Jump to content

M4S-_-T3R

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    28

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M4S-_-T3R

  2. Posted

    With the right group of players and a good GM who understands how approaches enrich outcomes/narrative of the game; there is the potential for a really fun game here(assuming some other things are fixed).

    My beta group weren't those players and I was still learning the best way to use the approach/skill  system. Still, if I was running the starter set I'd probably white out the approaches on the sheet and write in "describe how your character goes about using their skill" or something along those lines.

    We still had a lot of fun; just ran into a few speedbumps and I think some players just wanted to see who could do the most damage, probably the wrong game for that mentality.

  3. Posted

    5 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

    Just so that you know I'm actually following, I'll restate your case as I read it:

    Beta encourages power gaming, especially through presentation of approaches; power gaming is bad, because roleplaying is better. Which is an opinion--one I happen to share--but that opinion doesn't mean the game has a problem if you can power game instead of roleplay. Again, power gamers will always power game; that's how they got the name. 

    1) Ok, but its way more complicated than cut and dry "this is not an opinion, this is fact". Power gaming isn't binary; it's a matter of degree, a pile problem. Lots of people do it a little bit, but "power gamers" do it so much its a problem (which is a moving target, because different groups have different preferences). Same with encouragement. Hiding the approaches also seems to contradict the value implicit in revealing TNs by default, namely that players should understand the intersection of story and mechanics when they undertake an action. Should we hide their character sheets, and instead give them a few vague phrases about their characters? I, for one, like knowing how a game works when I play it (or at least have access to the information; can't memorize a whole book!). And I like it when my players know, too.

    1.5) Why does it matter why they chose it?

    I like it when the GM determines the approach, too, but I think that should happen in dialogue with the players. I'm not perfect, I'll make mistakes, and players sometimes help me identify the right approach. And sure, players occasionally try to bargain for a suspiciously advantageous approach. And I say "Nah, that sounds like power gaming" and they say "Ok you're right" and we get on with the fun. 

    2) Or they'll look in the rulebook to see what approaches are tied to what rings and make a list (you don't hide the rulebook, do you?). Power gamers will power game. 

    3) Again, not everyone values immersion like we do. Or they might not value it in every circumstance. Sometimes you just wanna have a good roll, you know? That's fine. 

     

    (4)If power gaming players ruin the fun for the other players, that's a problem among the people at the table. People aren't on the same page. They were expecting one kind of experience, but got another. Just communicate and make sure everyone's playstyles fit together. 

    (5)If a game is so easy to power game that it makes the mechanics boring, that's a also a problem, but a different problem than roleplaying > power gaming.

    Bit out of context so let me try to clarify.

    Its not that power gaming is bad. It is that the game is incentivizing it in addition to be played against its own design, which makes it just less of a game. I wasn't saying power gaming is bad as a fact, I was stating that it is being incentivized. 

    1) I think you misunderstood me here. I was referring to "The presentation of the game, with approaches clearly on the character sheet encourages power-gaming". Gaming the mechanics to some degree is expected. Players don't need to know the approaches to describe their characters actions. The GM reveals the TNs right before the roll; maybe the GM needs to ask exactly what and how the player is performing their action before assigning the TN. No, character sheets have a lot of information that is required, whereas the approaches listed there is more of an aid.  Eventually the players will learn or the GM may even tell them/they may ask. But based on behavior, not having them there is a bigger deal than it seems(particularly for new players).

    1.5) This part is just my opinion, but when playing a roleplaying game and people opt to go out of character for mechanics repeatedly, eventually the game loses depth and ultimately enjoyment. I agree GMs are not perfect either. This is exactly why they shouldn't be on the sheet. This type of dialogue stems mainly from players judging your arbitration of their approach. This is a huge area for potential conflict, and again, while it won't eliminate the problem removing them, leaving the approaches listed for them is encouraging this behavior(again, some cases it may not be an issue). 

    2) Yes, this is also possible. No I don't hide the rulebook. The whole point is by not having them there it encourages the system to at least function temporarily the way it was designed and hopefully players develop a "muscle memory" if you will. At the very least they will learn how this part of the game was intended to work. Then, if they still want to game for better ring rolls at least they will be used to the process; as we've said the mechanics for the game fully take into account the possibility of using the same ring for everything. By doing this, it encourages playing the game the way it was designed(which is better). 

    3) Of course, with 8+ billion people of the planet statistically anything is possible(Just joking here). But yes, again, gaming the mechanics is expected and cannot be prevented if there is any mechanics at all. And yes it is fine for those players, who for whatever reason, use the higher ring; in fact it is a component of the variety of ways to build a character(a good thing). The point is to not encourage this while not punishing it, but encourage the game's own design; a player thinking and describe their approach as opposed to picking it off a list.  For those players who really don't want the immersion and must know the mechanics, they will likely look in the book or somehow find out as you said. But at least they will know that is not what was intended. The explanation of approaches contradicts having them listed under the rings on the character sheet. If that is what FFG is going for, they should just say "choose your approach from the list" in the explanation.

    4) Yes you are absolutely right, it is a problem with the players. Some groups may never have this issue, but I can guarantee you quite a significant percentage of the beta testers have. Good game design shouldn't incentivize power gaming while simultaneously contradicting its own design. I don't think I have ever had a group that was able to communicate and make sure their playstyle fits together, or everyone on the same page. Its a social situation where people sorta adapt. I wish I had players that did this.  But as an aside, the game design should not create so many opportunities for conflict, with the approach system being one of many.

    5) Well said. The beta was easy to power game, making the mechanics awkward at times(I won't go into detail). You misunderstood me when you said rpg > power gaming as that was not my point at all(personally I believe in a good balance of role play and mechanics: too much of either is problematic). It is that the game is encouraging power gaming by incentivizing it, more than it encourages its own design! This really causes a lot of problems throughout the meta of the game and in turn the quality of the game itself. 

