2 minutes ago, Ockbald said:

Why change something that works and it's beloved?
FFG track record with systems that use narrative dice so far is 50/50.

well, i'd say that the degree to which it works is debatable, tho i'll grant that 4e is the best iteration of it, and its certainly the most beloved. but to answer you question, because thats kind of what FFG does. all of the games they've made have followed a pretty obvious design ethos, which is at one or two removes from R&K. maybe l5r will be the special snowflake in their stable and get different treatment. but i wouldn't bet my lunchmoney on it, and i don't think that their track record, whatever its perceived to be, is going to stop them from trying new things or abandon the design ethos thats informed all their rpg games.

1 minute ago, cielago said:

their track record, whatever its perceived to be, is going to stop them from trying new things or abandon the design ethos thats informed all their rpg games.

I dunno but they did leave the WH40K RPG system alone after the fans disliked their Dark Heresy 2.0 First Beta, so for one, I do think that their track record is going to stop them from trying new things. I mean, the sh*tstorm wasn't even that bad during the DH 2 FB, and you can bet the L5r community will do worse than that.

It's not like Roll and Keep cannot be explored further or anything. I'd love to see new things inside something that is associated with the setting in it's RPG format instead of going into specialty dice route.

40 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

I dunno but they did leave the WH40K RPG system alone after the fans disliked their Dark Heresy 2.0 First Beta, so for one, I do think that their track record is going to stop them from trying new things. I mean, the sh*tstorm wasn't even that bad during the DH 2 FB, and you can bet the L5r community will do worse than that.

i feel like thats the exception that proves the rule. they listen to feedback, which is great, but first they tried something different. and most of the time, it works and thats what they do. and in some cases it pays off pretty huge (cf star wars). on the other hand, your assertion assumes that a) if they did it they would automatically fail so b) they therefor won't bother because c) every single l5r fan would raise a stink. i don't think those assertions necessarily hold up.

9 minutes ago, cielago said:

i feel like thats the exception that proves the rule. they listen to feedback, which is great, but first they tried something different. and most of the time, it works and thats what they do. and in some cases it pays off pretty huge (cf star wars). on the other hand, your assertion assumes that a) if they did it they would automatically fail so b) they therefor won't bother because c) every single l5r fan would raise a stink. i don't think those assertions necessarily hold up.

Actually, the DH2.0 First Beta was pretty decent, and they still abandoned it for the safer and proven "legacy system". For SW, they had no such thing (d20 is a WotC thing, after all), so this wasn't an option. For L5R, it obviously is, and I think it makes quite a difference. So, yeah, I don't see FFG being all that brave with a system change - even if they will do it, they will not hold the line and fall back from the initial fan anger even if their new system will be okay-ish.

45 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Actually, the DH2.0 First Beta was pretty decent, and they still abandoned it for the safer and proven "legacy system". For SW, they had no such thing (d20 is a WotC thing, after all), so this wasn't an option. For L5R, it obviously is, and I think it makes quite a difference. So, yeah, I don't see FFG being all that brave with a system change - even if they will do it, they will not hold the line and fall back from the initial fan anger even if their new system will be okay-ish.

we'll just have to agree to disagree because i just can't get on board with the huge amounts of speculation you're throwing out here like its a foregone conclusion.

7 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

So, we had the game. It was good, I enjoyed it, but... After roughly two hours and 10 checks into the game the GM worked himself up so hard on the dice he asked us to roll our dice on his side of the table - then he proceeded to modify our dice results at whim, usually turning Threats to Blank, turning Advantages to Success, or removing Despairs (really, out of the ~10 Despairs we rolled through the session I think only one or two were actually resolved). This solved something, like, 90% of the problems I have with the system, but I'm fairly sure this isn't how it is meant to be played. Also, I found it somewhat disappointing that the general feel around the table after the game was "the story is good, let's continue it, but we should really go back to R&K" - the GM was pretty 'meh' about the special dice system (leaning more towards a negative opinion), one player absolutely hated it, another player felt uneasy about it, while me and the fourth player were ok (common point: our characters were highly competent in one way (Void nuking) or another (overspecialization)).

Overall, while I see the light at the end of the tunnel, I'm also having this feeling that there might be no reason to change R&K for special dice. In fact, I'm having this feeling that the special dice system is a thinly veiled binary resolution system with a twist (in a way that it is binary on 2+1 axis) rather than a true narrative resolution system. At which point I truly has to ask the question of what unique mechanic the special dice can offer over R&K... so far, I could find nothing.

