1 minute ago, Franigo said:

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?

Star wars Edge of the empire. Pg. 9 Narrative play 3rd paragraph.

Read it how you will but its right in every core book.

That said this is not helpful to the beta in anyway so I'm dome with this conversation.

10 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Star wars Edge of the empire. Pg. 9 Narrative play 3rd paragraph.

Read it how you will but its right in every core book.

It is not "read it how you will". I will directly quote the paragraph:

" The combination of dice types and symbols are all resources the players can use to help tell the story and add depth to the scene. "

See how they do not enforce anything, but even in your own example it is " can use ". Really, construing that into a system enforcing roleplaying takes some giant leap - which the actual rules do not follow, of course. Nothing enforces roleplaying. In fact, the rulebook is full of simple mechanic and static effects for pretty much every roll for those so inclined. And I know that the system does not enforce roleplaying, because two players in the one campaign I get to play in, could not roleplay their way out of a wet paper bag, and nothing in the system forces them in any way.

EDIT: But yeah, this is not about the beta, just about some misconceptions on your part. Your overall point, that roleplaying is possible with pretty much any system, stands, though.

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

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.

Regardless of the argumentation and the back-and-forth, I’m struggling a bit to figure out your point with regards to this beta. This system doesn’t enforce roleplaying. I don’t really see anyone claiming it does, or that it should. The “narrative” dice and the strife system fueled by them certainly support the concept of samurai drama and provide opportunities for roleplay based on randomly generated outcomes, but they don’t enforce roleplaying. No system based on non-narrative resolution does, and using dice makes this resolution non-narrative - calling the dice narrative doesn’t change that.

14 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Regardless of the argumentation and the back-and-forth, I’m struggling a bit to figure out your point with regards to this beta. This system doesn’t enforce roleplaying. I don’t really see anyone claiming it does, or that it should. The “narrative” dice and the strife system fueled by them certainly support the concept of samurai drama and provide opportunities for roleplay based on randomly generated outcomes, but they don’t enforce roleplaying. No system based on non-narrative resolution does, and using dice makes this resolution non-narrative - calling the dice narrative doesn’t change that.

The only thing that I would say is that I may have use the wrong word with enforce. It would have been better to use directed events.

anyway the point as was final gotten to had to do with the strife system before the new rewrite. As the first rule gave no way to avoid outburst and they happened when you hit the mark not at a time chosen by the player/GM.

I was using Star Wars as an example because many people tend to bring it up as a game where the dices result not only decide success or failure but also help direct some of the narration in the game.

My point in the long run was that game mechanics that direct or in the case of pre-update strife force a narrative action are not necessity to role-play a game. Nor are they always wanted by the players/GM.

Dice and mechanics should support the narrative of the scene not define it. Narrative should be based on the events that are happening not dice telling you when it comes about. This system seems to want to tell you when to be narrative and what the narrative is. Other games that use narrative or storytelling or whatever other word you want to use for it generally just let the mechanics and dice keep everyone on the same page to know how to succeed and fail, and usually enforces the idea of if a mechanic or rule prevents the story or narrative from working or flow properly, ignore it and keep going, this system has pretty much every aspect of itself intertwined with each rule and dice throw, making it very very hard to ignore a rule if needed or even if you as the group want to, and therein lies the problem. You can't play how you wish to play if you choose this edition you play the way we wan't. I'm going to quote the first and primary rule from one of my favorite game lines, and I apply it to pretty much every game I run to ensure a good story.

Quote

This is the most important rule of all, and the only real rule worth following: There are no rules . The world is far too big - it can't be reflected accurately in any set of inflexible rules. Think of this book as a collection of guidelines, suggested but not mandatory ways of capturing the World in the format of a game. You're the arbiter of what works best in your game, and you're free to use, alter, abuse or ignore these rules at your leisure

Also wish to congratulate everyone on making this the longest thread on the L5R beta forum. Give yourselves a hand you deserve it.

54 minutes ago, Mirumoto Seiichiro said:

Also wish to congratulate everyone on making this the longest thread on the L5R beta forum. Give yourselves a hand you deserve it.

And appropriately the title reads like someone having an Outburst

8 hours ago, Mirumoto Seiichiro said:

Also wish to congratulate everyone on making this the longest thread on the L5R beta forum. Give yourselves a hand you deserve it.

8 pages ago I was laughing about this being so fire.
It's not always a good sign when the hottest thread in the whole forum is "FORGET IT THIS SUCKS."

However, maybe not ineffective as they actually changed the strife system to something else less invasive.

Is this thread about dueling? If it isn't it should be.

14 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Is this thread about dueling? If it isn't it should be.

I believe this is about dueling with words. Some words are curved, others are straight - and we're just trying to find out why the curved words are better... or if in fact any words used were straight...

And to think I started this thread because I thought there was know chance the forum could come together to make this a good game.

