First, let me say I'm not a fanboy of this system. The system need tons of work before I would think of buying it. But this constant hate is not getting us anywhere. I started this Topic as a way for us to identify the problems with the system and suggest fixes that FFG could use to make the game better.

Strife: I have never been a fan of forced mechanic in an RPG. This to me takes away the freedom of the player to play their character as they see fit.

Fix: I would use some form of Honor roll to counter this mechanic. That way if a player wants or thinks the outburst is appropriate they can just let it happen or if the what to fight the urge they can roll Honor.

Character creation: The current Mechanic for Character creation are OK, but have some issues.

1. The Starting ring values are to low.

Fix: I would increases the Rings to 2 at start.

2. Characters have limited variation in the creation system. The only options one really has is the Advantages/Disadvantages they choose. and with those being limited you'r going to get a lot of clones.

Fix: Add some starting xp to the game so players can customize their Characters.

Critical strikes to weak: The current system seems to make Critical strikes weak. this has the added disadvantages of making duel seem pointless.

Fix: Critical strikes should have the same bonus damage as the strike that landed them.

There are more but need to head to class.

Strife is something I disagree on, but it's likely an agree to disagree situation.

Character creation: It seems to me that they start alright - you have a good chance of succeeding on something you focus on up to TN3. Part of this will just be getting used to lower numbers.

I absolutely agree on adding XP to characters, or at least giving more choices - I've made a few characters and have been seriously wanting more skills.

I haven't dug far enough to say anything on critical strikes.

+1 for extra skills. Despite the low number of skills, some may be needed for a concept or some may be mandatory for abilities while being "optional" during creation.

(like Iuchi meishodo needing design to craft talisman, and design being one of five skills available but you can just pick three).

+1 More Skills or broader skill choices.

Im coming around to the idea of starting with 1's. It requires the GM to start out with a mindset that a TN of 1 is normal. Most checks should be TN1 or TN2 for more of a challenge. Combat is the exception there, with a potential for high TN's I think Combat could be a problem, I really need to get a chance to play!

Edit:

more emphasis should be put on the Seize The Moment use of Void points (p21). Rolling an extra die is big but also keeping an extra is massive. Characters should be gaining and spending Void points regularly.

As with Talandar I disagree with you on Strife; a very subjective issue however so you aren't wrong. I understand and admire that they are trying to build the alien and antagonistic nature of bushido into the system and I think it is important to highlight just how proscriptive and nigh on impossible it's tenants are to people. I do think that perhaps Outburst could be a tiered thing, various levels of strife create various effects with Outburst being the worst. I have yet to play the game, so I am unsure how frequently Outbursts may occur, I just fear they will be too frequent with current Composure levels.

I don't really have an issue with low starting rings, I feel you can achieve the results you need as a starting character. Only play-testing will prove whether derived stats are set at the right sort of levels, and as these are dependent on rings, increasing rings may throw the system out (unless you want derived tests to use some really funky maths).

The reason I think rings are fine is that I agree with you on increased customisation in chargen. I would like to see skills a little higher perhaps to start with (not a huge amount), or at least offer more variety. Having a R/K system when you are rolling 4k3 doesn't really feel like a R/K system as you're simply dropping a dice.

I must say however with these last two points, I am general not too adverse to starting with low abilities as it provides more room for expansion. Indeed many of the these problems won't be a problem after a few months of play. Starting with a few more skill points and perhaps lowering XP or increasing costs would be something I'd be interested in, but this is easily done within the confines of a playgroup as XP is a pretty flexible quantity.

On skills: At rank 1 you are considered beginner or amateur level, at rank 2 you are still considered an apprentice. I have difficulty imagining characters of the sort of skill levels this suggests in a started pc having more than extremely minor duties. A PC will have between 6 and 12 skill ranks after character creation (8-10 would probably be average for non-magical character), your average peasant npc has 9 and an ashigaru has 15. Lore wise I'd want to give characters about another 4-5 ranks to put in skills (most of which would go into putting skills to level 2 so probably about 15 xp at the low end) to represent an inexperienced but still proficient samurai.

