How do people feel about R&K?

Do you want it again in 5e? Do you want it again, but with the balance tweaked a little? Do you want a new dice mechanic entirely?

I'm asking in a new thread because the "what is necessary" thread is HUGE, and a new system isn't *necessary*; it's just an option.

Personally, I'm torn. I like R&K a lot; I love picking up a handful of d10s and watching all those dice explode. But, in L5R, as others have said, traits are too powerful compared to skills.

Furthermore—when I think about systems that define broad traits and skills (narrower areas of learning—I think of traits as aptitude and skills as experience and refinement. To me, kept dice seem more like refinement, whereas unkept dice seem more like aptitude. So, why not just roll stat+skill and keep skill?

Because of unskilled rolls; if you don't have a skill, you can't keep dice! I haven't thought of a good way around that.

Plus, R&K requires a lot of double digit mental arithmetic. Which is fine, it just makes the game slow if your group isn't snappy at it. (Though I'm definitely faster at mental arithmetic now, so that's a plus). In my experience, combat tends to drag on simply because of the amount of time it takes to parse rolls.

Also, in my estimation, R&K takes more working memory chunks than other dice mechanics. Which, again, isn't wrong, it can just slow the game.

In a system like FFG SW, there's much less arithmetic (without having ever played, I'm already decently quick at reading them, and one of my other group members who is slower at R&K is much much faster at SW). Plus it's something new and interesting (though not light on working memory, either).

(But for the record, I want to be able to buy color coded dice for my clan...)

Having been running a 7th sea game where I've been Keeping skill rather than Trait, my rule for Skill 0 is that you can keep 1 die, but you can't explode.

The biggest issue that I find with R&K is raises. so many players have said that they hate the idea of needing to state raises before they roll.

I really like roll and keep, and 3rd edition Emphases were a great way to increase the importance of skills.

R&K is a system that I like a lot because of the randomness of the roll. One roll you're doing ok, the other you're doing awesome and the other poorly. That's what makes the system great in my opinion. It's not perfect, like every system, like the fact that traits are a little too good. Tonbo Karasu may have a great idea to prevent that without changing the basic system that much.

I've played a lot of systems and I'll admit it's the one that I like the most so far.

As for the raises, yes it's hard to guess sometime but I feel like it's part of the fun. You take a risk to do something more complicated with a bigger chance to fail. High risk, high reward. I wouldn't want to change the raises after the roll. In my game, when a player rolls an insanly great roll, I already give them something more than needed but the same goes when they failed the roll by a lot. But that's just me spicing up the game. However, I do encourage my players to raise and to take risks.

I'll admit that I'll probably hate the "narrative dice" if they go for that... I'll admit that I'm not interested by this kind of system.

R&K needs to stay, maybe a very small tweek may help, but overall, if it stays the same, I'm very ok with that.

R&K is my preferred system. I absolutely love it. There are things I would change in the rules (mostly the D&D leftovers like combat and magic), but man, R&K is definitely not among them! It is just too high on diversity (possible way to manipulate a roll) and flexibility (the system can be changed to fit any theme).

I like the R&K system, I like it a lot. I like the excitement that the randomness brings to the table, is great. I have so many fond memories of my dice exploding followed by my fist pounding on the table while shouting: "In your face you Taint Spawn".

But I accept the fact the system isn't perfect, there is no reason to repeat them. Still is a great one,

I know it can be tweaked if FFG wants to, however I believe that most likely the new edition will get a new system, hoping a narrative one like Star Wars which I am so fond of.

I do like roll and keep, but find it a little too random.

I prefer the Old World of Darkness way of determining things:- GM sets a difficulty number (six or seven normally, max 9 or 10) and you roll attribute plus skill and every dice that gets the number or higher is a success.

