You don't need to Succeed to spend the Opportunities. Success usually grants narrative bonuses like the GM telling you what action your opponent will take next.

Back with Yue, I won a duel with this. Rolled Theology, got some very good results, and thus was told that my opponent's fate lied elsewhere and not in fighting this duel. Next turn I made a successful Command (Reason) check to make him concede. It was neato.

But... you are not supposed to make checks if success or failure are meaningless.

If you had not succeeded on your Theology check, you would not have learned your opponent's fate, yet would still have spend the opportunity.

In a conflict, failure is meaningful, because time is a finite resource.

24 minutes ago, Exarkfr said:

If you had not succeeded on your Theology check, you would not have learned your opponent's fate, yet would still have spend the opportunity.

1

That's, like, half the point of having Opportunities around. So you can succeed even when you fail.

Rolling Theology, without caring for success or failure, only to have an easier time at Rising Blade ?
Sorry, but I feel like it's a cheesy way to get a powerful effect.
The check seems to serve no other purpose than generate opportunities.

YMMV

As WHW points out, while the character is pondering the metaphysical implications of his opponent’s martial stance, he does not do anything else. It’s risky to spend one full round doing only that. Besides, using a skill is part of the possible actions listed in Duel conflicts. Now, it has to be relevant, and maybe Theology is a tad far-fetched, but Sentiment or Culture absolutely do make sense. You spend one action trying to read your opponent to get an insight on their fighting style... does not seem too broken as a trade off.

Also note that the Scholar bonus applies to next friendly roll - if, say, you get Critted or forced to do a roll to resist something, your bonus is forced to go to that thing.

Though Scholar -1 TN per opportunity thing is kinda overtuned atm. A *lot* of opportunity effects should get the slowed down scaling - 1 "point" of an effect for 1st opportunity, and another "point" of the effect for each 2 extra invested.

4 hours ago, Franwax said:

As WHW points out, while the character is pondering the metaphysical implications of his opponent’s martial stance, he does not do anything else. It’s risky to spend one full round doing only that.

The point is you are not "doing only that".
-1 TN on your next check is very potent :
- that check is easier to achieve (if going for Rising Blade, you need to roll only 2 successes instead of 3)
- AND it frees a kept dice (you won't have to keep that 3rd success, meaning you can keep something else instead)
All for a single opportunity, spend on a check that you don't care for (no matter whether you succeed or fail, you get to spend the opportunity)

Plus... isn't reading you opponent"s style the point of Center ?

There should be some limit to spending opportunities, or I'm going to start every fight:
- meditating on my katana, paying hommage to my ancestors, looking for their wisdom in the fight to come (and make a Smithing roll, spending Void opportunities to get a -1 per opportunity on my next use a the katana and Air opportunitie to boost its values)
- adjusting my kimono, trying to look as noble as possible to not shame anyone (and make a Design check, spending Air opportunities to add to its Resistance)
- examining my opponent, trying to know if there are no signs of wounds that I could take advantage of (and make a Medicine check)
- admiring the scenery (and make a Survival check, spending Fire opportunities to name Martial Arts [Melee] and reduce the TN by 1 on my next use of the skill)
- bowing Courteously to my opponent (and make a Courtesy check)
- declaiming a haiku (and make a Composition check)
- use all the opportunities generated to reduce my Strife and increase my opponent's (unsettling them with my calm demeanor)

This gives me a tougher kimono, a sharper katana, and my Rising Blade is TN -2 or more.
No even spending a single action DURING the fight itself, and not caring at all whether any of those checks was successful...
First round I bid high and go straight for a Rising Blade without my opponent having chosen a stance or yet.

That is why it is different whether it is done during a conflict scene, in initiative order, or not. Outside of the conflict scene, as you rightly said, checks that have no consequence on failure should be avoided. If you chose to do all of those (very nice examples, by the way ) while your opponent is actually doing something with his turns, you will end up sliced and diced before you’re done...

The point was “you are only doing that THIS TURN”. And this turn might be your last. Spending one round to get a -1 on TN (again, within reason) is a good trade off, but not always the best option. I do agree that the scaling of those opportunities is very steep and tend to side with WHW on his assessment.

Is it redundant with Center? Not really. There can be many ways to gain insight on your opponent. One mountain, several sides and all that

Still, if your intent is to get a bonus on your next attack (like, by reading your opponent style), getting the reduced TN should be tied to success on that check. This is what Provoke used to do.
You should never make a check only for the opportunities.
What you gain through opportunities should not overshadow the success.