Hey everyone we need to keep fighting here, the dueling thread has overtaken us. WE CAN"T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

21 hours ago, Mirumoto Seiichiro said:

Hey everyone we need to keep fighting here, the dueling thread has overtaken us. WE CAN"T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think one of the biggest problems with the new beta update is that it fractured the dueling rules. This is going to take up a lot more space because of a few people who think dueling is all about Iaijutsu.

Iaijutsu is a Crane thing - this is why only Crane schools really get bonuses in it. The Dragon are the only other participants in the Iaijutsu duel, and only because they want to draw 2 swords, which is metaphorically giving the Crane the Fig.

The rest of us want a standardized dueling rules section which provides an all inclusive dueling rule set that allows for tests of martial skill through armed, unarmed, and iai and especially which also gives a streamlined and cohesive ruleset which would allow a duel of magic and words without deviating into arbitrary narratives with lackluster mechanics.

What we need is a standardized way of having a drawn out 1v1 contest over any skill utilizing stances and composure to build tension leading to a dramatic climax, a moment which provides instant, definitive results of who won or lost.

Basically Iai only needs to be a footnote saying *The Crane like to play with their sword only against other people playing with their Sword, also Dragon are better and will play with their two swords. If you think anyone else cares about Iai just ask Mirumoto Stasu Hida Yakamo what happens in a real duel.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

If you think anyone else cares about Iai just ask Mirumoto Satsu Hida Yakamo what happens in a real duel.

Your opponent's clan champion will tell them exactly how shite everything will be if you lose, but leave whether they throw the duel / ruin everything forever as their choice?

*Oh, wait.

"The biggest problem to Legend of Five Rings Beta is that Legend of Five Rings has a setting. We should ignore that little detail so we can have fun combats 1x1."

I Actually dont have a problem with that. My first question when i read the book was exactly that. "Considering that the system dont care about iaijutsu at all. Does this means that Iaijutsu is not the official form of duel anymore?"

The only actual mention of "Duel" in First edition, is a Combat opportunity when two HEROES meet each other on the battlefield (Combat is the Mass combat of that edition.). There is NO DUEL MECHANICS. a fight between two mans is resolved in a simple skirmish. this is by the way how EVERY SYSTEM that i know handles 1x1. They only change rules when you are talking about armies and mass combat in general.

Before that appears Iaijutsu Duel as different part of skirmish, in the same chapter i believe.

You see, the First edition of Legend of Five Rings had the same exact skeleton of 4E and this Beta (I can only talk of those that i know.) You Have Rings, Skills, Advantages and Disadvantages, Family, Clan, School, Skirmish, Mass Combat, Magic.

What his beta doesnt have in similar to the past editions is Iaijutsu Duelling. Now the First Edition had that, because they tought that IAIJUTSU was a specific and special part of the setting. And in any other game, without house rules the way you would do a Iaijutsu Duel is rolling initiative. Who rolls better will win (Unless he miss, which depending on the system can be often or not.) But they decided to write a mechanic just for that. Only for that.

So i will ask you some things You want a :

2 hours ago, shosuko said:

standardized dueling rules section which provides an all inclusive dueling rule set that allows for tests of martial skill through armed, unarmed, and iai and especially which also gives a streamlined and cohesive ruleset which would allow a duel of magic and words without deviating into arbitrary narratives with lackluster mechanics.

What is stopping you from using Skirmish and Intrigue to achieve that? Remove completely the Duel section of the Beta and the Clash side bar, and wow, you earned some pages to maybe add more depth to the other mechanics. You even make easier on the designer in his effort to balance the game.

Tell me whats the difference to argue with someone alone, with other people involved in the discussion and only with a public watching? You think a "Debate" between two persons is mechanically deeper than the usual intrigue? just like a Iaijutsu is mechanically deeper than rolling initiative to go first? Ok then by all means, specify what will be treated as a debate, what is the difference of simply two people arguing and then make rules that make sense. no, being a fun narrative mechanic is not enough, it has to make sense with the game itself.

Tell me what changes when a Akodo and a Hida is fighting 1x1 on a Skirmish and then the Hida provokes a duel, beggining a clash, Tell me, how the rules of the universe change to these two fighters? Why now they are worrying about strife and finishing blow? Why Akodo lost his technique? Is it because the world thinks its too overpower for a clash!? If Akodo, who is not dumb, deny the duel, will people in game say that he fled from a duel with Hida, Despite killing him on a one x one without interference on a Skirmish?

What is the purpose of Skirmish rules then? If every 1x1 is a clash (unless its not initiated by a challenge) that means that a clash can be interfered when a third party attack one of the involved, changing again the rules of the universe to a skirmish?

The whole problem with Duel is the fact that rules to Duel shouldn't exist. an Informal duel is a skirmish 1x1. Simple as that.

