Skill dice is what significantly reduce Strife rolled, more skill results in less rolled Strife. It's also a fairly high rate to encourage use of the Void Stance as well as benefiting Water Ring users

43 minutes ago, Talandar said:

This is less a mechanics issue and more a player issue. Almost any mechanic can be used in a way that will make the game unfun for the other players. In this scenario, it sounds like the Crab player is being a jerk and not taking the other players' feelings into play. If I was faced with this situation, I'd suggest a few alternatives to the Crab player which fit the spirit of what he wants to do. Maybe he smashes a piece of property or flips a table? Maybe he challenges the NPC to a duel immediately? The duel option speaks to me especially - the NPC (presumably a courtier?) can have a second duel for him, and you can have a duel and an intrigue going on at the same time.

Why do you think the player is at fault?
Did they not build their character right?
Are they not role playing their Crab Berserker correctly?
Why does the spirit of what the player intends to do have any bearing on a choice of Outbreak?
Why is enraged not in the spirit of a front line Crab Bushi character?
and lastly how do you ultimately tell the player that the choice they want to make, isn't available because you don't agree with it, and didn't want it int the first place?

1 hour ago, Richardbuxton said:

Tell the Crab player DBAD, enraged isn't the one and only choice they have for an Outburst. Exposing a Disadvantage or Objective would be far more fitting and enjoyable.

Wounds: a meta game (mini game) system of forcing a players actions based upon measuring undefined physical injury.

Strife: a meta game (mini game) system of forcing a players actions based upon measuring undefined emotional strain.

Both systems have consequences beyond the Players control, both can be gamed heavily. Why is one completely acceptable yet the other seen as game destroying?

So, the option here is to ignore the choice portion of the mechanic and tell the player they are bad?

Are there multiple options for a player to choose when their Wounds reduced to zero?
Do people think that wounds and strife are equivalent mechanics?

1 hour ago, Richardbuxton said:

Wounds: a meta game (mini game) system of forcing a players actions based upon measuring undefined physical injury.

2

At this point I would like to say that personally, I would do away with Wounds too and gun for a "Critical Damage or Bust" kind of system.

Quote

Skill dice is what significantly reduce Strife rolled, more skill results in less rolled Strife. It's also a fairly high rate to encourage use of the Void Stance as well as benefiting Water Ring users

Skill Dice have less Strife attached to them, but that's also "bad" for a Fire-oriented character, since their Stance rewards Strife results. It ends up with this wonky thing where most approaches incentivize skills (50% Success/50% Strife with only one non-Strife success face on D6 vs 58% Success/25% Strife on D12 with better die-face combos as well), but Fire incentivizes Trait because your Stance benefits from Strife results.

4K2 on any normal roll is 2.16 successes (plus .67 chance of explosive), 1.16 Strife associated with that success. However, that character has odds of 1.00 Success completely without Strife. (+.17 chance of explosive), meaning a 10% chance of succeeding at TN2 without absorbing any Strife at all.

4k2 for a Fire Stance is 3.67 successes (same chance of explosive) but 2.00 of that is directly from Traits, meaning the Fire character will average a 1:1 exchange on Trait Dice for success. Of course, tradeoff is they're going to be taking more than 1.5 Strife per roll since they are incentivized to take Strife (Strife+Opportunity is more attractive than simple Success on the D6, for example). If he was 4k3 instead, he's suddenly rolling 3.83 successes on average.

I just realized this means Matsu Askikyu (or Hida Hityu) with his beginner stats of Tactics 2 Water 3 is going to be going first in the Skirmish, and soaking up that sweet, sweet Strife so he can cast his Become Enraged buff after switching to Turtle as Earth technique, shrugging 4+ damage in his armor (3+ in his traveling clothes) with Resilience 12, mostly unable to be critted and rolling 5k3 for Fitness even if he is, while rolling 5k3 to attack since he is Earth 3, Melee 2. And if he's in Full On War Mode, he's probably hitting you with his Giant Hitty Thing which is at +2 Deadliness once he enrages. Then, outside of Skirmish, he can just laugh at your Strife as he rolls k3 Water checks (with their 1.3 Opportunity results per 4k3 stripping 2-4 Strife per check) against his Composure of 10 since he is Fire 2. Matsu/Hida Bushi: Paragon of calm and control. Unless he totes wants to murder you. The silly part is, that's not even a min/maxed character. Aside from taking Earth/Water for your Step 4 trait as needed, and the skill point at Step 13 in exchange for an Adversity you probably don't care about (or specifically wanted), it's just how those characters come off the Twenty Questions Assembly Line.

