A bundle helps for sure, but then you have to potentially convince others that the game is worth buying the extra dice for (sharing books is one thing, sharing dice for an entire party is another). Not saying it is an insurmountable challenge, just that it is a factor that goes into the decision, especially in a market place where there are plenty of options already.

You all dont just roll using a single set of dice?

6 hours ago, WHW said:

You all dont just roll using a single set of dice?

You can't roll the ones out if you share dice!

22 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

Except you can determine intent and then roll. You state your intention, and the GM can tell you how many successes and/or opportunities it will take on the roll to achieve this intent. Then you roll to see if you do, in fact, achieve it. I contend that it is even more engaging, as you have to describe HOW you go about achieving your intentions.

The key difference, as I have said before, is that it is no longer all or nothing. I will use an absurd example to get this point across.

Previously, if you wanted to jump across a chasm, and then raise so you can actually land it (rather than hit the far side and have to climb up). Had you then failed the roll by less than the raise value? You now fail the jump entirely, rather than still succeed and hit the far side and have to climb up.

When you do it like that, you have to retroactively change what your "intent" was, since you can no longer achieve it with the roll. And I'm all for "all or nothing" rolls, since that presents an actual risk of overextending. Especially when that open lots of design space for techniques that interact with such "all or nothing" rolls in various ways, like the Akodo Rank 5 in 4e or Bayushi Rank 5 in 3e (I think...).

There is also the simple solution of "fail-forwarding" in design philosophy that makes the need for special dice in your example null. When you narrate such a scene, the "all or nothing" shouldn't be "you land a perfect jump or freaking fall to your death". Instead, you fail the jump but crashes on the other side, taking damage or losing face or something. And if you look at this example, you can see that this gives you the exact same options as the narrative dice system would give you , without the need of special dice! With the bonus that it takes the "decision" from the dice and passes it to the hands of the player! You can CHOOSE to jump that chasm without trying anything fancy and without risk/reward, or you can CHOOSE to jump the chasm and try to land that jump perfectly on the other side, with the added risk of over-extension, but with a reward (getting ahead during a chase or competition, for example, or impressing observers).

Now, I understand that it was an "absurd example to get the point across", but I've seen something like this presented many times when talking about FFG's SW games as the exact way the narrative dice work, so take that as you will...

19 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

Please, I mean no offense intended but I find this constant refrain argument difficult to comprehend or sympathise with. I buy miniatures that can only be used for 40k, Blood Bowl, Xwing, Battletech, books that can only be used for D&D, Battletech, Werewolf, L5R, cards that can only be used for Magic, Rage, L5R, dice (namely d20s) that can only be used in d20 games (only 1 of my aforementioned games) but it is one set of custom dice for a game you can play over and over again that is the straw that breaks the camel's bank, the thing that breaks the bank? Not playing a game you may love because you need to buy a handful of new dice for it seems like cutting off your head and nose to spite your face.

Say the core book were to cost $50, a set of dice cost $10; you are saying no deal. What if the core book were to cost $60 and you could use your existing dice? Would you buy it then? I suspect people would.

Well, you buy all those stuff. I've never bought and never will buy any miniature games because I find their prices freaking ridiculous . Specially for me, living in Brazil. Even though I love Warhammer Fantasy and 40k, as well as Warmachines, I will never, ever buy those games and will satisfy myself with reading the lore on the internet or playing the RPGs (mostly my own conversions) or the videogames (specially when they are on sales on Steam and what-not...).

After a short time playing CCGs, I also dropped them hard when I started to see how ridiculously expensive they could be. The L5R rebirth as an LCG gave me new hope for a more economical format, but even then I'm still waiting to see if my friends are going to play it as well.

Also, for RPG books themselves, the price are exactly the reason why the GMs in my (and in other people's) groups especialize. I GM almost exclusively L5R, Iron Kingdoms (the old d20 version) and my own homebrewed setting. A friend is focused on Storytelling, Mistborn RPG and Star Wars (the SAGA edition). So none of us have to buy all the books. Also, we buy the cheaper PDF version of the books when available, in sales or bundles if possible. And, in the case of d20, we can find all the rules we need, for free, legally, on the multiple SRDs in the internet.