    In my beta test, I had to constantly ask players to ignore the list on their sheet, and describe to me what their character was doing. Sometimes I would ask questions for them to expand on things in order to determine what approach they were using. Most of the time, the approach that I came up with was not the one they chose prior to thinking about the task at hand, either because they couldn't think of a tangible way to use that approach in the circumstances or because they realized they were just arguing for the mechanics of the approach they chose initially. Sometimes a dialogue between us on some approaches that were borderline where I would usually let them choose between 2 that would fit their action. The approaches listed on the sheet were a distraction more than anything. Humans don't like being told they can't have something, so it helps if we take the puppy out of the window, even though the puppy is still for sale.

    I really like the approach design but for it to work it has to unfold as described. Player describes their action, GM determines skill and maybe asks to clarify how the player is going to accomplish the action if needed, GM determines skill, approach, TN, and asks for the roll. There is no rewinds, such as "Oh well I don't want to analyze the debris(because that's the wrong ring), I wanted to survey the room". Eventually players may realize what their characters are actually good at but its not expected that going into every roll they should know what ring possibly even what skill is going to be called for; maybe after some time of playing they will be able to. 

    Hope this helps

  4. Posted

    14 hours ago, KveldUlfr said:

    I have been GMing Fate for years. Having run fate accelerated, which is a version that plenty of people have the worry of spamming your best trait,  I can say that it does none of those things.

    If the fiery, brash guy always uses his fire approach to get the best dice... great. Maybe he is dealing with a polite person who responds well to a water approach (1 sux), moderately to earth and air (2 sux), and badly to fire.

    Maybe that brash guy has less dice if he is calm, and takes the correct approach, but it gives him opportunity to swallow his temper IC. Or not, and risk failure. Or makes him lean on someone else. Someone better at that approach.

     

     

    Absolutely. If he's really doing it because that's how they are roleplaying then that is exactly the intention! Much more fun that way rather than a dry mechanical player. Someone also mentioned different outcomes with approach even on a successful roll. (The example of whether or not a guard who was charmed, bribed, or intimidated would remember you)

    The big point here isn't whether or not its ok to spam your highest trait. Its about how it can(but not always) negatively affect the roleplaying aspect and things that could be done to minimize the incentive to do so. I can't force my players to role play or this wouldn't be an issue.

  5. Posted · Edited by M4S-_-T3R

    10 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

    It kinda is. If the character has an "Earth Ring personality" then he is going to use Earth Approaches. It wouldn't make much sense for him to use anything else much. Heck, if I had more trust in the writers, then I would say that they made a mind-blowing allegory with Rokugani Bushido because as far as the tenet of Honor goes: the decisions you make and how those decisions are carried out (Approaches!) are a reflection of who you truly are.

    I also disagree with mono-Approaching being difficult for the GM because it makes the character super predictable and thus easier to manage. From my personal experience, it also makes for more interesting games because a high Ring translates into more kept Opportunities and thus more colorful play.  

    As of now, the problem seems to be twofold:

    1. Approaches doing a bit too much because the other half - the Skill system - is a mess. 
    2. The rest of the rules do not really acknowledge the existence of Approaches and just let them hang out to dry. 

    Thanks everyone for the feedback. You are all hitting on things we discussed much earlier in this post and I completely agree with you. We've already discussed varied TN's, exclusive approaches(only 1 approach works), and different outcomes for a successful roll based on what approach is use(love this).Its clear that what I said still hasn't been understood by some so I'll try again.

    One point I was trying to communicate is the need for better definition/examples of the approach system and as Ato mentioned above, tie in approaches with the rest of the rules.  I have already expressed in the above posts.

    The other point, which I have also mentioned a few times now, has a couple parts. The presentation of the game, with approaches clearly on the character sheet encourages power-gaming. This is not an opinion, this is fact, by seeing what approaches are tied to what ring, the game itself is incentivizing power gaming and not roleplaying. This information should be somewhere for the GM to check after the character describes their actions, to say, "As you try to recall what you know about poison from stories and your training roll your earth ring".  Instead it can become forced(now I recognize some of you may not have this problem or feel that it takes away from the game, which is why when I posted I explained dealing with certain types of players this can become a problem) where a player just looks down at his sheet for the highest ring, then looks under approaches, and says "Oh, I uh try to recall what I know about poison. I'll now roll my 4 earth along with my skill." Some of you are saying this is normal and fine as that is their earth oriented character's style, maybe it is. And if the opportunities spice up the story in the process, fantastic. But would they have chosen to do that without knowing it was directly attached to the Earth Ring? Some players might decide to analyze the poison, even though their character has a high earth ring(assuming they are allowed to use it).

    Yes, players will eventually realize that how their character goes about actions determines the ring used, but this should be kept as vague as possible and for the GM to determine from the very beginning. It may sound nitpicky, but in play this minor change actually has profound impact on how the game is played. After a roll or two the player may now know "As I recall, this type of dress indicates ...I roll my earth ring." This obviously is unavoidable so, as I and others have mentioned, the power gaming cannot be prevented. That's not the point here.

    Now for you devil's advocates, even with approaches on the sheets some players may not do this. In fact, it may be beneficial in those cases as they can easily see what approaches allow what dice justified by that is just "their style" and it giving more character. Fine, yeah I get it. But instead of thinking about how their character will address the subject, they are thinking of how they can use an earth approach. To me this takes away from the roleplaying experience and the immersion into a fantasy world; whether it is someone's earth personality or not. But the Beta rules still say the player should describe their action(what they are doing-skill- and how -approach- they are going about it) and in my experience the game is a lot more fun when this is done. I just don't think most players need/should have a list of approaches to describe what their character is doing. 

    Its obvious to me that people are aware of the value and importance of approaches beyond just choosing what your highest ring is, which is why this topic was on my original post. I was just sharing a couple of things that I will be looking for that reinforces this idea.