So, I'd really love to join the debate here concerning the DH 2.0 Beta and what-went-wrong, but I've been there before and I feel like there is more valuable discussion to be had here. AtoMaki, you say there were about 10 Despairs rolled throughout the session. Can you tell me how often you guys were rolling red dice, and under what circumstances? Because that number seems way too big, even before considering that you guys removed the Destiny Pool. A Despair only has a 1/12 chance to show up on a red die, so for that many to show up I'm guessing you guys were rolling more than one Challenge die with each check. Does that sound right?

Haha, nah, the reason behind the high number of Despair rolls is simpler: the session was really-really long (13+ hours). Also, we foolishly made quite a few Opposed checks against major NPCs, so it was raining Challenge dice during multiple parts of the story. The Dice Gods were also somewhat fickle... my only Triumph in the first half of the session was for breaking a tree branch .

Ok, so the dice were coming primarily from enemies with Adversary ranks, then, and you had really bad luck. Okay. I still think it was begging for trouble from the beginning, especially with so little prep time and such a long session. I'm glad your coming around on the system itself, even if you're not sold on it being right for L5R.

Re: DH 2E, keep in mind that this is pretty **** anecdotal and I do not have the exact numbers anymore to back it up (and couldn't share them even if I did). I used to work for a tabletop games retailer that shipped products internationally. Our business expanded greatly maybe a year or two before DH2 as we started using other marketplaces like eBay and Amazon. But we had sold more copies of WFRP 3 in its first few years than we had of DH2 when looking at the same amount of time that it had been out for. Just to say, even if you think you know the popularity of one system vs. another because of the noise of certain members of the community, you really don't.

21 minutes ago, deraforia said:

Ok, so the dice were coming primarily from enemies with Adversary ranks, then, and you had really bad luck.

Adversary ranks? What are those? And yeah, luck is pretty darn big in this system, especially since it is so hard to predict your rolls or get a feel of consistency.

For DH2, I never said that FFG's decision to move back to the old system was worth it (it was quite counter-productive tbh, and produced almost as much negative backlash as the changes of the First Beta), only that they did it .

Adversary is a talent specific to major NPCS that upgrades difficulty dice. So one rank in Adversary would make the difficulty on your melee attack, for example, one challenge (red) die and one difficulty (purple) die. Adversary 2 would make it two challenge dice.

My point bringing up DH2 sales vs. WFRP3 is that 1) FFG made a quantifiable mistake in sticking with the same system as before and would be less likely to make such a decision in the future and 2) (this is more for Ockbald) WFRP3 was not the failure many claim it was, or else we would never have not only the SW RPGS, we probably wouldn't have X-Wing, another of Jay Little's babies. The ending of the WFRP line had more to do with the acquisition of a much more lucrative license than any perceived failure. FFG only has so many resources, though I suppose they have more now as Asmodee NA. Hopefully we actually get another edition of L5R RPG and our arguing on the Internet isn't any sillier than it already is.

On 1/19/2017 at 7:10 AM, Gaffa said:

Wait, you have a problem with your players being able to figure out the resolution of a die roll without GM intervention? Really?

Do you allow your players any input into your stories, or are they just there to walk through your interactive fanfiction novel?

This is one of the major issues with this system. because the player has to be in on the dice roll the GM is limited on what he can do.

1. The system keeps me from fudging the results in the PC favor when I need to.

2. The resulting threats/despairs can turn an otherwise good roll into a bad roll.

3. It can be time consuming to for the PC to decide how to use the results which can turn a quick fight into and hour long ordeal that does not farther the story.

4. Finally the dice can and have derail the story.

1. Yes, the system does require the GM letting the players in on the roll. This is not a bug. This is a feature. Try putting some more trust in your players. If they're interested in telling a good story, they'll have a lot of fun.

2. Threats/despairs provide complications. Complications are story opportunities. This is a tool for you to use.

3. It really shouldn't be that time consuming. The dice have a slight learning curve that seems to be worse among those who are entrenched in older dice systems and, particularly, among those who have already made up their minds to not like it. Go into the system with an open mind.

4. Dice can and have done that in every game system. This is nothing new.

7 hours ago, deraforia said:

1. Yes, the system does require the GM letting the players in on the roll. This is not a bug. This is a feature. Try putting some more trust in your players. If they're interested in telling a good story, they'll have a lot of fun.

It's a tough feature, specially when you have people with limited knowledge on L5R setting. What seems an advantage to some people, may be very dishonorable... Of course, everyone may help them, but it gives a very slow pace when it should be quick. I oftenly speak from the Storyteller side, because I'm the only L5R Storyteller of my group... However, if I would be a player, I do prefer when the Storyteller brings unexpected stuffs. Let's not forget that RPGs are based on playing a character in a fantasy world. I'll emphase on a character because, just like in real life, you can only control yourself. Why should someone alter the world to help him unintentionnally to accomplish his task? That's breaking my immersion.