Our group came up with a solution for the raises issue: Every full multiple of 10 above the TN equals one free raise that can be retroactively used as if declared before. This still makes raises useful, because only having a TN increase of 5 is very helpful.... especially when casting high level spells... But this mechanic allows more awesomeness to happen. Using the example of spellcasting, "Well the kami respond to your wishes much faster than you anticipated, roll damage." Oh, I'm the addition-challenged person mentioned in Zoomfarg's original post XD

I am also a big fan of RnK. The only issue I have with the Base system is the fact that raises are tied to void. Decouple that and I think it would be much better.

Or have school tags determine what that decouples.

I find myself disliking R&K more the more often I have to use it. It is mechanically screwy enough that my RPG group has been running L5R out of the FATE system.

The main issues that we have with it are these:

The Raise system is broken, especially with not knowing TN's in most situations save via inference. In addition, Raises are mostly built around Combat, in which some options are great, and others mostly pointless save for cheesing the system.

The R&K system being bound to skills/traits makes insight intolerable. You have to raise Insight to get to play with your school's toys, but that means pumping rings, which breaks Skills pretty quickly.

Narrative representations such as the Star Wars RPG are a better option imo.

The R&K system being bound to skills/traits makes insight intolerable. You have to raise Insight to get to play with your school's toys, but that means pumping rings, which breaks Skills pretty quickly.

It is quite the other way around, actually. Raising Rings for Insight only worth it early on. After a while, the XP cost will go through the roof and you will be better off pumping Skills.

Ring should be done away with because they group together attributes that don't necessarily make sense together and limit character concepts by insisting that someone who is good at one of the two attributes also be good at the other. It also means there are more attributes than there needs to be causing the issue of having a god stat and utterly worthless stats. If the whole "Ring" concept can be done away with, it would lend itself to a richer and more balanced game.

Similarly, the whole roll and keep system in the way it was presented needed some fixes. Since attributes determine how many dice you get to roll and keep and skills only allow you to roll more unkept dice, mathematically skills were almost worthless next to attributes. There might have also been an issue of there being way too many skills with some being critical and others being "yeah, you kind of should have this (i.e. lore for your own clan, understanding of heraldry, bushido, etc.) but it is literally never going to come up in a life or death situation."

I get the whole "I want to pick up lots of d10s and roll them and like when they explode", and that could be kept, but the manner in which it is determined how many die you roll and why and how many of them count may need to be revisited.

I am quite keen on the hope that the R&K system. It is one of my favorites, and one I've found fits quite well. Though I do recognize that it needs a bit of retooling as to what gives what where.

Having been running a 7th sea game where I've been Keeping skill rather than Trait, my rule for Skill 0 is that you can keep 1 die, but you can't explode.

I was considering something similar; but what do you do with a TN 15 and no skill?

I really like roll and keep, and 3rd edition Emphases were a great way to increase the importance of skills.

What did the emphases do in 3e?

R&K is a system that I like a lot because of the randomness of the roll. One roll you're doing ok, the other you're doing awesome and the other poorly.

....

I'll admit that I'll probably hate the "narrative dice" if they go for that... I'll admit that I'm not interested by this kind of system.

I feel that randomness too, but I'm less of a fan. With a PC, I design them around a particular concept and have expectations of how/when they will succeed and fail. However, my perception is that R&K results don't meet those expectations (despite using the lynk.se R&K calculator). To mathy people: am I wrong? Is the R&K system consistent, and I just have an outlier experience? I've tried lots of different dice, so I don't think it's a weight problem.

Also, why do you think you'll hate a narrative system? Have you ever tried the FFG SW one? Success/failure is binary, just like an R&K roll; the narrative component is "did something go well" or "did something go poorly" (aside from binary success/failure). The SW rules have an option (at least in the beginner set) that converts the narrative component into a mechanical component. Again, I haven't played it, but I like that the same dice mechanic can support both a narrative option and a strictly mechanical option.

I believe that most likely the new edition will get a new system, hoping a narrative one like Star Wars which I am so fond of.