Gah, more reasons to hate opportunities... Not only are they tacked on, narrative buzz kills but they are also the pathway to power-gaming via failed irrelevant skill checks...

13 hours ago, Exarkfr said:

Sorry, but I feel like it's a cheesy way to get a powerful effect.

I have to say this a second time: welcome in 5R5. I said this a few pages back, but cheese is the very foundation of this system. Its most basic mechanic (Approaches) is a cheesecake the size of a truck, and the developers present at least one way to bend the system on almost every page.

It is up to you to decide whether it is good or bad. For example, your list of "how to meta-start a fight" is actually quite fluffy and thematic, rife with roleplaying opportunities, and rewards creative and immersive playing, but it is cheese for the sake of cheese.

Personally, I don't like how the system just spreads its legs for me. I prefer robust and coherent rules.

4 hours ago, Exarkfr said:

Plus... isn't reading you opponent"s style the point of Center ?

Predict, I would say, but your point stands - sorry for the pedantry.

Using skills in duels is explicitely called out as an option on page 162:

Quote

Activation: As an action, you make a skill check to attempt a task you have described to the GM.

3 hours ago, Exarkfr said:

What you gain through opportunities should not overshadow the success.

Also note that in conflicts, opportunities are much more integral to the check; whilst success/failure is still a thing, it's quite common to be in a situation where success has little meaningful effect without an accompanying opportunity (a 'modified range' bow-shot, for example, or a strike against an opponent whose resistance will reduce damage to 0). Whilst I agree in principle, the separation of success & opportunity is much more blurred in a conflict scene.

However , remember that both "when to ask for a check" (Page 12) and "Target Number 0" (Page 13) do not make any distinction for the scene type.

Whilst a player is at liberty to spend their first action 'bowing to their opponent', the GM is the one who determines whether that action deserves a check and whether it has a TN above 0. If not, no dice are rolled, and there is zero possibility of an opportunity being rolled (it would probably be fair to let the player know this before they commit to it so they can take an actual action before being stabbed).

Also note the 'being stabbed' bit. As @WHW notes, a -1TN for a scholar skill is probably about the same in practice as a guaranteed success/opportunity reserved by a centre action.

This is a game system which is deliberately open and which requires the GM to act as the primary choke-point to prevent male-bovine-faeces hand-waving.

Taking an example:

15 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

Back with Yue, I won a duel with this. Rolled Theology, got some very good results, and thus was told that my opponent's fate lied elsewhere and not in fighting this duel. Next turn I made a successful Command (Reason) check to make him concede. It was neato.

Would I let someone try this?

It would depend very much on the character, their abilities and the setting (which I don't know, so don't take this as passing judgement).

Certainly something like it is possible.

Part 1: " I want to make a theology check to read the future " is, obviously, a viable choice.

Quote

Performing a basic divination or reading to determine whether a time or action is auspicious, ill-omened, or conflicted for a particular character

Is listed as an action - meaning it is viable in a duel (I suspect it's meant more for intrigues, but hey)

Unless you've got a tremendously good storyline reason* why the Kami are whispering incredibly detailed information in your ear in real-time, you cannot do a divination which is going to provide details beyond this duel is 'ill-omened' as an action during a conflict scene. So "This duel is ill-omened, we shouldn't be doing this" is one thing (and something you might be able to do something with), but "you are instead destined to be elsewhere because [reasons]" probably is not.

Secondly, the check is to determine your opponent's destiny. As the author of all things destiny-related in the RPG-universe-in-general, the GM is the one who will tell you what their destiny actually is. Which may be awkward (if rather mean) if they come back with " To kill you in this duel ".

Part 2: This is more reasonable; talking down and de-escalating a conflict is doable (see page 152), but I'm not convinced that this would be a single check rather than shifting from Duel down to Intrigue; if you were already in 'take turns' in any sort of formal duel then it's a case of one side conceding, with all the penalties for losing the duel. That would require a substantial whack of successes.

Also, I would suggest that the approach would need to be Enlighten, not Reason. You're trying to get your opponent to 'reassess their decisions' based on spiritual faith in your divination when you obviously are not an unbiased party; hence I would probably say it would have been Command (Void).

* Example - I might accept this specifically during a Shujenga Taryu-Jiai as opposed to a 'conventional' duel, especially if the Shujenga in question was a gifted haruspex.

A good rule of thumb for actions in conflicts is that the success of the action should be progressing the "victory condition" of the conflict at hand. If it isn't, it might be better to make the effect a result of Opportunities spent on a check that progresses the conflict instead.