     

  6. Posted · Edited by M4S-_-T3R

    17 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

    I'm fairly sure that it is, and the "1-2 high Rings per character" phenomenon is supposed to be a feature and not a bug. Having balanced Rings in this edition paints a somewhat unrealistic picture of the character as someone who can use all the Approaches with roughly equal ease must be an extraordinary person. A normal guy should have one "trademark" Approach set he always tries to use because that's who he is, one "good" Approach set he uses time to time because he likes 'em, one "backup" Approach set he is okay with but does not prefer, and two "nah, that ain't me" Approach sets that are most likely the opposites of the first two (so someone with highest Earth and high Water has low Air and Fire). This kinda defines the character through their in-game actions without requiring any actual roleplaying effort. 

    This is actually pretty cool in my opinion. 

    Yeah, makes sense. Although each toon may differ.

    Yes it is a feature, and it is an option in the game. I also think it is cool. 

    The part that isn't cool or intended is what has been said about approaches. Always trying to use earth approaches isn't who you are, its gaming the system, destroys roleplaying, and often makes the GMs job more difficult than it should be.

  8. Posted

    RE: Assisting Spellcasting

    Great discussion.

    This is exactly why this should be clarified in the rules. I think mechanically this could go either way; its an arbitrary decision on whether a non-shugenjas' actions could affect the outcome(waving a censor, praying, choosing/providing an offering). But because it has such an impact on the game, this definitely deserves some attention(I'm not 100% sure it wasn't mentioned in the beta, but I had players assisting the shugenja, usually the monk).

    So in the event there is a hopefully civil argument, falling back to the rules provides a clear resolution without the blanket: GM's word is final.

    I think avoiding the "GM's word is final" resolution as much as possible keeps players from feeling that adversarial relationship.

     

  9. Posted

    On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:52 PM, sidescroller said:

    (1)Do they though? I mean, you can *technically* play the piano with a sledge hammer... but the piano probably won't work the way pianos are supposed to work. Like any product, games have an intended use, and they're liable to break when used inappropriately.

    (2)That said, there's no need for the game to hand players the metaphorical sledge-hammer. And I don't think it does; as has been pointed out many times, just raise the TN for inappropriate approaches, and tailor results to the ring used. I've had great success with this approach (that's right, I said it). 

    (3)If you want a power-gamer-proof experience, TTRPGs probably aren't a good bet, especially any published edition of L5R to date. 

    Of course, the flip-side of power gaming is that the GM can do it too... Have a power gamer bushi? Throw in an equally broken broken enemy bushi with an irrational vendetta so he only targets the power gamer. 

    Thanks sidescroller, you have some good insight here.

    1. The answer to your question is: yes. Your piano example is actually the exact reason why. You see, a piano isn't designed to be played with a sledge hammer, as you pointed out. This is exactly what I am getting at. The game isn't designed to be abused with 2 huge rings and the same earth approach over and over. But, unlike in the piano example, by design the game is encouraging this behavior. It would be as if your said piano recommended the sledge hammer to produce a finer note. But when the sledgehammer is used, the piano is broken, same in this case with abusing the approach system, which you mentioned. But the sole difference is a design that encourages this.

    2. I too have found success in this method. While I was running my beta game, I certainly had higher/lower TNs for different approaches and in some cases there was only 1 approach. While this certainly does limit the abuse, in practice it just isn't enough mainly because this issue is so embedded in the core mechanics. A character will still be better off by pumping a couple rings. Which is easy to do since there are no traits(removed from previous editions, a mistake imho).

    The real solution to this issue is to play the game as it was designed(including different TNs for approaches and exclusive approaches). Players describe their action, GM interprets the approach. The problem is the players that don't always voluntarily want to do this. So to minimize this potential for conflict, this behavior first should be discouraged(1 below), and second, clarified(2 below).  All that needs to be done is:

    1. Remove the approaches from the character sheet to get players to focus on roleplaying and not on mechanics.
    2. "Narrowly define" in the rulebook (as previously mentioned in this post) the approach system. 

    3. Ain't that the truth. But these are design flaws that can be easily changed to minimize conflict with power gamers and rules lawyers. Minimizing conflict is a key component to game design. I'm not an opponent of power gaming and it is impossible to eliminate; game design needs to take this into consideration. However, playing quite a bit with the beta rules proved power gaming really hurt the game, arguably broke the game. This is almost to be expected in a beta and fortunately there are some minor tweaks that can be made to help with this. 

    I like your GM power gaming idea, reminds me of the Sworn Enemy disadvantage(from versions past not the watered down version in this edition). I tend to avoid this at all costs as I don't want to create an adversarial relationship with my players. Some players may be cool when you flex your GM muscle, the group I had was  particularly sensitive to this. I(and others) have DM'd for groups that this type of action can occasionally lead to arguments, maybe even bitterness. The Beta recommends awarding players a void point whenever the GM uses a "forced" situation; like villain escaping, forcing plot elements. My group was not fond of this, the power gamer especially. He felt his character in heavy armor was untouchable.

    (In my game a group of armed ronin ambushed the players during a hunt for fish eggs, they threatened to kill them if they didn't hand over the eggs. Above board I informed them fighting these ronin will lead to certain death. They complained that it was forced, I explained this is the only part of the story that is forced, but I still sensed some bitterness. They asked why can't they try and fight them. I explained, again, it was part of the story and to avoid spending an hour fighting a combat you are destined to lose. Classic stick-up scene they just couldn't accept. )

  10. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Titanium Mage said:

    No character is able to call forth the powers of the Kami except shugenja. Other samurai can pray until they pass out but the Kami will never answer. Shugenjas don’t just simply pray, they have specific techniques and secrets that they jealously guard. If a samurai doesn’t know how to make the proper offerings to the Kami, the Kami could get offended and retaliate which isn’t much assistance.

