Unless you got Tainted and then rise as Fu Leng Controlled Undead but yes, that's another side of "why is it different", a pretty spot-on one.

Because the way combat is supposed to go, the bushi is removed from play after multiple rolls instead of a single one, had a chance to take out the people killing him over the course of those rolls, and most importantly if and when he goes down he is not then forced to actively work against the things his player wants to do.

I've got a game where it was the first fight we had, the enemy had the first initiative, he hits me and got a **** lucky dmg roll and I've died after damage reduction from armor and void. Yes it's luck, but it happens. Sure on the spot, I was a bit mad at the situation but afterward, I found that really nice because it's part of the game and it created new stuffs for the game story (Funerals, blessing for the death, etc).

It may be the storyteller way to deal with social rolls, but in the games I've played, no court or social discussion involving social rolls was done in a single roll. I guess it's all about the point of view and the style of storytelling. When I storytell a game, I never solve stuffs on a single roll. I'll repeat myself that I'm not against a system in a suplement, in fact, I will surely look at it. Will I use it, maybe with a few tweeks of my own.

I'll throw an idea for big court, how about a system a bit like the Mass Combat system? Even if I'm using my own version of Mass Combat, I will admit that it's a nice way to solve Mass Combat. In this way, the results will go from a series of rolls with events between each rolls. In these events, you could have some arguments with a specific NPC, some leak of informations on the other side, etc.

This is probably the most frustrated I've been about the inaccessibility of the AEG forum (well, except maybe that moment I realized I didn't keep a backup of the kanji list, heh), because I specifically remember one or two really productive discussions on there about the "mind control" objection and it's driving me nuts not to be able to link them.

Anyway, I broadly agree with the group that feels 4E does have pretty decent rules for social interactions (what skills to use and how they interact and are countered), and that what's really missing is not a more complex or specific mechanical framework, just a half-page or so of unified explanation of how it all can fit together to cover a diversity of situations--with a few examples of different scenarios varying in type, plot-relevance (when to use one roll vs. several) and so on.

At some point I evolved a 3-roll rule of thumb for plot-relevant social interactions in which the party who won at least two out of three contested rolls (specific skills to be rolled determined by role-play, and it shouldn't be all the same skill) got the better of the interaction and the one who lost had to make some choice between concession or consequences. But I don't think that's a whole new set of mechanics, it's just a normal skill challenge-- in general it's a bad idea to make anything plot-relevant be decided by just one roll of one specific skill. What if your players fail the Engineering roll to repair the bridge and can't cross the river to continue their journey? Generally you let them look around for a ford or a ferry, not leave them stuck on the riverbank.

If the hypothetical 5E comes with something like the Mass Battle table for doing something interesting with the "down" days of a Winter Court that don't need to be role-played out hour-by-hour, that would be fun, though. Assuming it's done well, of course.

Because the way combat is supposed to go, the bushi is removed from play after multiple rolls instead of a single one, had a chance to take out the people killing him over the course of those rolls, and most importantly if and when he goes down he is not then forced to actively work against the things his player wants to do.

I think your last is maybe the most important point here, Huitzil37. GMs can (and must!) avoid the charge of "mind control" by keeping the lines of communication open with/between players about where social interactions are going. As Kinzen suggested, "he wants to persuade you of [X], so what might that take?"and/or offering a Hard Choice (someone mentioned Apocalypse world? ) give players a chance to buy in and find a way that the result of losing the mechanical contest can still fit into their conception of their character. That's quite important since our conceptions of our characters as, well, generally internally consistent, psychologically or at least narratively "realistic" people--who certainly can change, but do so in ways that grow from what's already there--is a big part of how many people keep their disbelief suspended and engage more fully in these games we love.

The thing is that whil individual players and groups can be fine with it as it is nothing is saving you from a worst cas scenario when people just decide to ignore the outcomes of these tests. A social system and mechnic is necassary to give people the security to retreat to a offical basis of argumentation when some one comes up and says "ok I just don´t do it cause you can´t mindcontrol me". The reason is that only with a good social mechnic the courteir class makes fun to play in semi offial or offical settings where houserules never are a option. Cause as it is know I can nothing do to convince a other player character mechanic wise and this is a big weakness of the system. Courtiers should be able to do this cause they are not the masters of the battlefield of the court for nothing.

People are not talking about that. They are talking about direct consequences of player (or npc) failing their social skill roll, something that happens at the table pretty much every game. "Mind control" is (very annoying and tv-tropes style loaded term) a shorthand for "If X happens, then character has to do Y", which leaves many people unhappy.

Mind to explain why it's bad? It's part of the game. It's fine in a combat for a bushi to get hit and die but it's wrong for a courtier to fail and have to suffer the consequences? In the two situations I've said, one lost his character while the other don't and have other chances to come back.

I wonder why it's a big deal? Maybe I don't find that a problem because I've played Vampire the Masquarade where you have Dominate as a power and it's pretty much "Do this ****" and you have to comply, of course the system prevent any orders directly life threatening, but it's part of the game and it's a common power. But it's not the case in L5R.

Because the way combat is supposed to go, the bushi is removed from play after multiple rolls instead of a single one, had a chance to take out the people killing him over the course of those rolls, and most importantly if and when he goes down he is not then forced to actively work against the things his player wants to do.