Quote

Wounds: a meta game (mini game) system of forcing a players actions based upon measuring undefined physical injury.

Strife: a meta game (mini game) system of forcing a players actions based upon measuring undefined emotional strain.

Both systems have consequences beyond the Players control, both can be gamed heavily. Why is one completely acceptable yet the other seen as game destroying?

Because combat mechanics are expected in a roleplaying game? Even desired? All 12 RPG systems ever made where nobody fights, I'm sure didn't see any need for combat mechanics. But jokes aside, how do you "game" the Wound mechanic? At least in any way comparable to the way Strife is easily gamed in this system? Void Stance: Don't Accumulate Strife. Comparable mechanic for preventing Wounds: ... Water Stance: Reduce Strife. Comparable mechanic for reducing Wounds: ... Water Opportunities: Reduce Strife. Comparable mechanic for Wounds: ... I mean, I guess you could suggest Earth Stance is kinda doing a sorta "Void Lite" effect of reducing damage, and Striking as Earth does as well, but once you have the Wounds, it's not like there's a Stance every character can do to just heal. Combat and Wounds aren't a "minigame" in any way, shape or form, because they require a second set of mechanics (Medicine Skill, Rest, Magic, etc) to resolve. Strife (with a handful of exceptions ) occurs entirely within one mechanic (Skill/Trait checks). Hence a "minigame."

3 hours ago, jmoschner said:

It isn’t voluntary. In my group‘s experience the dice did not give them any option to avoid strife on most rolls.

For example on a r4k3 more often than not 2 of those dice had strife.

THen you probably need to look at the difficulties being set, and the way the players are approaching them.

I had a player who choose to fail rather than take the strife... in half a session of play, strife was avoided often, in exchange for taking minimal success and more advantage.

Succeed-or-die is not a good case to put players in. Failure should always remain an option when going to the dice.

Also - Are you remembering to drop Water strife at end of scene?

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

THen you probably need to look at the difficulties being set, and the way the players are approaching them.

I had a player who choose to fail rather than take the strife... in half a session of play, strife was avoided often, in exchange for taking minimal success and more advantage.

Succeed-or-die is not a good case to put players in. Failure should always remain an option when going to the dice.

Also - Are you remembering to drop Water strife at end of scene?

I wasn't the GM, was playing and taking notes. Most rolls were TN1 or TN2. A few things were TN3. The only real "succeed-or-die" was combat. Note I never said that outbursts were an issue, just that strife in its current form is a bit of a failure.

We all were choosing to fail when we could (and it would be in character or fitting the story to do so) and removing Water Ring of strife at the end of each scene. I also made sure to use/abuse my animal bond advantage to remove strife, and using the few opportunities that presented themselves when we could. There comes a point where as a player you just get sick of having to fail rolls or game the system because of poor design. Strife becomes this thing that is constantly coming and going creating more bookwork, distracting from the story, and making the experience less enjoyable.

The mechanic doesn't really do what it should. The mechanic made gameplay less fun for us. The way the mechanic plays out with the dice it undermines the moments where getting strife should matter.

Okay, guys, stay with me, I'm back to the "fixing" part.

So I was thinking about a lot of stuff, including combat and derived attributes. First and foremost, I write this with my Tension idea in mind with an addition that Composure is gone for good, and Tension must exceed a Threshold Rating set up for each scene individually (it is normally 10). Secondly, I'm thinking about turning combat into an action point system because I have some very good experiences with that.

This leads me to derived attributes. I would cut all of them (well, except Void Points, but it isn't really a derived attribute), and replace them with the following:

Mushin ((Air+Fire)/2): The character's ability to act with instinct and intuition, and without thought or emotion. Mushin allows the character to jump into action with speed and certainty and thus mostly come up when determining Initiative in combat and the number of action points the character has. Certain techniques aiming at disrupting the character may also target the character's Mushin.