    This brings up something similar to skill approaches. Because of the potential for using assist, maybe it needs to be defined  for things like spellcasting.

  11. Posted

    Late reply. But it felt as though the "critical" part of "critical strike" was misleading. Most crits are soaked with a fitness roll, or spend a void to parry and damage your weapon.

    The game is much slower paced than previous editions where damage was much more open ended, armor didn't absorb damage so once you are hit you will be taking FULL damage from that weapon. Huge difference in gameplay making FFG edition far less lethal(also armor is just overpowered).

  12. Posted · Edited by M4S-_-T3R

    The group was participating in the Topaz Championship(I converted 1E to beta). The Hida bushi was enjoying some sake in a Scorpion owned Sake house in Tsuma with a fellow Hida. As they were leaving, he noticed one of the serving girls left a note under the bottle. It had the word "help!" scrawled on it. The Hida left but vowed to return, as his personal desire was that to punish those who abuse their power.

    The Hida returned after the tournament and requested a meeting with the owner of the Sake house. He then asked the Bayushi what he wanted for the serving girls release. The Bayushi's 10 koku offer was a bit high, so the Hida began intimidating the man. He settled on 5 koku and a small favor. A somewhat well established gang of bandits in Scorpion Clan territory had caused him some trouble a while back and needed to be punished.

    In a village south of Beiden,  with the group located, the players began asking around about these bandits. A man in a sake house offered information for a price. Again, the Hida intimidated, warning him of the consequences for refusing. The man ran but was caught buy the rest of the players waiting outside. The Hida bearhugged the man, breaking bones, and was eventually given information of the whereabouts of 3 gambling dens belonging to the bandits known as the Forest Killers, a well known and particularly problematic Juzimai(gang) in the Unicorn, Scorpion, Crab, and Shinomen Forest areas.

    They decided to crash the party of one of the dens, ultimately killing 4 gang members and hanging a badly beaten gang leader from a tree by his foot. They left notes basically a calling card for those who knew they crossed the Sake House owner in Tsuma.

    They returned  and freed the geisha, who asked for an escort back to her home in Beiden. Turns out she was a spy, who would later claim her family had disappeared and ask to serve the Hida as a personal assistant. During the Topaz Championship, the players had became too savvy about the plots of Bayushi Sugai and were identified as persons of interest. When the Hida was spotted in the Sake house the plan was set into motion to spy on them. This would later develop further when the players became involved in a Lion/Scorpion/Hare Clan struggle that developed out of a "fake kolat" cell led by a former member of the kolat and was being contained by the Akodo family by using the players because of their distance(nobody was Lion Clan) and unaffiliated status.

    Hida Jitenno reacted to this

  14. Posted · Edited by M4S-_-T3R

    24 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

    The real power of Assistance is the extra kept die and it is there regardless of skill. Also, I must note that in my experience, the most powerful Assistance tricks are the easiest to explain away ("I pray with the Shugenja" and "I fake an attack to flush out the enemy for the Bushi").  

    Like, I have seen a Shugenja dropping Castle Osano-Wo, and it was a narrative disaster despite being mechanically sound <_< .

    Great point, keeping dice isn't affected by skilled/unskilled. Yeah, some of my players caught on to this really quickly and began abusing assist. Also when goblins attack in packs of 5 with 4 assisting it can get messy but actually makes sense(although the crab bushi was complaining that they were able to injure him as it was impossible for a goblin to wound him solo). Something to look at when the rules are released. Could be that it is intended to be this way. In my beta testing it seemed very good but became one of those things where anytime someone rolled there was an assist. 

    If it was my design, only skilled assists allow a keep and maybe even only skilled are allowed to assist. This is something that should have been on my original list, because it comes up constantly.

    16 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

    Spells per day add nothing of interest to the game. Just book keeping, and not even fun book keeping. "Welp guys, I can either cast the spells we need now, and watch you fight the boss, or we can not progress the adventure but I'll be ready to open a can of whoop A on the boss."

    Or just nova everything and do whatever it takes to recharge(if possible). This is my main complaint DnD 5e as coupled with it is designed for X encounters per long rest, it really begins to force the DM into building content that is time sensitive or somehow limits the ability to recharge limited use abilities. This is another reason why I like "once per scene" type abilities. There is no way to game the system, you simply get to use the power once per scene, unlike in DnD 5e, and even other systems with spells per day or similar limiting mechanisms.

    Excellent point. So FFG got this one right, we just need to hope for good balance in spells and assist!

    AtoMaki reacted to this

  15. Posted

    13 hours ago, Titanium Mage said:

    (1)None of the invocations are that ridiculously powerful to the point where it would absolutely break the game. 

    (2)From a player’s perspective when every other character type bushi, courtier, and monk can always use their special abilities with absolutely no limits while your shugenja basically becomes useless after they run out of invocations or they have to use the martial arts skills with little to no training in order to conserve spells is not only going to be boring because you can’t cast any spells and it would be unfair.

    (3)Besides that, there are plenty of RPGs where spell casting is still limited but not in the “you can’t cast any more spells because balance” such as Dresden Files RPG and Mage the Awakening. 

    1.             I think this is a bit of a stretch, as the final spell lists and mechanics haven't been released yet. Also, its difficult to see how listed beta spells will perform in a full version (taking into account the meta: enemies, xp curve, techniques, revisions to rules etc)

    2-3.          "..with absolutely no limits" is simply not true. There are many abilities that have limitations, some useable once per scene, the range of the ability(0-1 for instance), one buff running at a time etc. Were you more of referring to them in a more "uses per day" kind of sense? The answer to that statement is that a shugenja could have a few spectacular rounds and a few "boring" rounds or spread their spells to have "well balanced" action. Also, as mentioned before perhaps their spells have powerful effects that warrant limitation, maybe this will not be a blanket spellcasting rule but rather something like other Kata/techniques that limit the power by scene. Similarly, maybe bushi spend a few rounds moving into hand to hand combat, which could be considered boring, before they get to really shine with their martial prowess. Spell conservation leading to boring gameplay as a shugenja player sitting with no ability to contribute is definitely an issue and for game developers something to think about. I'll use DnD the 5E example of the cantrip rework, a major change as this was a problem in 3rd edition.  The "cantrip" approach could be used in l5r, deeming some spells available at all times while others require resources. 