I think this argument is a bit twisted. I mean it is not like you go into a RPG with the expectation all your plans work as perfect as you think they will. No plan ever surrives the first conact with the enemy. Also the social sysxtem is not based on 1 roll but on a series of rolls. At least if the peopl who will make it knowing what they do. In addtion to it nobody is forcing you to work against your agenda. What happend is that people convinced you and your cahr actually changed his mind and position towards the topic. Yes this it not easy to play but that is what happens when you lose in social siuations, at least when we are not talking about the usual courtier stuff.
If we compare this to combat than after a series of rolls you political agenda dies and you had some ways to prevent this but they did not work out. No single roll decides this but your active actions.

Why not simply make the different areas that a samurai might go into, such as combat,social situations, the courts, or the supernatural, roughly the same basic system except focusing on different skills?

Because that assumes those things are all color swaps on the same underlying patterns of behavior. I think that's a bad description of how people actually work -- I've sparred in karate and I've had debates with people, and they ain't at all alike -- and abstracting behavior to the point where you can use the same fundamental rules to cover all those things squeezes all the flavor out of them.

If you try to model all forms of combat and all forms of conversation as the same system then yes, you squeeze the flavor out of them. If you push the forms of combat in this genre and antagonistic conversation in this genre in the same system, you can enhance the flavor of both.

Note that the comment I was responding to didn't limit itself to suggesting that only antagonistic conversation be modeled this way: it said that everything a samurai might do should be treated like combat, and specifically called out "persuading people" as a thing you wouldn't ever be trying to do. I noted elsewhere that a duel-ish approach to debates -- not all conversation; just debates -- could be interesting.

An attrition-based "trading blows" system of social combat doesn't work for L5R, but the attrition-based system of physical combat doesn't really work for it either, in that it isn't built to its own strengths and makes all sorts of weird cases. A system where normal combat and social maneuvering both go for the same sort of feeling an iaijutsu duel is supposed to evoke supports the atmosphere of the setting and the flavor of a samurai's life being balanced on a razor's edge, where everything is peace and tranquility but if you screw up it becomes an incredibly bloody and incredibly brief horror show. It doesn't say that all fighting and all conversation are color swaps of the same underlying patterns -- but for a samurai , fighting and conversation are the same pattern of feinting and observing, two people appearing to do no harm to one another with light offensive efforts, until one of them slips up, shows a slight weakness, and is devastated for it.

Antagonistic debate, sure. But I'd rather think through the whole array of what social interaction is supposed to be, and subsequently build debate as a special case of that, than start with the core assumption that all conversation is the equivalent of trying to kill the other guy. Yes, the samurai mindset tells us that all these things are the same -- but I think the level on which that's true is a higher-order abstraction than game mechanics are really suited to modeling.

People are not talking about that. They are talking about direct consequences of player (or npc) failing their social skill roll, something that happens at the table pretty much every game. "Mind control" is (very annoying and tv-tropes style loaded term) a shorthand for "If X happens, then character has to do Y", which leaves many people unhappy.

This, exactly. When gamers complain about "mind control," they don't generally mean actual mind-affecting magic: they mean "I don't like the idea that my actions are being influenced by another character's social skill." They lose a roll to resist Intimidation, but don't want to have to RP their character being intimidated. They know they shouldn't trust an NPC, but the NPC beat them in a roll to seem friendly and trustworthy. Etc. People are okay with their choices being constrained by physical actions (I can't attack because I've been grappled), but some of them really resist the idea that a similar thing can happen socially.

Ooops, failed to notice that the conversation was already on page 2. Catching up with the rest of it now . . . .

Because the way combat is supposed to go, the bushi is removed from play after multiple rolls instead of a single one, had a chance to take out the people killing him over the course of those rolls, and most importantly if and when he goes down he is not then forced to actively work against the things his player wants to do.

Hence my argument that resolving major social matters (the equivalent of "do you live or die?") with a single roll is, in a word, stupid. :-P If all you're doing is trying to get an official to agree to meet with you, sure, throw some dice at it and call it a day. But getting that official to copy his lord's correspondence for you? That isn't a single-shot challenge.

I'll throw an idea for big court, how about a system a bit like the Mass Combat system? Even if I'm using my own version of Mass Combat, I will admit that it's a nice way to solve Mass Combat. In this way, the results will go from a series of rolls with events between each rolls. In these events, you could have some arguments with a specific NPC, some leak of informations on the other side, etc.

Two steps ahead of ya, in that I've already come up with a draft for something like this (which I think I described in the social conditions thread -- we've gotten scattered enough that I'm not sure what's where). :-) It's meant to model "my faction is trying to achieve the following large goal over a long period of time at Winter Court" and similar kinds of things.

I think your last is maybe the most important point here, Huitzil37. GMs can (and must!) avoid the charge of "mind control" by keeping the lines of communication open with/between players about where social interactions are going. As Kinzen suggested, "he wants to persuade you of [X], so what might that take?"and/or offering a Hard Choice ( someone mentioned Apocalypse world? ) give players a chance to buy in and find a way that the result of losing the mechanical contest can still fit into their conception of their character. That's quite important since our conceptions of our characters as, well, generally internally consistent, psychologically or at least narratively "realistic" people--who certainly can change, but do so in ways that grow from what's already there--is a big part of how many people keep their disbelief suspended and engage more fully in these games we love.