Zanshin ((Air+Water)/2): The character's "relaxed alertness", passive perception, environmental awareness, and vigilance. Zanshin is the character's defense when another tries to trick him or employ any kind of deception, stealth, or subterfuge - these things all target the character's Zanshin.

Shoshin ((Earth+Fire)/2): The character's attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject or encountering new possibilities. Shoshin helps to deal with Tension as it increases the scene's Threshold Rating, powers many techniques and sets the TN for other characters when they want to challenge the character's skill and knowledge in a competitive environment (like when using the Games Skill).

Gaman ((Earth+Water)/2): The character's ability of self-control and restraint, to endure with fortitude and dignity, and to shrug off physical, mental, and even spiritual harm and carry on. Gaman is the character's defense against all forms of damage and any actions or techniques that aim at hurting the character.

Giri ((Status+Glory)/2): The extension of the character's servitude and social integrity. Giri represents the character's duty, responsibilities, overall standing in the social order, as well as any and all assets these things offer to him. Most of the time, Giri is a defense against being controlled or being barred to fulfill one's duty. It is also used to acquire support (material, political, or even supernatural) to accomplish said duty.

Ninjo ((Honor+Insight)/2): The character's contentment with one's own life and achievements, emotional and moral integrity, and the ability to retain composure and general wellbeing. Ninjo is the character's first line of defense against (emotional) manipulation. It also allows the character to go around certain situations where personal misgivings would hinder one's success.

This setup is mostly intended to work with Social Skills so that the TNs would be more straightforward and there would be more narrative options to work out Social Skill checks (in relation of what one would target with the check). There would be also more hard numbers to play around with Giri and Ninjo.

I'm still working on this tho, so more ideas will certainly come later.

14 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

Why do you think the player is at fault?

I'm not sure 'at fault' is the right way to phrase it, but run through the exact same situation again in a different gaming system, 40k RPG:

• The party are a trio of Slaaneshi Apostates with a metric shed-load of social skills and a Khornate Renegade laden with chain weaponry
• A scene includes a large amount of fellowship tests.
• The outcome of this scene is very important to at least one other player.
• The Khornate player keeps screwing up social skill tests due to a lousy felowship score and limited social skills.
• The player choses to get angry, frenzy as an action and take one of the NPC's heads off with a chain-hammer (yes, that's a thing).
• This will end any social interaction and and cause the NPCs to either fight the PCs or flee.
• The other players do not want this to happen.
• The khornate refuses to try another option.

If your choice of actions for your character is going to massively inconvenience the other players in your group, then whilst I'm not a fan of GM fiat, this is definitely the point I'd be turning into Chris Tarrant: " Are you sure? Really sure? Final answer ?" before resolving it.

You might say "oh, but this isn't equivalent; the strife mechanism forced me to do so"

1. You chose to field a character with a low composure (fair enough, it's a result of getting the ring ranks you actually wanted)
2. Given that, you also chose to keep rolled dice showing strife results without being in void stance.
3. You didn't make [enough] effort to remove that strife, which is available in any stance at a cost of 2 opportunities (to be fair, since opportunities and techniques to remove strife from allies exist, your other allies didn't help enough either).
4. You insisted that the only outburst acceptable was become enraged when other options were available (inappropriate remark, for example, or shut down) when the other players have said 'please don't do that'.

Even given (1), (2), (3), and above all (4) were entirely within the control of the PC at the time and are not the 'fault' of the strife/outburst mechanic existing.

14 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

Why does the spirit of what the player intends to do have any bearing on a choice of Outbreak?

Because an outburst is a slip of emotional control. Exactly what feelings are being bottled up (fear, irritation, disdain) is going to be dependent on circumstances, and will therefore shape what form the slip takes when it occurs.

13 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

So, the option here is to ignore the choice portion of the mechanic and tell the player they are bad?

No. It is and remains their choice. Just as it would be if, on meeting a key contact in the opening scene of an adventure, you ask a player "what does your character do?" and they respond "I decapitate him" .

If they insist that's their character's choice, ultimately you need to accept this. But the other players in the group are not unjustified in being a little irritated with it.

Two things, who thought it was a good idea to bring a berserker to a social sit down, and why was he involved in the conversation?

