Quick clarification: I'm not championing SW narrative dice for L5R. It's just one option. There could also be something totally new. I'd also play another edition of R&K--happily so, if FFG fixes up some of the bigger problems and there's enough interesting changes. I just happen to love learning new systems, and I'm getting a bit bored of R&K.

For me, it's mostly that simple. I wanna be playing L5R, and I wanna be learning something new.

For me, R&K is too granular. How do you describe a katana swing of 26 vs. 27? Or even 26 vs. 30?

Without Raises in the roll, there shouldn't be much difference between 26 vs 30 or even 26 vs 140. The character swings his katana, the attack connects, that's all. The nifty details are up to the GM and/or the player (and the consequent Damage roll). All extra effort must be intentional (via Raises) and thus something the GM can calculate with from the beginning and say "no" if the player has crazy/inappropriate ideas.

At this point it is largely up to playing experience vs story experience. The former is when your party tries to move from Point A to Point B as per the story requires it, then one of the PCs suddenly decide to make a Survival roll... and the next thing you know the party is chased by an Imperial army because the PC rolled 9 Threats and 3 Despairs, and the GM couldn't do anything about it just roll with the result and let the story go loose. The latter is when your party tries to move from Point A to Point B as per the story requires it, then one of the PCs suddenly decide to make a Survival roll... he fails to meet the TN, nothing happens, the party reaches Point B as planned and their story goes on. Both scenarios have their own merits and failings, but they sure result in vastly different gaming environment. At which point we must decide whether we really want the first scenario to get into L5R or not.

That does sound like a pickle of a roll... but it also sounds like a highly improbable outlier, and given the variables brought by any given group, I don't think it's an anecdote on which we can judge the merit of the system as a whole, nor on its suitability for L5R.

While that roll was indeed an extreme, its lesser relatives (results with only Despair+Advantage) were somewhat common tho, and the "lethal joke result" (a roll of supposedly little consequence turns dead serious because Threat overload) quickly became group favorite. So yeah, in my experience , while the system does have its charm, it is unfit for L5R because it is too slow, too unpredictable, and too restrictive. It is good for space-fantasy rebels and smugglers having wacky adventures, but I simply can't imagine it working for your Standard Rokugani Samurai Drama .

Regarding 26 vs. 30 vs. 140, all raises must be intentional: My group found it un-fun to have a bunch of explosions without any payoff, so we used the optional extra raise rule from Little Truths (called raises work as normal, and every 10 over the TN grants a bonus raise). My initial point was merely a bit of nitpicking, but I think it's an interesting question when considering mechanics: If we assume that dice mechanics exist to support and build the narrative, and if a 26 is narratively indistinguishable from a 27, why are we using a mechanic that generates that level of specificity, especially when everything meaningful happens by increments of 5?

Playing Experience vs. Story Experience: Did the player just throw dice? Or did the GM ask for a roll?

Lesser relative rolls, common despair + threat: OOOOOH that's a good point... there's a 1 in 12 chance of a despair on any red die. That's pretty big. Of course, dice can be adjusted, but I'm inclined to agree that red dice as-is (as ... are? plural problems) wouldn't fit L5R well. I'm fairly convinced it won't work as-is, but not convinced it couldn't work with a bit of tailoring.

I really hope we get to see something new, instead of a new edition of R&K. We have 4e. 4e has R&K. It works well enough. People have house rules.

Imagine we get a 5e version of R&K. It will also work well enough. It won't satisfy everyone, especially hardcore forum fans. People will have house rules. And we'll have basically the same thing we had before.

OR. We could have something new, a new take on a setting we're all into, with a fancy new set of rules to deliver it to us in an innovative way. I like this option much more.

I seriously disagree with you on that mentality. A new mechanical system will not necessarily be innovative and may very well kill the game. The far larger player bases of far more popular RPGs have fractured and been seriously injured by "innovative" design. Innovation for innovation's sake is not necessarily a good thing.

Tradition for tradition's sake isn't necessarily a good thing, either (what? On on the L5R forum? Quick, exile me to the burning sands). But maybe a good, new, fun, innovative mechanic would attract new players. (Gotta get my adjectives in the right place this time). And maybe it won't.

Here's how I look at it: The narrative dice system on SW is big enough that people talk about it. It's one of its selling points. PbtA is innovative enough that people talk about the mechanics. Fate was that way once, too. Even the advantage/disadvantage system of D&D 5e was big and simple enough that it got buzz. I wonder--I don't know, I don't have data, but I wonder--if part of making a successful RPG these days isn't just about good setting, production value, and solid mechanics; maybe part of making a successful RPG is making an interesting mechanic that gamers want to talk about. That or be D&D.

...

You may like the idea of fancy new rules, but I'll have to say that it took a while before being able to have a L5R campaign on my side. Only me and a friend was playing L5R and most of the others was like: "Oh... I don't feel like learning a new system." ...

Oof. That sounds discouraging. Do you mind if I ask when this was? Like did it have anything to do with the everything-D20-or-bust days? Do you think learning L5R new system as cured them of system-learning fears, or is it something you think they'll be reluctant to do again?