So yeah, I will agree with tenchi2a on that "feature" is more bugging than helping.

7 hours ago, deraforia said:

2. Threats/despairs provide complications. Complications are story opportunities. This is a tool for you to use.

I do not need any tools to create complications to my stories... I'll point out again how some story needs to be closed for good and the Threats/Dispairs can prevent those kind of story from closure... My games are usually split by chapters and, most of the time, when the chapter is closed, very few stuffs are still occuring. I say most of the time, because there's some stuffs that I keep from time to time, but I am already applying complications... but BY MYSELF! I do not need a system to tell me: "Don't worry about complication, we're handling it for you!" No... I do hate being hold by hands, specially when I have been storytelling for a very long time now. I'm not the best Storyteller, but I improve myself between each campaign. So I do know when to create complications and when it's enough.

Also, knowing how bad my players roll... There will always have threats/despairs in the game that I would prefer to end up the game pretty fast... Trust me, the number of epic failed I've handled in my current campaign is just not believing... Because yes, even with a R&K, I apply more than "Success/fail" in it. My players really like that and it's with the same old R&K system.

A tool always depends on the need and the best example I can bring to illustrate that is with this. If I want to build a bird house, I'll need a hammer for the nails. What kind of hammer will I get? A traditionnal hammer? An automatic hammer? A multi-purpose hammer? A sledge hammer? These are all types of hammer, but we have to bring the best one based on our needs. My needs don't requires any dice to provide complications, specially in L5R where a misplaced word can be dramatic...

7 hours ago, deraforia said:

3. It really shouldn't be that time consuming. The dice have a slight learning curve that seems to be worse among those who are entrenched in older dice systems and, particularly, among those who have already made up their minds to not like it. Go into the system with an open mind.

It's not a matter of not being open minded on my side, it's a matter of necessities. I feel it's a change for the sake of changing, if they go with the narrative dice, of course. I will be honest, I do not see how this change will make character feels different one from another. The current system brings a lot to the character progression with some techniques that adds school ranks for rolled dice on specific actions, some others that can be game changing but only usable once. Something that I don't feel it can be applied on, for example, Star Wars.

These seems to be possible, but at much smaller scale, so small that it will remove a lot from seeing the difference between some characters... Just compare every bushi from the 4th edition core book, just take the very first rank. They all have bonus, but feels very different because it gives bonus but on different element of the R&K systems. When I look on the narrarive dice system, the bonus seems very limited, granting a lot less possibilities on the progression and character diversities.

Then L5R is build to allow different power levels which is greatly handled by the R&K. Then, when you bring the narrative dice to a high level game, the system feels out of hands. At some point, throwing too many difficulties and challenges dice may brings too much and feels bad.

May you explain me the kind of dice pool you see as a possible way to use narrative dice between those example:

Scenario 1: a rank 1 character swinging his katana?

Scenario 2: a rank 4 character swinging his katana?

Scenario 3: a rank 7 character swinging his katana?

I have a good idea on how R&K dice will look like for each scenario, but for narrative, will it feel like: "5 of each dice?" for the scenario 3? I'm really curious to see the idea around those...

7 hours ago, deraforia said:

4. Dice can and have done that in every game system. This is nothing new.

It's easier to prevent this when the results are more predictable. What I mean by predictable is, in the R&K, we all know if a roll can be a success or a failure, using more than a black and white answer is at the Storyteller discretion. For me, I do like to place some levels of greys between them. So it is predictable at some level. Also, I really think that if a game is derailed based on a single roll, the game is poorly designed.

When I look at the narrative dice, it's basically unpredictable. Of course, it could be possible to prepare for the worst case scenario and the best case scenario, but then, you can cross over some unique and very random rolls that can give headache instead of fun. So the system feels like it can derails the story more easily.

On a closing note, I will never deny that the R&K has some flaws, but when I look at it, from all the different system I've seen and played, it feels the more polished that I know. It's not a matter of being open minded or not, at least for me. It's mainly because all the good things that people brings aren't what I look for... For example, people who like the narrative dice brings stuffs like: "About time there's a system that brings more than success/failure with advantages and disadvantages!" but for me, I already bring that with the R&K, so, I don't feel like it's something that I need.