Both of those were player choices. The drama could have still been a great scene however. The crab could have started getting agitated and another player could have attempted to calm him and use that in the social situation. "Please excuse my Crab friend. He is short on patience. Perhaps it would be best for all of us to reach an accord."

Failing that, the crab could have easily lipped off and then stormed out saying he had no patience for such matters and put the ball into the NPCs court to deal with.

What transpired was a player choosing to gain strife and pick a fight. It wasn't a fault with the system. That player would likely do much the same thing without the strife mechanic, but in this case, shifted blame to the mechanic for disruption.

4 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I'm not sure 'at fault' is the right way to phrase it, but run through the exact same situation again in a different gaming system, 40k RPG:

• The party are a trio of Slaaneshi Apostates with a metric shed-load of social skills and a Khornate Renegade laden with chain weaponry
• A scene includes a large amount of fellowship tests.
• The outcome of this scene is very important to at least one other player.
• The Khornate player keeps screwing up social skill tests due to a lousy felowship score and limited social skills.
• The player choses to get angry, frenzy as an action and take one of the NPC's heads off with a chain-hammer (yes, that's a thing).
• This will end any social interaction and and cause the NPCs to either fight the PCs or flee.
• The other players do not want this to happen.
• The khornate refuses to try another option.

If your choice of actions for your character is going to massively inconvenience the other players in your group, then whilst I'm not a fan of GM fiat, this is definitely the point I'd be turning into Chris Tarrant: " Are you sure? Really sure? Final answer ?" before resolving it.

You might say "oh, but this isn't equivalent; the strife mechanism forced me to do so"

1. You chose to field a character with a low composure (fair enough, it's a result of getting the ring ranks you actually wanted)
2. Given that, you also chose to keep rolled dice showing strife results without being in void stance.
3. You didn't make [enough] effort to remove that strife, which is available in any stance at a cost of 2 opportunities (to be fair, since opportunities and techniques to remove strife from allies exist, your other allies didn't help enough either).
4. You insisted that the only outburst acceptable was become enraged when other options were available (inappropriate remark, for example, or shut down) when the other players have said 'please don't do that'.

Even given (1), (2), (3), and above all (4) were entirely within the control of the PC at the time and are not the 'fault' of the strife/outburst mechanic existing.

Because an outburst is a slip of emotional control. Exactly what feelings are being bottled up (fear, irritation, disdain) is going to be dependent on circumstances, and will therefore shape what form the slip takes when it occurs.

No. It is and remains their choice. Just as it would be if, on meeting a key contact in the opening scene of an adventure, you ask a player "what does your character do?" and they respond "I decapitate him" .

If they insist that's their character's choice, ultimately you need to accept this. But the other players in the group are not unjustified in being a little irritated with it.

Just playing devil's advocate here:

The player made the character exactly how he wanted to.
The player is playing the character exactly how they want to play them, and lets be honest, exactly in the spirit of a Crab Clan berserker.
If your argument is that they didn't pad their Strife threshold, then wouldn't that seem like a choice taken away from every player?
Will this lead to every character being forced to take make decisions for their character they don't want?

I think it may be an unfair assumption that the player wouldn't make attempts to stop from being "strifed". Maybe the payer had bad rolls, but causing characters strife isn't a hard thing to do and can have little to no bearing on what the player choose to keep during his own rolls.
I understands that that there are mechanisms in place to prevent outbursts, but if the players have the ability to stop any character from going over their wound threshold all the time then the mechanic has a completely different problem, because a mechanic that never actually does anything is just book keeping overhead.

I did describe the scenario that the player would only accept the enraged outburst. The player doesn't feel like they deserve to be forced into a different outburst. The player may feel it wouldn't be in character, or that they didn't want to take a hit to Honor or Glory, or maybe they have a chaotic personality (and let's be honest, every GM has players like this).

Let's say, for the sake of preventing a continuous circular argument, that the player is amicable to changing the outburst this time. A second situation arises and it is nearly the same thing, an intrigue that cause the same player an outburst. Do you continually make the player change his desired outburst? How often do you have to do this? When does the player finally get to frustrated to play?

