2 hours ago, Kinzen said:

Honestly, I wouldn't recommend switching regardless. Not because of the new system (...) Nothing worked the way it did before, which meant our characters changed whether we wanted them to or not. It sucked

Totally agreeing on that. I did this mistake once, going from a custom percentile system to D&D 3.5. It ****** up the whole dynamic and I abandoned the campaign, with 90% players agreement. That's when I started L5R.

Better to start a new campaign with a new system than to convert. Had a lot of weird stuff happen to characters converting like that.

Yeah, I’m playing this new game with a different group, the ongoing campaign 8 play with another group isn’t switching from 4th ed.

On 10/4/2017 at 5:59 PM, Gallows said:

But that's the whole point. There is no risk. You Can safely calculate after rolling, whereas calling a raise first to do better is a risk.

I would chime in with something I love about this and the Star Wars / Genesys system. Players roll, and then someone gets excited (GM or player) about the possibilities.

D&D, L5R 4th Ed, and a huge slew of other RPGs make people get excited before the roll (I'm calling 4 Raises! I'm going to use these feats!) and then the penalties mean you're likely to be disappointed with "I fail".

Both this new system and the Star Wars / Genesys system let players say simple stuff like, "I shoot my blaster at the stormtrooper," and cool special stuff happens afterwards without unnecessary build up to disappointment. This new system lends itself to "Oh dang I can do some spectacular stuff if I take a heap of Strife" My group loved the concept of 4th Ed Raises, but way more often than not, players didn't use them because it felt like doing consistent chip damage was better than notably rarer, slightly higher damage.

If anything, old Raises were far more "gamist" because you had to have a better head for when it was statistically a good time to call them and take a penalty. This system requires much less mathematical gaming and more picking what you find cool and awesome after the roll.

To add raises, I'd simply gamble opportunities to the gm. If you win, you apply them, if you lose, the gm has them to use in the scene.

Techniques that are action-activated tend to require TNs higher than normal. For example, Heartpiercing Strike is a guaranteed Crit, but instead of being TN 2, its TN4.

I find my (4e) group only uses raised in combats when our chances are already very good.

You could make opportunities count as successes, and raise the TN for raises...

You could make raises require a certain amount of strife to be kept... Y ou need to pass the test, but to get the raise bonus you also need x amount of strife. Or you need both. I dunno.

On 04/10/2017 at 10:22 PM, SideshowLucifer said:

Sounds like you just really wanted the old editions back. Raises to me were the absolute worst part of the game other than the hyper lethality. As for the roleplaying for them part, simply don't use it then. I actually find it rather elegant to have it in there as a breaking point and to focus on that side of things. I'm never wild about custom dice, but all in all, I can live with them if this is the result. Most of the actions are either simple enough that raises are required, or are tough enough that you will have to suffer stress to succeed. It's a nice balance with the system they choose to work with.

To me that sounds like 'the worst part of L5R was... L5R', because the hyper lethality and the raise system for me were fundamental parts of the game. They were what made the engine work . When I found out how lethal L5R was, I was overjoyed, and the Raise system allowed me to, more or less, set my own Difficulty for tasks, with concrete benefits for doing so. I'm finding this edition way, way too soft on the lethality.

(I'm currently running a 4e campaign. I've been sorely tempted a few times to take the engine back to 2nd Edition, I'm finding 4e not 'mythic' enough in setting, and way too low fantasy in mechanics.)

you know what the Opp cost is going to be for the desired; you can then work the dicepool towards it. The player can choose to fail rather than not meet the required costs.

for example, an invocation with range 1–3, and an opportunity cost of 1 per +1... You can declare a target at range 4... but you must keep an Opportunity, or it fails. That's not spelled out clearly, but it is so common in invocations that it's essentially got to be the intent. So, if you target the guy at range 4 on a tn 3 range 2 spell and have 3R 2S k3, and roll S Es SO and Os ... you have to keep the SO, and the S & Es - for 3 S plus another ring die, and you'll either get a bonus success or a bonus O. Or, you choose to fail.

you know what the Opp cost is going to be for the desired; you can then work the dicepool towards it. The player can choose to fail rather than not meet the required costs.

for example, an invocation with range 1–3, and an opportunity cost of 1 per +1... You can declare a target at range 4... but you must keep an Opportunity, or it fails. That's not spelled out clearly, but it is so common in invocations that it's essentially got to be the intent. So, if you target the guy at range 4 on a tn 3 range 2 spell and have 3R 2S k3, and roll S Es SO and Os ... you have to keep the SO, and the S & Es - for 3 S plus another ring die, and you'll either get a bonus success or a bonus O. Or, you choose to fail.