Page 163 says that in case of ties the initiave should be determined by lowest honor taking priority. I can understand where such an idea might come from, like that ruthlessness allows characters to act faster, but I think that is not a good approach for this setting, since looking at teh supreme military force in Rokugan the Lion and their high honor, one should realise that honor is not really a factor, since the Lion have usually so clear vissions that they also do not hesitate to do the right thing.

So, here my suggestion, instead of making the tie-breaker about honor, how about looking first at the strife, since the emotional state might could also be a good indicator of how eager one might be to act. And thus making a roll instead of reducing strife is even more tempting for characters that want to get stuff done! The game has the new mechanic, so why not use it?

I like the sound of that. One wild theory I have, now that you bring it up, is maybe they didn't want it to be too similar to duels and the staredown. But if you made it so the one with more strife goes first, it gives another instance for characters to strike that balance between taking strife and "risking" an outburst.

12 minutes ago, Daitora said:

I like the sound of that. One wild theory I have, now that you bring it up, is maybe they didn't want it to be too similar to duels and the staredown. But if you made it so the one with more strife goes first, it gives another instance for characters to strike that balance between taking strife and "risking" an outburst.

Well, as you note, that's pretty much how duels work, with the Staredown essentially letting you trade strife for initiative, and the strife-heavy fire approach 'conflict opportunity' being an increase in initiative. I don't mind the system being consistant.

• on a related note; if I spend opportunity to increase initiative with a fire ring opportunity, is the initiative increase permanent for the skirmish? Nothing I can see says it isn't...
• one other observation; if you set the initiative 'tiebreak' as lowest strife, it would be worthwhile specifying a third tiebreaker; having strife 0 at the start of a skirmish scene will be fairly common, even if strife piles up quickly once the fight starts.

"You complete the task with more haste and vigor than others anticipate. In a conflict, at the beginning of the next round, increase your initiative by 1 per  spent this way."

Maybe some clarification is necessary in the final product, but I think you are correct. I was hoping to get other people's ideas on that subject from this post the other day:

Maybe for the sake of consistency, they could consider adding the bid aspect of the staredown to the start of skirmishes, at least where you aren't surprised. If you want to go first, bid your strife, and potentially risk an outburst.

Lore-wise, I like the sound of that as it relates to "berserker" types, and the Matsu specifically. They could intentionally provoke themselves to the enraged condition, risking it all to go first in battle.

Balance-wise, I have no idea how it would play out. Still, seems an idea worth exploring.

1 hour ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Well, as you note, that's pretty much how duels work, with the Staredown essentially letting you trade strife for initiative, and the strife-heavy fire approach 'conflict opportunity' being an increase in initiative. I don't mind the system being consistant.

More stream-lining is a good thing in my opinion, maybe all the different initiative systems should follow the same tie-breaker approach.