To the other reply, the character is in court, or any other game scene because he is at the table. Do other GM's players frequently sit out of scenes because their character's aren't optimal for them? Mine would rather go home and play a video game before sitting more than hour watching other people play the game.

Um yes. I would let the social characters speak while I stand guard or go gather information or just a out anything else.

On 10/17/2017 at 0:37 PM, Silverfox13 said:

Let me pose a scenario and a question and see what responses you can provide:

You have a player that doesn't care about the stats that would increase their strife threshold,
The player has decided to play a Crab Berserker.
An Intrigue takes place and includes the other 3 players at your table.
The outcome of this Intrigue is very important to at least one other player.
The NPCs engage the group and social skills start being resolved.
The Crab player takes enough strife from sources in the conflict to cause an outburst.
The Crab player choose enrage as the outburst choice and proceeds to fight an NPC that was part of the Intrigue.
The fight will end the Intrigue and cause the NPCs to either fight the PCs or flee.
The other players do not want this to happen.
The Crab player will not take another outburst.

How do you resolve this issue at any given point in the scenario?

I wouldn't Sounds fun.

But really, I don't have enough information to decide. I'd also need to know:

• Will a particular outcome ruin the game for any player?
• Is there a pattern of such high stakes inter- player conflict, such that everyone's enjoyment of the game is perpetually at risk?

If either of those is "yes", the group might need an interpersonal/social solution, rather than a mechanical one. RPGs aren't babysitters

2 hours ago, SideshowLucifer said:

Um yes. I would let the social characters speak while I stand guard or go gather information or just a out anything else.

I mean, if I'm Matsu Marvin or Hida Harold and my job is to stand in the back and look intimidating, I probably have Water 3 just based on how those two Clan/Family/Schools stat out. Nobody is going to be able to provoke me with the Strife system anyway. My job is only to stand there and look scary, so I will "defend" with Water every time as I ignore their provocations. You'd have to throw some kind of ridiculously high ranking opponent at me to cause me to have an Outburst. At Rank 1, I have Composure 10 and I'm going to strip a minimum of 2 strife on every check, and average 4 with Opportunities. And since I'm probably not even engaging in the conversation, it's not like I can be "beaten."

And there's nothing the GM can even do about it, because I'm actually roleplaying my character perfectly. On top of that, it's a gross breech of etiquette for a diplomat to suddenly start talking directly to the yojimbo, and since I'm not trying to "win" in a contested roll, all I have to do is stand there and ignore him. Heck, even if I took "Intolerance of (That Clan)" they're probably not going to be able to crack Matsu Marvin, even though I'm technically taking 3 strife per check. You'd better hope that Intrigue lasts 10+ rounds., and meanwhile everyone in the court is wondering why you keep talking to the Lion Statue at the back of the room.

That right there tells you why Strife is inferior to the old Honor Test-style mechanics. I can fail one die roll. I cannot fail all of them, especially in a system that has fixed probabilities.

On 10/17/2017 at 6:46 AM, jmoschner said:

After some play throughs, the approach to strife really needs to change. They need to remove strife from the dice (and adjust the dice a bit) and make it something you voluntarily take on to gain opportunity or success. Then adjust it so it is harder to remove outside of downtime. This way those advantages that help you remove strife become a little more useful.

This also helps the situations where players acquire strife outside of rolling fell like they have more weight. Players were frequently generating as much strife on common rolls (that shouldn't even be stressful) as what they would get for going against their ninjō or giri.

This sounds pretty workable. Assuming strife makes it in to the final version, I really hope that strife from ninjo, girl, and anxieties are what matter most. Personally, I'd still like to see it on Ring dice, to avoid the 4e trait dice problem.

Any thoughts on what--if anything--might determine a take-strife-for-success cap? Or the exchange rate?

Sorta sounds like some "succeed at cost" mechanics, like Fate.

17 hours ago, jmoschner said:

We all were choosing to fail when we could (and it would be in character or fitting the story to do so) and removing Water Ring of strife at the end of each scene.

In general, what were you rolling? Seems like this edition is trying solve the trait-dice problem from 4e, and it appears strife is part of that; when comparing one ring die to one skill die, the skill die will show a success slightly more often, but it rolls strife at half the rate.

