Jump to content

Soshi Nimue

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Soshi Nimue

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. edited - incorrect answer - check @Schmoozies below
  2. I was hoping the title was alluding to Shahai's adventures in the capital teaching the Imperials about nemuranai... I was not disappointed...
  3. This is a pretty niche case - but if you were defending with Hotaru / Toturi, and had no characters with fate, but your opponent Did have characters with fate (maybe you used Elemental Fury to swap to the void ring) and you won in defense - Hotaru / Toturi ability allows you to activate the ring effect, but the Attacking player is still the Attacking player, so if you force Ring of Void, and the RoV effect includes "may" then the attacking player could say they don't need to remove a void from their character. If the word "may" isn't included, making RoV ability forced if activated then the attacking player would need to remove a fate off of their character.
  4. Its 2 cost for 1/1 which starts out bad, and you only get his effect AFTER you win the conflict of the ring type. This telegraphs to your opponent what ring you plan to go after, and requires you win this conflict to get anything from it. Unless you are already ahead, buying the initiate puts you behind in power for that conflict already. No ring is always valuable so you may have to make a decision that doesn't help you win just to trigger the ability. The ability is great on Seeker Initiate - its everything else about it that is complete garbage. 2 cost for a 1/1? What other character would you buy for this? Goblin Sneak is only good because taking a fate away from your opponent may prevent them from winning the conflict but drawing a card after the conflict is done? I'll spend my 2 fate on a character that can do something, and just take ring of earth.
  5. There was a time when Seeker was seen as the obviously more powerful role - it was a long time ago... times change, and the cards change. Withing digging up the passed I still think the choice was foolish. Keeper allows more splashed cards, and whether you are splashing dragon, or unicorn, or phoenix getting 13 influence can mean a more reliable splash. Keeper cards are pretty obviously more powerful than seeker ones. Scorpion don't have much use for Keeper Initiates, but no one has use for Seeker Initiates so... and of course the 2 province and bonus fate thing. I think some players are attempting to put more value on 2 bonus fate than its worth. The two provinces of the same element isn't bad in defense but I don't feel I need shameful display and pilgrimage. Midnight Madness isn't automatically a Scorpion win either considering our new, more unbalanced stat line. Phoenix and Dragon are going to love Midnight Madness more than Scorpion or Crane. Anyway - without digging up the passed, I still think their decision was a poor one, and dedicating the choice to an admitted saboteur brings no comfort.
  6. Because the game would give the first player to pass 1 bonus fate. Rather than giving that only to the player who passes first on the first turn, I would give it to each player on the first turn. This would negate any real player 1 / player 2 advantage. The turns are already simultaneous, so there is little advantage to being player 1 anyway. Buying the same number of characters, first player has the first chance to pass. On the first turn this is about all the advantage player 1 has as there aren't any rings with fate on them, and not enough characters to really do much unless they're sacrificing turn 2 board state for an opening rush. Since the primary bonus for being player 1 is reduced to gaining an extra fate IF they pass first the game designers decided to give player 2 an extra fate in beginning the game. The problem with this is that player 2 gets this fate at the start of the game - meaning they have 8 fate for the dynasty phase. While player 1 can pass first easier player 2 can still pass first to grab the other fate opening the game 9 fate to 7... a pretty sizable disparity that player 1 can't make up as there aren't any rings with fate on them. This doesn't balance the advantage so much as it shifts it, player 2 is preferred much more than player 1 for this reason. The advantage actually carries over as that player is then first player on turn 2, reinforcing their advantage by being able to pass first easier and being able to have first choice of rings once they've received some fate. For these reasons I feel giving player 2 a bonus fate before the game starts is more advantage than player 1 had for going first. If they simply gave both players 1 fate after each player passes on the first turn instead of giving it to only the player who passed first it balances this part out and leaves the rest of the game as is. Why not just give them both 8 fate to start the game? why not just give them both 10? My point is not to give more fate to start the game - but to address the actual imbalance of being player 1, turn 1.