The other thing is a large number of things people would expect to do in an RPG aren't easily covered by the existing skills <cough>investigation</cough>

3 hours ago, Norgrath said:

The other thing is a large number of things people would expect to do in an RPG aren't easily covered by the existing skills <cough>investigation</cough>

The investigation sidebar(cant recall the page, but the kitsuki have a reference to it) is a must read as it tells you that every skill is an investigation skill, no more super sherlock by having one skill, but you can now do investigations into your areas of expertise. In short investigation is no longer a skill but a mode of use for every skill. However this is rather unorthedox so i can see why some might feel investigation is missing/not covered.

The kitsuki then has the school tech of being considered school rank in skill rank when using a skill for investigation.

Things I feel the game needs:

1) either more skills variety OR make it explicit that the biggest area of customization is going to be techniques and make sure there are A TON more to choose from.

2) more "choose between these options" during character creation.

3) more schools (but those are coming so... eh.)

4) making subskills into emphasis. I can have aesthetics-> ikebana, and that lets me reroll any one die, or ignore a single point of strife, or some other minor bonus

5 hours ago, Chilitoke said:

The investigation sidebar(cant recall the page, but the kitsuki have a reference to it) is a must read as it tells you that every skill is an investigation skill, no more super sherlock by having one skill, but you can now do investigations into your areas of expertise. In short investigation is no longer a skill but a mode of use for every skill. However this is rather unorthedox so i can see why some might feel investigation is missing/not covered.

The kitsuki then has the school tech of being considered school rank in skill rank when using a skill for investigation.

I've read the investigation sidebar, it's not good, you need only read the complaints about A Ronin's Path to see that it doesn't actually work that well.

1 hour ago, Norgrath said:

I've read the investigation sidebar, it's not good, you need only read the complaints about A Ronin's Path to see that it doesn't actually work that well.

Although let's be honest the problem more lies in the adventure and less in the system. The Investigation serves no purpose, has no benefit to the pc's, and is incredibly simple which most players will fail to predict.

Most players will go into that scene expecting to find some major clue for the story.

I understand and admire that they are trying to build the alien and antagonistic nature of bushido into the system and I think it is important to highlight just how proscriptive and nigh on impossible it's tenants are to people.

I think I'd be better with this if the in-game effects of it were better thought out. It's not really demonstrating any realistic depiction of bushido to those of us from alien Western cultures. It's just turning it into a semi-silly metagame within the game. Players don't learn anything about bushido by playing characters who are often arbitrarily assigned "Strife" points that cause them to do inexplicable things from time to time. If Strife was a mechanic that was applied solely by deliberate provocations or actually difficult situations, or ideally, through slow accumulation of long-term psychological pressure, it would probably be less despised by some people. As it is, it's not a roleplaying aid, because occasionally choosing sub-optimal outcomes in one situation to gain mechanical benefits in other situations isn't roleplaying. That's just meta-gaming in a different manner. And if it's not a roleplaying aid, and it's just a metagame, then it should at least be fun, no? So, as written, Strife is neither a good mechanic, nor is it a fun roleplaying aspect. It actually just does both things poorly.

So my problem with Strife isn't that it "takes roleplaying away from the players." It's that it isn't roleplaying at all; just a minigame disguised as roleplaying. And that's not an auto-fail. Other games have done this kind of mechanic well. Call of Cthulhu's famous Insanity rules, for example. But the way it works is very simple, straightforward, and logical. My character learns about ominous, reality-bending things that defy reason, and my character goes a little crazy as a result. With Strife, my character just kinda... gets agitated, sometimes for no reason. It's like my complaints with ninjo and giri. They aren't "samurai things" because they're not set up in the game as being tied into any of the difficulties a samurai faces. Ninjo and giri, the way they are written, are no less dramatic than when I choose to go to work instead of staying home and surfing all day. I've been to two meetings thus far and it's sunny outside. Not feeling a whole lot of internal struggle, and I do this five times a week, every week. Strife point accumulations often fairly meaningless and trivial, and *way* too often, they are arbitrary.