16 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Unless you've got a tremendously good storyline reason*

I had, that's why I 've got that specific result . Using Reason instead of Enlighten was also an in-character idea because Yue had a name of being weird and her opponent wouldn't have listened if she had told him that "You should do this because I'm weird!"

2 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

Personally, I don't like how the system just spreads its legs for me. I prefer robust and coherent rules.

Same. (Love real cheese, though.)

It would be so nice if we had some insight from the developers about the many topics raised.
Just to know what is intended and what is not.

1 Update per week is not enough.

On 12/17/2017 at 2:14 PM, Exarkfr said:

So, the success on the test allows the spending of the opportunities ?

Opportunities can be spent whether or not the action declared succeeded. A few are off the table, tho'. Certain ones (mostly in Techniques) have a success requirement, and a number more, have cost in opportunities vary by success or failure. And common sense says, "no strike success, no critical hit"...

Tho if one is running Silly5R, allowing crits on misses resulting from the target fumbling around and banging into stuff to avoid the hit is an amusing enough slapstick image...

9 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Opportunities can be spent whether or not the action declared succeeded. A few are off the table, tho'. Certain ones (mostly in Techniques) have a success requirement, and a number more, have cost in opportunities vary by success or failure. And common sense says, "no strike success, no critical hit"...

Agreed.

But there still needs to be something:

• meaningful in its impact on the game
• realistically but not automatically achievable

tied to the success/failure trigger for making a check in the first place to be justified. That is, you can never roll a check 'just' to harvest opportunities.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

Opportunities can be spent whether or not the action declared succeeded.

No.
In some cases, there can be a condition to satisfy.
Or the cost can vary (providing assistance through opportunity has a cost of 2 on Success, and 1 on Failure)

Plus, I was not asking for the general rules, but for his own rules on that check.
Whether he allowed that effect only on success or not.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

And common sense says, "no strike success, no critical hit"...

Not only common sense. Strike itself says so : "2Opp : If you succeed..."

So, the session on sunday was not an average one by our standards, that's why I'm reporting about it so late. It was effectively 7 hours of Igaki joining the party with a big and complicated four-way siege.

There was a time jump of three weeks from the "mini-adventure", and we had Akira and Hanzo consolidating their gains and slowly making a home at the ruined fort with their bandit gang. Igaki visited them in hopes of joining the upstarting bandit lord and earning protection/support in return of his mystical powers. When he reached the fort, he had his wife and some pissed-off mahotsukai of lending his full strength for the fight.

We had a moment of uncertainty here, because:

1. It quickly turned out that none of the attackers will cooperate with each other. The mahotsukai were left out for an obvious reason, while Igaki's wife and the magistrate were both unwilling to compromise, and were almost goaded into a fight by Hanzo. We had another very good Intrigue here, by the way, this campaign is seemingly blessed with highly enjoyable Intrigue scenes.
2. None of the forces at the fort numbered more than a dozen soldiers. We had the 3 PCs and 7 bandits; Igaki's wife had a Kuni Witch Hunter, a Hiruma Scout, two other bushi, and four budoka; the magistrate had four yoriki and five ashigaru; and the mahotsukai had one actual sorcerer, four Lost Samurai, and one Troll. We felt like this mustering of forces was simply not enough for a Mass Battle.

Alas, our first plan was to have each PC deal with a different group: Akira against the mahotsukai, Hanzo against the wife, Igaki against the magistrate. This would have allowed us to defeat two sides (the mahotsukai and the wife) rather easily, then concentrate all our forces on the magistrate. This was the plan, at least. But then Hanzo decided to not play along and show up at the magistrate, prompting the wife to pay a visit there too, that in turn resulted in maybe the most intense Intrigue I have ever seen in our beta games. Basically, Hanzo Strife-nuked poor Igaki who then flew into an Expose an Opening that was then used by Hanzo to trick the magistrate to think that it was Igaki who killed his yoriki. The wife and the magistrate started a fight over Igaki, Hanzo used Fanning the Flames to put Enraged on the magistrate, and the next thing I knew as Akira was that the wife attacked my bandits in the back just as we engaged the mahotsukai, ****-bent on capturing Akira and clearing up her mess with the magistrate.

