4 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

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.

Well, from everything I'm gathering from this conversation, I doubt you'd like Fate very much anyway.

5 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

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.

It's usually faster to reference the screen or a cheat sheet than to go back and forth through a book.

7 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

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

At this point I'd honestly rather just give them the control and roll with what happens.

8 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

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.

Actually, it sounds like the problem here is that you have a specific sequence of events that needs to happen for your story to progress. Again I'll say, what is even the point of rolling the dice? To give them the illusion that they have control? What happens when they roll extremely well, only to fail? I'd honestly be annoyed at the waste of a roll. And if I'm not even allowed to roll my own dice on they check? I guess I have to wonder what I'm even doing at the table other than being an audience for the GM's story.

32 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

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.

The dice still need to be interpreted, so the control still rests with the GM and players. The dice just say something happens. What that is needs to be determined by actual people.

34 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

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.

More or less, but that seems to be good advice for any system. Having a story, having NPCs, having an overall idea of plot is good. In some cases, having more detail is great.

22 minutes ago, deraforia said:

The dice just say something happens.

It says a lot more than that! It tells you both the nature and the significance of the event, at which point your options to get something out of it will be naturally limited.

5 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

It says a lot more than that! It tells you both the nature and the significance of the event, at which point your options to get something out of it will be naturally limited.

Oh, yes, excuse me. You're told something good happens, or something really good happens, or change out good for bad. And you're told if the attempt was successful or not, of course. Doesn't seem all that limited to me. But they don't tell you that the door is locked and the controls have been fried, for example, or that you've cut power not only to the door but to the entire hallway, plunging you into darkness and certainly alerting someone that something fishy is going on. That's what I mean when I say they still need to be interpreted.

47 minutes ago, deraforia said:

Oh, yes, excuse me. You're told something good happens, or something really good happens, or change out good for bad. And you're told if the attempt was successful or not, of course. Doesn't seem all that limited to me. But they don't tell you that the door is locked and the controls have been fried, for example, or that you've cut power not only to the door but to the entire hallway, plunging you into darkness and certainly alerting someone that something fishy is going on. That's what I mean when I say they still need to be interpreted.

My point is that you can't really interpret "something really good" as "something good" or have a simple success with no consequence. yes, you can ignore the dice, but then there is no point of having it in the first place - you can fill up blank successes/failures with complications/advantages on your own anyway however you see it fit, there is no real reason to have random dice roll tell you whether you should have these things.

But the thing is, I don't need interesting stuff to happen on top of the roll. If failure weren't interesting in itself, there'd be no roll. There should never be a roll where either option is not dramatically interesting.

A system like the Star Wars one seems to assume that your roll results aren't interesting unless you add something on top and that's actually a bit insulting, if I'm honest. Me and my group can do that on our own just fine, thanks. Some rolls are just binary, too and that's okay - I hit the guy or not, move on, keep the fight moving quickly. That's a useful thing on its own and we don't need to make it any more interesting.

Having a plot in mind and following that is not necessarily railroading, either. Here's the thing - there may be only one way for the story to continue but a) as long as the players don't think so, they don't mind and b) it's not gonna turn out as planned anyway. The players do weird stuff anyway, and they break my stories in interesting ways - but the dice aren't players and don't get much of a say.

48 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

My point is that you can't really interpret "something really good" as "something good" or have a simple success with no consequence. yes, you can ignore the dice, but then there is no point of having it in the first place - you can fill up blank successes/failures with complications/advantages on your own anyway however you see it fit, there is no real reason to have random dice roll tell you whether you should have these things.

55 minutes ago, Myrion said:

But the thing is, I don't need interesting stuff to happen on top of the roll.

But there really doesn't need to be much of any consequence most of the time. The most basic usage of Advantage and Threat is to recover or suffer Strain. So either the action ended up somewhat strenuous or you feel refreshed. Nothing complicated needs to happen. Or a threat can also mean that it simply took longer to attempt than expected. Triumph, which should be rarer, will usually result in upgrading a character's next check. Nothing outlandish needs to happen.

56 minutes ago, Myrion said:

If failure weren't interesting in itself, there'd be no roll. There should never be a roll where either option is not dramatically interesting.

I can at least partially agree with this statement. If nothing interesting has a chance to happen on the roll, there's no point in rolling. Character's shouldn't have to roll for every little thing.

58 minutes ago, Myrion said:

A system like the Star Wars one seems to assume that your roll results aren't interesting unless you add something on top and that's actually a bit insulting, if I'm honest.