Basically, for Strife to be a worthwhile addition to the game, it needs a massive overhaul. But, then again, the Anxieties need a massive overhaul. Ninjo and giri need a massive overhaul. These are all basically just half-thought-out concepts in the game the way the rules are written. The Anxieties need better wording to make them less drastic and clearer mechanical effects. Ninjo and giri need to have rules that don't just put arbitrary pressure on the GM to do even more work than he/she is already doing (really, a random wheel tracker for sessions? Has whoever came up with that idea actually ever written a campaign, module, or GMed a roleplaying game?). Strife shouldn't be a dice-face result. At all. Especially in a system where dice choices are selectable (RnK) and Strife is actually paired with success as opposed to failure. These are supposed to be samurai, trained from childhood. It's not unreasonable to expect they can do basic samurai things on a day to day basis without occasionally losing their bearing for no reason. Contested social encounters should produce Strife, especially when facing adversity or being "defeated." Perhaps frustration or adversity in Skirmishes. Pressures of competing tenets of bushido ("Do I do what's best for the Clan, or follow the orders of my Lord unquestioningly?" A classic samurai dilemma). The problem with Strife is that it treats Strife as the kind of day to day "struggle" you'd see on some television comedy where characters sip coffee and talk about how hard their first world problems are and how they snapped at the cashier at Starbucks. Or, conversely (and worsely, even though it's not a word and I just wanted it to rhyme), shrieks with delight because something good happens. Only with swords and yelling in court. Which would be fine if the characters aren't supposed to be samurai, who we expect to be a little more disciplined than the girl in the sitcom with the annoying boss. Imagine a show that's not a comedy where the lawyer randomly whoops in the courtroom. Jerry Maguire, Esquire. Believable when it's Jonah Hill wearing a tie one size too small with his cheap suit. Not really what you're looking for in a samurai game.

If a samurai game is going to depict the internal struggle of samurai, it needs to be done with more depth and long-term effects. Short-term losses of composure were perfectly well-represented in the social mechanics of 4E (or plenty of other games) by having contested rolls for deliberate provocations, or rolls players made when faced with extremely difficult challenges. The current mechanics are pretty much a jumbled mess.

I completely disagree about strife. I think it's elegant in how it's done. It's like emotional wounds to composure. It pretty much is the glue that holds this entire system together.

It finally allows a system where courtiers can shine and also allows the bushi to struggle that doesn't completely rely on role-playing.

If anything, I feel it's the shining gem of this edition.

The first big thing they need to do is reformat the playtest book. Instead of constantly referencing things all across the book, thus forcing readers to bounce around, they should repeat information as needed so each section is easier to understand.

They should add more examples in the book for instance in the section for making checks, all the steps of making a check should have an in-game example. I’d expand the example scenario presented for advantages and disadvantages through all the steps, essentially walking the players through the process.

With many of the issues, it is hard to tell if they stem from poor design, poor communication, or a combination of both.

A couple of thoughts off the cuff.

1. It seems people want this to be like the AEG L5R. If you like that system, go play it. I like the new dice and I like the options it brings. To me the more choice players have from dice outcome the better.

2. It feels starting rings/skills are too small but again AEG L5R started pretty weak also.

3. Strife. I know it is a contested issue. I for one really like. It makes player stretch their roleplaying abilities and it is also makes choosing to keep strife an issue. I like the fact that samurai will eventually fly off the handle. If one reads the old L5R fiction, this happens all the time. To me strife is a perfect roleplaying opportunity and also can lead to great sub-plots. I personally love the strife rules. It injects some risk and loss of control which if played right would and should be awesome to the gaming experience. If a PC gives into strife then that opens a whole new wrinkle to the plot: 'did they cut down an innocent', ' did the strife lead to insulting a magistrate', 'does the player need to atone for the breach'

4. I agree more more schools are needed (but that is coming). I also agree a character generation example is needed.

5. I like the building into the character honor, a drive and other personal aspects. In the AEG L5R the characters felt very generic with a veneer of samurai feel.

6. I think the system may need some simple 'hand waving' rules for when you don't want to roleplay or roll play out a complete situation. Maybe that can be done with a simple Ring plus skill test...

5 hours ago, SideshowLucifer said:

I completely disagree about strife. I think it's elegant in how it's done. It's like emotional wounds to composure. It pretty much is the glue that holds this entire system together.

It finally allows a system where courtiers can shine and also allows the bushi to struggle that doesn't completely rely on role-playing.

If anything, I feel it's the shining gem of this edition.

