6 hours ago, WHW said:

I don't like that acronym because it implies a certain continuation of previous 4th editions in spirit and mechanics. This game is as much of a 5th edition as FFG Star Wars is "second edition" of SAGA EDITION.

Saga was the 6th game edition of a star wars game.

WEG had 3 (1, 2, 2 R&E - which, mechanically, is different enough from 2 to be instantly recognizable by the character sheet contents)

D20 had 2

SAGA was closely related to the 2 d20 editions mechanically.

All 7 "editions" share some common staff members.

Now, for comparison, only two editions of Traveller (of some 9-12) even use the same to hit mechanics... unless you count the errata applied "Mk 1 Mod 2" reprint of TNE to be a second TNE edition. CT 1E and CT 2E differ in a lot of little ways - often, ships give it away - if the J rating is higher than the P rating, it's 1E...

Gamma World used 4 different rulesets across 6 editions.

Changing rules mechanics is the axiomatic reason for a new edition.

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

Meanwhile - back at the discussion of opportunities:

11 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

In a traditional RPG, that's just bad GMing if they tossed an enemy at you you couldn't defeat, but defeating it was necessary to the story and/or impossible to retreat from. It's like the lost temple in D&D5E's Out of the Abyss that throws low level characters in a campaign with very few magic items into an area with weapon-immune enemies and wild magic surges. It's like "Hope you find that magic sword at the bottom of the temple after you've already woken up all five of the damage-immune undead." The time my friends played through it, the only thing that saved the party was the GM fudging the spectres' immunities and an accidentally summoned unicorn. That's just bad module-writing, lol.

I mean, if that's what the GM had in mind was "Let the players invent a way to beat this" then it works for your group, and to be fair, I'm not crapping on how you guys have fun because I don't care, only critiquing the idea that it's the way the rules were intended. But for a lot of groups that isn't going to fly. As a GM, I don't want to write a campaign where I can't predict challenge levels for a scene because the players will just blow all of them up with Opportunities. It's not because I'm grumpy. It's because I'm putting a lot of work into running the game, and you the player only shows up once a week and Toon Town Rokugan is a waste of my time, and we can play a board game instead.

Agreed. Creating a deliberately unwinnable situation is generally bad GM-ing (unless the players knew this going in and wanted to try anyway).

But "the alternative was a TPK" is a throwaway quote to which we don't know the context - which could be anything including "we done goofed and should never have fought it but it's too late to retreat now" , "we could theoretically have beaten it but it wasn't garuanteed because a fair challenge isn't and we were just plain losing" , or even "it should have been a pushover but after the first couple of rounds we were irretrievably on the back foot because the dice gods hate us" .

More to the point, opportunity 'add details'are not there for nuking any challenge with auto-win buttons. Going 'I could try and climb this slick and windswept cliff if [opportunity result] - oh! My! A staircase with safety rails!' is just playing Toons (which is a fun RPG but not at all serious). Spotting a crack running up the cliff which might provide better handholds (making the check easier but still requiring it), on the other hand, doesn't seem unreasonable.

The key word is ' at the GM's discretion ' saying ' no, you cannot bypass this story-centric task with a single rolled opportunity ' is perfectly fair. But being able to tilt the challenge unexpectedly - that's often where the players I GM for have the most fun, as do I - those moments where both the villain (in character) and the GM (out of character) go "wait...what?". I do spend a lot of time planning a game but frankly I've never yet got them to stay on a planned track, so it's more a case of a rough narrative map and a moving sandbox surrounding their current location...

Autokilling a squad of minions or completely bypassing a challenge completely would be a no-no, because that's moving beyond 'detail', 'mundane object' or 'small preparatory action'. 'magic-ing' an improvised weapon out of a kitchen environment, or finding an object that might let you drop the TN by a tick, or let someone 'swap' a skill for a check (securing a rope 'from your pack' as a labour check rather than someone else climbing as fitness check, for example), is not unreasonable.

2 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

While I don´t think 4th edition is all peachy and not even a remotely good RPG system it had some thinsg that I prefer.
So lets list these things

- lack of school advancement tables
- better school techniques for Doji, Bayushi, Shiba
- a better overconfident disadvantage
- a clean character creation
- starting xp
that are some thing I liked and think 5th ed is missing out on.

2 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

First let me start off by saying, I in no way this 4th is perfect or peachy keen as you put it.

But I do feel that this beta has a long way to go to reach the "it has some issues status" of 4th.