    Something else I want to mention is the difficulty of some spells is much higher than "strike" and other Kata which sits at 2 successes, which could largely explain why spells per day isn't addressed(yet?).

    My final thoughts on spellcasting: If it were my choice I'd go with limitations based on individual spells(exhausting certain rings, once per scene, day, etc). This does add some complexity to the game but makes sense from a rp perspective as well as a balance perspective and avoids situations where the shugenja just passes their action because they are out of spells.

    Thanks Titanium Mage you bring up some really good points. I have had situations in the beta with both monk and shugenja feeling gimp. However, the shugenja ended up feeling really powerful and the monk started performing well damage wise, though still regularly took a beating until she put on armor.

    5 hours ago, deraforia said:

    I don't know, I think assistance is okay if that's what the player wants to do. They have to give up their action to do it. Maybe assistance needed to be reworked to be a little less powerful.

    Assistance has been discussed in beta updates, in order to assist the player must be able to actually describe how their character will help in a tangible way, otherwise this mechanic can be abused. Furthermore, unskilled assistance only grants a ring die, so the bushi without theology(or other applicable spellcasting skill) assisting a spell caster would only offer a ring die(d6) where a skilled assistant would give a skill die(d12).

    Great points.

  17. Posted

     

    Great feedback guys, I am going to attempt to clear up what I was communicating with my original post in regards to some of these great responses.

    16 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

    So, duels in medium and heavy armor will not be as rare as you would think. 

    This again is highly subjective in Rokugan Culture depending on the current situation.

    The point is that while it is true that there are times that it is not appropriate to wear armor in public the opposite is also true.

    The limiting of spell casting per day is a balancing factor in most games.

    This is normal put i place due to the exponential growth of the power of spell-casters in most systems.

    IMHO Trait(Approach) need to be more narrowly defined, because as it was presented in the Beta you could make a case for any approach on most skills

    Example:

    Martial: Melee

    Air: I am attacking with Precision

    Earth: I am attacking with Patience

    Fire: I am attacking with Ferocity

    Water: I am attacking with Power

    All this is doing is diluting the pool and giving the players the chance to always pick their highest Ring to accomplish their goal. 

    And the skills need to be expanded to as to be less generalized as a core rule and not an option.

    As it currently stands IMHO the system allows for powergaming buy actually rewards players for power-loading and using one or two rings for everything.

    Add to this the over generalization of skills and you have a powergamers dream come true.

    But again this is IMHO.

     

     

    Thank you tenchi! I am really glad someone is picking up what I'm putting down. Again we all have our own perspectives but understanding what is being said is the goal. This response is largely what I was trying to express with my original post but I want to respond to a few excellent points.

    I will go in order here:

    Armor:

    So as has been said above, dueling occurs somewhat often in medium/heavy armor. Therefore, any "duelist" should be fully prepared with a suit of heavy armor or suffer the consequences (probably death or avoid the duel if possible). When I said above armor was over powered and created issues in combat, especially in duels, people chose to focus on the situational aspects of armor wearing rather than take a closer look at the mechanics of armor in the game. 

    I appreciate the context(s) provided and recognize the importance of culture in respect to wearing armor in Rokugan, but if you read my original post I'm specifically addressing the mechanics of armor.

    Spellcasting:

    I understand spiritual backlash, keeping x amount of strife causes a backlash. While sometimes these can be very bad, they can also sometimes be beneficial. Also, they can be easily avoided by not keeping dice with strife, albeit sometimes it may come at expense of accepting a failed roll. On top of this, many spells mechanically are almost designed to be enhanced by spiritual backlashes a majority of the time, so I would go even further to say that backlashes are more of a side effect of spellcasting rather than a detriment. Someone mentioned enhanced backlash penalties as a homebrewed rule, which if nothing changes, I would agree as a necessary change.

    The argument that a bushi can always swing a sword and his powers are not limited therefore a shugenja should have unlimited spellcasting is a fallacy of game design (and logic if spellcasting is more powerful). This type of thinking leads to really watered down content (DnD 4E) where there is limited differentiation between subjects. Also "Bushi" may use certain powers that are situational or have other limitations. A spell caster is meant to be able to accomplish things that a bushi cannot, but these may come at a cost of being rather limited in martial prowess as a shugenja spends most of their time in, perhaps, a library or shrine rather than training in the dojo or campaigning in the field.

    You could go even further and argue a bushi swinging a sword is exhausting, and so a shugenja casting spells is also physically exhausting therefore limiting both through fatigue. But again, this would likely end up in a game design problem. This is something important to remember, while the mechanics of the game are important, they are by no means meant to be a simulation of reality. Not only is this impossible, but also it would be a terrible game.

    Logic is great, but must be confirmed with mechanics. So, typically spell casting is limit-ed/ing but powerful while bushi are unlimited (virtually) and maybe slightly less adaptive and powerful. I think this has been pretty consistently the case for most(not all) games and what most gamers expect: IE stereotypically the flimsy mage that can hardly take an arrow but is enormously powerful(an exaggeration to illustrate the point).