I really feel like the narrative dice can be good for some light campaign, where the storyteller don't want to dig too much in game preparation. On my side, I do like to prepare a lot my games. My players always tell me that I am prepared to face anything they can do and that's mainly because I do prepare branches in my stories. I usually have 10 to 14 pages of written stuffs per game session and I do skip a few of these because there's branching paths. That's my way of doing stuffs and some of my players thinks that some of their decisions might have break the game, while it's far from being the case. However, it works with my group, it doesn't mean it will work with another. It's a matter of knowing our players.

11 hours ago, deraforia said:

1. Yes, the system does require the GM letting the players in on the roll. This is not a bug. This is a feature. Try putting some more trust in your players. If they're interested in telling a good story, they'll have a lot of fun.

2. Threats/despairs provide complications. Complications are story opportunities. This is a tool for you to use.

3. It really shouldn't be that time consuming. The dice have a slight learning curve that seems to be worse among those who are entrenched in older dice systems and, particularly, among those who have already made up their minds to not like it. Go into the system with an open mind.

4. Dice can and have done that in every game system. This is nothing new.

Just to clear this up before I go on. I run Star War as the GM every week. I am not a huge fan of the system and neither are my players but its better then anything else out there for star wars. the main complaint I get from my players are the dice. The problem is the dice tend to takeover the game and direct the narrative from both a GM and player prospective.

1. Never said it was a Bug , its what the dice are designed to do. The problem is there are times when a roll is just a roll, and you don't need the dice to enhance it. Also with the dice in the open it looks bad and gamey to ignore some of the results that can Killed/Incapacitate/Hinder PC's. Where in a more traditional RPG with the dice hidden and hidden TN, a GM can fudge the dice without taking away from the story.

2. That's the GM's job. A good GM doesn't need dice to tell the story for him/her. This is not a tool it's a crutches for GM's that are going through the motions.

3. Yet it tends to be. Its not that people go it not wanting to like it. Its that unless its the only game you play its hard to have the charts down on what you can do. All my players play other game during the week (D&D, Pathfinder, Alternity, Twilight 2000, L5R, GURPS) and those games are easy to move from one to the other, because the dice are dice. You roll them and either succeed or fail. then the GM narrates the result. Maybe I as GM wanted My PC's to fail the roll that's why I made the TN 60 with them rolling 3K2. And I can hide this behind the GM's screen so the story goes on without having to game the dice to get to where I want in my story.

4. Dice add chance of failure in other games, which can be mitigated by a GM or in some cases Ignored (Players Death by GM mega crit). In the story dice system, the dice control the narrative. Example (saga rules), My players are trying to brake into a imperial base. I want them to get caught so they can meet a NPC imported to the story, I have the door trapped with a TN 80 alarm. (story dice system) same setup but now I have to give the PC 3 red and 3 Purple dice so he knows somethings up, then to make matters worse most of those dice come-up blank or are countered by the players skill dice. The dice have just derail my story. how do I say great roll but you set off the alarm.

11 hours ago, deraforia said:

1. Yes, the system does require the GM letting the players in on the roll. This is not a bug. This is a feature. Try putting some more trust in your players. If they're interested in telling a good story, they'll have a lot of fun.

2. Threats/despairs provide complications. Complications are story opportunities. This is a tool for you to use.

3. It really shouldn't be that time consuming. The dice have a slight learning curve that seems to be worse among those who are entrenched in older dice systems and, particularly, among those who have already made up their minds to not like it. Go into the system with an open mind.

4. Dice can and have done that in every game system. This is nothing new.

You know, no matter how many times the partisans of the "narrative dice" system say that "so-an-so is not a bug, it is a feature!", it doesn't necessarily make it so...

On to the R/K system. I think this system does a great job of bringing the feel of L5R to the table. Each edition had its pros and cons but it was L5R.

1st ED

Pros

1. Great first attempt .

Cons

1. Traits were to important. I feel this was because the writers were used to only to traits (Force/Chi)

2. Tried to hard to emulate the card game.

2nd ED

Pros

1. Moved away from trait as a super stat

2. Moved away from trying to emulate the card game.

Cons

1. Moved to Skills as the super stat

3rd ED

Pros

1. Skill Mastery.-Finally gave PC's a reason to invest in skills without killing Traits

2. Weapon Special rule -gave flavor to weapons and a reason to use weapons other then a katana when called for. Weapons had flavor both mechanically and in the text.

3. fluid initiative system. if you don't get hit your score goes up so you can defend and wait for and opening to attack

4. flowing school system. alternative paths had links for you school back or to another school

Cons

1. school blot

2. to many skills need to function in some careers

3. to many advantages/disadvantages.