List

1. An advancement mechanic that does not punish you for going outside the mold

2. More diverse school abilities

3. Void the embodiment of centering ones self is not gained by over coming a missing finger for one roll, but by sleep or meditation.

4. more free-form Character creation with starting xp.

5. Deadlier combat system that captures the danger of drawing your sword.

6. dueling system that works.

7. more intuitive casting system with each clan having a element that they favor and are not as good at.

Overall a cleaner system as of this point. Again it has its issues but nothing like what this beta has at this point.

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

1. An advancement mechanic that does not punish you for going outside the mold

2. More diverse school abilities

[snip 3, 4, 5 & 6; plenty of threads on those already)

7. more intuitive casting system with each clan having a element that they favor and are not as good at.

1. Doesn't that kind of make sense though? Clan characters are members of schools with long traditions, and instructors who are keepers of those traditions. From a lore perspective, it's not punishment; to advance in the school, you've got to satisfy your instructors. From a mechanical perspective, it's ... maybe kind of sort of punishment? In every game, there are optimal and sub-optimal choices--and how optimal they are (or not) very much depends on the sort of game you're playing. It's only punishment if your GM presents situations that require a particular sort of optimization. Personally, my approach to GMing is to throw interesting challenges at players that are appropriate for their characters, however they're built (though if they go picking bigger fights....). Pluuuuuuus you can get more than enough XP just from advancing rings to hit Rank 6. It just might take longer than other players if you want to take non-advancement skills along the way.
2. The beta has been pretty clear that the techniques list isn't complete. I bet we'll see more in the final publication, just maybe not in the beta.
3. 7: Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo a mold?

EDIT: Silly me! Mistook "school abilities" for techniques when it was actually and obviously school abilities. Whoops.

24 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

1. Doesn't that kind of make sense though? Clan characters are members of schools with long traditions, and instructors who are keepers of those traditions. From a lore perspective, it's not punishment; to advance in the school, you've got to satisfy your instructors. From a mechanical perspective, it's ... maybe kind of sort of punishment? In every game, there are optimal and sub-optimal choices--and how optimal they are (or not) very much depends on the sort of game you're playing. It's only punishment if your GM presents situations that require a particular sort of optimization. Personally, my approach to GMing is to throw interesting challenges at players that are appropriate for their characters, however they're built (though if they go picking bigger fights....). Pluuuuuuus you can get more than enough XP just from advancing rings to hit Rank 6. It just might take longer than other players if you want to take non-advancement skills along the way.

This depends on you point of view. Samurai were scholars and nobles, as well as warriors. But the system as presented offers advancement only to specific schools for these activities. The issues is that there are a lot of mechanics that use your school rank, and if you diversify you lose out on rank advancement until you comply. Let me ask you if you are running a Clan/Imperial magistrate group would you not what you players to gain investigation skills to successes in their missions. with this system that is discouraged due to not everyone gain advancement credit for these choices. So in my view the game is telling you how to advance your character and if you don't agree for roleplaying or practical reason to bad.

24 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

1. The beta has been pretty clear that the techniques list isn't complete. I bet we'll see more in the final publication, just maybe not in the beta.

So they are testing an incomplete system. That's a disaster waiting to happen. if the schools are incomplete as presented than there can not be an accurate play test of how they work and interact.

24 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

1. 7: Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo a mold?

funny.

24 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

EDIT: Silly me! Mistook "school abilities" for techniques when it was actually and obviously school abilities. Whoops.

?

6 hours ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

No difference. Only different in your mind . Collectible is a marketing keyword, lol.

I think there is a difference between rereleasing a rulebook tied to a massively popular IP, with that edition of the game arguably being the most iconic one, as a 30th anniversary collectible edition after it’s been out of print for over 15 years and making it limited so it appeals to collectors rather than people who would actualy want to play it, and reprinting a rulebook from an edition that was still in print 5 years ago, is still being played, and can be seen as a competitor to your own, new edition of a game that’s in a fairly small RPG niche to begin with. I think that, since you work in marketing, you can see that difference too. Lol.

4 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

An interesting request from someone known for simplistic trolling. I assume you refer to the time when I decided to edit out calling your post stupid when you tried to be funny by quoting me sarcastically and failed. That was more for your benefit than mine. Some people aren't so clever, but despite your pointless provocation, I decided to take it out. And your first instinct is to remind everyone that I pointed out you're an unclever troll despite that incident having faded into the buried history of pages past? Okay.