    Trait(approach) and Skill Breakouts:

    You more or less restated and expanded on what I said in the original post. This is exactly right. The main issue here is it creates an opportunity for conflict with players who plan on raising a couple rings(probably rings associated with fatigue or other important mechanics) and players who learn they get more dice when using an approach from a higher ring. Sure the GM can force the player use a different ring after they try incessantly to do earth approaches and yes, some skill checks require a specific approach regardless. This could create ill will for this "power gamer" as they feel they were just playing by the rules and are being singled out by the GM. Furthermore, unlike past editions, raising rings doesn't require raising 2 traits(the lowest trait was your ring score), and I am not sure if there are limitations for how high you can raise rings (ie before your rank goes up). This creates opportunity for conflict that could lead to an adversarial relationship with the GM and power gaming leading to un-fun experience for players who are not.  So this whole mechanic must be narrowly defined as it might need to be read to certain players and certainly must be well understood by both the players and the GM.  Also as previously mentioned, success with different approaches SHOULD yield different results. (thanks again for whoevever brought this up)

    In regards to Skill breakouts, excellent point tenchi this was something that I forgot to add to my original list! Some categories, if not all, really should be a core rule and not an optional rule. I am hoping this was a consolidation strategy for beta, as I am a fan of skills not skill groups. I do see how certain campaigns can get away with a specialized set of skill groups (subject to change as campaign evolves). But now the developers are putting more work and expectation on the GM (game design no-no) for their game to function. Furthermore, using skill groups encourages power gaming(potential for conflict), and also affects the experience point curve(more work for GM).

    It has also been mentioned before here that the different approaches shouldn't even be on the character sheet to discourage gaming the mechanics. But alas, they are right on the pre-made characters in the starter set. How long will it take a player to realize how much easier it is to succeed with an approach from a higher ring?

     

    15 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

    I can agree with that, but then would you make your players suffer an honor loss for an on-battlefield duel where they wear the armor? The honor loss for armor in duels was the issue commented upon.

    I know this was addressed, but I wanted to go clarify something in relation to the original post.

    My original post purposely left out situations where armor was acceptable to wear in a duel because it is assumed everyone is going to use it. I was using an honor loss as something that might dissuade using armor in a duel where it was frowned upon as inefficient when compared to the advantage armor gives. Of course, some duels don't allow armor and those duels maybe just won't happen(Crab Clan Hida Bushi won't accept that challenge) The mechanics is what we need to focus on. Even in a battlefield situation, heavy armor is just so strong there is no reason why everyone isn't walking around in it. 

    Again, instead of delving deeper into the mechanics of armor as the original post describes, the context of armor wearing is brought up. FFG didn't add beta updates regarding when  or where  armor could be worn. But they did add the ability to destroy armor to the critical hit tables. This illustrates why the mechanics are what is in question.

     

    I know it is polite to say IMHO but some times things can be demonstrated and while there will always be outliers and different scenarios, these issues actually happened in beta testing by many who have written in these boards.

     

    Thanks again all for good discussion on this!

  18. Posted · Edited by M4S-_-T3R

    Thanks for the replies! Of course we all have our own experiences/opinion/perspectives on this.

    On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 6:05 PM, Hida Jitenno said:

     You show up in armor, you've essentially forfeited the duel.

    Great point, and many situations are similar to this. But mechanically it is really strong.

     

    On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:58 PM, llamaman88 said:

    As for the Wargear it's supposed to note what is culturally unacceptable to wear in public. You shouldn't be letting your players just saunter around the bonsai garden in full armor and a spiked club over the shoulder, but if they do it has a mechanic to represent the tension and dirty looks they will receive.

    Absolutely true. But, to understand what I am getting at you need to understand how power gamers will exploit this. While some groups have zero power gamers, the mechanics of games need to be designed to prevent abuse of mechanics. L5R is particularly prone to this issue because of such heavy cultural restrictions and the design should be to minimize conflict between rules/players/GM thus increasing "ease of play".

     

    On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:52 AM, llamaman88 said:

    I like that they're a little boring because it means you can take what you want, and not be forced into Strength of the Earth and Large yadda yadda because you're a bushi. I don't feel those added anything flavorful to the game because some were so mechanically superior that you couldn't afford to not take them. And then you were encouraged to take the easiest disadvantages to cope with rather than the most fun to play out.

    This was the major issue with the previous format. While it is debatable if it could ever be solved (maybe random disadvantages, balance fixes), I would still prefer it over the beta adv/dis, for me it was a virtually dead feature of the game and adds nothing to character generation. One of my major peeves.

     

    On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:51 AM, AtoMaki said:

    We tried a more punishing ruling for Spiritual Backlashes, and believe me, our shugenja became a lot more circumspect with Invocations after he Backlash'd our archer into a ferocious melee (this wasn't that bad) and drained our Shiba Bushi from all his Void Points in the most critical moment (this was). 

    An interesting idea.  There should be some mechanic besides the GM being forced to step in and say "You can't do that, because I said no, and I am the GM" which most players absolutely hate, puts a bad spin on the game, and should be avoided at all costs.

    I really like your interpretation of success but not ideal approach. I think this is what the game intended as well but didn't realize and/or communicate it effectively. It doesn't just increase TN for ring fishing, but you could end up with a slightly different result. Well said.

    On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 4:03 AM, Magnus Grendel said:

    It had some good ideas, but also some clear illogical elements - panic being essentially meaningless, the damage to destroy a cohort being 1/4 of the army's attrition total whether the army had 2 cohorts or 6, clashes being one round of a duel despite the mass battle turn being an hour or more. 

    I actually used your ideas and created a battle with different units not listed in the beta rules.  I also created a table for heroic opportunities, a player could roll on the table instead of taking an action for his turn in the combat. While my group opted to switch to DnD 5e before we finished the combat, it definitely seemed better, but without finishing I can't say much more.

    I had a lot of fun with the old mass combat rules from 1E with engagement levels, 1 battle roll, and heroic opportunities. Simple and effective.

    A friend of mine has the book on preorder so I will check it out when he gets it. 

     

  19. Posted

    After pretty extensive playtesting of the beta, I complied and emailed a list of changes I would like to see in the final product. For the most part the game was really good, however, the game had some major mechanical problems. FFG had made several changes during the beta but because they were focusing on different topics each update, it was difficult to ascertain if they had a solution to the problems.