4. spell casting was to weak

5. some really over powered schools/paths (Mirumoto Swordsman I'm looking at you)

6. D20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4th ED

Pros

1. fewer schools. got rid of the blot and some of the over powered paths

2. cleaner over all system

3. better life expectancy in combat. the x5 for the first rank helped alot

4. stronger spell casting (Maho still needs some help though)

5. less skills and more synergy with the schools

6. less advantages/disadvantages. and a disadvantages is truly a disadvantages.

Cons

1. stagnant initiative system. if you don't get to go first you spend void or your out of luck.

2. flat school system. alternative paths now replace parts of your school

3. weapons flavor gone. all weapons except Katanas are just damage numbers now. and with no reach pole-arms are just useless

And at less to me the Pros and Cons for 3rd and 4th counteract each other, so an easy fix would be a 5th ED that was a hybrid of the two.

In my experience a lot of older gamers tend to be stuck in a mindset where they think they need "win" their rpg. They are more interested in their stats and rolls than the actual story and roleplaying. I think game masters, players, and game designers have been fighting this divide for the past decade or so, and there has been a definite trend lately towards games with more lightweight rule sets and more emphasis placed on story development.

There are inherently things that people will and won't like in any game system. I have faced numerous issues with AEG's L5R rules in every addition, what I have almost never struggled with is the story. The roll and keep system is a very unique system and it would be a shame to see that system disappear but in every addition it has had glaringly big imbalances.

In the Star Wars rpg I have experienced some mechanical issues but they are much less frequent than my experience with L5R. On top of that, the narrative dice, destiny points, and the system as a whole has greatly helped the story and roleplaying. I am hoping that this thought process carries over into the new version, as the story is what I really like about L5R.

3 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

In my experience a lot of older gamers tend to be stuck in a mindset where they think they need "win" their rpg. They are more interested in their stats and rolls than the actual story and roleplaying. I think game masters, players, and game designers have been fighting this divide for the past decade or so, and there has been a definite trend lately towards games with more lightweight rule sets and more emphasis placed on story development.

There are inherently things that people will and won't like in any game system. I have faced numerous issues with AEG's L5R rules in every addition, what I have almost never struggled with is the story. The roll and keep system is a very unique system and it would be a shame to see that system disappear but in every addition it has had glaringly big imbalances.

In the Star Wars rpg I have experienced some mechanical issues but they are much less frequent than my experience with L5R. On top of that, the narrative dice, destiny points, and the system as a whole has greatly helped the story and roleplaying. I am hoping that this thought process carries over into the new version, as the story is what I really like about L5R.

It not about winning to me or my players its about the stories, but that said its about the story they want for there characters or I want for my game. In my experience the dice in Narrative dice systems have a habit of hijacking that story.

I have not had any game braking issues with L5R that could not be handled with a house ruling or in the case of a bad roll just a fudge here or there.

Now with the Narrative dice systems I have had multiple story braking rolls, that have completely derail the game to the point I have had to drop entire storylines and move on to another.

17 hours ago, deraforia said:

4. Dice can and have done that in every game system. This is nothing new.

Marvel Saga and Les Lames du cardical (a french swashbuckling game) both uses cards for resolution...so not those systems.

And that's what I like about Lords of Gossamer and Shadows (and before you ask, yes I'm GMing a semi-regular group of people using this system and yes it works really well). No dice, no random resolution, nothing. Everything is in the hand of the GM and the players.

That being said, it's really a matter of group preferences. Apart from a few exceptions (Palladium I'm looking at you), no system is so broken that a good GM cannot use to tell a good story. And that includes Star Wars.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

It's a tough feature, specially when you have people with limited knowledge on L5R setting. What seems an advantage to some people, may be very dishonorable... Of course, everyone may help them, but it gives a very slow pace when it should be quick. I oftenly speak from the Storyteller side, because I'm the only L5R Storyteller of my group... However, if I would be a player, I do prefer when the Storyteller brings unexpected stuffs. Let's not forget that RPGs are based on playing a character in a fantasy world. I'll emphase on a character because, just like in real life, you can only control yourself. Why should someone alter the world to help him unintentionnally to accomplish his task? That's breaking my immersion.

So yeah, I will agree with tenchi2a on that "feature" is more bugging than helping.

I guess this is just a philosophical difference. I don't mind the player taking some control over the world to narrate an action, and generally I find it's better to pin failure on environmental factors more than the character's failings, at least when a character is supposed to be really good at something.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

I do not need any tools to create complications to my stories...