Why are you fond of it? Do you think it can be used as is for L5R? Would you change anything for L5R? (I'm asking strictly of the dice mechanic, not the rest of the game, like careers/paths/what have you)

Emphases in third edition added the value of the skill to the final result.

For exemple, if a character's had an agility of 3, a kenjutsu skill of 4 and a katana Emphasis, when attack with a katana, he would roll 7k3+4

R&K is a system that I like a lot because of the randomness of the roll. One roll you're doing ok, the other you're doing awesome and the other poorly.

....

I'll admit that I'll probably hate the "narrative dice" if they go for that... I'll admit that I'm not interested by this kind of system.

I feel that randomness too, but I'm less of a fan. With a PC, I design them around a particular concept and have expectations of how/when they will succeed and fail. However, my perception is that R&K results don't meet those expectations (despite using the lynk.se R&K calculator). To mathy people: am I wrong? Is the R&K system consistent, and I just have an outlier experience? I've tried lots of different dice, so I don't think it's a weight problem.

Also, why do you think you'll hate a narrative system? Have you ever tried the FFG SW one? Success/failure is binary, just like an R&K roll; the narrative component is "did something go well" or "did something go poorly" (aside from binary success/failure). The SW rules have an option (at least in the beginner set) that converts the narrative component into a mechanical component. Again, I haven't played it, but I like that the same dice mechanic can support both a narrative option and a strictly mechanical option.

R&K is consistent, but when you look at the statistics, you'll see how big the range is. Let's take a few example.

1D20: average roll = 10.5 with a standard deviation of 5.92, which means that most rolls will be mostly between 4.58 and 16.42.

2D6: Average roll = 7 with a standard deviation of 2.42, which means that most rolls will be mostly between 4.58 and 9.42.

But that's only for rolling the dice and keeping them all. Now, if we take a look at a 7k4 and a 10k6 roll:

7k4 = average of 33.7 with a standard deviation of 9.5, which means that most rolls should be between 24.2 and 43.2.

10k6 = average of 49.9 with a standard deviation of 11.6, which means that most rolls should be between 38.3 and 61.5.

The more dice you add, the larger the most roll range is. Most roll is about 68.2% of the rolls. Which results in a better random allowing more chances on success and failure. It's really about the RGN God at this point.

Now, that being said, I'll keep on with why I hate the narrative system. I haven't tried it and I do now want to, but I did my studies on the system. It's not as I want to. Sure, you may see the Success/Failure if R&K as binary, but I don't use it as binary. I'm just doing it myself based on the results of the dice VS the difficulty I set up and depending on the situation. If someone succeed the TN with the minimal value, it will be a success, but it may be some heated moment that barely made him succeed. If they succeed with a large margin, I give them great stuffs and they feel rewarded for that roll. For example, they fight against a little enemy with no importance, and someone rolls a really high number, well, I don't care about their damage roll, that enemy will be dead in fashion way. Same goes when they failed poorly, for an investigation roll, they might get precise information on something, but that thing will be very off-track.

Sure the Success/failure at it's root is binary, but only of the Storyteller keeps it a binary system. You'll probably understand why I don't see it as a binary system, because I adapt the results based on the roll. Now, why do I feel like the narrative system isn't for me? Because I feel like I'm losing the control on when things should have different effect, instead, the narrative system is forcing me to use them, even when I do not want to. It may be interesting for players, but as a Storyteller, it feels less fun for that. It's not always fun to be the Storyteller because there's a lot of stuffs to do and I do feel that this part, giving results based on the rolls, should be entirely in the hands of the Storyteller to spice up the game when needed, not when the system tells you to.