    The following are areas I am hoping are addressed in the final product. 

    1. Outbursts and unmasking: The penalties for outbursts aka "strifing out" were almost irrelevant (maybe during some 'outlying' scenes it would be catastrophic).

    • Outbursts were player chosen at character creation and while they could carry some role play elements, they typically were irrelevant to the game. 
    • Unmasking cleared all strife (a full heal so to speak) and "the player and GM" chose an appropriate method: some of were losing a bit of honor(negligible), giving the next attack against you +1 success(also very minor impact), exposing a disadvantage/weakness(and losing honor). Basically no penalty.
    • Lastly, because the beta rules read the player had a say in the matter, this has potential to create conflict. An optional randomized table by scene or possibly making unmasking require something, rather than just instant cast free full heal with virtually no penalty.
    • Because of this, fire stance(on a successful roll, all dice with a strife add a bonus success) and equipment with the "wargear" trait is extremely overpowered.

    2.  War gear: While I understand previous versions had little or no restriction on armor use, the game almost encourages any character with access to the best armor (lacquered I believe) to wear it as often as necessary. For those of you who don't know, all strife totals as a result of dice you roll are increased by 1 per piece of war gear you are using. So a crab bushi with 2 pieces of wargear(armor and weapon) adds to his strife totals he causes to himself or others.

    • Accumulating bonus strife is virtually a non factor(see above) and many enemies in the beta were "immune" to outbursts or had no mechanical effect.
    • Because of everyone having a static to hit number for Strike, mitigation becomes extremely valuable. This was partially addressed(which I like) with the new critical hit table damaging armor, but until there is a requirement/penalty to use it, and strife becomes meaningful it will remain overpowered.

    3. Advantages and Disadvantages: One of the most enjoyable parts of character creation in previous editions was advantages and disadvantages. In the beta, most of these are all the same but simply apply to different situations. This puts the burden on players and GM to deploy them in the game.

    • Makes the GMs job much more difficult tracking every characters Adv/disadv and employing them in a fair and constructive way.
    • My players either completely forgot about, had no interest, or constantly argued for using advantages on every roll.
    • Severely less interesting character creation/creation economy as a player cannot take on disadvantages in exchange for better traits/rings/skills or more advantages.

    4. Repairing weapons and armor: After the update to the critical hit table, repairing weapons and armor became invaluable.

    • While myself, and most GMs can easily implement requirements for various rolls, this should have clearly defined parameters because it will be an absolutely essential skill to most groups. Sure repairs can be done in lands of your Lord and perhaps your clan at request, or requested/purchased in other lands(no price listed). But because of the necessity many players will want this skill, and defining this is easy, and more importantly, avoids another potential conflict.

    5. No limit Spellcasting: Currently in beta rules spell casters had no limit to spellcasting.

    • While I would assume this will be added in the full rules, it is still a major concern.
    • Kihos and some spells are limited by how many can be active at any given moment. (Strike as earth, Strike as fire, katana of fire etc.)

    6. Strife outbursts for creatures/monsters/enemies: In the current rules every monster/enemy should fire stance every round(maybe air if they are front line, or water if they need extra movement).

    • Trait for monsters immune to psychology and thus do not take strife.
    • Special outbursts for enemies that have mechanical importance, perhaps making them easier to defeat(expose a weakness, berserk, flee), changing stats(morale penalty, enrage), unpredictable; the possibilities are endless and not only make encounters feel fair and real but also reward different character builds/strategies against different encounters.
    • Another item that seems obviously left out, hopefully on purpose. Again, I would assume this would be addressed in the full rules

    7. Duels: duels saw a lot of changes through beta. This is a major area players are hoping is done well.

    • In a gaming group, a duel between 2 characters shouldn't take 1+ real life hours to complete.  There was a strife per round effect that was added to put a timer on duels so it will be interesting to see what makes the final cut.
    • The critical hit update really helped with the duel issues, but heavy armor is still broken in duels. While many formal duels may not allow or frown upon any type of armor (honor loss), if it were me I'd take almost any honor loss because the benefit is so great. Again, this may need clearly defined mechanics to avoid conflicts.
    • Iajutsu offered no advantage in dueling at first. This was addressed later by altering the rules of when a weapon was actually drawn; initially it was the assessment then later changed. It will be interesting to see the final rules on drawing a weapon and if Iajutsu is worth investing points into.

    8. Mass combat: the beta rules for mass combat were interesting, but incomplete. 

    • This was something that was purposely left out as it was likely in development.
    • Something to watch for in the new book: Does FFG add a fleshed out system, or leave it bare bones for a commercial product in the future?
    • Will the system be logical and easy to implement? How will it compare to heroic opportunities and rolling on engagement tables? I am really excited to see what they do with this and hoping they can deliver both a player focused and "command" focused approach.

    9. Skills: The beta grouped skills in broad categories but expanded with an optional rule for more detailed skills. I liked the idea that certain campaigns won't need to breakout each category, but some cleanup needs to be done here.

    • It appears(hoping) this was only to minimize page content of the beta.
    • Balancing and reasons for investing in different skills (Iajutsu is the primary example)
    • Clearly define that approaches are to be determined by the gm after the player describes their action. This is for players who opt to game the system rather than describe or role play what their character does. The game is much more enjoyable (for everyone) when players do not focus on the mechanics of the game.

    These were my major issues with the game, some of them just left out purposely, others seemed to be in development. Hopefully the core book has at least attempted to solve these issues, but worst case scenario some house rules can be laid out before character creation.

    Let me know what you guys think!

