1 hour ago, Zarick said:

This is the most telling thing to me. You're pretty much explicitly defining "annoying rules" as things that disadvantage your character.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You're clearly not reading, and if you are, you definitely aren't comprehending. Good lord you're obnoxious.

Quote

Like, yes, absolutely, you can negate Strife if you try hard enough. But then that's all you'll be doing, isn't it?

Well, that and succeeding at the majority of your tasks. I think people who think like you do haven't really done the math on the other stances. Fire gets brought up all the time for its "extra successes" except it doesn't really account for the fact that, mechanically it only offers substantial successes (.66 per die roll) if you are rolling the D6 trait dice, and the opportunity cost of raising your Fire Trait over the defensive traits is pretty substantial given how much better combat results you will get from Air & Earth and how much better Strife management you get from Water. Fire is probably the weakest of the four, with no clear incentive for use aside from its impact on your Composure rating. It's definitely weaker for Bushi given how much better Opportunities convert for Striking as Air/Earth as they do for Striking as Fire. Fire will probably only be seen in characters who want to leverage Fire Invocations and Kihou, and that's not even guaranteed once the meta plays itself out. It may turn out that Fire Invocations aren't worth the time and XP. But we'll see.

Quote

I don't know why you haven't mentioned Void stance much,

I'm not at all surprised you don't know things. Fact is, I mentioned Void stance, but since it only blocks rolled Strife rather than removing accrued strife, mechanically it's not as strong as Water. If your character cannot avoid gaining Void in character creation, it's okay as an alternative. But in most practical cases, Water will be better.

Quote

If your game throws characters gimmes all the time that they can fail on purpose and there's no story or mechanical consequences, then it probably is a bad mechanic for you.

You're still arguing apples and oranges, but the only thing on the menu is chicken. The point is that the rule is stupid if it's so pointless characters are having to "game" it for failed rolls, and it's pointlessly aggravating if the characters can't fail at those rolls and just never get their Void Points back. Void Point Regeneration is overwhelmingly disliked on this forum. It's not just me. If you like it, you may want to reconsider what you might be missing in your understanding of the rules.

Quote

your example absolutely does sound like a fun minigame to me.

That's all you ever had to say, dudeski. If you like different styles of gaming from me, that's fine, but don't argue facts with me. Everything I laid out was a fact. Then I described why those facts don't equate to a well-designed game system in my opinion.

Stupid forum

3 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

TWell, that and succeeding at the majority of your tasks. I think people who think like you do haven't really done the math on the other stances. Fire gets brought up all the time for its "extra successes" except it doesn't really account for the fact that, mechanically it only offers substantial successes (.66 per die roll) if you are rolling the D6 trait dice, and the opportunity cost of raising your Fire Trait over the defensive traits is pretty substantial given how much better combat results you will get from Air & Earth and how much better Strife management you get from Water.

I'm not sure I understand this math. Doesn't Fire stance provide 0.5 extra success per D6 and 0.25 extra success per D12? And a ~43% increase in expected success per D12 (7/12 successes per D12 normally) seems like a quite substantial bonus to me. Much more than +1 TN for one attack each round for instance.

Fire Stance is triggered after you succeed on the check. It doesn't make you better at succeeding, only increases the extra Successes you will score.

@TheVeteranSergeant Thanks for sharing approximate arithmetic. I don't think it's fun (which is why I quit Netrunner ), so I'm unlikely to spot things like that.

A few questions:

1. Will people (at least, those who haven't read your text wall) bother to to water spam? When I saw the various ways to remove strife (and how to increase composure), I figured there was probably a way to optimize it, but that it wasn't worth my time, especially considering that outbursts a) aren't that bad, and b) actually reflect responses I've had when I/my character got frustrated in L5R. It's easy to assume other people think like we do--especially when we're obviously right about things--but that's often a false assumption.
2. What about strife from ninjo and giri?
3. What if fire stance and void stance were more attractive? Example: Fire could count strife as a normal success, instead of a bonus success.
4. What if Water shed only one strife instead of two?
5. And the easiest and most obvious question of all: what if water stance did something else? That solves your "I water again" problem. You could still get rid of strife with Water opportunity, but the stance wouldn't auto-shed. There'd probably have to be a new way to shed Strife, or maybe just buff passions.

As for what it could do instead... hmmmm, just spitballing... maybe "Choose a ring: adjust all checks of that ring that target you by +/- 1 TN?" Might be able to employ it to make opponents stance-dance, or to get extra benefit from allies.