I don't even need dice at all to do cooperative storytelling. I do most of my roleplaying on freeform forums, with no mechanic whatsoever. But there are times that I like having dice as a variable, and I like the way they worked out the Star Wars system. We don't need any of these rules to tell stories and have fun, it's just kinda nice.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

I'll point out again how some story needs to be closed for good and the Threats/Dispairs can prevent those kind of story from closure...

These shouldn't prevent closure. I'm honestly baffled by this line of discussion. Can you explain what you mean exactly or offer an example?

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

Because yes, even with a R&K, I apply more than "Success/fail" in it. My players really like that and it's with the same old R&K system.

Can you tell me what method you use to determine non-binary results? Is it consistent, or is it GM fiat?

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

A tool always depends on the need and the best example I can bring to illustrate that is with this. If I want to build a bird house, I'll need a hammer for the nails. What kind of hammer will I get? A traditionnal hammer? An automatic hammer? A multi-purpose hammer? A sledge hammer? These are all types of hammer, but we have to bring the best one based on our needs.

I agree with this much, if not the line that follows. And it's why I would not want the Star Wars system exactly as-is imported to L5R. I want a similar system with it's own unique aspects that are purely Rokugan.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

I will be honest, I do not see how this change will make character feels different one from another. The current system brings a lot to the character progression with some techniques that adds school ranks for rolled dice on specific actions, some others that can be game changing but only usable once. Something that I don't feel it can be applied on, for example, Star Wars

I actually feel the system in place for Star Wars already does a great job at making characters feel different from each other. In fact, I think it does a better job of making, for example, two Gadgeteer Bounty Hunters feel different than R&K does with two Mirumoto Bushi, or two Colonist Entrepreneurs and two Doji Courtiers.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

May you explain me the kind of dice pool you see as a possible way to use narrative dice between those example:

Oh, that's kind of awkward, though. I mean, beginning characters in either game are pretty simple to do, but the more experience you give them the more wacky stuff they can do, whether it's school techniques, mastery abilities, and kata or talents and signature abilities, but I'll do what I can:

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

Scenario 1: a rank 1 character swinging his katana?

Rank 1 I'll assume straight out of character creation. We'll say the character started with a 4 in Brawn to be a little specialized, and we'll make her as a Shii-Cho Knight, in case it comes up. She'll have a 2 in Melee, which is the highest she can have at character creation and pretty normal for a Melee specialist. If she starts with any talent, it will be Parry, Toughened, or Second Wind, none of which apply while she's making a basic attack. Against a non-Adversary NPC, her difficulty will be two, as are all Melee attacks. In a white room the roll will be two Proficiency Dice, two Ability Dice, two Difficulty dice (PPAADD, since I think it's smarter to initial using the names instead of the color, but I'm in the minority there). Since I have my dice handy, a sample roll:

Triumph, Success x2 (+1 from Triumph), Advantage, Failure, Threat. After canceling out, I'm left with a Triumph and two Successes (one of which is from the Triumph itself). We'll give the Katana the same stats as an Ancient Sword (Dam +2, Crit 3). The Stormtrooper statblock will fill in for our peasant bandit. Total Damage will be 4 (Brawn) + 2 (Katana) + 2 (Success) - 5 (Soak) = 3. Our Samurai slices out at the dishonorable scum, but he pulls away, receiving only a small gash upon his forehead. The blood dripping into his eyes will upgrade the difficulty on his next check (Triumph).

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

Scenario 2: a rank 4 character swinging his katana?

Rank 4 is pretty far along. In L5R 4E, this Bushi attacks as a Simple Action and has a bunch of other combat tricks, possibly some kata they can use. For SW, we'll assume she's completed her Shii-Cho career, which gives her plenty of combat tricks and a dedication, raising her Brawn to 5. We'll assume Melee has increased to 4, almost maxed out but not quite. This time she is battling two ninja (Imperial Assassin with Adversary 2 and Parry 3). Somehow for this fight they are on even footing, and there are again no environmental factors. She'll perform a Sarlacc Sweep to try to hit both. Our Samurai's roll is four Proficiency Dice, one Ability Die, two Challenge Dice (both usual Difficulty Dice are upgraded by Adversary 2), one Difficulty die from Sarlacc Sweep, and a Setback Die from the Ninja's Melee Defense (PPPPACCDS). Sample roll:

Success x2, Advantage x5, Threat x5. It hits, but it's kinda boring, so I'm going to use the once per session ability Natural Blademaster to roll again: Success x6, Advantage x2, Failure, Threat x4. So it'll cancel out to five Successes and two Threats. No Advantage means no Sarlacc Sweeping that second Ninja, but that's how it goes. Total damage will be 5 (Brawn) + 2 (Katana) + 6 (Success) - 3 (Soak) - 5 (the ninja suffers strain to activate Parry) = 5 Damage. The Samurai's attack catches a glancing blow as the Ninja flips backwards, moving to Short range (two Threats used for a free maneuver). This is going to be rough for our Samurai if she doesn't have some friends to back her up.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

Scenario 3: a rank 7 character swinging his katana?