Gonna get more replies in another post, because I'm a noob at the quote functions on this forum.

On the subject of keeping the R&K system.

It is more likely then not that R&K will make a comeback in the FFG version of the game.

There are to many fans of the game for them to do a conversion to "special dice".

Do we have data/evidence? An answer like "the game has fans" doesn't seem very strong... especially on these forums where so many people house rule so extensively.

First let me say that taking the opening sentence of what Is a a paragraph size statement is not a way to make a point.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here, there is not a single game forum out there that does not have some form of House Rules on them.

This by no means indicates that the system is not liked. Quite the contrary, it show that people like it enough to take time out of their busy day to fix it and not just go to another game.

So, I see where you're coming on precision of skill. I want a system that can model different levels like "beginner, amateur, professional, pretty darn good, remarkable, world class"... something more than "sucks, kinda okay, awesome".

For me, R&K is too granular. How do you describe a katana swing of 26 vs. 27? Or even 26 vs. 30? In my group, we really only start varying are descriptions for every 5 on the dice, or thereabouts. Probably more around 7. Sure, someone might say "You're being lazy, that roll of 26 better sound different than a roll of 27." But honestly, when I regularly see dice hit the table in 40s and 50s and 60s... I can't be bothered with a 26 vs. a 27. Too much work.

I actually really like the precision in the One Roll Engine. The difference between a 2 and 3 in a skill is really meaningful. The difference between a height of 7 and 8 is pretty meaningful as well. I was working on an ORE hack of L5R for awhile. Got most of the basic stuff done. I started on schools and lost momentum.

This to me "and I could be wrong" sounds like a lazy GM who needs the game to write the story for them.

What happens when you have a Katana swing of 26 vs 27 " Shiba Kenta swing his sword in a killing blow at Bayushi Fujiki, at the last moment the skilled Fujiki brings Venom's sting up to guide Kenta's blow away." flavor to taste.

The truth is, if you do not like the system then why do you care if they change it or not.

You obviously going to use your own system anyway and that is your right.

P.S. if you are looking for a One Roll system for L5R then you may enjoy 7th Sea 2nd ED by John Wick one of the original writes for FRPG.

I think it could be adapted to L5R.

Unfairly snipping: I apologize. I accidentally exchanged clarity and politeness in exchange for brevity. What I meant was: have you learned anything new, or is there some news that I don't know about, that supports "probably". We can make reasoned arguments all day about why one system or another is best, and we could spend tomorrow refuting them. I was worried I was somehow out of the loop and looking for spoilers.

My point about the house ruling was this: at what level of house ruling does a fan of the system cease to be a fan? And is it easy to determine fans of the setting vs. fans of the system? Personally, I'm an L5R fan, not an R&K fan. I don't dislike it, I'm just not a fan of it.

By "26 vs 27" I don't mean a roll of 26 against a TN of 27 (that's a great description for that, though). I mean that narratively, a 26 and a 27 are indistinguishable. See the point in my previous post about that. So, nothing to do about the game writing the story for me.

Truth is, I care about the system they choose because I'll be playing L5R. And I don't have time to make my own system, nor to do a full conversion of L5R into another system. That's why I dropped my ORE hack. I'll be playing whatever 5e is (unless it reeeeeally sucks, in which case I'll play 4e). And yes, GMs should 100% be using whatever system the want to use for their games.

7th Sea 2e: oooh! Thanks for the recommendation

[...]

...

Regarding 26 vs. 30 vs. 140, all raises must be intentional:

[...]

You may like the idea of fancy new rules, but I'll have to say that it took a while before being able to have a L5R campaign on my side. Only me and a friend was playing L5R and most of the others was like: "Oh... I don't feel like learning a new system."

Oof. That sounds discouraging. Do you mind if I ask when this was? Like did it have anything to do with the everything-D20-or-bust days? Do you think learning L5R new system as cured them of system-learning fears, or is it something you think they'll be reluctant to do again?

[...]

I'll start with the Roll. I know that some people, for the raises, like to house-rule their raises after the roll, giving the player a chance to perform nice roll based on the current roll. While it's an house-rule, I must admit, it changes the "26 vs. 30 vs. 140" entirely. Also, some mechanics in the game takes this in consideration, feint manoeuver a perfect example for the usage of a roll difference. Or Path to Inner Peace, which heals the target by the excess value of the Casting Roll. Maybe there isn't a lot of situation that uses it and maybe it could be exploited a little better, but there is a usage between those.

I think that some people are using way as the "One Roll System" where the damage is the excess value, but it's creating some combat manoeuvers a bit obsolete. I know that some people hates the "Two Roll mechanics", the first one for hitting and the second one for damaging, but for me, it gives a better understanding on the character type. I'll give an example to display my point of view on the topic.