That's why I hate the concept of the narrative system. I kinda feel like it turns storytelling into: "Just tell the story based on how the system tells you to." It may be interesting for people that only use the R&K as a binary system, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that doesn't use it as a binary system. I cannot talk for them, but for me, R&K gives me a very nice indication on how well they succeed or fail. I'll pick the school marks system as an image to understand what I mean by "nice indication on how they sycceed or fail": How good is a B- compared to someone else with a B-? They may ended up with the same mark, but the first one may have 79.6% at 0.4% to have a B while the other may be at 74.3% at 0.1% to have a C+. Yet, they have the same mark and doesn't mean the same thing.

In the end, I do prefer a numerical system to a symbol system. Each people prefer what they want, for me, nothing is clearer than a numerical system.

Do I like the R&K system for Legend of the Five Rings? Yes, but I have not really tried it with other systems.

Personally, nothing beats R&K for sheer lethality in combat, which for me is one of the main selling points of the system. The moment swords get drawn, there is a significant chance people are going to die. There are very few other fantasy RPG systems out there which have that same level of omnipresent, legitimate threat, to encourage PCs to find solutions that either A) avoid the necessity of skirmishes or B) find a way to make each skirmish as one sided as possible.

Regarding Raises, I have recently experimented with "Rolling a 10 explodes OR gives you a Free Raise on a Skill check" at my weekly game, and my players LOVE it. They find it to be a far more dynamic game, with the ability to get more information more reliably. It has made them more willing to take risks, which leads to a lot more fun at the actual table.

R&K is a system that I like a lot because of the randomness of the roll. One roll you're doing ok, the other you're doing awesome and the other poorly.

....

I'll admit that I'll probably hate the "narrative dice" if they go for that... I'll admit that I'm not interested by this kind of system.

I feel that randomness too, but I'm less of a fan. ... To mathy people: am I wrong? Is the R&K system consistent, and I just have an outlier experience? ...

Also, why do you think you'll hate a narrative system? Have you ever tried the FFG SW one? Success/failure is binary, just like an R&K roll; the narrative component is "did something go well" or "did something go poorly" (aside from binary success/failure).

...

R&K is consistent, but when you look at the statistics, you'll see how big the range is. ...

The more dice you add, the larger the most roll range is. Most roll is about 68.2% of the rolls. Which results in a better random allowing more chances on success and failure. It's really about the RGN God at this point.

Thanks for this explanation! This was helpful. So if I'm understanding correctly, larger dice pools increase standard deviation? And the large standard deviation that comes with large dice pools means that results further away from the mean become more likely? (both higher and lower)

Each people prefer what they want

Forever this; groups should do what's fun for them. That said, I'm gonna ask some questions based on your statements, because I'm not quite sure I understand. At least we're considering the potential merits/shortcomings of a mechanic that neither of us has tried, right?

Sure, you may see the Success/Failure if R&K as binary, but I don't use it as binary. I'm just doing it myself based on the results of the dice VS the difficulty I set up and depending on the situation.

...

Sure the Success/failure at it's root is binary, but only of the Storyteller keeps it a binary system. You'll probably understand why I don't see it as a binary system, because I adapt the results based on the roll.

First, I'll paraphrase to make sure I understand: RAW, R&K checks a single condition: success or failure. But , as GM, you don't use the roll for simple success/failure (or critical success/failure); you prefer to interpret the roll as non-binary and add more detail based on how well or poorly the player rolled.

Since you layer your own interpretation on top of a binary R&K roll, would it be accurate to say that a RAW R&K roll doesn't provide sufficiently rich output for your play style? It seems that RAW R&K doesn't do quite what you want, so you use your own judgement as GM, based on the roll, to enrich the outcome.

But isn't that what the narrative dice mechanic of SW does? Basically, it makes two checks: 1) success vs. failure and 2) benefit vs. hindrance. There's even sometimes third and fourth checks: 3) amazing benefit? (y/n); and 4) really terrible consequence (y/n).

