In this example, the Hida Bushi will most likely be terrible at seduction because it runs off Awareness, which he has no use for, while Intimidation runs off Willpower. If our Hida Bushi happens to also have high Awareness for some reason, I see no problem with him being good at seduction. I likewise see no problem with a Bayushi being good at Intimidation if he happens to have high Willpower; blackmail is an iconic Scorpion technique, and it is by definition a form of intimidation. Fear in both general and specific forms is integral to how the Scorpion get things done.

I'm also not clear on what "a samurai should never rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do his duty" has to do with whether it's better that they be separate skills or categories of other skills.

You would have to define what's terrible. I'll take the Meta for Hida O-Ushi in the Way of the Crab as an example. In her meta, she's a rank 3 Hida Bushi with an Awareness of 3, Willpower of 5 and Intimidation of 5. This would mean that she would have 10k5 in Intimidation and 3k3 (and no 10s explode) in seduction. If we fuse Intimidation with seduction, her seduction would become 8k3 (10s explode), which isn't terrible at all. Yes, she's the same in her intimidation but she's now a competent in temptation, which doesn't fit her at all.

Ought Hida O-Ushi be incompetent at seduction? Or is she simply not interested in doing it?

As for Blackmailing, yes, it's their iconic technique and they are using it using Courtier (Manipulation or Gossip). It would be pointless for them to rely on Intimidation in addition, because it would expose their technique too easily. Just take a look at the very first technique of the Bayushi Courtier: "You gain a Free Raise when using the Courtier skill to spread gossip, and need not Raise in order to conceal that you are the source of that gossip." it's pretty clear to me that the Scorpion don't rely on intimidation for their blackmailing technique.

Given that we are talking about blackmail, I have no idea why you brought up gossip. They're practically polar opposites; blackmail is, among other things, a promise not to gossip (if the victim co-operates), and a threat that there will be gossip (if they don't). If a Scorpion approaches too and says "I know all about your littles games with the funds your lord entrusted you with, and if you don't do X for me, very shortly your lord will know too", that's Intimidation.

As for the "I'm also not clear on what 'a samurai should never rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do his duty' has to do with whether it's better that they be separate skills or categories of other skills." it was toward the idea of the elimination of the Low Skill, not about fusing them or not. As an answer to "One of the things which is trying to be done by the elimination of the Low skill group/tag is the idea of dishonourable practices being possible with all sorts of skills."

And? I'm still not seeing the connection. In what way does changing Intimidation from its own skill to a dishonourable Emphasis of another skill change "whether a samurai should rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do this duty"?

You would have to define what's terrible. I'll take the Meta for Hida O-Ushi in the Way of the Crab as an example. In her meta, she's a rank 3 Hida Bushi with an Awareness of 3, Willpower of 5 and Intimidation of 5. This would mean that she would have 10k5 in Intimidation and 3k3 (and no 10s explode) in seduction. If we fuse Intimidation with seduction, her seduction would become 8k3 (10s explode), which isn't terrible at all. Yes, she's the same in her intimidation but she's now a competent in temptation, which doesn't fit her at all.

As a note, Awareness 3 is above average I think. if I was to convert that character, I'd probably give them Influence (Intimidation) 3, Willpower 5, Awareness 3. So, Intimidate 8k5, reroll 1s. Seduction 6k3.

You would have to define what's terrible. I'll take the Meta for Hida O-Ushi in the Way of the Crab as an example. In her meta, she's a rank 3 Hida Bushi with an Awareness of 3, Willpower of 5 and Intimidation of 5. This would mean that she would have 10k5 in Intimidation and 3k3 (and no 10s explode) in seduction. If we fuse Intimidation with seduction, her seduction would become 8k3 (10s explode), which isn't terrible at all. Yes, she's the same in her intimidation but she's now a competent in temptation, which doesn't fit her at all.

I'm sure Yasamura disagrees

A textbook case for Temptation (Seduction) with Willpower.

...

Ought Hida O-Ushi be incompetent at seduction? Or is she simply not interested in doing it?

...