Let's take 2 characters, one with the Agility Trait of 5 and his Strength of 2 and the other with the Agility Trait of 2 and his Strength of 5, both with 3 in their Weapon Skills:

- The Agility character will surely hit the target most of the time with his 8k5, resulting an average of 40.7. He will use a Katana, so his damage with it will be 6k2, resulting an average of 20.3 without Raises. Knowing that he can surely Raises twice without too much troubles, his damage of 8k2 will result an average of 22.4 (Not using the +1k1 for void).

- The Strength character will not be hitting the target much, since his Agility is low. With his 5k2, he's have an average of 19. However, his damage with a Tetsubo will be 8k3 for an average roll of 29.6. That character will surely not Raise knowing that his chances of hitting is really low.

So by using both character and the current system, both character has their strength and weakness. Now, I agree that both aren't using the same weapon type, so here's the average damage for the Strength character with a Katana, it's 23.3. Still higher, but hitting may be tough. But usually a high Strength character will usually pick a Heavy Weapon and a high Agility character will stay with the Katana.

But with a "One Roll System", it removes this difference between characters, so the Strength and the Agility characters aren't different anymore, or one of them is very weak, depending on how the system is handled. Let's say that we pick only the Agility as the roll, the Strength character is useless, while the Agility is now very strong. In the other situation, where we pick the highest of both, they are on the same level with no differences, losing the feeling of "Safe combat character VS High risk, high reward character".

To close the "26 vs. 30 vs. 140", I will say that it need to be explored a little much in the system, like using Raises after the roll.

As for your question, this situation ended at the start of last years, so it's not that far. Most people of my group plays D&D and they were like: "I'm enjoying the system, why should I change and learn a new system entirely different?" I remembered that one even asked me to play me game using the D&D system... I was very discouraged when I heard that one. I know that if the system changes, they will be reluctant to do that again, because they feel it's a waste of time to learn a new system when one is doing the job. And it's normal, it's very natural to be reluctant to changes.

I know that myself, I already know a lot of system. Some are very simple, while others more complicated. At some point, I will admit that I'm tired of learning another new system, specially when it comes to a franchise that I own the previous edition almost entirely. It's the case for L5R 4th edition. I barely bought books from the 3rd, because I hated the fact that the system was badly balanced. In the 4th, the balance is better, still a few stuffs, but overall, it's well done and felt more polished.

At some point, I'm biased in favor of keeping the R&K because I like the way the system is build around. It's really random where each roll has a very high range of rolling. When When rolling 8 on a 4k3, when it should be higher 99% of the time, while frustrating, it brings great moments. Same when someone rolls a 12 on a 9k4, when they should roll around 37.4 as an average. When someone roll a 53 on 7k3, it feels great, and so more. These are stuffs that happened in my campaign and it's something that my group now enjoy. It's obvious when you fail miserably or succeeding epicly, but each time, it's a memorable moment.

So yeah, it's for those moment that I really like the R&K and feels like most other systems are boring. And I will admit that I tried some online application just to give me some results and analyze how I would result them with the Narative Dice. I will say that I felt that bland, specially since I like to add stuffs, in addition to the player's raises, based on their rolls. So yeah, each system has their pro and cons. As I've said, worst case scenario, I'll stick with the 4th edition.

Strength characters are already very weak. "Picking tetsubo over katana" has nothing to do with your Strength or Agility and has everything to do with your Simple Action Attacks technique. If it allows "any weapon", you go with Tetsubo/Nodachi; if it allows "swords", you go with nodachi; if it allows "samurai weapons", you go with Katana.

Strength characters are already very weak. "Picking tetsubo over katana" has nothing to do with your Strength or Agility and has everything to do with your Simple Action Attacks technique. If it allows "any weapon", you go with Tetsubo/Nodachi; if it allows "swords", you go with nodachi; if it allows "samurai weapons", you go with Katana.

Wait to miss the point, I wasn't talking about optimizing a character, geez, learn to understand the discussion context.

And I wasn't talking about optimization. I just see your example as misinforming and rigged to show a point that isn't really how the game works. Unless you wanted to showcase how poor is the balance between Traits and how weapon is more important for damage than your innate abilities, I guess.

And I wasn't talking about optimization. I just see your example as misinforming and rigged to show a point that isn't really how the game works. Unless you wanted to showcase how poor is the balance between Traits and how weapon is more important for damage than your innate abilities, I guess.

True, and I never said it wasn't some flaws in the system, but that's not caused by the R&K dice system, it's the game mechanics, which is easily adjustable in my opinion. Of course, I could have picked an Hida Berserker with Strength in Arms, otherwise it would simply be an optimized way for the Strength character. However, it's not misinforming and rigged, because the idea of using Agility on attack and the Strength on the damage is the concept.

Playing Experience vs. Story Experience: Did the player just throw dice? Or did the GM ask for a roll?

It works the same either way, and it also brings up the problem with Boost Dice (players want to roll when they have lots of Boost Dice, the GM might not be up with that, commence argument).

Strength characters are already very weak.

Said no character in a grapple ever .