However, most people have admitted 4th Edition wasn't perfect and would have been fine to see a 5th Edition that took some of 4th's weaknesses and fixed them. But, as it stands, 5th Edition just kinda sucks at everything and tossed all of 4th's strong points and replaced them with mostly-inferior alternatives, core mechanics that negate subsystem mechanics demonstrating a lack of coherent design planning, and unbalanced and unnecessary bookkeeping games like Strife that are inextricably interwoven into the core game mechanics.

But if you need a list of things about 4th that were better:

Traditional dice allowing for flexible probabilities.

Diverse, customizable character creation and progression paths that allow players to make interesting human beings if they want rather than strangely idiosyncratic clones.

Better scalable task resolution system. I mean, this is a critical issue. The TN system being reduced to +/-1 with fixed 1/0 dice probabilities does not scale well at all. 5th clearly hasn't been tested at mid-level and higher ranks.

Dynamic, interactive combat and social mechanics where both sides directly compete at tasks rather than simultaneous non-reactive minigames like Race For Rhetorical Points, Strife Point Jousting and clunky, swingy attack trades.

Traditional Pass/Fail/Degree of Success task resolution that doesn't encourage/allow players to intentionally fail tasks for mechanical gain, sometimes after the fact.

Void Point Regeneration not being tied to a counter-intuitive Disadvantage system. And I'm not even a huge fan of stuff like Void/Fate/Karma/etc as a mechanic, but if we're going to have that kind of mechanic in the game, it should at least make sense.

I mean, we could go further than that, but basically "All the fundamental core elements of a roleplaying game" (dice rolling odds, character creation, conflict resolution) kinda sums it up. 5th's problem is that it is broken from the ground up. 4th needed some tweaking. This isn't even a functional game right now.

Forgot to add that this advancement system that some players are promoting as new and inventive was borrowed from Dark Heresy 1st edition. It did so well there that it was replaced in later books and in Dark Heresy 2nd ed.

can really get behind a system that failed in the game it was designed for.

Something that wasn't asked for, but I think would be great (and a feature no edition of L5R has (imo) managed to get right so far); abstracting lengthy weapon lists into a shorter list of weapon features or tags, a la Legends Of The Wulin.

Most of the issues people are mentioning they want haven't reached the testing stage yet. It's still possible for that to happen.

It's the ones who say they have no interest in the samurai drama the way FF wants to present it that are the ones likely to be disappointed.

There are certainly a ton of issues currently; dualing, weapons, schools, techniques, character generation, etc. These are the things that should be beta tested and worked on. If your hoping to change the dice or remove the stress system, your barking up the wrong tree.

RE: this version bombing, reprinting old editions, that whole thing:

Just to state it and add another voice, I would -not- buy this edition based on what i'm currently seeing from the rules set. My criteria are actually very simple.

1. Is it better than the previous edition?

OR

2. Is it strong enough as an original to stand on it's own?

Positive example: Mad Max Fury Road. Both better than the original AND great as a standalone. GREEN LIGHT!
Negative example: Ghost in the Shell with Scarjo. Not better than the original and makes no sense as a standalone. WHY YOU DO THIS?
If it's not original and doesn't improve the old edition then don't make it. No one wants it.
Usually this is where I say "If it's strong enough as an original concept then why not rename it it's own thing and let it stand on it's own?" and the company says "BECAUSE I LOVE MONEY and less people will buy it without a brand name." For examples see every single movie that Hollywood has made this decade.



As it stands, is L5R 5th ed -better- than 4th? No.

Is it strong enough to stand as it's own system? I dunno. Maybe with some rules hammering and further beta testing, but then please don't call it L5R because then I'm back to the first question.

Is Fantasy Flight's L5R going to be the FURY ROAD of Legend Of The Five Rings, or is it going to be another Ghost in the Shell, Transformers, Ghostbusters, Ninja Turtles, Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman...

I've been thinking about this for a few days now and I think the issue I've been having with the beta rules vs 4e can be condensed into this: the way the approach to playing the game is quite different. So different in fact that it seems like playing in different universes to me.

The beta doesn't seem to approach the tragedy and lethality of the previous system in a way I'm used to. Don't get me wrong, I like the what the beta rules represent (a not quite finished alpha narrative rules system).

I suppose what I'm really saying is that the beta doesn't yet capture the feel of L5R to me. And that's important in a game named L5R.

13 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

Me and my gaming group love 4th Ed but I'll it admit it does have some small issues; still is a great system for us though. No gaming system is perfect.