Given that we are talking about blackmail, I have no idea why you brought up gossip. They're practically polar opposites; blackmail is, among other things, a promise not to gossip (if the victim co-operates), and a threat that there will be gossip (if they don't). If a Scorpion approaches too and says "I know all about your littles games with the funds your lord entrusted you with, and if you don't do X for me, very shortly your lord will know too", that's Intimidation.

...

And? I'm still not seeing the connection. In what way does changing Intimidation from its own skill to a dishonourable Emphasis of another skill change "whether a samurai should rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do this duty"?

For O-Ushi, of course, she's not interested in seduction, that's not her type. On another note, I've just saw that both Temptation and Intimidation are Awareness Skills, so the "the Hida Bushi will most likely be terrible at seduction because it runs off Awareness, which he has no use for, while Intimidation runs off Willpower." was wrong at the first place, the Hida Bushi would be as good in seduction as he's good in intimidation. Like I've said in the very first place.

For the blackmailing, it seems closer to Temptation than Intimidation to me, definition of bribery:

Bribery is the act of giving money , goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.

I've put the "other forms of recompense" underlined since that's how blackmailing is. Why am I seeing blackmailing more as a Temptation than Intimidation, simply because of the way it's being performed. Intimidation is closer to physical (Torture, Bullying, Control) while Temptation is closer to mental (Bribery, Seduction).

Of course, if you take Intimidation at large, it would be a larger definition, since you can intimidate someone by a lot of ways. For example, in a duel, someone may be intimidated by the skills of the other duelist, but it's not the duelist that intimidate, it's the other that feels weaker knowing that the other is more skilled. someone can be intimidated with a task he has to do, but it's not someone that intimidates him.

As for the "In what way does changing Intimidation from its own skill to a dishonourable Emphasis of another skill change 'whether a samurai should rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do this duty'?" I never said that changing the skill from a full skill with specific Emphasis to a dishonorable Emphasis change that. I've just said that it's clearer for new players that a series of Low Skills isn't something a Samurai do. It was something that I've said with "As I've said in my last post" since it was the post just above that one and felt that I was repeating myself...

Edit: This may be my last post on the subject because I've said that I don't like Kinzen's Redesign and I don't want to bash her work. She did a nice job even if I don't like it. I feel like the more I'm talking about it, the more I bash her work. So I'll probably stop posting on that subject (by subject I mean skill grouping based on Kinzen's redesign), by respect to the job she did.

For O-Ushi, of course, she's not interested in seduction, that's not her type. On another note, I've just saw that both Temptation and Intimidation are Awareness Skills, so the "the Hida Bushi will most likely be terrible at seduction because it runs off Awareness, which he has no use for, while Intimidation runs off Willpower." was wrong at the first place, the Hida Bushi would be as good in seduction as he's good in intimidation. Like I've said in the very first place.

The errata corrects this, specifying that the default trait for Intimidation rolls is Willpower

For O-Ushi, of course, she's not interested in seduction, that's not her type. On another note, I've just saw that both Temptation and Intimidation are Awareness Skills, so the "the Hida Bushi will most likely be terrible at seduction because it runs off Awareness, which he has no use for, while Intimidation runs off Willpower." was wrong at the first place, the Hida Bushi would be as good in seduction as he's good in intimidation. Like I've said in the very first place.

As Mickle says, this was errata'ed, with good reason.

For the blackmailing, it seems closer to Temptation than Intimidation to me, definition of bribery:

Bribery is the act of giving money , goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.

I've put the "other forms of recompense" underlined since that's how blackmailing is. Why am I seeing blackmailing more as a Temptation than Intimidation, simply because of the way it's being performed. Intimidation is closer to physical (Torture, Bullying, Control) while Temptation is closer to mental (Bribery, Seduction).

Of course, if you take Intimidation at large, it would be a larger definition, since you can intimidate someone by a lot of ways. For example, in a duel, someone may be intimidated by the skills of the other duelist, but it's not the duelist that intimidate, it's the other that feels weaker knowing that the other is more skilled. someone can be intimidated with a task he has to do, but it's not someone that intimidates him.