Your first example--a high roll that takes out a who-cares NPC--seems like success+big benefit. Your second example--failed investigation with accurate, but misleading information--seems like success+hindrance. (though your first example could be interpreted merely as huge success)

Now let's look at the control concern (which was originally one of my big stumbling blocks, as well):

... Now, why do I feel like the narrative system isn't for me? Because I feel like I'm losing the control on when things should have different effect, instead, the narrative system is forcing me to use them, even when I do not want to...

That's why I hate the concept of the narrative system. I kinda feel like it turns storytelling into: "Just tell the story based on how the system tells you to." ...

In what way does the narrative dice system seem to say "Just tell the story based on how the system tells you to" that a "normal" roll doesn't? Aren't your interpretations based on the roll anyway?

To me, it seems like the narrative system FFG used for SW merely provide clearer/more robust information about how a character's actions influence a scene.

Would you be opposed to a narrative system if it had optional mechanical-only interpretations for the narrative variables (i.e. all those besides success vs. failure), as in the SW beginner's set?

Quoting from another thread regarding a review of FFG SW, by someone who has actually played the game:

The review is correct that any system can do what SW does. The entire point of the dice was to address human behaviour. [emphasis added]

* the dice don't guarantee anything. Especially Setback dice. Let me explain

In D&D and any linear numeric modifier. A Bonus and Setback influence the odds equal. Heavy Rain is a -2, is always the same the rain always represents the flat value of -2. The player understands the result of this and it's influence on the result of the roll.

Where as a SW Setback Dice doesn't not represent any solid value. It has 6 sides. 2 no result, 2 fail, 2 Threat. That means the results influence may have no effect. in narrative it means the the PC overcame the heavy rain with little trouble. the rain slowed him down or halted progress, or possibly the heavy rain cause the handholds above to crumble making the next roll more difficult.

once this mind set set's in that a Setback die has a very direct influence of a narrative value of outcome. It change the players behavour a lot. Players become more invested trying to give SB dice to enemies, Players become invested trying to make up ways why they get a Boost die.

*Boost Dice are superior to Setback dice

There more result values on a Boost die that a SB die. This means that 1SB is worth less than the benefit of 1 Boost. The purpose of this is to drive the Player to create situations, get situations, describe benefits so they can get a Boost die.

The Dice system in FFG SW is an encouraging game mechanic for players and even more fun for the GM.

... SW dice just isn't the vector of Failure and Margin of Success, but external benefits and disadvantages along with fortune and catastrophes. All in one roll. that's right. that is all achieved in a single roll. on the opposite side in standard linear systems anything more than pass/fail requires more rolls or more situation thinking. Can be done, but the more inspiration the better.

Thoughts?

My players and I wouldn't consider changing system honestly, it's part of the L5r experience and we are fine with it. Raises make people consider what they are doing, instead of rolling and just letting the die decide how good they are.

Having been running a 7th sea game where I've been Keeping skill rather than Trait, my rule for Skill 0 is that you can keep 1 die, but you can't explode.

I was considering something similar; but what do you do with a TN 15 and no skill?

Fail.

Less snarkily, there are options for using a related skill in place, with mandatory raises, or spending a Drama Point for extra dice or temporary access to the skill. (I realise Drama Points are more fluid than Void Points).

I also tweaked everything done by about 20%. Everything is in multiples of 4 rather than 5, and a raise is 4. This recognises that there are more skills than you can possibly learn, compared to the limited list of tratis.

@zoomfarg

But isn't that what the narrative dice mechanic of SW does? Basically, it makes two checks: 1) success vs. failure and 2) benefit vs. hindrance. There's even sometimes third and fourth checks: 3) amazing benefit? (y/n); and 4) really terrible consequence (y/n).

I'm not saying that the narrative dice isn't doing this, I just prefer to manage it myself. This way, it's more a surprise when something great or awful occurs based on their rolls, because I'm not doing this on every rolls, simply on important one or on critical moments. Sure they occurs when I feel like it, so far, it occurs a lot, based on the number of rolls there's on my game so far. I'll admit that I made my players rolls an average 4 dice pools per session of around 5 hours, and there was only 2 skirmishes in 6 games. So most stuffs they do are through roleplay.