You shouldn't feel insulted by a game system. It's also not that results can't be interesting without something other than success or failure, but that there are more chances for interesting things to happen when the second axis is included. I will say, however, that a roll that results in only failure and nothing else I find to be kind of bland. That depends as much on circumstances as anything else, though. There are certainly chances for a roll that only results in failure to be interesting if the failure causes complications on its own. This is still possible in the SW system.

1 hour ago, Myrion said:

Me and my group can do that on our own just fine, thanks.

It's nice that people keep insinuating that groups who play with the SW system can't handle making dice rolls in other systems interesting.

1 hour ago, Myrion said:

Some rolls are just binary, too and that's okay - I hit the guy or not, move on, keep the fight moving quickly.

If people would pay attention to the actual rules of the game I've been talking about, or even look at the samples I provided at Crawd's request, maybe you'd see that interpreting the dice really doesn't need to keep the game from moving quickly. You hit the guy and you get some strain back/lose some strain. Might get kinda boring if that's all you do, but it seems like the best option for everyone here who doesn't want to bother with Advantage and Threat.

1 hour ago, Myrion said:

Having a plot in mind and following that is not necessarily railroading, either. Here's the thing - there may be only one way for the story to continue but a) as long as the players don't think so, they don't mind and b) it's not gonna turn out as planned anyway. The players do weird stuff anyway, and they break my stories in interesting ways - but the dice aren't players and don't get much of a say.

Removing the players' ability to affect it at all is. Keeping any other choice they might make from having any chance of success is absolutely railroading. This has little to do with system specifics, though. If you're already hiding all the rolls from your players in one game, you can do that in Star Wars, too. That seems to be what tenchi was suggesting. Not allowing players a chance to even do any weird stuff. This line of discussion is tangential and entirely about GMing no matter the game system.

24 minutes ago, deraforia said:

But there really doesn't need to be much of any consequence most of the time. The most basic usage of Advantage and Threat is to recover or suffer Strain. So either the action ended up somewhat strenuous or you feel refreshed. Nothing complicated needs to happen. Or a threat can also mean that it simply took longer to attempt than expected. Triumph, which should be rarer, will usually result in upgrading a character's next check. Nothing outlandish needs to happen.

The problem is that you don't need narrative dice for these at all.

Just now, AtoMaki said:

The problem is that you don't need narrative dice for these at all.

Can you tell me how you would handle it? Not that I doubt it's possible, I'm just curious how people actually put this into practice.

27 minutes ago, deraforia said:

Can you tell me how you would handle it? Not that I doubt it's possible, I'm just curious how people actually put this into practice.

Many ways for it:

- Raises

- Keep '1' results for positive effects

- If your roll has a certain number of '1' results then you suffer a negative effect

- Multiple Explosions mean positive effects

- Odd results are "Threats", even results are "Advantages" (this can potentially copy the SW special dice mechanic 1:1)

- The amount you fail/succeed the TN is translated into a Degrees of Success/Failure mechanic

- Etc.

1 minute ago, AtoMaki said:

- Raises

Could work for positive results, but I'm personally not fond of the Raise system anyway.

2 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

- Keep '1' results for positive effects

Might be something there, since the way the SW system works already trends toward Advantage OR Success. But it's also only 1 face on a 10-sided die.

3 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

- If your roll has a certain number of '1' results then you suffer a negative effect

What's the threshold? And again, just one face out of ten.

6 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

- Multiple Explosions mean positive effects

Multiple Explosions is powerful enough already.

6 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

- Odd results are "Threats", even results are "Advantages" (this can potentially copy the SW special dice mechanic 1:1)

I like this one the most, but I'm still not sold.

7 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

- The amount you fail/succeed the TN is translated into a Degrees of Success/Failure mechanic

A DoS/DoF system is different. This is usually what I see people suggest, and it doesn't accomplish the same thing.

And once you use one of these systems to do this, the question becomes "Why are you stapling this onto a system that wasn't built for it, instead of using FFG's system which was specifically designed with this in mind?"

9 hours ago, deraforia said:

It's nice that people keep insinuating that groups who play with the SW system can't handle making dice rolls in other systems interesting.

Way to read something into my text that wasn't there.

9 hours ago, deraforia said:

Removing the players' ability to affect it at all is.

Good thing that's not what I said.

The players affect the plot heavily, in fact. But they will meet Character X eventually, whatever they do. Left door, right door, whatever - they'll walk into him. But that's details, not the plot.