Ok, Insight 7 is outside the realm of most L5R games, so this character should be extraordinary. Melee will be maxed out to 5, and we're going to explore Signature Abilities. There's no Warrior book yet, but the GM is pretty cool about it so he let's our Shii-Cho Knight take from the Guardian book. She takes Fated Duel, and she challenges the corrupt Seppun Imperial Guard (Imperial Royal Guard ). This isn't going to do much for the attack roll itself, but it does mean that these two characters can only attack each other, no other characters can interfere (it's ok, there are other enemies for the rest of the party to fight), and with her upgrades she has +4 to her Wound threshold, the Duel can last for 4 rounds instead of 3, and her allies each receive a Boost Die to their checks while the Fated Duel is happening. The roll itself will actually be more straightforward than the last and, hopefully, slightly easier, because that Ninja was rough. Sample roll (PPPPPCCS):

Triumph x2, Success x3 (+2), Advantage x3, Failure x2, Threat x2. Canceled out to two Triumphs, three Successes, one Advantage. Damage will be 5 (Brawn) + 2 (Katana) + 3 (Success) - 5 (Soak) - 6 (Parry 4) = 0, since it can't go lower than that. Our Samurai's Honor is proven as she cleaves down upon her foe, shattering the weapon he raised in his defense (two Triumph). He has avoided damage this round, but his soul is broken, a sure sign of the fraud that he is. Our Samurai recovers 1 strain (Advantage) as she sees that Heaven is on her side.

I actually really like how that last one played out! I made the second one way too hard, but the third one is beautiful.

16 hours ago, Crawd said:

It's easier to prevent this when the results are more predictable.

Exploding dice make R&K kind of a pain when it comes to predictability. If you learn the narrative system, you recognize trends (Success and Threat, Failure and Advantage tend to happen together, at least until you're rolling enough positive dice to get both Success and Advantage with frequency).

13 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Just to clear this up before I go on. I run Star War as the GM every week. I am not a huge fan of the system and neither are my players but its better then anything else out there for star wars. the main complaint I get from my players are the dice. The problem is the dice tend to takeover the game and direct the narrative from both a GM and player prospective.

If you really don't like the system, there are other options. I thought Saga was actually pretty well designed for the most part, and you can always go back to D6. You don't even need to use a Star Wars branded system, though. Cortex and Fate are both really flexible systems that could work well for Star Wars with probably minimal fudging. You could even find a way to use R&K if you wanted, but that would take more work. But we aren't talking about other systems for Star Wars, so excuse my little aside here. I'll get back to the subject now.

13 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

1. Never said it was a Bug , its what the dice are designed to do. The problem is there are times when a roll is just a roll, and you don't need the dice to enhance it. Also with the dice in the open it looks bad and gamey to ignore some of the results that can Killed/Incapacitate/Hinder PC's. Where in a more traditional RPG with the dice hidden and hidden TN, a GM can fudge the dice without taking away from the story.

Well, like I said in my last post, philosophical differences. I'm past the point of wanting to fudge dice for my players, and I think the game works better with honesty. That's just my perspective, though.

13 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

2. That's the GM's job. A good GM doesn't need dice to tell the story for him/her. This is not a tool it's a crutches for GM's that are going through the motions.

Like I said in my last po- you know what, I'll just quote it:

27 minutes ago, deraforia said:

I don't even need dice at all to do cooperative storytelling. I do most of my roleplaying on freeform forums, with no mechanic whatsoever. But there are times that I like having dice as a variable, and I like the way they worked out the Star Wars system. We don't need any of these rules to tell stories and have fun, it's just kinda nice.

13 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

3. Yet it tends to be. Its not that people go it not wanting to like it. Its that unless its the only game you play its hard to have the charts down on what you can do.

Invest in the GM Screen, just don't use it as an actual screen. Or make your own cheat sheets. I find this to be pretty helpful.

13 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Maybe I as GM wanted My PC's to fail the roll that's why I made the TN 60 with them rolling 3K2. And I can hide this behind the GM's screen so the story goes on without having to game the dice to get to where I want in my story.

So you're railroading your players but hiding it behind an impossible roll that they don't even get to make themselves? What is the point. You might as well just tell them "No."

