So, a story system (as described by FFG) became a book-keeping (have to remember which outburst you already used that scene, how much strife and so on...) and mechanical system (how to manipulate results so disadvantages became advantages) ? Sound like a fail to me.

1 hour ago, okuma said:

became a book-keeping (have to remember which outburst you already used that scene, how much strife and so on...)

I think we have very different definitions of book-keeping if you think this is even the remotest bit taxing

You can only Outburst once per scene, so there is not much bookeeping about that. Strife is pretty much a number that goes up and down, and I would suggest using glass beads to track it, just like you would track Wounds.

In general I've found that if we use beads to track strife and wounds, there is very little actual bookkeping - shugenja is especially happy with spell slots being gone, and because action economy is fixed to one per turn, there is also that.

The fact that numbers go up instead of going down make token-tracking the strife/wound tracks very easy for me, even if it includes multiple NPC minions or adversaries - something that usually was my weak point without using an app to track it.

15 minutes ago, WHW said:

Strife is pretty much a number that goes up and down

And it goes up and down a lot .

Which is why I suggest beads. They are pretty invisible, as you don't even need to announce "I'm adding 2 strife", or "I'm removing two strife", you just move them physically and continue narrating and roleplaying without breaks.

@WHW I've been thinking of the token route, also, with some color coded homemade stuff. Maybe alcohol ink painting. Or a dial. Can't quite figure out what flavor of crafty I'm feeling.

@WHW @sidescroller there are some really cool tokens being made for the LCG on Etsy. Not sure if you're playing the card game but if you look around you could probably find some really apt ones.

On 10/16/2017 at 0:57 AM, Bazakahuna said:

By just removing the skills from the approaches and presenting them in relation to their Ring (as below) I think you get a much more intuitive inspiration for the construction of dice pools.

Air: Refine, Feint, Trick, Analyze, Con

Earth: Restore, Withstand, Reason, Recall, Produce

Fire: Invent, Overwhelm, Incite, Theorize, Innovate

Water: Adapt, Shift, Charm, Survey, Exchange

Void: Attune, Sacrifice, Enlighten, Sense, Subsist

I really strongly dislike this kind of change. I think skill groups should be changed to approach groups. Using the given process for rolling dice, I like that the skill groups narrow which approaches you need to look at down from 25 to 5. Listing the approaches without their groups makes them confusing. I have to look at 25 options instead of 5.

The system works well as written, people just need to actually follow the rules instead of trying to jump ahead or assume they know what they mean.

4 hours ago, DarkIxion said:

The system works well as written, people just need to actually follow the rules instead of trying to jump ahead or assume they know what they mean.

I love it when people who likes some particular rule for some reason start accusing everybody who doesn't like the same thing as just "not understanding it" or "not doing it correctly". Or of being ignorant. Specially considering that some of the people who don't like the rules are playtesters since the alpha .

It is always awesome.

Also, your statement of "the system work as written" is factually wrong since A. this is a beta, and B. FFG already announced changes to the system .

4 minutes ago, Mirumoto Saito said:

I love it when people who likes some particular rule for some reason start accusing everybody who doesn't like the same thing as just "not understanding it" or "not doing it correctly". Or of being ignorant. Specially considering that some of the people who don't like the rules are playtesters since the alpha .

It is always awesome.

Also, your statement of "the system work as written" is factually wrong since A. this is a beta, and B. FFG already announced changes to the system .

Just because something is being changed does not mean it didn’t work*. The beta testers ruined all the best features in Only War, which is why I’m here to try and stop it from happening again. Maybe my feedback will encourage someone to refine the ideas they have instead of trying to please people who are not on board with the vision they have for this game.

How long someone has been saying something or doing something has absolutely zero to do with how correct they are. So how long you or anyone else has been doing something is strictly irrelevant.

What am I supposed to think? I’ve tried it. It works. I’ve watched people complain about it in the same breath as they proved they didn’t understand it. One example I saw (Podcast of the Five Rings) was using seafaring to fix a ship. “None of these trade approaches seem to make sense.” Well, I know they didn’t read the skill since it specifically tells you which approach is used for fixing a ship. I also know they didn’t use the system put in place for making rolls, since they would have selected the Artisan skillgroup which has a very clear approach for fixing/repairing.