9 hours ago, deraforia said:

[...] maybe you'd see that interpreting the dice really doesn't need to keep the game from moving quickly.

And maybe you'd see that it can and sometimes does and that's annoying. I'm not sure it would, with my current group, but I'm not thinking only about the best case here.

7 hours ago, deraforia said:

And once you use one of these systems to do this, the question becomes "Why are you stapling this onto a system that wasn't built for it, instead of using FFG's system which was specifically designed with this in mind?"

Which is why I wouldn't. The dice aren't that important, after all. I tend to use DoS/DoF to inform what happens, because that's really easy to deal with, but in general stuff happens because it's dramatically appropriate, not because the dice tell me.
So far, that's worked out wonderfully.

11 hours ago, deraforia said:

And once you use one of these systems to do this, the question becomes "Why are you stapling this onto a system that wasn't built for it, instead of using FFG's system which was specifically designed with this in mind?"

This is a good question. Why the heck does R&K need special snowflake results? I can tell good stories without them just fine (if not better). To hell with them, fix the bleak combat system, give us good Skill Masteries, and the whole revamp thing is as good as done. Introducing a whole new system (especially such a "not for everyone" system like narrative dice) just for the sake of it is completely redundant and just asks for trouble.

8 hours ago, Myrion said:

Way to read something into my text that wasn't there.

You might not have meant it to be there, but it's an easy inference to make.

8 hours ago, Myrion said:

Good thing that's not what I said.

I never said it was. The entire time I was talking about what tenchi2a had said. That's the line of discussion you replied to.

8 hours ago, Myrion said:

The players affect the plot heavily, in fact. But they will meet Character X eventually, whatever they do. Left door, right door, whatever - they'll walk into him. But that's details, not the plot.

Pretty much agree here, and fits with the advice I was giving tenchi2a.

8 hours ago, Myrion said:

And maybe you'd see that it can and sometimes does and that's annoying. I'm not sure it would, with my current group, but I'm not thinking only about the best case here.

Well if we're talking worst case scenario, R&K isn't exactly the fastest system for figuring out what you rolled, at least once you start rolling more dice.

Hah, I suppose that's true - R&K's worst case is literally unbounded, after all! xD

Yeah, I suppose the problem is different GM styles and talking past each other.
Not all games ft all groups and I for one hope that we don't get a system with special dice for L5R, for three reasons:

1) It means I must physically buy product, which I'm loathe to do for several reasons, if it is even available to me without ludicrous shipping costs.
2) I dislike the special dice because they clash with my and my group's style of play.
3) I really like R&K, since it seemed to work with the setting and themes extremely well.

Well, we don't agree, but I think we can at least agree to disagree. Though,

23 minutes ago, Myrion said:

1) It means I must physically buy product, which I'm loathe to do for several reasons, if it is even available to me without ludicrous shipping costs.

If you have a smart phone or tablet, and FFG does decide to go with a narrative dice system, they will almost certainly put out a dice roller app. It also handles canceling out symbols.

I do prefer rolling physical dice, though, and I understand if you do, too.

I suppose that's a possibility, but yeah, physical dice are better.

3 hours ago, deraforia said:

Well, we don't agree, but I think we can at least agree to disagree. Though,

This is the best way to handle this whole conversation. It is obvious that you do not like the R/K system and I dislike the narrative dice system, so it is pointless to try and change each others minds.

3 hours ago, deraforia said:

If you have a smart phone or tablet, and FFG does decide to go with a narrative dice system, they will almost certainly put out a dice roller app. It also handles canceling out symbols.

I do prefer rolling physical dice, though, and I understand if you do, too.

Truth be told if the go with the narrative dice system for L5R they will have lost me and my players as customers. So I'm Not to concerned about if there is a dice app.

It is obvious that you do not like the R/K system

I mean, as far as L5R is concerned, it's better than d20. But I also wouldn't have gotten into L5R if not for OA, so at least that was good for something. But those sample rolls I did on page 3 really drove home how much I love the idea of using an FFG narrative dice system for my adventures in Rokugan. I mean come on, can you tell me how

On 1/27/2017 at 10:19 PM, deraforia said:

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.

isn't perfectly Rokugan? I had a lot of fun with these dice rolls, and I really hope we get a new system. It would make sense, seeing as L5R is now FFG's own property, that they would want to put their own system on a game that isn't a license.

On the other hand, they did also buy the mechanics, so those are their own system now too, and apparently quite a few of the people at FFG are L5R "fanboys" and might want to keep it.