P.S. Need an editor?

21 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

1. Will people (at least, those who haven't read your text wall) bother to to water spam?

Wrong question. The real question is "Will people bother to make Strife/Outburst a thing?" If nobody cares about Strife/Outburst, since it is so easy to ignore and make irrelevant, then the whole argument is rolling on the wrong foot.

@AtoMaki You raise a good/Interesting question, but doesn't make mine wrong

I'm inclined to use strife/outburst; to me, a good game has good rules about what's important to the game. A theme that I love from L5R is the emotional turmoil that occurs when duty, honor, and personal feelings pull in different directions. Whether strife/outburst is good depends on play experience. (Though I've got your beta test thread bookmarked, so I'll be sure to check out your experience of the system, if you reported on it)

If you'll indulge a little hyperbole: If a system can't mainline some sweet, sweet theme, I see little reason to play it when I've got GURPS and Fate

47 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Fire Stance is triggered after you succeed on the check. It doesn't make you better at succeeding, only increases the extra Successes you will score.

I never implied that it did. However, bonus success is very valuable. Am I wrong about the amount of bonus success fire stance provides?

Just now, Rawls said:

Am I wrong about the amount of bonus success fire stance provides?

A little, because one should obviously need to keep Successes to succeed and receive the extra Successes from Fire Stance. So you can't keep Opportunity+Strife results and rely on the extra Successes from Fire Stance+Strife to succeed on the check. The math should be pretty complex on this one.

9 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

@AtoMaki You raise a good/Interesting question, but doesn't make mine wrong

1

Well, wrong in a way that we might be putting the cart in front of the horse. If you know what I mean .

Just now, AtoMaki said:

A little, because one should obviously need to keep Successes to succeed and receive the extra Successes from Fire Stance. So you can't keep Opportunity+Strife results and rely on the extra Successes from Fire Stance+Strife to succeed on the check. The math should be pretty complex on this one.

This is only true if the base TN is high enough. Particularly at higher levels, this will no longer be the case. In any case, there's only one strife/opportunity face on a D6, and none on a D12. So in the worst case - when one needed every success one could get to make the base TN - it would lead to 66% increase in success per D6 (instead of 100%). The ~43% increase in success on a D12 would remain unchanged.

21 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

Ah, things tend to go the opposite way. Characters who kill Strife with Opportunities will fare better because they don't have to fear Outburst. They can tank more Success+Strife (or the even better Explosion+Strife) results without bothering too much while characters who wants to spend their Opportunities on cool and fun stuff will get hosed by Strife and even auto-lose in certain cases. One's ability to go around Strife will directly influence their dice economy because they can keep more boldly and disregard the consequences... at the cost of player strain and missing out the cool stuff. On the other hand, you can drink Strife and have Outbursts... at the cost of missing out the stuff that matters and thus player strain. It is a lose/lose situation either way.

I dunno, imho opportunities can be very powerful, much more so then negating strife. I've seen players drop successes to take opportunities. Of course, there's also the middle ground of minding your strife, but not avoiding it at all costs.

I suppose the main difference is viewing outbursts as roleplay opportunities which are in theme and not some form of punishment mechanic where the gm gets licence to be vicious.

2 minutes ago, Doji Namika said:

I dunno, imho opportunities can be very powerful, much more so then negating strife.

1

And this is one of the reasons I dislike Strife. I don't want to ponder over my results about what to do. I want to take my Opportunities and do all kinds of cool and fun stuff rather than burning Strife.

On 10/16/2017 at 0:10 PM, Zarick said:

TN 6, which is flat out impossible without Fire Stance's bonus successes or explosive dice

Note that those successes will only apply if you already passed without them; they only count as bonus successes in fire stance

18 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

If they need a Void point more than they need to pass the check associated with their Optimized Disadvantage Selection ™ they're just going to keep the non-success results (which will be roughly half the results rolled, statistically).

Correct. The trick for a decent GM will be in putting them in situations where they genuinely need to pass a test. A situation where they can just 'tag in' the bard for any social check, for example, is in my view a poorly set up intrigue because it should require some level of achievement from everyone.

18 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

The things they want their Void Points for use during the game doesn't have to be, and in practice will not be , associated with their Disadvantage selections.

Correct. But the disadvantages are what you're generating the void points from, not normally spending them on.