You know, this reminds me of the way that certain series, movies, books, etc, can't seem to maintain consistent characterization. Somehow, the overall "fictional stuff creation culture" has come to accept "this is what happens next in the story because we want it to" as far more important than "this is how this character would, if we were being consistent, react in this situation".

I bring this up because as we're discussing the "social systems", there seems to be a certain derission and disdain from some parts towards the idea that some characters just would not do certain things unless they really were "mind controlled". IMO, it doesn't matter how well some Scorpion or Crane courtier rolls on their Skill or Technique, there are characters who just aren't going to do certain things -- it's just too out of character.

If I'm GMing, and a player says "Spider Joe is going to cut through the Carpenter Wall with a single swing of his mighty blade", then that's an impossible task, and no matter how well he rolls, he's going to fail. Why is it that some comments regading social interaction seem to scoff at the idea of an impossible task in that arena?

In physical combat, a character dies because they've been cut open with a steel blade or crushed by an oni's massive fist -- not because "the attacker rolled really well".

I bring this up because as we're discussing the "social systems", there seems to be a certain derission and disdain from some parts towards the idea that some characters just would not do certain things unless they really were "mind controlled". IMO, it doesn't matter how well some Scorpion or Crane courtier rolls on their Skill or Technique, there are characters who just aren't going to do certain things -- it's just too out of character.

If I'm GMing, and a player says "Spider Joe is going to cut through the Carpenter Wall with a single swing of his mighty blade", then that's an impossible task, and no matter how well he rolls, he's going to fail. Why is it that some comments regading social interaction seem to scoff at the idea of an impossible task in that arena?

In physical combat, a character dies because they've been cut open with a steel blade or crushed by an oni's massive fist -- not because "the attacker rolled really well".

This is why I nearly gave myself a concussion a couple of years ago, when somebody on the old boards was arguing that no, seriously, it's just Etiquette / Willpower with no modifiers apart from Advantages/Disadvantages to resist being manipulated, regardless of what you were being manipulated into doing . Like, asking somebody to loan you a calligraphy brush and asking the Emperor to abdicate his throne to you should be handled by exactly the same single, unmodified roll.

I tried to convince myself he was just trolling . . . but I really don't think he was.

I don't scoff at the notion that some things are impossible. I only scoff at the people who basically never want to allow their character to be influenced if it doesn't go along with what the player wants to do. But there's a definite camp of thought that says such things take away player agency and should therefore never happen -- that NPCs should not be allowed to socially manipulate PCs, ever.

If I'm GMing, and a player says "Spider Joe is going to cut through the Carpenter Wall with a single swing of his mighty blade", then that's an impossible task, and no matter how well he rolls, he's going to fail. Why is it that some comments regading social interaction seem to scoff at the idea of an impossible task in that arena?

The answer to this question is cause some people don´t want to limit their players when they have crazy or cool Ideas. Cutting trhough the wall is not realistic but it is cool and since realism is nothing I want in my Rpgs, cause if I want realism I go out and play Real life, I don´t think that it is possible for him to lets say cut a door for him into the wall with some quick strikes.

If we transfer this to the social setting this means that in my opinion it is possible that you formulated your argument in such a good way (the degree how good it was express is what your roll says) that you convince a person who would actually never thought he could yield to this argument.

But to be clear nothing of both should be one unmodified roll. It should be a challange and it should be possible to fail and to sucseed but with the right modifiers and in the siuation I think letting players do such stuff is far more fun than just going the "ah no you are not suceeeding." route.

In physical combat, a character dies because they've been cut open with a steel blade or crushed by an oni's massive fist -- not because "the attacker rolled really well".

That is actually not correct. The deciding factor is not how you paint it but what the mechnic says and therefore the person dies because you rolled high enough to best his defense and than followed up with a high enough dmg roll to take him out. The consequnce of the mechnics is that your a being cut open by a steel blade and not the other way arround.

The character dies, or the other things happen, because of what the roll represents, not because of the roll.

IMO, if the thing the roll represents is just outright imposible, or game-breaking, or abjectly silly, then it doesn't matter how the roll turns out, that thing just isn't going to happen. Combat, debate, seduction, artistic endeavor, etc -- just not going to happen.

The character dies, or the other things happen, because of what the roll represents, not because of the roll.

IMO, if the thing the roll represents is just outright imposible, or game-breaking, or abjectly silly, then it doesn't matter how the roll turns out, that thing just isn't going to happen. Combat, debate, seduction, artistic endeavor, etc -- just not going to happen.

Ah yes this is a common missunderstanding. The game is based on mechanics and a diceroll system. This means despite these rolls represent many things it only happens when the roll is sucessfull. The causality is roll high enough than your sword cuts though his armor. Roll not high enough the sword is not sharp enough to cut through his armor.

The roll is and will stay the deciding factor on the sucess or failure of the action cause thats the mechnic the game uses to represent what you are wanting to do. Therefore each roll represents the abilities of you character.

And as I said the thought of imposible, silly etc is nothing I think is good for an RPG cause it has a realism though as underlaying and this is something I don´t think should be of concern in an complete fictional world. I think a more anime oriented style of thinking makes up for far better RPGs cause it forces far less limits on what your characters can do and lets be honest in a world where magic is a thing cutting though a wall, independent of the size or the material, should perfectly be fine cause it is not really something incredible at all when I think about thing like artificial earthquakes and stuff,

Why not simply make the different areas that a samurai might go into, such as combat,social situations, the courts, or the supernatural, roughly the same basic system except focusing on different skills?