Quick clarification: I'm not championing SW narrative dice for L5R. It's just one option. There could also be something totally new. I'd also play another edition of R&K--happily so, if FFG fixes up some of the bigger problems and there's enough interesting changes. I just happen to love learning new systems, and I'm getting a bit bored of R&K.

For me, it's mostly that simple. I wanna be playing L5R, and I wanna be learning something new.

From what I read you don't want to play the L5R RPG (the Roll and Keep mechanics set + Setting) you want to play in Rokugan (the Setting) with the rules of Star Wars RPG (FFG) or another system. This is a major difference and something that you could do even without new L5R rulebooks.

A fair number of us are interested in an updated version of the mechanics set which we could potentially play other settings in not necessarily another game to play Rokugan in.

Regarding 26 vs. 30 vs. 140, all raises must be intentional: My group found it un-fun to have a bunch of explosions without any payoff, so we used the optional extra raise rule from Little Truths (called raises work as normal, and every 10 over the TN grants a bonus raise).

Which is a valid complaint which a 5e of L5R could fix with the inclusion of critical success rules such as the "every 10 over the TN is a Free Raise" rule from Little Truths or the "you may take a Free Raise instead of exploding the die" rule I came up with last year and sndwurks likes.

My initial point was merely a bit of nitpicking, but I think it's an interesting question when considering mechanics: If we assume that dice mechanics exist to support and build the narrative, and if a 26 is narratively indistinguishable from a 27, why are we using a mechanic that generates that level of specificity, especially when everything meaningful happens by increments of 5?

The Roll and Keep system is used because it is designed to give reliable results with chances of unexpected extreme success while having non-linear increases in task difficulty.

Some combination of XkY rolling 26 vs 27 isn't important. The fact that 6k3 has an 82% chance of hitting a TN 20, a 52% chance of hitting a TN 25, and a 31% chance of hitting a TN 30 and a 7k4 sees those same tasks as 97%, 86% and 63% chances is what is important.

The difference between Individual result numbers is not important unless they are checked against incremental totals (such as damage numbers versus hp/wounds). .

Tradition for tradition's sake isn't necessarily a good thing, either (what? On on the L5R forum? Quick, exile me to the burning sands).

3.X D&D is an incredible mess due to throwing out "sacred cows" from 2e such as classes having individual XP requirements for level and then doing semi-straight ports of the benefits of level and spells without really thinking about why each class had its own XP chart. Casters ended up getting a serious power boost and class like Thief/Rogue got a nerf when they ended up on the same scale.

Throwing out traditions because you are bored/don't like them is just as bad.

But maybe a good, new, fun, innovative mechanic would attract new players. (Gotta get my adjectives in the right place this time). And maybe it won't.

Look what being innovative in 4e D&D did for that system. It severely fractured D&D's player base enough that the game ended competing with an older version of itself.

Also the L5R RPG suffered more from visibility with AEG not really advertising it.

Here's how I look at it: The narrative dice system on SW is big enough that people talk about it. It's one of its selling points. PbtA is innovative enough that people talk about the mechanics. Fate was that way once, too. Even the advantage/disadvantage system of D&D 5e was big and simple enough that it got buzz. I wonder--I don't know, I don't have data, but I wonder--if part of making a successful RPG these days isn't just about good setting, production value, and solid mechanics; maybe part of making a successful RPG is making an interesting mechanic that gamers want to talk about. That or be D&D.

Narrative dice is only "big" because it is attached to one of the biggest if not the biggest Science Fantasy multimedia franchises in the world. If it didn't have Star Wars backing it up it would likely have been somewhat ignored.

Nah. Just keep R&K, clean it up and organize it a bit better. FFG can create Clan dice (which WILL sell) and we can call it good

The more I read this forum, the more the desire to write an L5R RPG: Bushido Edition bubbles to the surface. Pretty much, a comprehensive hack into the 4E R&K version of the L5R RPG.

The only thing honestly stopping me? Distribution. Sure, I could use it at my own tables, but if I want other people to playtest and monkey with it, how do so without getting FFG to come after me with lawsuits, even if its free.

That is an excellent question for the table top design sub reddit. They get questions about legalities, distribution, and play testing all the time. Hit it up. I look forward to reading your thread there.

So I ended up straying the conversation much farther than the original purpose of the post, and I want to get back to actually contributing to this thread, because I do think the original question is interesting. So I'm gonna put relevant replies over in this thread, "Are we married to R&K", because it's more relevant over there. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/218623-rpg-are-we-married-to-rk/page-2

Back to what I'd like to see in a 5e R&K:

Simplified Initiative: Instead of Roll Reflexes + Insight Rank, keep Reflexes, I think it should just be a trait roll of Reflexes or Perception, whichever is higher (or maaaaaaaybe also Agility). Honestly I don't see the relevance of IR to initiative.

Something like a free (or nearly free) Basic Training advantage: It would function similarly to Crafty or Sage, except for basic bushi skills, like Jiujutsu and Knives, and maybe Etiquette? And Something else to round out that list. Basically, if you would make an unskilled roll in something in which samurai are said to have basic training, you roll as if you had one rank in that skill. This could be an optional rule to not overwhelm new players with rules exceptions.