I agree, the Dice themselves and the Strife/Composure/Outburst concepts are wonderful gems, polish and refinement will just take them further.

The Ring system with choosing Ring/Skill Group/Skill/Approach has a lot of potential. Unfortunately it's such an alien concept to players that requires a completely different approach to playing a character. If the players can't recognise that and attempt to disconnect from their old ways then the system will be unplayable. It's also a concept so rarely used in games that the industry hasn't refined it in the same way as standard characteristics.

My suggestion there would be to simplify the skill chapter:

-Give a broad description to each Ring for how it applies to a skill group, but do away with the individual skill aspect descriptions.

-Have a single table for each skill group showing ways to spend Opportunity.

-Descriptors of skills should be broad, players should be Intuitively able to see what approach they are taking to a skill by their description of their intent, and there should be crossover. Sometimes Water and Air will share similarities, other times Fire and Air.

-The increased/decreased TN should be because of the specific situation and not fixed in stone. A GM should feel like they can award an easier TN because of an excellent/Cool description of how the Ring and Skill are being applied to the situation. Obviously Conflict scenes will have fixed difficulty for the Techniques, but general checks should be fluid.

I like that idea a whole lot. Those descriptions would be better under each skill.

Regarding character creation, I personally would like if there would be Dojo added to the list to get a little more customisation in there. And maybe change the heritage table into the ancestor system that 3rd edition had (or something similar).

I think overall the biggest problem is lay-out, writing and not enough examples. It really is so much more simpler than the text makes it out to be.

The system does work, but seeing issues like 'outbursts = tableflips take away my agency', or groups having 30 minute discussions about approaches and ring choice and having no idea what to do with opportunities indicate that dedicating some word-count towards that would be worth it.

So it happens that I'm also not a big fan of the Strife/Outburst mechanic. Partially because I think it is toxic, and partially because I feel like it is quite easy to ignore (together, my final opinion is that Strife/Outburst is everything that is wrong with the Beta).

I'm thinking about how to fix it. My first draft was making it a sort of forced resource a player can spend on positive/negative results. I realized that this is too close to Opportunity, so ditched the idea. My second draft dawned on me today, and it would work like this:

• Strife is renamed to Tension. It represents the overall situation becoming more... well... tense. It isn't necessary the character, but someone or something is hitting nerves when he/she/it shouldn't. The stakes are rising, people's patience is running out, the plot chickens, the works.
• Tension is not tracked individually for each character. Once a Tension result is kept, the GM adds a Tension token to the whole scene in general.
• Once the number of Tension tokens go above the lowest Composure in the scene, the situation Escalates. In a Conflict, this means real escalation (Intrigue to Duel, Duel to Skirmish, Skirmish to Mass Battle). In a non-Conflict, this means a similar turn of events - things are getting more interesting, for the better or worse. Note that Escalation is not necessarily bad, in fact, some characters might want to hit Escalation and roll with the wave - while others might want to do otherwise, creating a back-and-forth game.
• Once the Escalation is in, as a general rule of thumb, whoever kept the Tension that triggered the Escalation will be in the middle of the shift, while whoever had the lowest Composure will cause it. However, either character can choose to have an Outburst instead of an Escalation. So the character will tank the situation change, eat a bullet for the team, and do something really stupid, nullifying all Tension tokens on the spot and preventing the Escalation. The character with the lowest Composure chooses first.
• Once the Escalation happens, the Tension tokens are nullified and the whole process begins anew.
• Optionally, Composure may be renamed to Discipline (I like this name better), and there may be an option for the GM to determine a Composure for the scene itself as a sort of countdown-until-escalation.

Example 1: A Bayushi Courtier riles up a Doji noblewoman. Over the course of the Intrigue, both sides keep enough Tension to trigger Escalation thankfully to a result kept by the Bayushi overcoming the Doji's lower Composure. The situation escalates: the Doji had enough, she is now visibly angry, her On is falling apart, and her Kakita cousin challenges the Bayushi to a duel to save her honor. The Doji obviously wants to see the Bayushi put on the sword, so she passes, reasserting some self-control with a smug smile. The Bayushi wants to live, so the player decides for an Outburst - the character snaps under the threat and goes on a lengthy tirade about the Doji being untouchable only because of their Kakita duelists, and how unfair is that... the court laughs at him and he suddenly finds himself politically negated by his own emotional upsurge.