At any rate, there probably won't be an RPG quite so soon. They haven't announced it yet and the boards are only about the LCG.

I expect to see an announcement at GenCon, like they did with Edge of the Empire. It's too bad I won't be going this year.

Before saying anything, may I ask you to stop taking sentenses out of places? Some things you've quoted should have been toward the whole context, yet you only talked about the sentences without the context. I'll answer to some of your post, but it would be nice if you wouldn't use a small piece of a paragraph and send a comment based on it without, at least quoting the whole paragraph, since you seems to take it out of context...

On ‎27‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 11:19 PM, 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.

Exactly, we don't need any rules to tell stories. I wouldn't mind something optional, but not forced into the system. So no, it's not really nice. It's a matter of taste, you like it, I don't. I simply enjoy the freedom of creating the story by myself as I want and when I want, not when the game wants me to. I like to take 15 to 20 hours to prepare my game sessions, it's a pleasant time for me when I'm doing that kind of stuff. I just sit peacefully and create my next game session. I prepare enough stuffs to have content based on my players' decisions. That's just how I do my stuff. It is the best way, heck no, I wouldn't recommand it. However, I do like that way, I simply hate the concept of having a rule that forces me to change what I've done.

Quote

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?

The example was basically in my earlier post, when I added the edit based on AtoMaki's example. I'll give another example, which is basically based on that. My players are fighting the final antagonist of my chapter and I know that the whole antagonist was present at least 2 more chapters. I planed to close entirely that page, because I don't want my game to entirely fly around the same thing. I know the next hit will be the final blow and my player will succeed. One of the player strikes with 3 success but got a few threats. Instead of seeing my players being happy of finaly ending the threat, they know something else will happen... Specially of there's no threat in the area (Cave in, fire, etc.). Which prevent the closure of that antagonist that lived long enough.

Sorry but no. I prefer to see my players being very happy they succeed their kill. Not to mention that the dice basically spoils all the fun. If, based on the same fight, I could use the threat as a cave in. I think honestly prefer to be surprised by the cave in, then seeing the threat, then hearing: "Oh, it's a cave in." So yeah... In addition to prevent some closure, it spoils some fun... As I've said, Iuchiban story feels like it was done with threat on the final blow... He's dead, yet he's not...

Quote

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

It's a mix of both. When it's story based rolls, which are rolls that I plan, I usually distribute the TN under 4 categories: Epic Failure, Failure, Success, Epic Success. The Epic Failure is usually some stuffs that could greatly harm the players or simply some comic relief stuffs. The Failure is simply a normal failure, nothing much. Same with the Success, a normal success. The Epic Success goes beyond by giving additional information or greatly help the party.

For example, I had an investigation into an old building which could crumbled at any moment. It did crumbled and they had to escape before getting squashed. The epic failure, means they would get squashed (getting lots of damage and being stuck under it.). The failure means they almost escape but a limb is trapped under some debris (Few damage). Success, they are out in time. Epic success, they are out easily and can reduce the failure of someone else in the process. It's all just than just a binary results.

For the "random rolls", which are rolls that my player simply roll based on their action. (If they are really specific on their action, I don't ask for a roll, but if it's a vague idea, I do request for a roll) I simply look at the number they roll and based on the difference between the TN I've set and the result, I tell what's happening. So that's mainly how I'm doing stuffs.

Quote

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.

Precisely, two Mirumoto Bushi should feel the same, with a few difference. Why? Because they are trained heavily to follow the path of their Ancestors. I was more talking about an Akodo Bushi VS a Bayushi Bushi or a Hida Bushi VS a Kakita Bushi. These feels very different and when you mix the character progression in it (skills that include school rank), each character feels unique.

The Akodo Bushi and the Bayushi Bushi, with the same traits and same skills will play very different, just because of the schools and yet, they are built the same way. Of course, in Star Wars, each specific career of hired gun has some specific flavors too, however, you lose the feeling of being trained with tradition. Which is a loss of imersion because if I train in a karate dojo, I will not just learn some way to kick then get my yellow belt, keep un training my kicks, then orange, etc. No, I'll learn the basic techniques that the sensei has learned in the past, the same technique that everyone learns, then I'll get my yellow belt. Some people hates there's no choices in technique, but it's way more imersive that way.

Quote

[snip for readability all the numbers for the roll question based on ranks]

Interesting, at some point, it feels like the progression has stopped, but it's simply that dice are removed. I was wondering if the dice pool would simply ends up having 5 dices of every type. Thanks for the input.

Quote

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).