School power imbalance: Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all. I kinda like it thematically.

Interaction between core mechanic and mastery abilities: This is probably not possible with roll-trait-plus-skill-keep-trait, but I'd prefer if Mastery Abilities were optional mechanics. Since I was learning the game as a GM (i.e. I never played it before GMing it), I just ignored mastery abilities for several sessions, which further imbalanced the trait-skill power dynamic. Which honestly worked out fine in the end. But nonetheless, mastery abilities have always seemed like patches to me...

Book organization: Echoing some sentiments from earlier in the thread, I think Spider Clan and Shadowlands deserve their own book (together). Personally, I didn't dig that supplements were element themed. I would have preferred books that examine particular enemies through history (like a Spider and Shadowlands book). Maybe more than one per book if they don't need much space, or maybe only one, enabling smaller, cheaper supplements.

EDIT: "Simpler" was probably the wrong word... the mechanic is simple as is... What I'm suggesting is broader , I guess, so that initiative isn't dominated by only those with high reflexes.

What would people think about moving from 9 traits to 5, just the rings? There would be some sort of considerable knock-on consequences, but it might make some things a bit easier.

What would people think about moving from 9 traits to 5, just the rings? There would be some sort of considerable knock-on consequences, but it might make some things a bit easier.

I did that for a LARP system I used for L5R, but I think the Traits work better for tabletop. L5R is on the crunchier side of things in general, but if you wanted to move towards a fluffier, FATE Core style game, that would be my first step.

Something like a free (or nearly free) Basic Training advantage: It would function similarly to Crafty or Sage, except for basic bushi skills, like Jiujutsu and Knives, and maybe Etiquette? And Something else to round out that list. Basically, if you would make an unskilled roll in something in which samurai are said to have basic training, you roll as if you had one rank in that skill. This could be an optional rule to not overwhelm new players with rules exceptions.

We have this around here, both as tons of free starting Skills every samurai gets (Athletics, Calligraphy, Etiquette, Jiujutsu, Kenjutsu, Kyujutsu, Lore: Bushido, Lore: character's Great Clan, Yarijutsu, plus one Clan-themed Skill) and as a free "every 0-ranked Skill counts as being Rank 1" Advantage. I remember mentioning this in another topic (or maybe in this one?), but this change is actually quite counter-productive as far as character creation goes, because encourages players to not bother with diversifying their Skills and just go with one or two developed Skills and dump the rest of their starting xp into Traits/Advantages/Kata/Kiho/whatever. Macro Skills in particular are sidelined.

So you must be cautious what you wish for in this case. We made Skills cheaper, introduced some pretty darn bonkers Mastery Abilities, and the problem still persists.

Simplified Initiative: Instead of Roll Reflexes + Insight Rank, keep Reflexes, I think it should just be a trait roll of Reflexes or Perception, whichever is higher (or maaaaaaaybe also Agility). Honestly I don't see the relevance of IR to initiative.

The addition of IR to Initiative is there to represent the natural ability for more experienced individuals to react to problems faster than those without experience.

For example a new mother and a mother of 4 are both chatting together while their a two year old children toddle around. The one of the two children starts climbing on a bookshelf, both mothers notice the danger at about the same time but the more experienced mother moves first.

Something like a free (or nearly free) Basic Training advantage: It would function similarly to Crafty or Sage, except for basic bushi skills, like Jiujutsu and Knives, and maybe Etiquette? And Something else to round out that list. Basically, if you would make an unskilled roll in something in which samurai are said to have basic training, you roll as if you had one rank in that skill. This could be an optional rule to not overwhelm new players with rules exceptions.

This would be better handled by having most basic tasks that almost every Samurai is expected to understand have TNs of 5 or 10 and giving all Bushi schools a toned down version of Crab Hands advantage (i.e. Samurai are considered skilled with certain skills even if no ranks are purchased making Trait keep Trait the baseline for rolls) built into them. Courtiers, Shugenja/Spellcasters, Monks and Ninja could have similar skilled even when no ranks are purchased skills.

Crab Hands then could be a natural ability to improvise weapons (sort of like being able to grab a Go board and then use it to defend yourself) rather than the omni-weapon training it is now.

School power imbalance: Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all. I kinda like it thematically.

There is a serious difference between asymmetrical balance (Akodo Bushi (generalist honorable bushi) versus Kakita Bushi (specialist duelist)) and options that directly penalize you (Many Minor Clan Schools and Ronin options). PCs should all be at roughly in the same level of power when they have similar IRs and XP amounts.

Interaction between core mechanic and mastery abilities: This is probably not possible with roll-trait-plus-skill-keep-trait, but I'd prefer if Mastery Abilities were optional mechanics. Since I was learning the game as a GM (i.e. I never played it before GMing it), I just ignored mastery abilities for several sessions, which further imbalanced the trait-skill power dynamic. Which honestly worked out fine in the end. But nonetheless, mastery abilities have always seemed like patches to me...