I watched someone complain about the rules when they clearly did not use or reference them. I’ve seen it elsewhere as well. I’ve seen people say things like, “Void will be the only ring you will be likely to use with Survival because its the subsist approach, and that is what survival is all about.” Yeah, again I know they didn’t read the book, because the examples do not bear this out. This same person had no idea that horsemanship was under the umbrella of survival. I’ve also seen people who think sneaking is a part of skullduggery. It’s ignorant. It’s not me casting stones, it’s them being ignorant.

* Take Fate Core. It’s a game that works. So why would they put out Fate Accelerate or the Toolkit if it already worked? Changes are not an indication of anything wrong with the original. The changed version is not always better than the original.

6 minutes ago, DarkIxion said:

It’s not me casting stones, it’s them being ignorant.

Of course the problem is not you ! Of course! Obviously the others are the real ignorant ones, those plebeians!

To be fair, a lot of people here try to use rules without either fully understanding them, or without reading them. Probably most common example would be trying to "do" NPCs using PC rules instead of using their own specific subsystem.

EDIT

And to make it clear - I'm far shot from being 100% accepting and rose shaded glasses about this game. My email conversation with beta team is like 15 emails long ATM. And most of it is a critique, a constructive one, I hope. Lots of balance issues feedback, a few design choice challenges, and then some straight rule bugs like infinite loops and toxic opportunity uses. Since the release of beta, I've been taking this game apart, gming it, and playing it. I just don't post these things here, because...there is no point. I already put them into email.

Just now, Mirumoto Saito said:

Of course the problem is not you ! Of course! Obviously the others are the real ignorant ones, those plebeians!

Yes. Also I realize you are poking fun. There is nothing inherently wrong about being ignorant until you profess beliefs or ideas that are harmful based on said ignorance. Hence why I’m saying something. I believe the proposed change would be harmful to the game because it would make players evaluate 25 possible choices instead of five. The current system requires two decision to be made. Both ask you to choose one out of five options (once to determine skill group, once to determine approach/ring). I think that process is more intuitive and quick playing than choosing from 25 approaches.

Further, I think listing approaches by ring will make players try to ‘shop’ their rings instead of coming up with the correct way to accomplish a task at hand. Even subtly, I don’t want to bake in anything that would promote powergaming if I can avoid it. I want people to have an easy time playing their characters, not an easy time playing their high ring at the expense of their character.

6 hours ago, DarkIxion said:

I really strongly dislike this kind of change. I think skill groups should be changed to approach groups. Using the given process for rolling dice, I like that the skill groups narrow which approaches you need to look at down from 25 to 5. Listing the approaches without their groups makes them confusing. I have to look at 25 options instead of 5.

The system works well as written, people just need to actually follow the rules instead of trying to jump ahead or assume they know what they mean.

The listed approaches are not always clear fits to the situation. For example, a scholar attempting to persuade someone with evidence in writing. That's really Reason, not Recall. Or if it is Recall, then it's recall with an advantage from the writing... but that's not intuitive, either. Nor is the preacher Theorizing when doing Theology (Fire) to work the frenzy up... he's Inciting.

The rules already say you can cross the groups; it would be more sensible to simply eliminate the group restriction.

28 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

The listed approaches are not always clear fits to the situation. For example, a scholar attempting to persuade someone with evidence in writing. That's really Reason, not Recall. Or if it is Recall, then it's recall with an advantage from the writing... but that's not intuitive, either. Nor is the preacher Theorizing when doing Theology (Fire) to work the frenzy up... he's Inciting.

The rules already say you can cross the groups; it would be more sensible to simply eliminate the group restriction.

Perfect example. You are my exhibit A. The first step in resolving an action is to pick a skill group, not to pick the skill group of the skill you intend to you. Your goal is to persuade, that means you should be using social approaches. If your writing is indeed trying to make a logical appeal, than reason would be the correct approach. You might have used the scholar skill groups approaches to recall the knowledge you need. You might than use the reason approach (earth ring) along side the law skill to convince someone that the law demands they do X.

There is no group restriction. Follow the steps and stop trying to color inside lines that don’t exist. Incidentally, this is why I am in favor of changing the name of skill groups to approach groups. Other than for advancement, the groups matter because they determine which approaches you should use.

I could very well see a kind of intrigue where you are trying to collect rhetorical points by researching and writing to people. You could even fit in some artisan approaches in there. Refine your work, adapt quotes from Leadership or the Tao. Maybe do it as a kind of race where everyone has X number of downtime actions and at the end the person who meets at least X number of points and also has the highest convinces the lord to adopt their stance (the minimum being there because you have to be convincing, the highest being there to be more convincing than others who are also petitioning).