Because that assumes those things are all color swaps on the same underlying patterns of behavior. I think that's a bad description of how people actually work -- I've sparred in karate and I've had debates with people, and they ain't at all alike -- and abstracting behavior to the point where you can use the same fundamental rules to cover all those things squeezes all the flavor out of them.

If you try to model all forms of combat and all forms of conversation as the same system then yes, you squeeze the flavor out of them. If you push the forms of combat in this genre and antagonistic conversation in this genre in the same system, you can enhance the flavor of both.

Note that the comment I was responding to didn't limit itself to suggesting that only antagonistic conversation be modeled this way: it said that everything a samurai might do should be treated like combat, and specifically called out "persuading people" as a thing you wouldn't ever be trying to do. I noted elsewhere that a duel-ish approach to debates -- not all conversation; just debates -- could be interesting.

I said that persuading people wasn't something you HAD to do, since shaming them into compliance had the same outcome. Persuading people can be modeled by exactly the same system (how accurate this is to life depends on how cynical you are about human nature), and NPCs who lose can be persuaded. But players who don't want to be persuaded, because they want to be in control of their character's actions, can be told "Okay, you can keep believing whatever you want. But if you don't act like he's persuaded you, you look like a total jackhole."

Ah yes this is a common missunderstanding. The game is based on mechanics and a diceroll system. This means despite these rolls represent many things it only happens when the roll is sucessfull. The causality is roll high enough than your sword cuts though his armor. Roll not high enough the sword is not sharp enough to cut through his armor.

The roll is and will stay the deciding factor on the sucess or failure of the action cause thats the mechnic the game uses to represent what you are wanting to do. Therefore each roll represents the abilities of you character.

It's not a "misunderstanding", it's at msot fundamental disagreement about what's going on in an RPG.

The player says "my character is going to do X" -- the dice roll represents the attempt to do X. The dice rolls and rules are a model of the reality in which the game/story takes place. The game starts and ends with the things that happen within, the dice are simply a tool for resolution.

If I am GMing and someone says "I want to this thing that is impossible in the setting, or utterly inappropriate to the setting and game", I am willing to say "you'll fail if you attempt that" in order to keep the game on track and the internal consistency maintained.

If I am GMing and someone comes up with an action that is highly appropriate, highly cool/ingenious/entertaining, and doesn't conflict with anything else, I might even declare that they succeed simply to make the story better and the game more entertaining/interesting for the players.

And as I said the thought of imposible, silly etc is nothing I think is good for an RPG cause it has a realism though as underlaying and this is something I don´t think should be of concern in an complete fictional world. I think a more anime oriented style of thinking makes up for far better RPGs cause it forces far less limits on what your characters can do and lets be honest in a world where magic is a thing cutting though a wall, independent of the size or the material, should perfectly be fine cause it is not really something incredible at all when I think about thing like artificial earthquakes and stuff,

Unless the game setting is one in which, literally, nothing is impossible, there will always be limits -- any setting for game or fiction needs to be internally consistent, a place in which verisimiltude isn't trampled.

If cutting through the Carpenter Wall (you know, that giant stone fortification that's kept the Shadowlands largely at bay for centuries) isn't an abjectly ridiculous enough example of an impossible action, then we can always find one that is. Leaping to the moon? Lifting an entire mountain range with one finger? There has to be some limit.

At any rate, we've derailed the thread enough, and both made our positions clear. If we're going to continue this, let's do it elsewhere, and let the thread get back to its core topic.

For the "some things are really out of character for people to do, no matter the roll" - I don't like this notion, because as real life proves, some of the most outlandish things are possible.

First basic example of "Real Life Rolling Really Well" would be Millgram's Experiment - where, basically, a guy Roling Really Well makes 9/10 of people participating in the experiment murderers. For people unfamiliar with the experiment in question - basically, a Fake Scientist is asking participants to shock victim with electricity, gradually increasing the doses to the point where it's very clear that shocked person is going to die. There is almost no one who would imagine themselves doing this, and yet, well...experiment showed that it's very easy to make people pass this barrier.

Another real life example would be experiment where people were scared with police buzzer at places where they are not allowed to pass the road; few moments later, they were asked by "random person" to give them cash for a) dumb reason like "we want to see how much cash we can get", b) real reason. About 75% of people tested were willing to give cash for lolrandom things; another group of people was not scared by the buzzer, and rate of people willing to give out cash for dumb stuff dropped to like, 15%. Basically, something as stupid as scaring people with a buzzer made people willing to give out cash for no reason whatsoever.

Third real life example would be...well, Pyramid Schemes. I guarantee you that people reading about how these operate would *never* picture themselves buying into it, and yet, Pyramid Schemes are extremely effective, dumbyfing even really smart people.

All of these are real life examples of "falling to a good Courtier roll, and doing something we would ordinary think unthinkable and out of character"; these things happen. Just because someone can't imagine themselves doing something, doesn't mean they can't be made into doing it.

For the "some things are really out of character for people to do, no matter the roll" - I don't like this notion, because as real life proves, some of the most outlandish things are possible.