While I agree that Mastery abilities need some work (pretty much every skill should have a set of three and that they should be better balanced), I disagreed with you on them being optional mechanics. Used well they represent differences in training and understand much better than simple increases in number of dice rolled.

Optional Mechanics should be more the realm of Advantage/Disadvantages, Kata and Complex Maneuver systems.

Book organization: Echoing some sentiments from earlier in the thread, I think Spider Clan and Shadowlands deserve their own book (together). Personally, I didn't dig that supplements were element themed. I would have preferred books that examine particular enemies through history (like a Spider and Shadowlands book). Maybe more than one per book if they don't need much space, or maybe only one, enabling smaller, cheaper supplements.

I disagree with you on the segregation of the Spider Clan, but will not argue with you about it in this thread. Enemies of the Empire was a very solid book. 5e might be well served by a single psuedo-core hardback generalist Enemies of the Empire book and a series of more focused supplements. I could see Enemies of the Empire providing general enemy needs and rules with EotE:Shadowlands, EotE: Gaijin, EotE: Spirit Realms, and EotE:Threats from Within (covering things such as the Kolat, Bandits, Rebels and Civil Wars) all expanding the options within the core book.

The 5 Book of the (element) supplements had both advantages (supposedly something for everyone) and disadvantages (several sections felt phoned in, new mechanics heavily favored monks and shugenja) and might have been better served if the info within them had been spread out among a series that focused more on the School types (i.e. Bushi, Monks, Courtiers, Ninja and Shugenja)

EDIT: "Simpler" was probably the wrong word... the mechanic is simple as is... What I'm suggesting is broader , I guess, so that initiative isn't dominated by only those with high reflexes.

This might be better served by creating mechanics that give low Reflex characters ways to mitigate the advantages of higher initiative. Things such as Counter maneuvers usable while in the defensive stance that can only be used on targets that attacked you since your last turn.

In a L5R homebrew pdf I read through a while back, the homebrewer used Air instead of Reflexes for Initiative. They believed that Initiative should not just be based off of physical quickness, but a combination of that in mental intuition (a feature of the Awareness Trait). I honestly dig that and will use it in my games. Kind of reminds me of Shadowrun's Initiative of Reaction and Intuition.

Something like a free (or nearly free) Basic Training advantage <snip>

We have this around here, both as tons of free starting Skills every samurai gets (Athletics, Calligraphy, Etiquette, Jiujutsu, Kenjutsu, Kyujutsu, Lore: Bushido, Lore: character's Great Clan, Yarijutsu, plus one Clan-themed Skill) and as a free "every 0-ranked Skill counts as being Rank 1" Advantage. I remember mentioning this in another topic (or maybe in this one?), but this change is actually quite counter-productive as far as character creation goes, because encourages players to not bother with diversifying their Skills and just go with one or two developed Skills and dump the rest of their starting xp into Traits/Advantages/Kata/Kiho/whatever. Macro Skills in particular are sidelined.

So you must be cautious what you wish for in this case. We made Skills cheaper, introduced some pretty darn bonkers Mastery Abilities, and the problem still persists.

Eeeeesh. Sounds like a headache.

I get irked as a player when I feel like I have to neglect those basic skills that the book says every samurai knows a little so that I can get competent dice rolls in what I need.

Or maybe I should just be taking prodigy less often.

Simplified Initiative: Instead of Roll Reflexes + Insight Rank, keep Reflexes, I think it should just be a trait roll of Reflexes or Perception, whichever is higher (or maaaaaaaybe also Agility). Honestly I don't see the relevance of IR to initiative.

The addition of IR to Initiative is there to represent the natural ability for more experienced individuals to react to problems faster than those without experience.

For example a new mother and a mother of 4 are both chatting together while their a two year old children toddle around. The one of the two children starts climbing on a bookshelf, both mothers notice the danger at about the same time but the more experienced mother moves first.

Something like a free (or nearly free) Basic Training advantage <snip>

This would be better handled by having most basic tasks that almost every Samurai is expected to understand have TNs of 5 or 10 and giving all Bushi schools a toned down version of Crab Hands advantage (i.e. Samurai are considered skilled with certain skills even if no ranks are purchased making Trait keep Trait the baseline for rolls) built into them. Courtiers, Shugenja/Spellcasters, Monks and Ninja could have similar skilled even when no ranks are purchased skills.

Crab Hands then could be a natural ability to improvise weapons (sort of like being able to grab a Go board and then use it to defend yourself) rather than the omni-weapon training it is now.

School power imbalance: Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all. I kinda like it thematically.

There is a serious difference between asymmetrical balance (Akodo Bushi (generalist honorable bushi) versus Kakita Bushi (specialist duelist)) and options that directly penalize you (Many Minor Clan Schools and Ronin options). PCs should all be at roughly in the same level of power when they have similar IRs and XP amounts.

