone to a duel. I've been thinking of this for a bit, and some minor changes I would like to see: Different 'thresholds' of outburst (easy to implement) Examples of ways for '2 opportunities to reduce strife' to play out (I initially was going to say 'actions to vent strife', and then remembered that this was already a thing)
  7. I was actually talking about THIS Torg: ... in reference to THIS post:
  8. I have made the leap (for now) and am getting to work on a character. Major questions include: how do we resolve like... heritage and junk. Just pick it ourselves?
  9. I'm pretty sure Torg's take on ninjas is pulled directly from the L5R lore, unless we want to change how Shugenja work to a more real-world model.
  10. Needs more detail. Did you attempt to attack them by overwhelming their defenses in a Fire-y manner? Because a 0 success/3 Opportunity attack may result in 0 damage, but you have still done a number of Overwhelming things, so you did succeeded in that. The original post referenced it, and it has been brought up many times since. A couple times by you, in fact. So I will bring it up as I wish. I will also point out the flaws in it, especially when the people who bring up said flaws claim 'it is not a flaw, it is a feature!'... and then later concur that it is, in fact, a flaw.
  11. Except you can determine intent and then roll. You state your intention, and the GM can tell you how many successes and/or opportunities it will take on the roll to achieve this intent. Then you roll to see if you do, in fact, achieve it. I contend that it is even more engaging, as you have to describe HOW you go about achieving your intentions. The key difference, as I have said before, is that it is no longer all or nothing. I will use an absurd example to get this point across. Previously, if you wanted to jump across a chasm, and then raise so you can actually land it (rather than hit the far side and have to climb up). Had you then failed the roll by less than the raise value? You now fail the jump entirely, rather than still succeed and hit the far side and have to climb up.
  12. The emulation of raises and risk and excitement is still present. For instance: Step 1) state intent to GM/formulate dice pool Step 2) GM tells you how many successes/opportunities you need to roll to achieve this intention. Step 3) roll (and possibly fail) ... the key difference is that it will no longer be all or nothing. If you fail to achieve the requisite successes and/or opportunities on the roll, you still manage to achieve PART OF your intended action, rather than completely failing in older editions.
  13. I am desperately trying to figure out how to code the basics of it for a MUSH, because I am that sort of nerd.
×
×
  • Create New...