13 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

4. Dice add chance of failure in other games, which can be mitigated by a GM or in some cases Ignored (Players Death by GM mega crit). In the story dice system, the dice control the narrative. Example (saga rules), My players are trying to brake into a imperial base. I want them to get caught so they can meet a NPC imported to the story, I have the door trapped with a TN 80 alarm. (story dice system) same setup but now I have to give the PC 3 red and 3 Purple dice so he knows somethings up, then to make matters worse most of those dice come-up blank or are countered by the players skill dice. The dice have just derail my story. how do I say great roll but you set off the alarm.

You find another way to introduce the NPC. There will be more rolls, more chances for them to get caught, and more chances for their actions to put them right in a position you want them to be in anyway. And if they manage to succeed entirely, the important NPC will find out that the break-in has happened, and there will be some evidence left behind. He'll know they're out there, and he'll find them eventually. Maybe even soon. You have to change your story a bit, but it's not like it's all in the garbage now.

8 hours ago, Tetsuhiko said:

Marvel Saga and Les Lames du cardical (a french swashbuckling game) both uses cards for resolution...so not those systems.

Touché.

8 hours ago, Tetsuhiko said:

No dice, no random resolution, nothing. Everything is in the hand of the GM and the players.

I do forum roleplaying with no dice, no random resolution, and no GM. Entirely player/character driven. Really fun stuff!

8 hours ago, Tetsuhiko said:

That being said, it's really a matter of group preferences. Apart from a few exceptions (Palladium I'm looking at you), no system is so broken that a good GM cannot use to tell a good story. And that includes Star Wars.

Oh god, don't remind me of my Palladium days. We managed to have fun, but we did not play the system properly. It's amazing what difference that makes, and more amazing that it actually helped in this case.

13 hours ago, deraforia said:

If you really don't like the system, there are other options. I thought Saga was actually pretty well designed for the most part, and you can always go back to D6. You don't even need to use a Star Wars branded system, though. Cortex and Fate are both really flexible systems that could work well for Star Wars with probably minimal fudging. You could even find a way to use R&K if you wanted, but that would take more work. But we aren't talking about other systems for Star Wars, so excuse my little aside here. I'll get back to the subject now.

I have played and GM all of the star wars systems and have to say that for all its faults the FFG one seems to work the best. Now that not saying its great is just better then the others.

d6 works fine until you add Jedi, and saga is a power gamers paradise.

I despise the Cortex system. Have never Played Fate but no looking to design my own game I don't have the time.

13 hours ago, deraforia said:

Well, like I said in my last post, philosophical differences. I'm past the point of wanting to fudge dice for my players, and I think the game works better with honesty. That's just my perspective, though.

Like I said in my last po- you know what, I'll just quote it:

Fudging keep the story moving when bad luck or good luck on the GM's part could brake the flow.

13 hours ago, deraforia said:

Invest in the GM Screen, just don't use it as an actual screen. Or make your own cheat sheets. I find this to be pretty helpful.

This is more of a redirect then a fix. whats the difference if the players are looking at the charts in the book or on the chart ? P.S. I have all 3 screens.

13 hours ago, deraforia said:

So you're railroading your players but hiding it behind an impossible roll that they don't even get to make themselves? What is the point. You might as well just tell them "No."

Being a GM (I assume) you know, sometime you want the PC to have the feeling of control while directing them to the next part of the story. This is storytelling 101. You see it in action movies and star wars all the time. Example. the bunker scene in ROTJ

13 hours ago, deraforia said:

You find another way to introduce the NPC. There will be more rolls, more chances for them to get caught, and more chances for their actions to put them right in a position you want them to be in anyway. And if they manage to succeed entirely, the important NPC will find out that the break-in has happened, and there will be some evidence left behind. He'll know they're out there, and he'll find them eventually. Maybe even soon. You have to change your story a bit, but it's not like it's all in the garbage now.

In the example I have a prefect way to introduce the NPC. PC's get captured then brake out with the NPC returning him to the rebels. The problem here is not the players or the story, its the dice getting in the way because they are designed to add flavor to the roll. Again a crutches not needed on every roll.

13 hours ago, deraforia said:

You find another way to introduce the NPC. There will be more rolls, more chances for them to get caught, and more chances for their actions to put them right in a position you want them to be in anyway.

I'm fairly sure this is exactly what he meant under "dice controls the narrative". With more rolls come the chance for more crazy dice results, an even more messed up story, and even more headache for the GM.

In my experience, the best way to play narrative dice is to have the story as unspecified as it is possible, and then just flow with the dice. You normally have no control over your dice results either way, and predicting them is all but impossible, so don't bother trying.