6 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

[. . .] as a non-speaking participant, I can stand there in Void Stance and just think about puppies and nothingness.

Can we get this on a mug?

Sure, though I actually realized I was wrong on that one. I added it as an afterthought, then realized I'd left it out on purpose the first time. Void only protects me from my own rolls. They could use Fire Opportunities to inflict Strife on me. So, back to Water Stance it is.

The forum wants me to post twice it seems.

48 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Sure, though I actually realized I was wrong on that one. I added it as an afterthought, then realized I'd left it out on purpose the first time. Void only protects me from my own rolls. They could use Fire Opportunities to inflict Strife on me. So, back to Water Stance it is.

And void still lets you use water (or earth) opportunities - it depends whether your own rolls or your opponents are going to be the bigger source of strife, I guess.

5 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

I did describe the scenario that the player would only accept the enraged outburst. The player doesn't feel like they deserve to be forced into a different outburst.

Which is the main issue. Whatever the in character or out of character motivation, the player is reacting to failing a social challenge by selecting the option 'I decapitate him'.

There are plenty of things he could do that would let him continue to cobtribute If he didn't want an honour or glory hit, Shut Down could be him getting "angry quiet" and glaring whilst the others keep talking - he can still support, even if not attack or scheme.

Outburst don't mandate what you do, just that you do something and that something be behaviour-changing. There is nothing wrong with becone enraged and the intrigue escalating to a duel, but if the other players don't want this to happen (presumably because they feel they can still 'win' the intrigue), the argument is between them and him, just as it would be in the first case if one party member wanted to talk and the other just wanted to kill them.

And yes, I agree - even Yojimbo Looming McIntimidate should have a social objective in an intrigue. It may be less epic than the courtiers but it should be there and not just makework. Undermining the other guy's bodyguards by out-looming them, as a simple example.

1 hour ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

You'd have to throw some kind of ridiculously high ranking opponent at me to cause me to have an Outburst. At Rank 1, I have Composure 10 and I'm going to strip a minimum of 2 strife on every check, and average 4 with Opportunities. And since I'm probably not even engaging in the conversation, it's not like I can be "beaten."

And there's nothing the GM can even do about it, because I'm actually roleplaying my character perfectly. On top of that, it's a gross breech of etiquette for a diplomat to suddenly start talking directly to the yojimbo, and since I'm not trying to "win" in a contested roll, all I have to do is stand there and ignore him. Heck, even if I took "Intolerance of (That Clan)" they're probably not going to be able to crack Matsu Marvin, even though I'm technically taking 3 strife per check. You'd better hope that Intrigue lasts 10+ rounds., and meanwhile everyone in the court is wondering why you keep talking to the Lion Statue at the back of the room.

They don't necessarily have to be talking to you to get an emotional reaction out of you, though.

Agreed that a water-stance bodyguard who doesnt plan to do much but assist actions isn't at too much risk. The nastiest provoker I can see (without going to high level stuff) is the ikoma bard - provoke [fire], a fire opportunity and heart of the lion can realistically dump enough strife to be concerning, but they are essential dedicated intrigue trolls, so they should be able to...

3 hours ago, SideshowLucifer said:

Um yes. I would let the social characters speak while I stand guard or go gather information or just a out anything else.

Then this comes down to personal choices of each GM/Player.
Perhaps they are actually guarding, maybe they are a yojimbo.
Why would a guard not be an acceptable target for an Intrigue action?

Wouldn't having them leave add additional burden to the GM?
Not saying it can't be done, but do most GMs wants to have to design every encounter with an exception for a character because they aren't optimal for the situation?
Isn't the idea that the Strife Mechanic is supposed to bring out these type of situations?
Is sending them away contrary to the concept?

Anyways I think I am actually digressing myself away from the original point.
It seems that most the replies I am seeing consist of groups that contain both GM and players that are capable of using work-arounds to prevent the situation I described from ever happening.
I have dissimilar experiences, like the strife mechanic, some of my players are prone to having real life outbursts themselves :).

You only get strife for rolling or if another character gives it to you. In the case of guarding, don't roll dice. If an opponent tries to rile you with strife, then that's part of the drama and how the system is supposed to work.