At that point, you might as well fold Temptations and Intimidation together into the same skill (huh... seems familiar somehow...). Where is the fundamental difference between "if you do what I want, I will repay you by not revealing facts that would publicly disgrace you" and "if you do what I want, I will repay you be not breaking both your legs"? "Physical"/"mental" is not a distinction that the current skill descriptions particularly support; neither the Control nor the Bullying emphases of Intimidation are in any way suggested to be intrinsically physical, and torture can be as much mental as physical. The fundamental distinction between the two skills, I think, is that Temptation works by offering something that the recipient wants, whereas Intimidation works by threatening something that they don't want. Carrot and stick.

As for the "In what way does changing Intimidation from its own skill to a dishonourable Emphasis of another skill change 'whether a samurai should rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do this duty'?" I never said that changing the skill from a full skill with specific Emphasis to a dishonorable Emphasis change that. I've just said that it's clearer for new players that a series of Low Skills isn't something a Samurai do. It was something that I've said with "As I've said in my last post" since it was the post just above that one and felt that I was repeating myself...

Edit: This may be my last post on the subject because I've said that I don't like Kinzen's Redesign and I don't want to bash her work. She did a nice job even if I don't like it. I feel like the more I'm talking about it, the more I bash her work. So I'll probably stop posting on that subject (by subject I mean skill grouping based on Kinzen's redesign), by respect to the job she did.

Given that you responded to a proposal "I think we should abolish the category of Low Skills and replace them with Low emphases of other skills" with " a samurai should never rely on Intimidation or Temptation to do his duty", I don't think it was unreasonable of me to assume that your objection, well... had something to do with what you were responding to.

In any case, Kinzen's point - which I 100% agree with - is that walling the Low Skills off into their own ghetto has the effect of ensuring that only do "proper" samurai never do those things, they are never tempted to do them, because they're rubbish at them. Which I think is terrible for the kinds of stories L5R wants to tell. Choosing whether to compromise your honour for the sake of practicality is material for great drama. Choosing whether to compromise your honour for the sake of nothing is not. And I think new players are perfectly capable of understanding "oh, this skill can be used in both honourable ways and intrinsically dishonourable ones, and they've even marked which is which, neat!", just as they already do with the Sincerity skill.

At that point, you might as well fold Temptations and Intimidation together into the same skill (huh... seems familiar somehow...). Where is the fundamental difference between "if you do what I want, I will repay you by not revealing facts that would publicly disgrace you" and "if you do what I want, I will repay you be not breaking both your legs"? "Physical"/"mental" is not a distinction that the current skill descriptions particularly support; neither the Control nor the Bullying emphases of Intimidation are in any way suggested to be intrinsically physical, and torture can be as much mental as physical. The fundamental distinction between the two skills, I think, is that Temptation works by offering something that the recipient wants, whereas Intimidation works by threatening something that they don't want. Carrot and stick.

There's a huge difference between how they are done. Of course, you can blackmail with both temptation and intimidation. The way you've said it, yes it's based on intimidation, but just change the approch and you've gone into temptation.

Intimidation: "if you do what I want, I will repay you by not revealing facts that would publicly disgrace you" (No carrot and stick, mainly just a threat)

Temptation: "You know that I'm able to dissipate the rumors about that about the facts that may disgrace you, I can help you but I would really need that you would do that for me." (Here's the carrot and stick)

It all depends on the way you're blackmailing, I think that the Scorpion would prefer using the offering way of "removing the rumors" instead of threatening to reveal the facts. By doing this, the blackmail target would be more willing to help that Scorpion afterward. Otherwise, it would be a "one-shot blackmail" and then the blackmail target may want a kind of revenge. I really doubt that the target would want any revenge when he knows that the "blackmail" has been cover for now by someone.

Then, someone who's getting blackmail through intimidation and focing the Scorpion to reveal the disgraceful facts publicly, otherwise, that Scorpion would lose any credibility about his threatening, then that Scorpion may gain an enemy afterward (a family member wanting to redeem the honor or the blackmailed target with the intention of revenge).