First basic example of "Real Life Rolling Really Well" would be Millgram's Experiment - where, basically, a guy Roling Really Well makes 9/10 of people participating in the experiment murderers. For people unfamiliar with the experiment in question - basically, a Fake Scientist is asking participants to shock victim with electricity, gradually increasing the doses to the point where it's very clear that shocked person is going to die. There is almost no one who would imagine themselves doing this, and yet, well...experiment showed that it's very easy to make people pass this barrier.

Another real life example would be experiment where people were scared with police buzzer at places where they are not allowed to pass the road; few moments later, they were asked by "random person" to give them cash for a) dumb reason like "we want to see how much cash we can get", b) real reason. About 75% of people tested were willing to give cash for lolrandom things; another group of people was not scared by the buzzer, and rate of people willing to give out cash for dumb stuff dropped to like, 15%. Basically, something as stupid as scaring people with a buzzer made people willing to give out cash for no reason whatsoever.

Third real life example would be...well, Pyramid Schemes. I guarantee you that people reading about how these operate would *never* picture themselves buying into it, and yet, Pyramid Schemes are extremely effective, dumbyfing even really smart people.

All of these are real life examples of "falling to a good Courtier roll, and doing something we would ordinary think unthinkable and out of character"; these things happen. Just because someone can't imagine themselves doing something, doesn't mean they can't be made into doing it.

Doesn't mean it's fun to do them, either.

Unless you made a very specific kind of character, being told you are tricked or coerced into doing something stupid or awful isn't fun. Being told "It's fine, because in real life you could be tricked or coerced into doing something stupid or awful just as easily!" doesn't really soften the blow.

For the "some things are really out of character for people to do, no matter the roll" - I don't like this notion, because as real life proves, some of the most outlandish things are possible.

First basic example of "Real Life Rolling Really Well" would be Millgram's Experiment - where, basically, a guy Roling Really Well makes 9/10 of people participating in the experiment murderers. For people unfamiliar with the experiment in question - basically, a Fake Scientist is asking participants to shock victim with electricity, gradually increasing the doses to the point where it's very clear that shocked person is going to die. There is almost no one who would imagine themselves doing this, and yet, well...experiment showed that it's very easy to make people pass this barrier.

Another real life example would be experiment where people were scared with police buzzer at places where they are not allowed to pass the road; few moments later, they were asked by "random person" to give them cash for a) dumb reason like "we want to see how much cash we can get", b) real reason. About 75% of people tested were willing to give cash for lolrandom things; another group of people was not scared by the buzzer, and rate of people willing to give out cash for dumb stuff dropped to like, 15%. Basically, something as stupid as scaring people with a buzzer made people willing to give out cash for no reason whatsoever.

Third real life example would be...well, Pyramid Schemes. I guarantee you that people reading about how these operate would *never* picture themselves buying into it, and yet, Pyramid Schemes are extremely effective, dumbyfing even really smart people.

All of these are real life examples of "falling to a good Courtier roll, and doing something we would ordinary think unthinkable and out of character"; these things happen. Just because someone can't imagine themselves doing something, doesn't mean they can't be made into doing it.

Doesn't mean it's fun to do them, either.

Unless you made a very specific kind of character, being told you are tricked or coerced into doing something stupid or awful isn't fun. Being told "It's fine, because in real life you could be tricked or coerced into doing something stupid or awful just as easily!" doesn't really soften the blow.

Ok than we take the other appraoch. You are doing this cause you were not able to stand up to the argument and he actually sucessfully convinced you that was he says is true. The reason for this is that your belief in what is right and your position and arguments where not strong enough to prevent yourself from thinking that he could got a point there and in the end you come to the conclusion he is right since all he says to you sound logical and well thought.

That is what the rolls are representing and it is perfectly fine to go with this cause it is not different from a real discussion. If I would get a Dollar in real life for everytime I changed my mind on a topic I thought I would ever have the same opinion on cause

there where good and valid arguments brought to my ears I would be rich by now.

See you character evolves and changes during the play and while he gets wounds and scars from combat it is also possible that his mind changes and his opinions change and differ from the ones he had at the start. The way this happens is not

everytime your choice but this is not bad either cause in the end character development is so much better when not only positive things happen to him.

Unless the game setting is one in which, literally, nothing is impossible, there will always be limits -- any setting for game or fiction needs to be internally consistent, a place in which verisimiltude isn't trampled.

If cutting through the Carpenter Wall (you know, that giant stone fortification that's kept the Shadowlands largely at bay for centuries) isn't an abjectly ridiculous enough example of an impossible action, then we can always find one that is. Leaping to the moon? Lifting an entire mountain range with one finger? There has to be some limit.

Actually each setting which has magic in it makes nothing impossible. Since this is the case for Rokugan nothing should be impossible to pull of there, atleast with enough effort and preperation.

The reason is magic defies our normal laws of nature. A leap to the moon? Why not with the air Kamis blessing it could be possible. Lifting the enitre mountain no problem for the Master of Earth, some Monks or other equally gifted earth Shugenjas and or Oni etc.

Cutting to the wall was never really a problem and is shown by many Oni invasions into Rokugani lands.

It's not a "misunderstanding", it's at msot fundamental disagreement about what's going on in an RPG.

The player says "my character is going to do X" -- the dice roll represents the attempt to do X. The dice rolls and rules are a model of the reality in which the game/story takes place. The game starts and ends with the things that happen within, the dice are simply a tool for resolution.