I probably should have posted this set of thoughts in this thread, but I've been losing track of what's being said where. :-P

Gosh... This reminded me that you can witness your whole family being eaten by an oni and walk away completely unfazed...

I blame Kinzen for this !

1 hour ago, sidescroller said:

Any thoughts on what--if anything--might determine a take-strife-for-success cap? Or the exchange rate?

Probably 2-3 strife per resource and using composure/the threshold to trigger an outburst as a cap on amount of strife can get. that would limit it to basically 2-3 successes or opportunities per scene. Just enough to give that extra boost without being overpowering.

1 hour ago, sidescroller said:

In general, what were you rolling? Seems like this edition is trying solve the trait-dice problem from 4e, and it appears strife is part of that; when comparing one ring die to one skill die, the skill die will show a success slightly more often, but it rolls strife at half the rate.

We rolled a bit of everything. I was rolling a good amount of water, but opportunities were sparse. Skills of rank 2 led to less strife on the dice. While there are a lot of ways to minimize and remove strife it becomes an exercise in tedium. Math wise we were able to wipe out strife fairly easy, but it was just not fun to manage another resource. It became more of a distraction than a way to help the game along.

Combats were the points where strife was building the most, and ironically the points where an outburst has the least negative impact (outside of a duel) and we found it was possible to game the system to get the outburst buffs at just the right time. This made it feel more like building up a power up bar in video game than the emotional build up it should be.

Void and Fire should be the two rings dealing with strife I think. I can't imagine a reason for Air or Water to have anything to do with strife. Earth of course should determine your resistance.

On 10/15/2017 at 5:03 PM, AK_Aramis said:

The rane bands are, as described in the book on p 166:

0 : Touch
1: Sword 1-2 m
2: Spear 3-4 m
3: Throw 5-10 m
4: Bow: 12-100m
5: "Volley" 100m to "several hundred"
6: Sight "several Hundred" to "several kilometers"

Curvature of earth limits horizon to 4.7, but a 30m tower to 12km...

A practical example...

5 PC's . Nara, Kanzi, Hanzi, and Hanako are at range 1 to each other, line across behind ichiro, a meter ahead. So, all range 1 from each other.

Other side, at 500m a group of bakemono of mixed armament. Some stay put (1/3 the reserve) , at range 6, some close 1 band to range 5 (1/3 - the archers), some close 2 bands (the "bushi), and Ichrō runs forward 2, as well. Ichiro is now range 3 from his firends, range 100 - 300 from the reserves, range 12-100m from the bakemono archers, and range 1 from the bakemono bushi. Did he move 10m? 100m? 400m?

Another example:
4 bushi: Anako & Kono vs Chin, and Hana. each pair are whispering to each other at very close range - band zero.
Hana and Chin are at one side of the village commons. ANako and Kono the other side. About 120m apart.
• Hana closes 2 bands, drawing her Katana. She's now 2 bands away from Chin, her yojinbo, some 3-4 m... but has crossed 100m to get to range 3 of Anako & Kono.
• Kono then closes two to cut down her rival... SHe's now range 1 from Hana, and can strike. She's range 3 from Chin, some 5-10m, and range 2 from her lover Anako, some 4m... but Anako and Chin are still 120m apart... as neither has moved from range 5 from the other.
• Anako drops her pack and moves 1 band in. now, 1-2 m from Kono, 3-4 from Hana, but only 1-2m from where she dropped her pack, and between 12 and 100m from Chin (band 4)...

I think you are using assumptions that fit your narrative that are not in the rules.

On 10/15/2017 at 5:37 PM, AtoMaki said:

Uhm... drama? How so?

As someone who has played the game, I can confirm that Strife is a minor annoyance at the very best, a meager disruption at the very worst. I dunno if it actually has any connection to roleplaying other than triggering Outburst (Draaaamaa) and maybe forcing some character interactions on the mechanical level (removing Strife from each other or transferring Strife then burning it away).

Easily.

You turned Strife Tension into a Group mechanic. Stephanie(who loves herself some Draaamaa) is ALWAYS escalating which is incredibly easy for the Draaamaa to unfold since she plays with TVS who makes toons based only on combat.

On 10/16/2017 at 8:49 AM, SideshowLucifer said:

I've found the opposite. Strife drives the current system at it's very core.

So have I.