Also, do you have any idea on how expensive the dice are on my country? One set of Edge of the Empire dice here costs fifty five bucks . Let that sink in. Any set of dice that comes to my country is taxed as a gambling implement, the taxes can get unbelievable .

What I'm trying to say is: your argument is basically that you can't sympathize with people that have no money to throw away at luxuries. I mean, sure. Its your right to do so. But some of us can get a little pissed at being told that.

15 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

You buy a book, it's a new system, costs $40 bucks because it's an Indi or cheap artwork and print quality. Your group hate it, what do you do? Shrug your shoulders and move on to a new game!

I never, ever buy a book before I absolutely know for a fact that me and my group are going to spend at least the next few years using it. It is my understanding that plenty more people do the same. Make of that what you will.

8 hours ago, Mirumoto Seiichiro said:

What they could have done. Roll a number of d10's equal to ring+skill, 9's and 10's explode, for each X number of successes past the TN you get gives you 1 opportunity. If the action is in opposition of your Giri gain 2 strife, if in opposition of your Ninjo gain 1 strife. There all the mechanics in standard dice, and strife being determined on what you roll on any action regardless of what it is. (which is another wrong rub for me)

Very nice ideas there. 1s rolled, even if you don't keep them, could also increase Strife in certain situations or if rolled in high quantity as well. Another cool idea is to have only 10s explode, but you could willingly take Strife to force a 9 to explode as well, for example.

I mean, if you intend to keep Strife in your version of the game. I'm still debating this. I think it could bring more design space to the table, specially if Strife is used in place of the old Fear mechanics in and out combat as well, for example.

14 minutes ago, Mirumoto Saito said:

When you do it like that, you have to retroactively change what your "intent" was, since you can no longer achieve it with the roll. And I'm all for "all or nothing" rolls, since that presents an actual risk of overextending. Especially when that open lots of design space for techniques that interact with such "all or nothing" rolls in various ways, like the Akodo Rank 5 in 4e or Bayushi Rank 5 in 3e (I think...).

Your intent does not need to change. Only the results of your action change based on what you keep.

You attacked aggressively (Fire Stance) going for a killing blow (your intent). You fail to hit (get enough successes or choose not to keep successes for various reasons) but you managed to create an opening in their stance that you and others might be able to use to critically injure them (Opportunities spent on Striking with Fire).

7 hours ago, WHW said:

You all dont just roll using a single set of dice?

Not since that one time in Year 4, when only the DM remembered their dice, someone got mad and then threw the d20 down the drain after a critical fail ?

On 10/7/2017 at 8:06 PM, Alberick said:

Im a player and GM of L5R and hate this "beta".

Thank God you like 4e and can happily continue playing it.

On 10/11/2017 at 10:52 PM, Toku Askanidog said:

Not since that one time in Year 4, when only the DM remembered their dice, someone got mad and then threw the d20 down the drain after a critical fail ?

I...I would be scared to play with people who do that sort of things.

On 10/10/2017 at 10:11 PM, Jennkryst said:

I'm pretty sure Torg's take on ninjas is pulled directly from the L5R lore, unless we want to change how Shugenja work to a more real-world model.

Not likely. L5R 1E was 1996. Torg was 1991or 1992.

2 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

Not likely. L5R 1E was 1996. Torg was 1991or 1992.

I was actually talking about THIS Torg:

On 10/10/2017 at 8:09 AM, Torg Smith said:

First, ninja are honorless assassins. They are not honorable warriors.

Second, ok you don't like the dice.

Third, there is nothing stopping you from running a game of blood thirsty assassins going around killing for Koku.

... in reference to THIS post:

On 10/11/2017 at 1:06 AM, DarthDude said:

No, they weren't, historically most notable "ninjas" or rather shinobi, had been actually from the samurai class (stories of peasent shinobi have not or seldomly passed down, but they may have existed propably as well). They did spying for their lords and it they were indeed honorable nontheless.

Your take on ninjas comes from cheap animes and fantasy movies.

My understanding of ninja matches the description at the top of this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

It states a ninja (忍者) or shinobi (忍び,, "to sneak") was a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan. The functions of the ninja included espionage, sabotage, infiltration, assassination and guerrilla warfare.

I also understand that bushido considers these tactics dishonorable.