• Traits help define a character in more detail. e. i. Strength, Intelligence, Perception, etc.
• 40 starting exp to help flesh out a character.
• Uses traditional d10 dice which feels thematic to the game.
• Skill Emphases for Skills
• Raise system.
• Advantages and Disadvantages are completely optional.
• A much more elegant and flavorful dueling system that needs only one page for explanation.
• The books feel like I'm reading Legend of the Five Rings instead of Manuel of the Five Rings (from my read of the PDF Beta).
• Void feels more mysterious and mystical instead of being tie to a Disadvantage regen mechanic. The Book of Void was such a flavorful read from 4th.

Hope that helps.

15 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

I didn't like the the 4E as much, I am mostly happy about many things that were left behind.

I find the schools and techniques better handled in the new verson, don't mind the new custom dice, dnd I disliked the traits from previous editions.

However 4E had

• a better character creation
• no school advancement tables

16 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

I will second what others have already pointed out. Things that I miss/dislike from the current beta:

• I like traits (strength, reflexes, etc). I miss traits. I get the idea @ the Rings. But its a bit too abstract for me, and I would not see it working with people who have little rpg experience.
• Character creation feels too railroaded. I would enjoy more freedom. The 20 questions game is nice for fluff and character background but I want more freedom during creation.
• Advantages and Disadvantages I feel were well handled in 4th. I dont like tying void to disadvantages. Makes no sense to me.
• Combat archetypes are missing. The chance of success with rolls in combat in my "limited" experience is too high. Its a zerg fest of hits. Would be nice to have stats in which you can invest so your character is more agile/nimble and harder to hit, instead of tough and damage resilient. In the old game you could f.e. create a bushi with high reflexes and low stamina and he would hold on his own for a while (until a lucky hit).
• Dueling needs work as its been commented.

On the other hand:

• I dont specially mind the "special" dice.
• I dont specially mind the "strife" mechanic, though I would like die rolls to solve skill-check resolutions (probabilities) and NOT influence roleplaying.

18 hours ago, Shosur0 said:

I will second what others have already pointed out. Things that I miss/dislike from the current beta:

• I like traits (strength, reflexes, etc). I miss traits. I get the idea @ the Rings. But its a bit too abstract for me, and I would not see it working with people who have little rpg experience.

The people I've seen having the issue with it are the most experienced, not the least. THe least experienced have no preconceptions to overcome.

On 23/10/2017 at 11:26 PM, Jennkryst said:

I kind of want a list, specifically, of the things that are so peachy keen about 4e that are missing from 5e.

Bonus points if it can be done without a post-post submission edit to hide tasteless insults to other posters.

As of right now I cannot build my Raikuto hunter in silk. I can only build a Hiruma that is a Hida defender who is sneaky.

Also can’t give my yojimbo access to the necessary skills of being a yojimbo in initial creation.

Also I cannot make my Sparrow so dreaded that the mere sight of her will bore you to tears.

20 hours ago, Shosur0 said:

I will second what others have already pointed out. Things that I miss/dislike from the current beta:

• I like traits (strength, reflexes, etc). I miss traits. I get the idea @ the Rings. But its a bit too abstract for me, and I would not see it working with people who have little rpg

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

The people I've seen having the issue with it are the most experienced, not the least. THe least experienced have no preconceptions to overcome.

I did not bring this up because its the least of the issues with the game right now, but I will say it adds a level of abstractness to the game that borders on laziness in design.

While they are saying it to allow multiple ways of handling a situation, I find that it just muddies the waters and adds an extra level of game-ability to the system.

Now on to what I want to write about today. One of the major argument about this game that keeps coming up wither its about strife, approaches, rings vs trait. is the idea of should a game try to enforce role-playing.

In my year of experience as both a GM and a player, I have had seen multiple play styles and watched how the game and the GM can influence the way players run their characters.

So as to the whole idea that the game needs to force you to role-play I call foul. From my experience, if your players are not role-playing its the GM fault not the games. If the GM doesn't engage the player in a way that promotes Role-playing then why would they. Now this is not absolute. there are player that are new or just want to roll dice and that ok if that's the type of game they want to play and the GM and other player are ok with it. who is anyone else to judge.