If I am GMing and someone says "I want to this thing that is impossible in the setting, or utterly inappropriate to the setting and game", I am willing to say "you'll fail if you attempt that" in order to keep the game on track and the internal consistency maintained.

The dice are the deciding factor when it comes to the question of sucess or failure. Therefore the dice are the things which are showing if your blade is sharp enough or not when it comes through armor cutting. This means your dice should also be the deciding factor when it comes to look if your argument is good enough to persuade the oppponent. As it is now the deciding factor is an abitary diecsion of a other player who either says ok I belive you or no I will not be mindcontrolled and thats a huge problem cause it makes this part abitary which in turn makes it a huge mess when running games at semi offical or offical events.

And yes when you go and say this is impossible and it does not matter how hard you try you will not sucseed I refer to the Mantis. There was one who did something each person deemed impossible and this was weaing a weapon in the throne room of the emperor. Also we had the founder of the Bitterlies technique who conquered a fort on his own by sheer luck.

L5r is a game which also has a Anime/Wujia emphasis and encourages seemingly impossible tasks cause this makes the game so much mor stunning and cool. Cleaving the wall is a fun hook for a campaign and limiting peopleonly cause of the thought that their action is unrealistic is something I think no GM should do. Also as mentioned above nothing is impossible in a world whichincooperates magic so the only factor which makes it impossible is you and not the setting or the world.

I'm not encouraging putting players in unfun situation. I'm encouraging untrenching from position of "character's totally won't do this because I'm sure that it doesn't make sense", and instead of arguing against why would they do that, embrace the fact that yes, they possibly could do that and seek "why would they" instead of multiplying defensive "they totally wouldn't because". Also, to detach ourselves from idea that rationality is the king, because often, it isn't.

(Making Emperor abandon the Throne because of single roll still shouldn't happen, but not because "it's totally unrealistic", but because "this totally derails the game and makes it unfun to GM")

As for magic - game troupes should agree on what exactly is the genre and style they are playing in. If I expect Anime Highschool Samurai Action Series, I will construct character differently, declare different actions, and seek different outcomes than if I'm told that we are playing Realistic Drama Full Of Cynicism.

Knowing yourself (and by extension, your game) is critical to finding proper tools and making sure everyone are on the same page.

I also don't think that "magic exists, therefore everything is possible" is a good argument, because magic is...whatever magic is written to be. It can be very restricted, very unlimited, can operate under specific laws, or can be literally just a handwave device without any logic or patterns to it.

As for magic - game troupes should agree on what exactly is the genre and style they are playing in. If I expect Anime Highschool Samurai Action Series, I will construct character differently, declare different actions, and seek different outcomes than if I'm told that we are playing Realistic Drama Full Of Cynicism.

Knowing yourself (and by extension, your game) is critical to finding proper tools and making sure everyone are on the same page.

This, +100. If I tell a player "that's impossible," what I mean is that it's impossible within the bounds of genre we're playing. I ran a Scion game; the PCs were the children of gods, ascending to godhood themselves. By the time that campaign ended, one of them absolutely could cut through the Kaiu Wall in a single blow. But that won't be true in every game I run.

As for magic - game troupes should agree on what exactly is the genre and style they are playing in. If I expect Anime Highschool Samurai Action Series, I will construct character differently, declare different actions, and seek different outcomes than if I'm told that we are playing Realistic Drama Full Of Cynicism.

Knowing yourself (and by extension, your game) is critical to finding proper tools and making sure everyone are on the same page.

This, +100. If I tell a player "that's impossible," what I mean is that it's impossible within the bounds of genre we're playing. I ran a Scion game; the PCs were the children of gods, ascending to godhood themselves. By the time that campaign ended, one of them absolutely could cut through the Kaiu Wall in a single blow. But that won't be true in every game I run.

Yeah, exactly -- when I say "not realistic", I don't mean "that couldn't happen in the real world". It's shorthand for "that doesn't at all fit the fictional reality in which the game/story is taking place".

One of my favorite 50 cent words (maybe 75 cents with inflation over the years -- verisimilitude .

And yes when you go and say this is impossible and it does not matter how hard you try you will not sucseed I refer to the Mantis. There was one who did something each person deemed impossible and this was weaing a weapon in the throne room of the emperor. Also we had the founder of the Bitterlies technique who conquered a fort on his own by sheer luck.

L5r is a game which also has a Anime/Wujia emphasis and encourages seemingly impossible tasks cause this makes the game so much mor stunning and cool. Cleaving the wall is a fun hook for a campaign and limiting peopleonly cause of the thought that their action is unrealistic is something I think no GM should do. Also as mentioned above nothing is impossible in a world whichincooperates magic so the only factor which makes it impossible is you and not the setting or the world.

Please don't conflate "characters in the setting say it's impossible" with "actually impossible by the internal 'physics' of the fictional world".

Interesting topic, but as war as I am concerned Tetsuhiko nailed it.

You have the two scenarios: The Court and the one-to-one debate.

I am not concerned about the flow of a debate, but in the end you have to model it by a series of dice roll. Mass battle and duel mechanic seems perfectly sufficient for these scenarios and give the courtier schools enough room to specialize into certain forms of debate.

The last thing mentioned was Arts. However I want to expand on this. Resources!

Favors, Materials, Craftsmanship, Art, etc.