This is exactly why I'm saying that you pick sentenses out of context. There was a huge context around it, yet, it sound like you've only picked that line without the rest of it. When I prepare rolls that has potential of derailing the game, which I rarely do because that's bad story design but that's another story, I know the dice pool of my players and I target it with an easy TN. This way, I know it will not derail. In these rolls, I usually do that formula: "Average dice kept * 5 TN" So if the average player in the game keeps 3 dice in his dice pool, I use a TN of 15. It's easy and I know that most of the time, it will be successful. I do, however, prepare a way to prevent the game from entirely being derailed.

Also, I do like when my players manage to progress faster in the game, so I don't mind if they "shortcut" the system because of exploding dice, it creates some epic moment, so these kind of situation are pretty rare.

That being said. I feel like I'm turning around on the topic. I don't like the narrative dice and I will never like it. One reason is that I really like the R&K. It's the system that I've like the most after hating D20 system with passion. (I will not details the reason of my hate of D20 system because that's way off-topic.)

3 hours ago, Crawd said:

Before saying anything, may I ask you to stop taking sentenses out of places? Some things you've quoted should have been toward the whole context, yet you only talked about the sentences without the context. I'll answer to some of your post, but it would be nice if you wouldn't use a small piece of a paragraph and send a comment based on it without, at least quoting the whole paragraph, since you seems to take it out of context...

I apologize if you feel I've misrepresented you at all. I quote the particular parts of a post that I am replying to, for clarity with the person I am having the discussion with.

3 hours ago, Crawd said:

Exactly, we don't need any rules to tell stories. I wouldn't mind something optional, but not forced into the system. So no, it's not really nice. It's a matter of taste, you like it, I don't. I simply enjoy the freedom of creating the story by myself as I want and when I want, not when the game wants me to. I like to take 15 to 20 hours to prepare my game sessions, it's a pleasant time for me when I'm doing that kind of stuff. I just sit peacefully and create my next game session. I prepare enough stuffs to have content based on my players' decisions. That's just how I do my stuff. It is the best way, heck no, I wouldn't recommand it. However, I do like that way, I simply hate the concept of having a rule that forces me to change what I've done.

It would require a large survey to prove, but I would think having 15-20 hours to prepare your sessions puts you in the minority. I have no interest in spending that much time on something more likely to change on a player's whim than on a roll of the dice. The FFG system is simply easier to run and doesn't require as much prep work from the GM.

3 hours ago, Crawd said:

The example was basically in my earlier post, when I added the edit based on AtoMaki's example. I'll give another example, which is basically based on that. My players are fighting the final antagonist of my chapter and I know that the whole antagonist was present at least 2 more chapters. I planed to close entirely that page, because I don't want my game to entirely fly around the same thing. I know the next hit will be the final blow and my player will succeed. One of the player strikes with 3 success but got a few threats. Instead of seeing my players being happy of finaly ending the threat, they know something else will happen... Specially of there's no threat in the area (Cave in, fire, etc.). Which prevent the closure of that antagonist that lived long enough.

Sorry but no. I prefer to see my players being very happy they succeed their kill. Not to mention that the dice basically spoils all the fun. If, based on the same fight, I could use the threat as a cave in. I think honestly prefer to be surprised by the cave in, then seeing the threat, then hearing: "Oh, it's a cave in." So yeah... In addition to prevent some closure, it spoils some fun... As I've said, Iuchiban story feels like it was done with threat on the final blow... He's dead, yet he's not...

Look at the rules for spending threat in combat and spend the threat. "It was a harrowing fight and leaves you exhausted, but it is done. Suffer X strain. Congratulations you defeated the enemy gunso!" He's dead. No ifs about it. No Iuchiban craziness. Nothing lurking in the shadows to trap your players.

This is why I don't understand this line of discussion. It seems to come from a misunderstanding of how the system works.

4 hours ago, Crawd said:

It's a mix of both. When it's story based rolls, which are rolls that I plan, I usually distribute the TN under 4 categories: Epic Failure, Failure, Success, Epic Success. The Epic Failure is usually some stuffs that could greatly harm the players or simply some comic relief stuffs. The Failure is simply a normal failure, nothing much. Same with the Success, a normal success. The Epic Success goes beyond by giving additional information or greatly help the party.

For example, I had an investigation into an old building which could crumbled at any moment. It did crumbled and they had to escape before getting squashed. The epic failure, means they would get squashed (getting lots of damage and being stuck under it.). The failure means they almost escape but a limb is trapped under some debris (Few damage). Success, they are out in time. Epic success, they are out easily and can reduce the failure of someone else in the process. It's all just than just a binary results.