I have been in a long running D&D game on the side. (I hates D&D but love playing with this group.) I bring this up because everyone in the group role-plays their character to the point that the statement "out of character" has true meaning at this table. And this is a game well know for heavy combat, no role-playing image. The point is the GM engages the players in character and the provides detailed descriptions of the areas and NPC. This prompts the players to respond in kind. The advantage here is most of the players started in other RPG system bedsides D&D. Such as ,Star wars d6, L5R, call of cthulhu, etc. But the point is that the players are the role-players not the game.

Now on the subject of the game mechanics enforcing role-play. In my experience this never works. People who say it does are in my experience the type that would role-play any way if the game did not enforce it. As an example on of roommates is running a Star Wars FFG game at the house, he was in my game before most of my players decided to move back to L5R. I was doing some homework for school at the table, so I watch them play. What I saw had me laughing my head off. Where they role-playing as the dice directed. No they use the dice to get result and role-played ignoring the non-successes/failure results and acting how the wanted. The only way they were using the other results was bonus and penalties on the roles. So this system that was so great for enforcing role-playing was reduced to a symbolized bonus and penalties system.

So above I have given examples of people role-playing in a system commonly not know for good role-playing, and a system designed to enforce role-playing, having that ignored within the rules by people who don't want to role-play.

These experiences and more are the reason that I have never agreed with the game trying to enforce the setting. and to me that is the responsibility of the GM and the players.

As to experience I have been Role-playing for 25+ years. Does this make me all knowing and always right no.

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

So above I have given examples of people role-playing in a system commonly not know for good role-playing, and a system designed to enforce role-playing, having that ignored within the rules by people who don't want to role-play.

Roleplaying is system-agnostic, of course, but your example is off: FFG's Star Wars does not enforce roleplaying; there are some mechanics, like Obligations, that encourage it, but that is rather tame compared to other modern games. The dice do not direct roleplaying in any way, they merely add a secondary axis apart from success/fail. They do not enforce any kind of role-playing on the PCs in any way. I do not know where you got the impression that they do, there is nothing like the Strife mechanic in Star Wars.

But reading the beta and being a GM and player for Star Wars, I see some similarities. The rules seem to be about the narrative, but there is a giant tail of mechanics - and some quite clunky at that. Even when using the excellent character editor for Star Wars, maintaining characters is a PITA, and after two years of playing, some sheets have more pages than our old "Rolemaster 2nd Edition with every skill"-sheet, which is quite a feat. The beta rules look like a lot of bookkeeping is involved, lots of system mastery needed, which is rather off-putting for me.

6 minutes ago, Franigo said:

Roleplaying is system-agnostic, of course, but your example is off: FFG's Star Wars does not enforce roleplaying; there are some mechanics, like Obligations, that encourage it, but that is rather tame compared to other modern games. The dice do not direct roleplaying in any way, they merely add a secondary axis apart from success/fail. They do not enforce any kind of role-playing on the PCs in any way. I do not know where you got the impression that they do, there is nothing like the Strife mechanic in Star Wars.

But reading the beta and being a GM and player for Star Wars, I see some similarities. The rules seem to be about the narrative, but there is a giant tail of mechanics - and some quite clunky at that. Even when using the excellent character editor for Star Wars, maintaining characters is a PITA, and after two years of playing, some sheets have more pages than our old "Rolemaster 2nd Edition with every skill"-sheet, which is quite a feat. The beta rules look like a lot of bookkeeping is involved, lots of system mastery needed, which is rather off-putting for me.

The point was not so much that star wars does enforce roleplaying, but is constantly used on this forum as an example of a game that does. My example was to show that even within those rules it can easily be ignored without rule changes

11 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

The point was not so much that star wars does enforce roleplaying, but is constantly used on this forum as an example of a game that does. My example was to show that even within those rules it can easily be ignored without rule changes

Since the rules do not enforce roleplaying, I do not see how that example is relevant in any way, since ignoring something that is not there is not really noteworthy, is it?

1 minute ago, Franigo said:

Since the rules do not enforce roleplaying, I do not see how that example is relevant in any way, since ignoring something that is not there is not really noteworthy, is it?

I don't agree with what you are saying since the writers themselves have promoted the idea that is exactly what the star wars system does.

You can disagree with this all you want, but this is the belief of many about the system.

6 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

I don't agree with what you are saying since the writers themselves have promoted the idea that is exactly what the star wars system does.

Cool, then you can obviously provide a quote from one of the designers staring that the system enforces roleplaying, right?

And I do not care what other people on the internet are wrong about. Are you really basing your example on others being wrong? You do realize that this is a really bad foundation for your argument, right?