The idea is that a Courtier should feel like part of a network.

Need three horses to reach at your destination a few days faster? I got you covered.

Your Tetsubo broke? I think I just know the right person to get a new one.

Want to impress this beautiful Crane girl? I could be your Haiku ghost writer, but I know a guy how lives nearby which is much better then me.

My point is that the courtier should have a certain roll in the party and giving the party access to resources works fine in my head.

Should he be able to summon the stuff out of thin air. Not exactly. It should take him a while as long as he passes the the roll.

But I think there is no need to make him or her repay everything. It is implied that he does so off screen. For some other courtier he is the guy to contact for certain favors.

Perhaps it might be an interesting plot hook for an adventure.

One of your contacts approaches you. He is quite desperate, because of an unfortunate bet he agreed to. Will you help him or not?

As long as being a courtier is delegated is delegated to making opposed Courtier checks, many other schools offer more or are simply better. Namely Duelists and Air Shugenja.

I also don't think that "magic exists, therefore everything is possible" is a good argument, because magic is...whatever magic is written to be. It can be very restricted, very unlimited, can operate under specific laws, or can be literally just a handwave device without any logic or patterns to it.

Yeah my bad here cause I think I worded it not the right way. I think you are quiet right here and magic can be both very limited and all might dependend on what the author wants. What I tried to say is that as soon as Magic is incooperated into a setting there it offers a potential of unlimited power. This has not to be the case in every story or group cause in the end the author (the group) is deciding to which degree they want to have this power and if they want to limit it or not but the potenial is there.

In conclusion this means that while the players can limit the degee of the power of Magic the setting itself gets has no problem with magic and will not become unbelieveable when the Magic is used to a higher degree since the decision to incooperate Magic into the setting

brought the fact with it that Magic can be very powerfull.

Please don't conflate "characters in the setting say it's impossible" with "actually impossible by the internal 'physics' of the fictional world".

Are we really taling about the same L5r? Cause I mean Rokugan is the world were mortals can become gods. Where 1 person can defeat an entire army and a human can bind a inprison a evil which imooortals can´t beat. The world of Rokugan is a world where people are doing crazy things and lhave no problem to get abilities on a city leveling level. 10m high Oni are not uncommon to the crab and we even had a Oni which had a whole city on his back. We have the option for humans to become beings of pure elemental power for the dark side and for the light one. Rokugan is not very limiting in the potential of what you can do. Which is shown again and again by vairous fictions.

Therefore I don´t conflate anything cause such things are cutting though a huge wall of stone might be something difficult and only something 1 person in 100 years has the skill too but it is perfectly possible when I concider the other possibilities inside of the world of L5R.

And when I let players in my game create PCs who are forty-foot oni and hundred-year-old ishiken with Void 15, maybe the TNs and Raises required to cleave the Kaiu Wall at a blow--without some kind of multi-session plot buildup and the full connivance of the GM and the rest of the party--will be attainable for them.

Or we'll just go play Exalted, which is better at that sort of thing.

Until then, usually when we gather round to play L5R we're looking for samurai drama in a setting that's medium-high-fantasy but in which most of the characters are generally Badass Normals (to slightly misappropriate the TVtropes term). So when talking about social mechanics it's going to make a lot more sense to start from that baseline, not build around "1 person in 100 years" examples or things so complex/ambitious they ought to be the focus of a campaign arc.

Back to the actual topic, Yandia, I agree it'd be fun to have some optional rules for Getting Stuff for gifts and exchanges as a courtier, or crafting as an artisan. The Doji Courtier techniques are more concrete than some, in a way, but the fact that you're never quite sure what a normal character should have to go through to achieve a similar effect doesn't do them any favors. Similarly, I've played a Kakita Artisan and it was certainly fun--I'd like to revisit the school as more of a clever bastard next time--but it was never really clear to me how those techniques interacted with creating a permanent piece of art. (Crafting rules in 4E are pretty minimal, but honestly that's still preferable to the complex and often nonsensical rules from 3E. If you're never going to rationalize your item price list, don't turn around and base a rules subsystem on item cost! Hey, come to think of it, perhaps FFG will be the Chosen Ones who finally throw that moldy thing out. And maybe make it 10 bu to the koku while they're at it....)

Until then, usually when we gather round to play L5R we're looking for samurai drama in a setting that's medium-high-fantasy but in which most of the characters are generally Badass Normals (to slightly misappropriate the TVtropes term). So when talking about social mechanics it's going to make a lot more sense to start from that baseline, not build around "1 person in 100 years" examples or things so complex/ambitious they ought to be the focus of a campaign arc.

I agree with you here. The social system should be based on normal or slightly above normal persons and not the exceptional near god people which are living for more like 100 years. Thats actually the reason why there should be no such thing than a opinion that can´t be changed cause normal people are not these super exceptional sources of willpower and belief you make them when saying you can´t change this or I will not do this independent from how good you argument is.

Therefore exspcially if we want to go for normal people a mechnic that is able to change the mind of the person is necassary since so is the reality of normal people. You mind and you belief can changed by external sources.

Normal and little above average would target peasants . System should model whatever is target player characters - so if your game is "game about supernatural detectives", mechanics should (social or not) portray how detectives interact with the world. "Game about Hungry Vampires" should portray interactions of Vampires vs Vampires and Vampires vs Non Vampires, from perspective of Vampires; probably with some in-built ways to make titular hunger matters.