  7. Except - as I stated in my initial review of this story - I don't think it even did that. Yoshi and Taka both failed to actually convey much about their personalities. It was bland, and more akin to exposition then story telling. Uncalled for? This is a forum for discussing L5R LCG including narrative releases. We call out cards for being poorly designed, and do we care about the designer's feelings? NO. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong - but it is our right to be critical. If the author or designer can't handle criticism they are in the wrong line of work. I don't think my criticism is unwarranted or off base. The story was bland and uninteresting, it didn't sell me on who these people were or what they were doing, it simply told me. Even the metaphor of Yoshi taking the warfan to this meeting doesn't end up meaning much. It gets repetitive between the two as their back and forth is more a droning repetition than an inspired back and forth dialogue. We don't learn that Taka is a great negotiator, nor do we learn that Yoshi is a great politician. Go back and re-read it, show me the part where their personalities are made evident through their actions. This story doesn't introduce Taka or Yoshi - it sets the stage for the Yoritomo reveal, which finally brings some light to the story. It may not even be the artists fault, as the first part may have been stretched out and made dull to fit FFG's requests as a 2 part. Whatever the author feels is unknown, but having just re-read both fictions while writing this reply I can say that the difference in quality from the first, and second in selling the story is noticeable.
  8. This is exactly my point - so much paperwork and balancing of the scales. Every +3 or -5 is pretty meaningless provided the player balances their ledger - but essentially a character is going to be as honorable (or dishonorable) as their player role plays them to be. This means it is internal, even if there is outside scrutiny. The effects of being honorable or dishonorable are far removed, requiring many +3's and +5's strung together before there is any reward for obtaining an honorable status. The games have used this system previously - but I feel it adds a lot of paperwork to the mix, relies on placebo effects, and belies the complexities of the context of honorable or dishonorable actions. I am not being an "old guard" saying that the new rpg needs to do what the old one did - I'm taking the exact opposite position. This has always been a problem with the rpg's and this is a great time to be rid of it. A 0-100 scale of linear honor progression, void of context, removed from its karmic reward, overly complex and yet insufficient in measuring the depth the honor system should have. Nothing is interesting in +3 or -5 honor. If we can ask ourselves whether we should bother having a player roll a skill check by asking if the outcome of the check could be interesting, I feel we can equally question whether we should bother up keeping a ledger of honor if the drama, the context, and the karmic rewards for (dis)honorable behavior are lost in it. I'm not suggesting honor and glory be removed - but suggesting that a narrative game should focus more on the drama and context of a characters actions rather than translating them into a lengthy scale that simultaneously slows down play, adds in paperwork, and strips what could be a dramatic decision of all the narrative color it contains, reducing it to a simple +3 (x4 if lion, /2 if scorpion)
  9. Is there something about this that makes it above scrutiny? Do you feel that simply exerting effort and producing a "finished product" concludes that the product is of high quality or valuable?
  10. My point is NOT that honor and glory aren't important aspects of a character. My point is that a track of 0-100 where minor decisions create minimal impact with a potential karmic reward far removed from the decisions which lead to it is not the best way to run this system. It involves a lot more nit-picking, a lot more paper work, and doesn't feel rewarding unless your players have latched onto some placebo effect where they actually feel the impact of +/- 3 honor... What I suggest is simply changing the system to a more immediate, and dymanic system. If a character makes a decision which follows their giri or ninjo, or makes a decision which is honorable against their own best interests then they activate an "honored advantage" which gives them an extra free advantage for the session. Similarly if a character makes a decision which goes against their giri or ninjo, or makes a decision which is self serving or dishonorable, then the GM gains a free disadvantage against them for the session. This gives an immediate karmic reward for being honorable or dishonorable. It cuts out the paperwork of calculating the exact impact of every small slight of honor. It also gives incentive to dishonorable folks to occasionally act honorably as they can receive some recognition or reward from it despite their previous actions. What constitutes honorable or dishonorable is defined by each character through the giri and ninjo, and the narrative the GM and players create. I feel this is best as every character should have some ideal of what is honorable or not, which is often influenced by their clan but at its core is a very personal belief. ------------------------- Status and glory on a 0-100 system is just horrible. Doing away with that in favor of titles is much better. Glory is highly contextual. What you may be known for in one area as a good thing may be a negative thing in another setting. You might be well known in one area and completely unknown in another. Contextual traits completely fail on a blanket, linear, global scale of 0-100. This is similar for Status. You may be a high ranking courtier, but how will you be treated in the Crab lands? If you are a Daidoji who's served on the wall and are known for your combat prowess you may be treated very well, but if you're Kakita Yoshi who's never drawn a sword... well you might not get such treatment. There are growth lines as a warrior, as a socialite, a politician, magistrate ect - and a single character may exist in multiple spectrum as well. Similar to Glory this becomes too contextual for a single linear progression. This has been exposed with every L5R system as various notoriety home-brews have been used to accommodate contextual status. If we simply used titles which had no effect, but could be invoked as an advantage or disadvantage based on narrative circumstance then we allow a character to have multiple aspects to their glory and status in play at one time, without the added paperwork and scale balancing. If you are famous in Ryoko Owari Toshi specifically you can have a title for that and be famous in that city while being completely ignored in Toshi Ranbo. Again - I'm not against honor and glory, or status as being aspects of a character. I feel they are very important aspects for the setting. What I challenge is that the 0-100 linear, global scale is a conflicting and contradictory system with a lot of paper work, and only becomes MORE paperwork if you attempt to expand that scale to account for contextual factors. The karmic rewards of actions are too far removed from the actual actions which the player may take. By bringing the reward forward to the point of the decision a player can more directly feel the impact of acting (dis)honorably, and may more easily see the monikers of recognition they may experience, and importantly might know why they should care to know someone else.