Temptation: "You know that I'm able to dissipate the rumors about that about the facts that may disgrace you, I can help you but I would really need that you would do that for me." (Here's the carrot and stick)

This sounds more like Intimidation (Control). Temptation would be either "Here, have coin, now do what I said." or "Here, have ****, now do what I said." There is a huge difference between Temptation and Intimidation. The latter forces the target to do something through a threat , while the former convinces the target to do something because he gets a suitable reward . The fine line between the two is something like the O-Ushi/Yasamura case, with the whole "This is scary, but this is my fetish!" undertones.

At that point, you might as well fold Temptations and Intimidation together into the same skill (huh... seems familiar somehow...). Where is the fundamental difference between "if you do what I want, I will repay you by not revealing facts that would publicly disgrace you" and "if you do what I want, I will repay you be not breaking both your legs"? "Physical"/"mental" is not a distinction that the current skill descriptions particularly support; neither the Control nor the Bullying emphases of Intimidation are in any way suggested to be intrinsically physical, and torture can be as much mental as physical. The fundamental distinction between the two skills, I think, is that Temptation works by offering something that the recipient wants, whereas Intimidation works by threatening something that they don't want. Carrot and stick.

There's a huge difference between how they are done. Of course, you can blackmail with both temptation and intimidation. The way you've said it, yes it's based on intimidation, but just change the approch and you've gone into temptation.

Intimidation: "if you do what I want, I will repay you by not revealing facts that would publicly disgrace you" (No carrot and stick, mainly just a threat)

Temptation: "You know that I'm able to dissipate the rumors about that about the facts that may disgrace you, I can help you but I would really need that you would do that for me." (Here's the carrot and stick)

It all depends on the way you're blackmailing, I think that the Scorpion would prefer using the offering way of "removing the rumors" instead of threatening to reveal the facts. By doing this, the blackmail target would be more willing to help that Scorpion afterward. Otherwise, it would be a "one-shot blackmail" and then the blackmail target may want a kind of revenge. I really doubt that the target would want any revenge when he knows that the "blackmail" has been cover for now by someone.

Then, someone who's getting blackmail through intimidation and focing the Scorpion to reveal the disgraceful facts publicly, otherwise, that Scorpion would lose any credibility about his threatening, then that Scorpion may gain an enemy afterward (a family member wanting to redeem the honor or the blackmailed target with the intention of revenge).

A politely-worded threat is still a threat . Promising to "dissipate the rumours" about some topic on which there are no rumours (at least until Bayushi Blackmailer starts dropping public hints about the matter) is putting a silk doily over a brick; I assure you that the victim still feels the brick when you hit them in the face with it.

I also have no idea why you would say that the method of framing the threat would affect whether the blackmail is renewable or not. Blackmail is an ongoing thing under nearly all circumstances; if I know things that would disgrace you if I made them public, then after you do what I want, I still know those things . And am at perfect liberty to come back next month and ask for something else as the price of my continued non-revealing of what I know. Whether I chose to be blunt or circumspect in talking to my victim does not change that. Nor does being blunt with my victim somehow force me into publicly revealing my blackmail material when I otherwise wouldn't. Yes, if my victim tells me to shove it, then I can either expose them or be exposed as making empty threats - but the same is true if I talked around the issue. A polite threat is still a threat. Unless I am being so circumspect that my victim doesn't even realise that I'm blackmailing them - in which case I have failed spectacularly in my attempt at blackmail - they know that I am theatening to expose them if they don't do X. If they refuse and I don't expose them, they know they don't have to take me seriously.

We don't see things the same way since it's a matter of point of view. I've said my point of view, you've said yours. I don't think I'll agree with what is being said, therefore, I'll stop talking about that, in order to prevent the topic to deviate from the original subject.

@Kinzen:

My point is that if you tag something "Courtier," a player is likely to think "oh, this is a skill for courtiers, not my bushi PC." (Since you're unlikely to tag with both of those -- unless I'm misunderstanding you.) Whereas if it's in a group titled Courtly, and the other groupings are Bugei and Scholarly, it seems less like a school-based straitjacket -- or at least it seems that way to me, though apparently for you it's the reverse.