Short side note on how 1st Edition Mage: The Awakening FAILED, for once

Core Rulebook yelled at you, at many places, that Resources In Mage Are Very Imporant. Lore, Magical Tricks, and especially - Mana; they all were painted as "things Mages really need to function, and may even commit crimes and immoral acts to obtain; even potentially including *dramatic music* MURDER". Game line vividly described whole communities and groups fighting over access to tiniest bit of Mana, using places of mana generation as important steps towards dominating local politics, and so on.

It all sounded great in theory, but when it comes to playing the game, it all fell very flat, because *none of the mechanics* supported this in actual gameplay. Rotes, while handy as a early crutch, were easily ignorable; and in fact, sometimes using a Rote versus not using it was downright harmful to your dicepool. (TO put it in context - normal spellcasting roll was "Your Power Stat + Your Magic School Stat"; Rote changed that to "Specific Skill+Specific Attribute+School Stat". You could start at anywhere from 1 to 3 Power Stat, and anywhere from 0 to 10 on your "Skill+Attribute" pool. While Rote Pool seems superior, it was pretty expensive to buy up with XP, and helped you with only one spell out of literally unlimited possibilities you could cast; while increasing your Power Stat increased ALL of your spellcasting power, and gave you other benefits that generally improved your ability-to-mage; so in the end, it was more practical to just level up your Power Stat for general utility and power, than to rely on specific spell crutch and be weak everywhere else)

So, players in general, would shy away from Rotes and wouldn't pursue obtaining them; fact that learning a Rote put in you a debt to bigger organization, and *also cost you XP*, was often too annoying to bother.

Specific Spell knowledge was also very useless, because by design, if you have School Stat at X, you can cast any spell possible within given parameters. If you don't know a specific spell, you can literally create your own, identical. It's selling feature of the game; but it makes the "wizards trading secrets and pillaging libraries for ancient spells" simply not work; why bother if you can simply reinvent the wheel and make it amphibious, too?

Mana was probably most terribly handled from all of these; it was supposed to be Very Important Resource, but in actual gameplay, it was of very little significance. There wasn't much to do with it, and you could literally play whole sessions in a row without spending a single Mana point; it was also pathetically easy to regenerate without putting much effort into it; which in turn, made players ignore the whole "Mana as Resource" angle of the game, because it was simply never a thing in actual gameplay. Which, in turn, made things like "People are willing to kidnap and murder pets of their neighbours in dark rituals to gain MANAAAA" look retarded from gameplay perspective; there was literally no benefit to killing people or small animals for mana, or as sacrifices, or as whatever, because you probably could get same or better benefit from deconstructing your weekly trash into raw mana. There was also pretty much 0 temptation to turn into Dark Arts Of Blood Sacrifice, because Blood Sacrifice basically meant "gain some free Mana, and suffer from Wisdom degeneration you sick jerk"; in fact, it was actively harmful and counterproductive to dabble in Terrible Things. (Which was always a problem with World of Darkness games, and their Morality Stats wristslapping you for being a monster in...games about being monsters)

These things, together, made "magical economy and resources" angle of the game as written be practically unplayable. WIthout your Storyteller finding his own ways to homebrew mana as something important, these things simply flat out didn't work in play. You could *pretend* they worked, but there was literally never any reason to go out of your way and fight (argue, backstab, plot) over any of these things.

So...how it relates to Legend of Five Rings?

L5R should always make sure to identify "things that make samurai game samurai", and make sure that these things actually matter in gameplay as written. To be fair, it does a fairly good job about it (ignoring Shugenja having no "nudge, nudge" into being priests and doing priestly stuff, other than "Shugenja are totally priests, somehow, somewhere, dunno, just play it and don't ask sigh"); Honor is pretty important in game, as it can be sensed (which means people will probably respect you and trust your words more than those of some low-honor thug), it provides you with benefits, and is often "objective in itself". This means that characters have in-gameplay reasons to care about their honor; so your bushi, who might find Intimidation much better skill choice for himself than Courtier and Sincerity (Intimidation was errated to be "Willpower skill", and to be honest, it always seemed to be the intent and "Awareness" was probably an error; why is it better for bushi? Bushi want Earth 3, and quickly, so they are going to ramp up their Willpower to 3 asap; then, Willpower 4 is very tempting, as it is used for many defensive social rolls, and with intimidation, you can actually use it for offense!)...but using it in many situations will cost you Honor. And because we know what losing Honor means in eyes of other people (and that bushi himself), it's actually an interesting choice with consequences - do I Intimidate for 8k4 +5, but lose Honor and reinforce my reputation of a brute, or do I Courtier for 6k3 and act "properly"? Etc.

Sadly, things like "losing Glory" or "gaining Glory" don't have such strategic, practical gameplay impact, which means these things often will get sidetracked. Which leads into practically noone Raising on that Iaijutsu roll "to look cool and gain extra Glory", potentially missing the shot for their show-offness and "yeah, he gained Infamy for always running around with armor, whatever".

And while your GM can find their own way to make these important, what's important here is that _books should do that for you, or at least help you find a solution to this_. You pay for them to get complete, working game; each time you are forced to create a houserule for something that game "promised" and "should" cover as a basic material/gameplay interaction, you are suffering from incomplete product that failed to do it's job.