  20. Posted

    Quote

    “Are our lands not safe enough for you, Hida-san? I did not expect a Crab samurai to be a coward, but maybe I should expect a Crab not selected for duty near the Wall to be made of lesser metal indeed. Let us do you a favour and escort you off of our lord’s perilous domain, so you need no longer fear for your life. Evidently you have no use for those travel papers, so they are hereby revoked. Will your companions travel on to their destination, or will they make sure you need not travel alone?”

    I would have loved to use this.

    Quote

    Any group striking out to assault Hiruma Castle should be kitted out to the gills. Powergaming or not, it’s borderline suicidal to half *** a venture like that. So armoring up before travelling into the Shadowlands is just common sense. 

    The group's trip to the Shadowlands was kind of spur of the moment, accompanying a Hare Clan bushi to find his lost sword. They didn't have time to plan or prepare as the stubborn Hare insisted at leaving the following day at first light.

    Quote

    This trip would require permission from the Hida daimyo. And if given would more than likely they would be supplied before being let through.

    Because of the urgency of the situation, the group simply honestly explained the situation to magistrates who provided them an escort through the wall.

    So the group decided to call the game early and switch to DnD 5e rather than finish the campaign.

    I got the impression ACTUAL roleplaying is difficult for this group (even with forced RPing mechanics, ninyo/guiri adv/disadv none of which I liked at all), who would rather just meta the rules and powergame.

    That said, while still holding alot of possibility for rping, DnD 5e is a better environment for the lack of roleplaying ability. Which is fine for me, as I don't have to deal with players who are uncomfortable with customs of Rokugan or other realities.

     

     

  21. Posted

    Quote

    So are these players monks?

    The reason I ask is that unlike in D&D, armor and weapons are not available in the local market.

    War-gear is normal provided by ones lord or through a commissioned blacksmith.

    Where a samurai can go to a blacksmith and have a new suit of armor made fairly easy. 

    A monk would have some explaining to do, and it better be good.

    Ok so the context.

    -5e beta still as I'm wrapping up my campaign.

    -Togashi Hanna Monk(player), while has not worn any armor yet has been convinced by the power gamer in the group that she should be.

    -Isawa Satoshi Shugenja(player), other than traveling clothes has not worn armor but generally hasn't really felt the need, although the power gamer  suggested he might as well be wearing armor.

    -Hida Daisuke Bushi (power gamer by definition)

    -Kakita Ryu Bushi (low attention span player)

    -Traveling into/through Shadowlands to Hiruma Castle (very dangerous)

     

    The above group along with 2 others was tasked into moving into the shadowlands upon which they faced some ogres and goblins. The group easily dispatched 2 ogres with a few of the characters taking a hit but nobody going down (stats for ogres had to be converted from 2nd Edition).

    A couple days later, the group now fully healed/rested assaults Hiruma Castle and its Clan of goblins. The Hida walks straight to the gate but cannot be harmed by rock throwing goblins or their grapeshot catapult, due to his armor. Eventually they fight their way through the bulk of the goblins, the goblins' general, and the remaining skirmishers. Realizing how dangerous a clan of goblins can be after nearly wiping, the power gamer began complaining about how minion level monsters can benefit from stances (fire in this case), he also convinced me that not every goblin would be using their club 2 handed (so I ultimately did every other one), and after the monk and shugenja were both incapacitated complained about monks being gimp and how everyone should be wearing armor. 

    However, after 4-5(if memory serves) rounds of combat, the Hida only took 2 hits that damaged him due to lots of exploding successes and was forced to spend a void and take a crit. He feels that a swarm of 5 goblins shouldn't be able to harm him in his heavy armor by using stances and getting extremely good rolls, but rather every Bushi should be basically immune to certain attacks due to the merit of armor alone.

    So the group kills 60 or so Goblins at Hiruma Castle with the help of a dozen or so ratlings, with the monk and shugenja going beyond their fatigue thresholds; no scars, permanent injuries or deaths.

    Basically barring an incredible roll(as goblins only keep 2 dice even with 4 goblins assisting equating to something like 5skill/2ring keep2) using fire stance+exploding is the only way to break through armor of 5+possible striking as earth increases.

    So I guess the characters mistake of not armoring up properly before their Shadowlands journey is a factor.

    But the current rules really incentivize heavy armor over lacquered because the penalty of +1 TN to movement actions is really a non factor and the cumbersome weapon penalty only matters if you moved the same round, but its still only +1TN. Why wouldn't everyone be in Plated(Heavy) Armor

    The problem I foresee is once everyone gets their set of Heavy Armor constantly having to "punish" them for wearing it when they shouldn't be, the Hida Bushi has already explicitly stated that he only removes his armor for sleep when he is not traveling.  While this problem may be unique to power gamer types, I just wish the writers would allow for some mechanical controls so the DM can avoid conflict and complaints.

    I liked the old Heavy armor system; while +5 more TN was nice it had serious penalties but could be avoided by the Rank 1 Crab Technique. This system just feels more like everyone should own a set of heavy armor, which I feel is less interesting/balanced.

     

  22. Posted

    Thanks

    Well from a power gamer perspective (which most of my players are), they asked me about this while complaining there are no decent kihos for protection. So I am envisioning everyone wearing heavy armor soon.

  25. Posted

    Quote

    Yeah, no. 2nd was quite a departure from 1st in terms of how R&K worked

    First off I was just clarifying that the 2nd Edition L5R D10 and D20 systems are different since your original post was not clear.

    I haven't had any issues with 2nd edition.

    It is clear as you mentioned, your favorite is 3rd Edition. I have not played 3rd or 4th, so maybe if I had then I would also think 2nd has major issues. But thank you. Now I am intrigued about 3rd edition.

    Quote

    all these points and this massive and heart wrenching tale are lost with the simple switch of Doji Hoturi to Doji Hotaru.

    **** good point. It will be tough to replace that kind of plot with Hotaru(Strong magic needed), how can this be an improvement I wonder?

    Toturi as Emerald champion is exciting though.

×
×
  • Create New...