In what way does the narrative dice system seem to say "Just tell the story based on how the system tells you to" that a "normal" roll doesn't? Aren't your interpretations based on the roll anyway?

[...]

Would you be opposed to a narrative system if it had optional mechanical-only interpretations for the narrative variables (i.e. all those besides success vs. failure), as in the SW beginner's set?

As I've said above, I prefer to keep these as a surprise. Once you roll the narrative dice, you see the results and if there's a consequence (good or bad), you already see it, so you expect it. By keeping it a surprise, it changes the atmosphere because it's unexpected. Which is why I say that I feel like I would be forced to do something, specially when there's use of consequences.

And yes, I would be opposed to a narrative system, even if it had optional mechancal-only interpretation. Why? Because I wouldn't feel like I would be playing L5R. Removing this, means that the iconic feature of L5R will be removed: the combat lethality. As far as I know, in Star Wars, the damage done is exactly the same amount of success on the hit roll, which may not work very well in L5R. There's always a tension in the air once the skirmish starts because a character may die so quickly, and that's right even if the characters not a strong powerhouse.

Also, I'm not a fan of systems where both hit and damage is on the same roll. Sure its quicker, but it removes a few dimensions. For example, Agile Bushi with 5 in Agi and 3 in Str will probably hit easily his target and will probably help his damage output with manoeuvers, while the Strong Bushi with 3 in Agi and 5 in Str, may probably miss a few time, but will not rely on manoeuvers for his damage output. In the end, they can end up doing the same damage, but they won't play the same way. One will play around the mechanism a little more than the other who will simply rely on his stats.

Meanwhile, in a system where both hit and damage are rolled in the same time, it would feel like they will be the same roll, that's if it's well balanced, because some system made it in a way that Agility and Strength are the same stats, which is weird.

Thoughts?

There's pros and cons on every system. However, as I've said in my post: "I do prefer a numerical system to a symbol system". It's a matter of taste at this point. I'm not saying it's a bad system, I'm only saying that it's not a system that I feel like I would like. For example, if I do not like a color, I will not buy anything that is that color, specially when the same thing has different color. Which is why I would stick to the 4th edition if FFG decides to go for the narrative system... That's if they decide to continue the RPG because so far, the RPG was not even addressed so far.

I feel that randomness too, but I'm less of a fan. With a PC, I design them around a particular concept and have expectations of how/when they will succeed and fail. However, my perception is that R&K results don't meet those expectations (despite using the lynk.se R&K calculator). To mathy people: am I wrong? Is the R&K system consistent, and I just have an outlier experience? I've tried lots of different dice, so I don't think it's a weight problem.

The consistency of R&K is based on the number of kept dice while the number of rolled dice is the source of the variance. Xk3 will always have a 66%+ chance of beating a 15. 10kX has a 61% chance of seeing at least 1 exploding 10.

Part of 4e's problem is due to kept dice versus assumed TNs. It assumes TNs are 10+5*(kept dice) which tends to cause high numbers to be the only viable numbers to keep. Xk3 need two 8+ and a 9+ to beat the assumed TN of 25 unless you get an explosion. The range of viable numbers on kept dice expands as the number of kept dice increases, but this doesn't really help at the low IR most games start at.

TN 15 versus Xk1 only a 10 that explode into a 5+ is viable. 10k1 only has a 46% chance of this occurring.

TN 20 versus Xk2 only 10s are always viable with other dice only being viable based on the explosion. You need to roll 8k2 to have a 54% chance of this happening.

TN 25 versus Xk3 9+ are always viable with 8s being mostly viable. 6k3 (standard basic IR 1 starting point for a trained skill with a good trait) has a 52% chance of doing this.