  11. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that some companies have specifically isolated their development team from their forums to prevent any claim by a forum participant that any concept developed in game was derived from their comments. IF a major company would take the issue that seriously I can only assume there are some grounds for it. That is an assumption so it could be wrong - but I am not a law professor to say it isn't wrong, and unless you are a law professor, I don't think you can say it is either...
  12. wow, y'all still goin back and forth on this? At what point do you have to consider - the fiction quality was just poor. This was like... a highly contrived part 1 full of inaction on all fronts. No characters in the first story engaged at all... turns out it was basically a bland set up to Yoritomo reveal. Honestly I chalk it up as bad story telling. You could have written 2 lines and covered all of the lead into the 2nd part. "I, Taka was sent to court, I hates court but needs to see the Emperor. Oh, its Yoshi instead of the Emperor... I guess I'll move on to plan b." That's our first half of this fiction. Part 2 picks up from there with the real story. Just look at how much more alive Taka was in that second story... The first story was just a bad story. Don't consider Yoshi OR Taka bad for it, blame the story teller for not convincing us that any character was actually doing anything that we should care about... There were no decision points, or conflicts to get attached to in the first fiction. In the RPG they give this section where they advise the GM to consider if a roll is even needed. Could a character pass a check? would it be interesting if they failed? Well - no, Taka could not have passed any check to interact with Yoshi. It was a dead story, a quagmire of text that includes no value. Part 2 is the predestined outcome, part 1 was just a set up.
  13. Firstly - I think I agree with you completely. If I were to be honest, I want BOTH though... I want to run a longer lasting campaign, but also do want to test these mechanics. Its a tough spot to be in, and last session I discussed with my players possibly rolling our characters in 1st or 4th ed and picking up from there with more familiar ground... ...However after considering the comments in this topic and the "are you enjoying the beta" thread I think I want to seriously try 1 more time with the beta... I want to take the blame on myself for possibly implementing the new system wrong, and building the story in the wrong frame for the system. I am going to try 1 more session with the beta. I may make a few tweaks to the system but my goal is to change as little as possible, and what I do change is going to be to make the system run smoother. I did a lot of reading through the approaches and skill descriptions, and basically re-read all of the beta releases over the weekend and I hope this next session this Saturday may bring things together. I don't hate the beta, I'm just frustrated with it. -------------- As for the comments on legal issues - that is very true. Some companies don't allow their developers into their own forums for risk of any new concept being traced back to a user opening the company up to a possible law suit. In this beta I think FFG has put in some disclosure that any posts here are their property... I don't specifically recall that, but they should have that posted somewhere... otherwise its almost impossible for them to actually read the forums and consider using any suggestions. They would have to utilize the survey only at that point.
  14. They really should change it. Instead of giving player 2 +1 fate at the start of the game, they should just give each player 1 fate after they pass, instead of just 1 to whoever passed first. After the first turn, give the fate to whoever passed first as normal. This would actually balance it a lot better - as +1 fate during the first dynasty is WAY more powerful than 1 fate afterwords... So even if player 1 passes first the game isn't balanced by this, combined with the fact that player 1 turn 1 has no opportunity to gain fate from a ring and we can see why no one likes going first turn 1...
  15. Wow - great spoils! I was expecting Kanjo district after seeing the others ones. Phoenix should be proud they get a district in the inner city. That makes Crane, Crab, Lion, and Phoenix right? Think they might throw out a few outer districts just to establish that everyone gets an Imperial District? Or do we keep it to the Miwaku Kabe Club? Yeah - Its hard not to get jealous... but its also important to remember that there may be cards as great for the other clans within these same sets, or just beyond - the game is long, and we must be patient. Sadly I already saw the Scorpion card I wanted, and people decided to ban it... Is it better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all?
  • Create New...