But you proposed a bunch of different ways to tag, and it isn't clear to me whether you intend all of them to be used, or only some of them. For what it's worth, the tags I would be inclined to use are Social, Mental, maybe Physical, and Artisan/Lore/Perform, along with the usual asterisk to mark Low applications. The groupings would tell the player "what sphere of activity is the place you'll most often use these," while the tags would tell them "any mechanic that affects X tag affects this skill."

I thought of a combination of the Elemental Tags and or just one of the other groups.

Doesn't really make any sense to Tag something for example with social and courtier and mind since it is repetetive.

And I don't see why it is different to tag something with courtly or group something in courtly, it still says Court and is still closest to Courtier.

Sorry, but for me it doesn't really make a big difference if there is a group or a tag which is similar to an archetype. Most new players would tend to give the courtly skills their Courtier and for this it doesn't matter if it is a tag or a group.

I don't see more Bushi characters ending up with social skills just because they are now known a courtly and not as Highskills anymore...

If we'd stick with Highskill or use Samurai/ Social/ Mind as a Tag or group it doesn't scream "I'm a skill which is mostly or exclusively used by Courtier".

I think if we need to change the grouping, for whatever reason, we should try to think as a new player who isn't that familiar with medieval asian-cultures and their mindset. And I think if there is an archetype named Bushi and I'd want to play a warrior I'd prefer the Bugei Skills over the Courtly Skills, since courtly doesn't sound like something a Bushi would do. But Highskill or Samurai Skill sounds like something every Samurai should have, Social sounds like something only an antisocial-warrior wouldn't take up and Mind...well if you want to play a mindless Warrior...you may want to rethink if L5R is the right system to do that...

Because then players will be tempted to actually use them. I've seen my PCs lie, because they have Sincerity; they never intimidate, bribe, or seduce, because their dice pools for those would be terrible. Since I don't think those behaviors are really separate from other kinds of emotional manipulation, I feel it makes both more sense and better story if the characters are just putting abilities they already have to dishonorable use.

And, as I said above, I'm still using the asterisks to mark those, as 4e already does with Deceit.

You have a point there, the temptation to use styles of doing something one shouldn't do is bigger if it is availiable "all the time" and not only for taking up a skill or spending a Void-Point.

Still, I'm not really happy about it.

But all samurai, whether bushi or not, are also supposed to be physically skilled -- with Athletics/Defense/Horsemanship/Hunting, if not with a weapon skill. And yet those are off in the Bugei group, instead of being put in with the High Skills along with everything else that's considered admirable in samurai. If players can already wrap their heads around the notion that they should be looking in both places, I don't see why this approach would make it suddenly impossible to understand -- especially when, as I said, I'm assuming there would still be the same kind of explanatory text the current corebook already has.

re: Games, I hadn't noticed that Karasu left it out. I've waffled as to where I think that should go, because a lot depends on which game it is. Courtly, maybe -- but some of the ones on the current list are martial (Go), some of them are much less formal (Fortunes and Winds), and some, in my opinion, shouldn't be grouped under Games to begin with (I treat sadane as a facet of Courtier and kemari as a facet of Athletics).

Yes, because the fighting skills or not exclusive to Samurai or rather not all fighting skills. And the only Highskills I see with Heimin too are Medicine, Divination, Acting, Artisan, Perform, Games and some of the Lore-Skills. So there are 15 Highskills, and 7 Skills may be known and used by some Heimin or Hinin (since Geisha and their male counterpart are hinin). While about 8 Skills are pretty much exclusive to Samurai. And the only non-Samurai who may know how to perform a Tea Ceremony are Geisha. and the only non-Samurai who really know how to meditate are Monks and Priestesses.

Also the same thing you just mentioned for the various Games goes as well for the various Craft-Skills. Since forging Armor and making Weapons is something mostly Samurai-Smiths do, as well as Engineering.

Also I never said it is impossible for new players to understand that a Samurai is not only about his/her archetype but also about some other stuff. I just said it is less obvious.

I agree that this is an issue, particularly there, but maybe also with the macro skills more generally.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Does it make the whole situation slightly less clear-cut? Sure. But I *want* that, because I don't want to be telling stories where it's easy to avoid doing the dishonorable thing.