Example 2: A Moto Bushi tries to infiltrate a castle to kill a merchant. His sneakiness is not very sneaky tho, and he just barely avoid the guards while making minimal progress. The player decides for a wager: since the scene already has quite a few Tension tokens because of previous rolls (including rolls made by the GM for the guards to spot the character), he deliberately keeps two Tensions in his next roll to go over his character's Composure and trigger the Escalation. He is both the cause and the subject of the change: maybe his previous fumbling made the guards nervous, and they are expanding their patrol, offering him an opening; maybe the guards alerted the merchant's bodyguard instead. Either way, the scene shifts, and our Moto can rethink his plan with the change in mind.

Overall I really like the Tension idea. It is also then a 'group' thing not a character by character thing. The cool thing about that is it will increase player interaction and discussion and also finger pointing when a player keeps adding tension to the situation. The other thought is that there could be 'Composure' for specific events (being noticed, spirit response, monks becoming angry, etc) that the group will try to together remain below or together suffer some outcome. To me roleplaying is about the group and this idea does this.

Good thinking!

If you plan to go this route I would change it to average Composure or some kind of pool.

1. Add all PC Composure to the pool. larger groups will gain it faster because of the number of rolls, but opponents will be less likely to want to escalate the issues do to their size.

2. Or to get the escalated feel you could have levels, 1: 1/4, 2: 1/2, etc. so you can more closely control the rising tension.

I like strife.

I hate the range band mechanics; the issue isn't range bands per se, but that they're logarithmic distances but 1 range band is 1 movement, and it's possible for characters to be at different distances and thus both making 2 band moves, one is moving 4m, the other 100m...

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

I like strife.

I hate the range band mechanics; the issue isn't range bands per se, but that they're logarithmic distances but 1 range band is 1 movement, and it's possible for characters to be at different distances and thus both making 2 band moves, one is moving 4m, the other 100m...

I don't think this is accurate:

Each character is able to adjust their position on the battlefield slightly
each turn, either at the beginning of their turn or at the end of their turn.
When a character sets their stance (at the start of their turn), they may
move up to two range bands. At the end of their turn, if a character has
not moved already during their turn, the character may move up to one
range band.

This means that they can move from range band 0 up to range band 2, or 0 - 5 meters or 0 - 2 meters if they do it at the end of the turn. I believe the wording may need to be looked into. They use the terminology "Range Band" either incorrectly or it has multiple meanings and isn't well defined when to use each.

The best way to explain the problem is this:

Imagine a situation where your character is in the midst of a Skirmish. One NPC Bandit with Katana drawn stands in the middle of the road blocking your path, range 3. A second Bandit is off the side of the road having just emerged from hiding behind a tree, at range 5 from you.

You can choose to move to Range 1 of one character and Range 3 of the other. In the first instance you carefully close with your opponent attempting to avoid being hit by an opportunistic strike, 10m of movement. But in the other instance you move a couple of hundred meters in the same time... what!

I completely accept that getting close to a foe or moving away takes time and effort if you don't want to get hit, but that 4-5 Range band is just too big.

On 10/13/2017 at 6:05 PM, Richardbuxton said:

The best way to explain the problem is this:

Imagine a situation where your character is in the midst of a Skirmish. One NPC Bandit with Katana drawn stands in the middle of the road blocking your path, range 3. A second Bandit is off the side of the road having just emerged from hiding behind a tree, at range 5 from you.

You can choose to move to Range 1 of one character and Range 3 of the other. In the first instance you carefully close with your opponent attempting to avoid being hit by an opportunistic strike, 10m of movement. But in the other instance you move a couple of hundred meters in the same time... what!

I completely accept that getting close to a foe or moving away takes time and effort if you don't want to get hit, but that 4-5 Range band is just too big.

A round is as long as it needs to be. Each character and each round will take a different amount of time. There’s no need to assume that moving 2 range and 4 range happens in the same amount of real time. It only takes place during the same amount of fictional, meta time.

I like Ike to think of each characters action as a “shot” in a movie. Some characters shots last longer than others.

That said I don’t like range bands.