Interaction between core mechanic and mastery abilities: This is probably not possible with roll-trait-plus-skill-keep-trait, but I'd prefer if Mastery Abilities were optional mechanics. Since I was learning the game as a GM (i.e. I never played it before GMing it), I just ignored mastery abilities for several sessions, which further imbalanced the trait-skill power dynamic. Which honestly worked out fine in the end. But nonetheless, mastery abilities have always seemed like patches to me...

While I agree that Mastery abilities need some work (pretty much every skill should have a set of three and that they should be better balanced), I disagreed with you on them being optional mechanics. Used well they represent differences in training and understand much better than simple increases in number of dice rolled.

Optional Mechanics should be more the realm of Advantage/Disadvantages, Kata and Complex Maneuver systems.

Book organization: Echoing some sentiments from earlier in the thread, I think Spider Clan and Shadowlands deserve their own book (together). Personally, I didn't dig that supplements were element themed. I would have preferred books that examine particular enemies through history (like a Spider and Shadowlands book). Maybe more than one per book if they don't need much space, or maybe only one, enabling smaller, cheaper supplements.

I disagree with you on the segregation of the Spider Clan, but will not argue with you about it in this thread. Enemies of the Empire was a very solid book. 5e might be well served by a single psuedo-core hardback generalist Enemies of the Empire book and a series of more focused supplements. I could see Enemies of the Empire providing general enemy needs and rules with EotE:Shadowlands, EotE: Gaijin, EotE: Spirit Realms, and EotE:Threats from Within (covering things such as the Kolat, Bandits, Rebels and Civil Wars) all expanding the options within the core book.

The 5 Book of the (element) supplements had both advantages (supposedly something for everyone) and disadvantages (several sections felt phoned in, new mechanics heavily favored monks and shugenja) and might have been better served if the info within them had been spread out among a series that focused more on the School types (i.e. Bushi, Monks, Courtiers, Ninja and Shugenja)

EDIT: "Simpler" was probably the wrong word... the mechanic is simple as is... What I'm suggesting is broader , I guess, so that initiative isn't dominated by only those with high reflexes.

This might be better served by creating mechanics that give low Reflex characters ways to mitigate the advantages of higher initiative. Things such as Counter maneuvers usable while in the defensive stance that can only be used on targets that attacked you since your last turn.

IR in initiative: Except I don't think general experience helps you react quickly... I think relevant experience helps. In the case of the mothers, the "more experienced mother" has a higher Parenting skill rank, so maybe she has a Rank 5 mastery ability of "Add your Parenting skill rank to your initiative score". But you could take 25 skills that had nothing to do with combat--lets say a bunch of lore, performs, artisans, divination, merchant, sincerity, etc.--and you suddenly get a bonus to your initiative roll. Which strikes me as weird.

Alternative initiative: I dunno if that would be better... why would it be? A fix like I'm suggesting (trait roll of Reflexes or Perception) gives perception a little more to do (thus raising its value compared to air, which gets so much love RAW), and provides a simple alternative for characters who wish to invest points in other areas. Besides, it makes sense that if you are more attuned to the world around you, you could more quickly recognize things that require immediate reaction. Optional maneuvers also sound good to me, but they are of course a crunchier option. Simple options make the game more accessible, which could help it spread to new players.

Mastery abilities: I'm gonna re-quote Ultimatecalibur here: " While I agree that Mastery abilities need some work (pretty much every skill should have a set of three and that they should be better balanced), I disagreed with you on them being optional mechanics. Used well they represent differences in training and understand much better than simple increases in number of dice rolled." Can you explain what you mean by "used well?" Seems like "use" or "don't use"... Is there a sliding scale I'm not seeing? Many mastery abilities give extra dice rolled, grant free raises, or grant a bonus to a roll, which are all variations of the same thing. As I said before, to me, they feel a lot like patches--compensation because trait dice are so much more valuable. Which again, puts us face to face with the core question of a new R&K edition: what the heck should we roll and keep??? See this recent thread with five different options... https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/239067-rpg-variant-roll-and-keep/

Now I super dig mastery abilities like we get for iaijutsu (draw as free action) or Battle (add Battle rank to initiative)... I guess I like when mastery abilities interact with related mechanics, instead of just adding some variation of a bonus to the skill roll. Which doesn't solve my problem of wanting to simplify for the sake of new players, but at least I find it more interesting.

Yeah, but what's good for a movie isn't good for games that include incredibly swingy random mechanic of exploding dice rolls. Which is why I took away exploding dice on damage from enemies and replaced it with flat modifiers (so an opponent might do 8k3+7 dmg, but without ability to explode, capping their damage at 10-37). We also narrate anything above Injured as just weakened concentration, leaving actual "being hit" to Injured and more.

Puffer Wounds are super cool concept!

Expanding some more on "single strike taking out people in movies" - consider that while some of attacks that don't hit characters in other media are "missed" in RPG mechanics sense, some of them do indeed hit and are soaked up by HP. "Confirming the attack roll = literally hitting and shedding blood" is one of things that IMHO really made things hard for RPGs for years.

Oh, no! Not this "hits that don't actually hit you" thing in L5R too! I thought I've left it all behind when I stopped discussing D&D 4e! Next thing you'll see, there will be Akodo Warlords shouting your wounds closed too! I hate those mechanics with the passion of a dying star!