TN 30 versus Xk4 8+ are always viable with 7s being possibly viable if you rolled a 9. 6k4 has a 52% chance of managing this.

TN 35 versus Xk5 7+ are always viable with 5s and 6s having possible viability based on the other dice kept. 6k5 is 45% and 7k5 is 59%.

Edit: Whoa, missed how much of a necromance this was. Oops.

Quoting from another thread regarding a review of FFG SW, by someone who has actually played the game:

The review is correct that any system can do what SW does. The entire point of the dice was to address human behaviour. [emphasis added]

* the dice don't guarantee anything. Especially Setback dice. Let me explain

In D&D and any linear numeric modifier. A Bonus and Setback influence the odds equal. Heavy Rain is a -2, is always the same the rain always represents the flat value of -2. The player understands the result of this and it's influence on the result of the roll.

Where as a SW Setback Dice doesn't not represent any solid value. It has 6 sides. 2 no result, 2 fail, 2 Threat. That means the results influence may have no effect. in narrative it means the the PC overcame the heavy rain with little trouble. the rain slowed him down or halted progress, or possibly the heavy rain cause the handholds above to crumble making the next roll more difficult.

once this mind set set's in that a Setback die has a very direct influence of a narrative value of outcome. It change the players behavour a lot. Players become more invested trying to give SB dice to enemies, Players become invested trying to make up ways why they get a Boost die.

*Boost Dice are superior to Setback dice

There more result values on a Boost die that a SB die. This means that 1SB is worth less than the benefit of 1 Boost. The purpose of this is to drive the Player to create situations, get situations, describe benefits so they can get a Boost die.

The Dice system in FFG SW is an encouraging game mechanic for players and even more fun for the GM.

... SW dice just isn't the vector of Failure and Margin of Success, but external benefits and disadvantages along with fortune and catastrophes. All in one roll. that's right. that is all achieved in a single roll. on the opposite side in standard linear systems anything more than pass/fail requires more rolls or more situation thinking. Can be done, but the more inspiration the better.

Thoughts?

this is a really excellent writeup, and i think a great rebuttal to a lot of the concerns and complaints that people have before they try the game. i hate the weird symbols on the dice, but i love the actual system because of the exact situations described above. it motivates player behavior ot be more creative, more engaged. it focuses players on being a part of the story and not the mechanics. if thats not what you're at the table for, thats totally cool. i think with this recent trend in more narrative games, theres been a kind of "if you just like mechanics you're doing it wrong" attitude, and a corresponding "narrative games are for plebs" backlash, which is unfortunate. i think theres a lot of ways to game, and if you aren't into being a part of driving the story, thats fine, but SW probably isn't the game for you then.

i think the system would service L5R really well, because rokugan is ALL ABOUT the stories. thats whats driven the game from go, these iconic characters and moments. you can add in lethality, thats just number tweaking, but the ability to have a roll suddenly hand you keys to driving the story in a new, epic direction or to help build a failure into something that furthers your character's arc is a ton of fun.

it motivates player behavior ot be more creative, more engaged.

From my experience, it only makes the players more aggressive with their dice hunting and a lot more assertive when it comes to roll timing.

i think the system would service L5R really well, because rokugan is ALL ABOUT the stories.

The problem with the narrative dice system is that the games are not about THE story but about dice results. As a GM, you have to be extremely lucky to hammer out a consistent story arc, because literally every roll a player makes can do something mind-blowingly crazy that throws the plot right into the trash bin.

The problem with the narrative dice system is that the games are not about THE story but about dice results. As a GM, you have to be extremely lucky to hammer out a consistent story arc, because literally every roll a player makes can do something mind-blowingly crazy that throws the plot right into the trash bin.

Then you're playing your narrative RPG systems wrong. If the playgroup is married 100% to dice results in any system you're going to have weird story arcs, because the dice don't care about your story. Good players (including GMs) in narrative systems know when to ignore the dice and when to enjoy them.