I lost two bandits here. Togashi and Matsu, you will be forever remembered . Akira dueled the wife and almost killed her if not for the Plot saving her. Then the magistrate and the rest of the party also joined, and chaos was unleashed to its fullest. The party eventually retreated to one of the fort towers where we had to hold back three waves of attacks: the wife, then the magistrate, and finally the mahotsukai. This massive skirmish lasted more than 3 hours IRL, Akira got completely wrecked (I faced the Troll with only 1 Fatigue away from being Incapacitated... YOLO ), one other bandit was sacrificed for the Greater Good (ripperino in pepperonio, Shosuro), but we WON. And now I'm officially in love with Ward - it is good .

The adventure ended with our enemies calling a furious retreat. And the run-down gang stepping out from the gate of the burning tower, into the last rays of the setting sun.

Hey, the first post of the new year! Happy new year and all that!

We had a short adventure today, tho we couldn't do much because the club was closing early.

One big thing we figured out was that the Kuni Purifier School Ability is a little transparently worded. What happens if the Purifier knows that his target has Shadowlands Taint but he is wrong ? The Ability only specifies knowledge and by RAW (and you can argue that even by RAI) the Purifier can be indeed wrong and still gain the bonuses. So what's the deal here?

Another question that came up was what happens if a Mirumoto Two-Swordsman loses the weapon he used to Ward/Trap. Common sense would say that the Ward/Trap effect ceases, but apparently, this is not the case. We also found it intriguing that you can Ward/Trap with any kind of melee weapon.

Lastly, Truth Burns Through Lies is a pretty darn powerful Technique, with very high chances of plot-breaking because of the information it gives. We think having only the first part is more than enough for a Rank 1 Technique. The second part is Sixth Sense tier OP when it comes to the narrative.

Also, this was more up to discussion, but we wondered what happens if a character suffers an Unmasking-like effect (like gaining Enraged) but without actually Unmasking. Or what happens if the character "Unmasks" while not being Compromised. Or why can't a character Unmask unless he is Compromised too.

Otherwise, the bandit gang is back to full power, recruiting the three new guys (the twins Kitsu and Kitsuki, and Yogo) and hunting down the Witch Hunter accompanying Igaki's wife was all we could do. Next, we are going to deal with some pesky ronin rival thinking that he can just set up shop on our turf. Well, he is wrong !

On the Kuni tech, if we are to argue about semantics, we can say the text does not read “if you believe the target to be tainted”, but indeed if you “know”. In the case where the purifier wrongfully thinks their target is tainted, they do just that: think. Not know.

Now, this could be a good meta giveaway on whether a person is indeed tainted or not. Not sure that it would be easy to adjudicate as a GM...

@AtoMaki

In re kuni purifier - if you're wrong, I'd say you find out by not being allowed to alter the die...

Note that the wording is very close to the later half of 3E's Gaze Into Shadow school ability; 3E didn't have errata for it.

An interesting note: 3e gave a free raise, while 5EB is giving swap a <Su><Str>, <Ex><Str>, or <Opp><Str> for <Su>, up to SR times, but the rest is the same. 4e gave +1k0, and on Jade spells a further free raise.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

In re kuni purifier - if you're wrong, I'd say you find out by not being allowed to alter the die...

Yes, that’s what I meant by this being a metagaming way of finding out that the target really is not tainted. But an interesting question is what level of “certainty” do you need to be able to ask for the technique to trigger? Suspicion is not knowledge, so there is a level of proof from which the Kuni should be intimately convinced that their target is tainted. But at this point, can they even be wrong? In what situation would we actually have to face this conundrum? If they see someone cut their veins open and summon kansen left and right, there is little room for error. If they only see scars and have circumstantial evidence at best, it could be argued they do not know enough, so the GM should not allow the tech to trigger... is there an in-between?

1 hour ago, Franwax said:

Yes, that’s what I meant by this being a metagaming way of finding out that the target really is not tainted. But an interesting question is what level of “certainty” do you need to be able to ask for the technique to trigger? Suspicion is not knowledge, so there is a level of proof from which the Kuni should be intimately convinced that their target is tainted. But at this point, can they even be wrong? In what situation would we actually have to face this conundrum? If they see someone cut their veins open and summon kansen left and right, there is little room for error. If they only see scars and have circumstantial evidence at best, it could be argued they do not know enough, so the GM should not allow the tech to trigger... is there an in-between?

I'd suggest that knowledge sufficient to use requires use of shuji or invocations... or visibly seeing the evidence of the taint.

Given that the best way to learn of someone's disads is to stress them out...

I'd also say that getting someone to reveal a disad sounds like a perfect social conflict goal.