18 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Plus, there's a clear disconnect between things a character would want to succeed at, but the player using their meta-knowledge of Stupid System ™ has no real pressing need to succeed at.

A character, as a rule, would want to succeed at everything. A player, however, is...well, frankly also going to want to succeed at everything. Which is why normally, a player will either avoid a situation where they might have to roll on their bad stats or is going to try and tag in the party's "I do this skill" character. The trick with GM-ing well, to me, is to create a situation where everyone is required - not everyone need necessarily 'make a TN2 (culture) check', but everyone has an objective in a conflict scene. The point of disadvantages is essentially a reward mechanism such that when players have to make checks on stuff they know they're bad at, they get some sort of payback if they fail (which they're likely to, being bad at it).

How often those opportunities come up is largely under the GMs control, though, because the opportunity to make a check is story-driven.

18 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Strife is unimportant because it is easy to manage, and there's no penalty to using Water to manage it, and the statistical probabilities for an elevated Water Trait match those of other stances with lower traits, and you are going to have to use Water to manage it at some point so being better at Water is advantageous. After that run-on sentence, the question remains: "So what point are you trying to make?" It's not a "Which is it" because those aren't mutually exclusive scenarios. I "have" to use Water to manage it. If it's your highest trait, using Water on 33-50% (or more) of rolls has almost no downside unless all you do in your campaign is fight (whether with swords or words).

Now this one I'm not going to argue with. Personally, I'd rather have the scene-by-scene strife reduction be tied to Void, because it's the one stat which doesn't contribute to any derived stats (and getting rid of strife because you're all 'inner peace and stuff' makes sense to me).

However, outside of conflict you do not get to decide what ring you use for a check. You describe narratively what you're trying to do and the GM assigns it to a ring based on the approach descriptors. Being 'book-learned' about a subject is an Earth Check, for example, regardless of what your best stat is.

18 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

I have no reason to fault players who look at Strife and "Void Points Regeneration Through Disadvantages" and say to themselves "This is stupid, how can I make its stupid bother me the least?

By not accepting strife results and by essentially only playing with the single void point you get per session, taking the whole issue out of the equation...and by underperforming as a character as a result.

10 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Fire is probably the weakest of the four, with no clear incentive for use aside from its impact on your Composure rating. It's definitely weaker for Bushi given how much better Opportunities convert for Striking as Air/Earth as they do for Striking as Fire.

I'm not sure. The intrigue/social opportunities for fire are a bit more flexible - you do hand out strife but you can TN-reduce anyone's social check, not just yours.

The Mass Battle opportunities for Fire are pretty good, too. It's one of the only ways to hit a leader without a challenge action (good for commanders who don't want to fight blade-to-blade)

A character, as a rule, would want to succeed at everything. A player, however, is...well, frankly also going to want to succeed at everything.

I don't think you know enough players, lol. Heck, my most recent D&D character intentionally failed at things or hid all the time because it was funny and in character. If my Classic Crab Clan Bushi needs a Void Point back, and I can get one by showing Disdain for Compassion and not being swayed by a peasant's pleas for help, I'm going to happily fail that roll to get my Void Point. Hida Harold looks like a jerk, and that's fine. Nobody expects him to care about the mewling of weak lowlanders after a youth spent at the Wall. Then he goes along with Doji Doreen and Matsu Marvin anyway because it's his duty. Are you the GM going to ignore my character's Adversity? It's not my fault it's not actually creating an adverse situation for Hida Harold because he doesn't care about looking like a jerk.

By not accepting strife results and by essentially only playing with the single void point you get per session, taking the whole issue out of the equation...and by underperforming as a character as a result.

A questionable assertion at best, especially without any substantiating examples from gameplay.

And there are ways to get Void Points without having to Fall At Things That Matter. Like the example above. Besides, Hida Harold is just going to use Fire on the Assessment, break a lot of Initiative ties because he's kind of a jerk and low Honor wins, let Strife overtake him in combat, and then cast his Become Enraged buff, then get a Void Point for killing something. Yes, it's that silly.

The point of disadvantages is essentially a reward mechanism such that when players have to make checks on stuff they know they're bad at, they get some sort of payback if they fail (which they're likely to, being bad at it).

That's a terrible, stupid purpose for something, and offers no benefit to gameplay. It's a waste of time to reward players for failing at things we know they're going to fail at. Heck, you literally just said players are going to want to succeed at everything. Why are you trying to make your players sad, intentionally? (that's a joke) Disadvantages have, historically in better game systems, been ways for players to create interesting roleplaying challenges (or to cheese free XP at chargen). But the character is supposed to recognize their weakness and find ways to overcome it. Actual gameplay example of Disadvantages in 5E .