Since it is intended to be less clear or obvious it is ok, although it bothers me still. Since it means more work for the GM and most of the times I am the GM.

If you want to know how the skills are actually intended to be used, you can check out the thread -- Karasu's explanation is not quite correct. (And we should probably take any further discussion of them over there, because otherwise we'll really end up derailing this thread.)

It is a bit calimg to know that it is not the firts choice or only choice of offensive-social-skill. May I take may time on reading your thread...but I'm sort of afraid of reading more stuff I don't want to see.

@Crawd:

I don't see Merchant Skills, or at least not all of them, as somewhat questionable. For example there are many Samurai who are great Engineers, Weaponsmiths, Bowyers or Armorsmiths. And no one would dare to look down on a Kaiu for being an Engineer, or a Tsi or Shiba for being a Smith. Also I'm pretty sure that there are some Courtiers who love to do some weaving, tailoring or pottery. And I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere in the 4th Edition books that there is a Dragon-Clan-Samurai who is breeding cats. Yes, the Dragon are a bunch of oddballs to beging with...still they are Samurai.

And regarding the difference between Temptation and Intimidation, for me it is all about the how one does it not the what is done. You can achieve the same goal with both methods. And a small person can be as intimidating as a big mountain of muscles. So I don't see why a Scorpion or Crane should not try to intimidate someone and a Crab could be good at temptating someone too. It is just a different approach. So on this part I mostly agree with General Tactitus and AtoMaki.

It is a bit calimg to know that it is not the firts choice or only choice of offensive-social-skill. May I take may time on reading your thread...but I'm sort of afraid of reading more stuff I don't want to see.

<lol> Seriously, there's no need to read it if it isn't going to make you happy. I'm not in charge of anything.

We don't see things the same way since it's a matter of point of view. I've said my point of view, you've said yours. I don't think I'll agree with what is being said, therefore, I'll stop talking about that, in order to prevent the topic to deviate from the original subject.

Dude, the "original subject" of this thread is so long gone . . . at this point, I think this is the general-purpose "talk about the RPG mechanics" thread. (Though I entirely agree that this should not be the Discuss Kinzen's Homebrew thread, as I've got my own places for that, and other people aren't interested.)

Found an explanation of the dice system FFG uses for their Star Wars games.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2013/2/27/that-star-wars-feeling/

Found an explanation of the dice system FFG uses for their Star Wars games.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2013/2/27/that-star-wars-feeling/

Hah, how timely! Yesterday, I had the questionable luck of trying out John Wick's Blood and Honor RPG with some of my pals. It also has this "more than success or failure" thing going, and I must tell you, it scarred me. I don't want more than success or failure. Just.... no. Please. I'm begging you FFG .

When I'm GMing, and with the good GM's I've played with, "degree of success and failure" and "mitigating and aggravating circumstances" don't need funky dice to be included, they're just part of the adjudication and interpretation of the dice.

However, with most groups I've been in, there'd be so much time wasted on trying to interpret these funky dice and what "success... but" and "failure... but" results came out of every single **** roll.

Right now, L5R Roll & Keep has a "more than success or failure" mechanic in the form of Raises.

Essentially, a player can "risk failure" to make a greater success. This allows for a less reactive, more proactive descriptive resolution. Essentially, it's not about rolling well. It's about knowing your limits, and pushing them when you have to.

A way to perhaps add an element of "Failure, but..." could be expressed through a reworking of the Raise mechanic. Here's just some brainstorming:

1) A Raise does not increase the TN by 5, but instead imposes a -5 penalty to your roll. Numerically, this is the same effect on the odds of success.

2) If a PC fails the roll, but have a positive number total have a result of Stalemate, effectively "Failure, but" with an advantage going forward.
3) If a PC fails the roll and has a negative total number, they just fail.

It's a pretty simple method of handling it, but it adds an element of "Failure, but..." to the R&K system.

If someone calls for a raise while doing something and doesn't meet the higher TN but the original TN without raises it is a "failure but..." or "success but..." depending on what the player wanted to achieve and which skills were in use. That's the way I handle this. I don't need funny dice for more storytelling.