I jest, I jest. But only a little.

I highly recommend John Wick's "Blood & Honor" RPG.

As someone who had the questionable luck of trying out B&H, I want to add that it might be the most niche RPG in existence, and I'm 900% serious here. Approach with caution.

Heh, yeah, it is of a weird kind... But I don't regret buying it, for the simple fact that it must be the single most beautiful game I own.

One thing I have bandied about for a while in my head, but have yet to really master...

I want there to be something akin to Kata for Courtiers.

Specifically, I want Kata, Spells, and Gambits (term for Courtiers) to be a special maneuver that your character can perform due to the training that they have received. Something different from a School Technique... While both a Hida and an Akodo can Strike as Earth, one will be doing so with a heavy weapon in heavy armor, while the other is wielding a no-dachi tactically.

I want there to be something akin to Kata for Courtiers.

We unified the three main types of combat (skirmish, social combat, mass battle) under a single combat system and thus made katas compatible with social combat. Not all of them, but several katas can be bought in a way that they take effect in social combat (or mass battle) rather than in skirmish.

Or maybe I should just be taking prodigy less often.

That is likely the problem. Prodigy is pretty close to being a trap advantage. It gives 6 or 7 skills a pseudo-rank which does not grant insight or progress towards mastery for 12 XP. You basically are buying a 1 XP discount on your school skills for 6 insight and a 1 rank delay on your school skill masteries.

IR in initiative: Except I don't think general experience helps you react quickly... I think relevant experience helps. In the case of the mothers, the "more experienced mother" has a higher Parenting skill rank, so maybe she has a Rank 5 mastery ability of "Add your Parenting skill rank to your initiative score".

I'd disagree. Training in a skill (high ranks in a skill) is not the same as having insight into using that skill (higher IR). A highly trained new mother might know how to put on a diaper perfectly but is likely to be slower to figure out why her baby is crying and needs a diaper change while the more experienced mother with possibly lesser skills.

But you could take 25 skills that had nothing to do with combat--lets say a bunch of lore, performs, artisans, divination, merchant, sincerity, etc.--and you suddenly get a bonus to your initiative roll. Which strikes me as weird.

Doesn't seem to weird to me that a jack-of-all-trades will react faster than most to a fight starting, but I will agree that their are a few problems with how easy it is to gain Insight through Macro-skill abuse.

Alternative initiative: I dunno if that would be better... why would it be? A fix like I'm suggesting (trait roll of Reflexes or Perception) gives perception a little more to do (thus raising its value compared to air, which gets so much love RAW), and provides a simple alternative for characters who wish to invest points in other areas. Besides, it makes sense that if you are more attuned to the world around you, you could more quickly recognize things that require immediate reaction. Optional maneuvers also sound good to me, but they are of course a crunchier option. Simple options make the game more accessible, which could help it spread to new players.

Your "simple option" is not as good as you think it is and will not make things more accessible. It is more a min-maxers tool than an accessibility option. It makes the Water Ring incredibly powerful as it now determines Movement speed, Initiative and damage dealt by melee and thrown weapons.

Mastery abilities: I'm gonna re-quote Ultimatecalibur here: " While I agree that Mastery abilities need some work (pretty much every skill should have a set of three and that they should be better balanced), I disagreed with you on them being optional mechanics. Used well they represent differences in training and understand much better than simple increases in number of dice rolled."

Can you explain what you mean by "used well?" Seems like "use" or "don't use"... Is there a sliding scale I'm not seeing? Many mastery abilities give extra dice rolled, grant free raises, or grant a bonus to a roll, which are all variations of the same thing.p

As I said before, to me, they feel a lot like patches--compensation because trait dice are so much more valuable. Which again, puts us face to face with the core question of a new R&K edition: what the heck should we roll and keep??? See this recent thread with five different options... https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/239067-rpg-variant-roll-and-keep/

Now I super dig mastery abilities like we get for iaijutsu (draw as free action) or Battle (add Battle rank to initiative)... I guess I like when mastery abilities interact with related mechanics, instead of just adding some variation of a bonus to the skill roll.

"Designed well" might be a better term. Not all Mastery abilities are what I call "well designed," but many of the better masteries help give the feeling that the user is highly trained in that skill rather than just being good at it through general capabilities. The various masteries for most of the Bugei skills are what I consider well designed.

Which doesn't solve my problem of wanting to simplify for the sake of new players, but at least I find it more interesting.

I think you are confusing simple with intuitive. New players tend to do better when rules are intuitive to them rather than simple. Simple has a fair tendency to drive off players if they find the simplicity boring.

I want there to be something akin to Kata for Courtiers.

We unified the three main types of combat (skirmish, social combat, mass battle) under a single combat system and thus made katas compatible with social combat. Not all of them, but several katas can be bought in a way that they take effect in social combat (or mass battle) rather than in skirmish.

Do you have this documented anywhere? I'd definitely be interested in checking that out.