The trick with GM-ing well, to me, is to create a situation where everyone is required - not everyone need necessarily 'make a TN2 (culture) check', but everyone has an objective in a conflict scene.

The real trick to GMing well is recognizing when a game mechanic is pants-on-head stupid and unnecessary, and not using it in the first place. There's no need to figure out how to game around this mechanic. As an experienced GM, I'd never even introduce it into a game in the first place. I'd do what I did when I first read it. Say "That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen in an RPG and will add nothing to my story of the gaming sessions" and then quickly realize there's basically no noticeable effect on the game if it is completely ignored and a house-rule to make Void Point regeneration similar to the way it worked in 4E. Maybe regen 1 per rest period. Boom. Elite-Level GMing. I learned a long time ago the ability to get an RPG published isn't some mark of sacrosanctity as a writer. RPG rules writers fail all the time, and as a gamer, I'm not obligated to go down with their ship as a matter of honor. Even in a samurai game.

Seriously. Eliminate Void Point Regeneration Through Disadvantages from the game entirely. Now tell me what's been lost. Note: It's another rhetorical question. I'm not actually expecting you to tell me what's been lost. The answer is "Nothing." Maybe you keep the Adversities since they're kinda interesting and with Normal Void Regeneration suddenly it's an interesting narrative tool and no longer a Mechanical Game Chore.

Either way, everything about the Disadvantage system in this edition is a Hard Fail. Like, "Drunk belly flop into the water off the top deck of a boat fail."

I'm not sure you can eliminate 1/4 of the mechanics and not run into more problems later down the road. The NPC/Encounters are surely meant to play off of them as well.

Is all of this just speculation or does anyone have any experience in the mechanics success or failure?

1 hour ago, Silverfox13 said:

I'm not sure you can eliminate 1/4 of the mechanics and not run into more problems later down the road. The NPC/Encounters are surely meant to play off of them as well.

Is all of this just speculation or does anyone have any experience in the mechanics success or failure?

It's speculation, and simply not getting what more narrative driven games are about.

I mean, his 'Classic Hida' example he calls silly, but I would have no issues with as a gm. But I actually agree void regen should be more plentiful than just from disads coming into play, so there's that.

1 hour ago, Silverfox13 said:

I'm not sure you can eliminate 1/4 of the mechanics and not run into more problems later down the road.

We are doing this tomorrow. A session without Strife/Outburst.

GM's Withholding the TN really seems to be the intended most common method of gaining Void Points.

On 10/17/2017 at 0:24 PM, Silverfox13 said:

I'm not sure you can eliminate 1/4 of the mechanics and not run into more problems later down the road. The NPC/Encounters are surely meant to play off of them as well.

You can easily throw the Disadvantages out the window and use 4E's Void Point regeneration rules. This will have no effect on the game. You can keep the Disadvantages and use 4Es Void Point Regeneration Rules as well which will make Disadvantages less of a chore. Either way, the system as written is stupid and can be discarded at will, to the direct and immediate effect of improving everyone's overall gaming experience and saving a bunch of time.

You can't eliminate Strife and have it work. Too much of the game is hinged on the fixed probabilities of the Custom Dice mechanic, and removing it breaks three out of the five Stances. It still sucks. FFG needs to re-work it from the ground up.

Is all of this just speculation or does anyone have any experience in the mechanics success or failure?

Play these characters:

Asahina Ashley, Kakita Duelist

Air 3, Water 3, Fire 1, Earth 2, Void 1, Extra Disadvantage on Step 13, Martial Arts: Melee 2
Resilience 10, Composure 6

-or-

Kakita Karl, Kakita Duelist

Air 3, Water 2, Fire 2, Earth 2, Void 1, Extra Disadvantage on Step 13, Martial Arts: Melee 2
Resilience 8, Composure 8

Matsu Marvin, Akodo Commander

Earth 3, Water 3, Fire 2, Air 1, Void 1, Way of the Lion, Striking as Earth, Extra Disadvantage on Step 13, Martial Arts: Melee 2
Resilience 12, Composure 10

Come back, tell us which of those characters has any problem, ever, with Strife, and which do not.

simply not getting what more narrative driven games are about.

Oh, I get it.