For example if someone wanted to write a poem and called for raises so the TN is now 25 or higher, but the roll was only high enough to meet the original TN the PC succeeds in writing a poem, but it takes the PC a rather long time and many sheets of paper gone to waste until the PC was satisfied, maybe this results in being late for an appointment or something else.

While if it were a Stealth roll it could result in being noticed, but being able to hide somewhere right before being caught...or something.

True -- that gap between the basic success TN and the voluntary Raises success TN allows a place for "...but" results.

Right now, L5R Roll & Keep has a "more than success or failure" mechanic in the form of Raises.

Essentially, a player can "risk failure" to make a greater success. This allows for a less reactive, more proactive descriptive resolution. Essentially, it's not about rolling well. It's about knowing your limits, and pushing them when you have to.

But it's also a horrible, horrible, horrible match for a system that has exploding dice. Exploding dice, and similar systems, are there to create fun and memorable moments where you pull off something better than you thought you possibly could -- if you have to call raises ahead of time, those moments don't happen.

True -- that gap between the basic success TN and the voluntary Raises success TN allows a place for "...but" results.

I've always thought that L5R should have room for "You hit, ...but failed to perform the maneuver you were attempting," and "You performed the maneuver you were attempting, ...but failed to hit."

I've been thinking about starting a thread to talk about combat options (Stances, Kata, Maneuvers, etc.).

Right now, L5R Roll & Keep has a "more than success or failure" mechanic in the form of Raises.

Essentially, a player can "risk failure" to make a greater success. This allows for a less reactive, more proactive descriptive resolution. Essentially, it's not about rolling well. It's about knowing your limits, and pushing them when you have to.

But it's also a horrible, horrible, horrible match for a system that has exploding dice. Exploding dice, and similar systems, are there to create fun and memorable moments where you pull off something better than you thought you possibly could -- if you have to call raises ahead of time, those moments don't happen.

That could be fixed by giving the option to covert Explosions into Raises. It is also fairly balanced: An Exploded d10 is basically a +6.05 to the die roll; where as a Raise is a +5.

... if you have to call raises ahead of time, those moments don't happen.

... if you have to call raises ahead of time, those moments don't happen.

You already have to call raises ahead of time.

Which is what Huitzil37 is complaining about.

Unless you are hoping that an edge case occurs (where explosions actively help it occur) or doing an opposed roll (where explosions are actively increasing your chance of exceeding your opponent's roll), getting an explosion isn't really helping you succeed.

I actually agree with Huitzil for once.

I've never been much of a fan of the "You have to call raises before you roll, at the expense of your chance to succeed" thing. Maybe I have unusually cautious players, but from my experience they tend to call as few raises as they can get away with to hedge against bad rolls. And given how deadly failure can be in this system, I can't really blame them.

It makes a spectacular explosion kind of pointless in most cases, and can even be frustrating to some. ("Aw man, I could have done so much more with that roll!")

I actually like Raises as a mechanic, because I think they're a good way to represent particular types of situations. (I don't think all the ways Raises were used in 4e made sense, though, because sometimes it seemed like the designers lost sight of what the mechanic was supposed to mean IC.) But I agree that L5R could benefit from some non-Raise-based "success, and" option as well, beyond the occasional thing like Path to Inner Peace or Feint where your degree of success is based on the margin by which you cleared the TN. In my own game I handle that by making certain kinds of rolls scalar success (e.g. Lores, Investigation), and also by having a house-rule that if you triple your TN, you get some extra benefit, but obviously none of that is canonical to the game as written.

... if you have to call raises ahead of time, those moments don't happen.

You already have to call raises ahead of time.

I believe that was his point.

Exploding dice in other systems exist to replicate the sort of badass, spectacular success that R&K uses Raises to achieve.

In the rules as written, if Hiruma Huntface rolls a whopping 307 on his Hunting roll against TN 15, unless he called some raises, that's still just a basic success. GMs are free to be a bit more generous than that, but the rules mandate nothing of the sort.

Huitzl and I have many areas of general disagreement (mostly setting/lore expectations), but this is not a bad point by any means.