For the "random rolls", which are rolls that my player simply roll based on their action. (If they are really specific on their action, I don't ask for a roll, but if it's a vague idea, I do request for a roll) I simply look at the number they roll and based on the difference between the TN I've set and the result, I tell what's happening. So that's mainly how I'm doing stuffs.

I just have issues using only a degree of success system, I suppose. It doesn't leave any room for the "you don't succeed, but" that I've found to be so refreshing with FFG's system.

4 hours ago, Crawd said:

Precisely, two Mirumoto Bushi should feel the same, with a few difference. Why? Because they are trained heavily to follow the path of their Ancestors. I was more talking about an Akodo Bushi VS a Bayushi Bushi or a Hida Bushi VS a Kakita Bushi. These feels very different and when you mix the character progression in it (skills that include school rank), each character feels unique.

The Akodo Bushi and the Bayushi Bushi, with the same traits and same skills will play very different, just because of the schools and yet, they are built the same way. Of course, in Star Wars, each specific career of hired gun has some specific flavors too, however, you lose the feeling of being trained with tradition. Which is a loss of imersion because if I train in a karate dojo, I will not just learn some way to kick then get my yellow belt, keep un training my kicks, then orange, etc. No, I'll learn the basic techniques that the sensei has learned in the past, the same technique that everyone learns, then I'll get my yellow belt. Some people hates there's no choices in technique, but it's way more imersive that way.

This is one aspect that's hard to compare, because it's one of the things most likely to change in a new edition for L5R. But I do feel that there is more room for differentiation than we have now, though I also don't think that's specific to the dice system. After all, there are many techniques you're going to be learning. Maybe you never get the hang of one and never progress further along that line, but you might master another line of techniques.

4 hours ago, Crawd said:

Interesting, at some point, it feels like the progression has stopped, but it's simply that dice are removed. I was wondering if the dice pool would simply ends up having 5 dices of every type. Thanks for the input.

The system encourages breadth. The difference between the dice rolls in the last two examples is what talents (techniques) were being used. Fighting two opponents required a different, more difficult roll than engaging in a one on one duel in the midst of a battlefield.

You might max out your skill fairly quickly, if that's how you choose to spend your xp, but what's more interesting is what talents you acquire. These can also potentially affect your dice pools by adding boosts or removing setbacks, or as we saw in example two, allowing a once-per-session reroll. You can also only increase characteristics once per specialization, so that limits how much you can increase your dice pools.

5 hours ago, Crawd said:

That being said. I feel like I'm turning around on the topic. I don't like the narrative dice and I will never like it. One reason is that I really like the R&K. It's the system that I've like the most after hating D20 system with passion. (I will not details the reason of my hate of D20 system because that's way off-topic.)

This is what I mean by people deciding they don't like the system without really giving it a fair shot. I keep seeing people saying they don't like something that is a misrepresentation of the rules. If you don't like anything that isn't R&K, there are four editions of that.

5 hours ago, Crawd said:

Precisely, two Mirumoto Bushi should feel the same, with a few difference. Why? Because they are trained heavily to follow the path of their Ancestors. I was more talking about an Akodo Bushi VS a Bayushi Bushi or a Hida Bushi VS Kakita Bushi. These feels very different and when you mix the character progression in it (skills that include school rank), each character feels unique.

The Akodo Bushi and the Bayushi Bushi, with the same traits and same skills will play very different, just because of the schools and yet, they are built the same way. Of course, in Star Wars, each specific career of hired gun has some specific flavors too, however, you lose the feeling of being trained with tradition. Which is a loss of imersion because if I train in a karate dojo, I will not just learn some way to kick then get my yellow belt, keep un training my kicks, then orange, etc. No, I'll learn the basic techniques that the sensei has learned in the past, the same technique that everyone learns, then I'll get my yellow belt. Some people hates there's no choices in technique, but it's way more imersive that way.

This might not be the best place to talk about this, but my perspective is that two bushi of the same school should feel like they started from the same baseline but can diverge a bit similar to how all the shotokan users in the Street Fighter series have diverged as the series has progressed. This similar to how even 1st Dan (i.e. Black Belts) martial artists of the same real world schools do not fight exactly the same ways even though they have passed the same promotion tests due to favoring certain moves over others.

The yellow belt analogy doesn't quiet work for me because I see IR 1 being a 1st Dan rather than a beginner with a few month under his/her belt.