They only wrote duel mechanics because every edition before had Duel mechanics. Thats it, its part of the game. They just didn't notice the "Iaijutsu" always by the side of duel or duelling.

And i strongly support rules for the Shugenja Duels (i will never remember the name for then) Despite being Politically irrelevant in COMPARISON to the main way to settle disputes in Rokugan (Read:Iaijutsu Duel). Only because i think they are cool, and you can make unique rules for two "wizards" battling each other. The important word here is unique. if its standardized, then whatever, a grappler will roll x, a wizard will roll y. both will be doing the same mechanics, and people will think that this is a great narrative system because they wrote a fluff for it.

4 minutes ago, Mobiusllls said:

"The biggest problem to Legend of Five Rings Beta is that Legend of Five Rings has a setting. We should ignore that little detail so we can have fun combats 1x1."

I Actually dont have a problem with that. My first question when i read the book was exactly that. "Considering that the system dont care about iaijutsu at all. Does this means that Iaijutsu is not the official form of duel anymore?"

The only actual mention of "Duel" in First edition, is a Combat opportunity when two HEROES meet each other on the battlefield (Combat is the Mass combat of that edition.). There is NO DUEL MECHANICS. a fight between two mans is resolved in a simpleskirmish. this is by the way how EVERY SYSTEM that i know handles 1x1. They only change rules when you are talking about armies and mass combat in general.

Before that appears Iaijutsu Duel as different part of skirmish, in the same chapter i believe.

You see, the First edition of Legend of Five Rings had the same exact skeleton of 4E and this Beta (I can only talk of those that i know.) You Have Rings, Skills, Advantages and Disadvantages, Family, Clan, School, Skirmish, Mass Combat, Magic.

What his beta doesnt have in similar to the past editions is Iaijutsu Duelling. Now the First Edition had that, because they tought that IAIJUTSU was a specific and special part of the setting. And in any other game, without house rules the way you would do a Iaijutsu Duel is rolling initiative. Who rolls better will win (Unless he miss, which depending on the system can be often or not.) But they decided to write a mechanic just for that. Only for that.

So i will ask you some things You want a :

What is stopping you from using Skirmish and Intrigue to achieve that? Remove completely the Duel section of the Beta and the Clash side bar, and wow, you earned some pages to maybe add more depth to the other mechanics. You even make easier on the designer in his effort to balance the game.

Tell me whats the difference to argue with someone alone, with other people involved in the discussion and only with a public watching? You think a "Debate" between two persons is mechanically deeper than the usual intrigue? just like a Iaijutsu is mechanically deeper than rolling initiative to go first? Ok then by all means, specify what will be treated as a debate, what is the difference of simply two people arguing and then make rules that make sense. no, being a fun narrative mechanic is not enough, it has to make sense with the game itself.

Tell me what changes when a Akodo and a Hida is fighting 1x1 on a Skirmish and then the Hida provokes a duel, beggining a clash, Tell me, how the rules of the universe change to these two fighters? Why now they are worrying about strife and finishing blow? Why Akodo lost his technique? Is it because the world thinks its too overpower for a clash!? If Akodo, who is not dumb, deny the duel, will people in game say that he fled from a duel with Hida, Despite killing him on a one x one without interference on a Skirmish?

What is the purpose of Skirmish rules then? If every 1x1 is a clash (unless its not initiated by a challenge) that means that a clash can be interfered when a third party attack one of the involved, changing again the rules of the universe to a skirmish?

The whole problem with Duel is the simply fact: Rules to Duel shouldn't exist. a Informal duel is a skirmish 1x1. Simple as that.

They only wrote duel mechanics because every edition before had Duel mechanics. It is simples as that, its part of the game. They just didn't notice the "Iaijutsu" always by the side of duel.

And i strongly support rules for the Shugenja Duels (i will never remember the name for then) Despite being Politically irrelevant in COMPARISON to the main way to settle disputes in Rokugan (Read:Iaijutsu Duel). Only because i think they are cool, and you can make unique rules for two "wizards" battling each other. The important word here is unique. if its standardized, then whatever, a grappler will roll x, a wizard will roll y. both will be doing the same mechanics, and people will think that this is a great narrative system because they wrote a fluff for it.

This post is amazing, and insightful. Why have duel rules at all? Why not just reduce the rulebook to only approach and ring tied to skill with advantage and disadvantaged roll narrative die and u can determine outcome for GM and player to tell story together? It all makes PERFECT SENSE! 10/10 would read again.

Yeah because Skirmish and intrigue does not exist and does not cover conflict between two individual characters. 10/10; You are so polite and smart.

The thing with Iaijutsu is that it is embedded in law.

The Book of Air p.16 for 4th Edition

Quote

Over time, however, the cultural influence of the Crane and the dissemination of early works such as Kakita’s The Sword and Kakita Takamitsu’s second-century novel The Journey of a Single Strike led to the steady spread of iaijutsu across the Empire and the growing acceptance of the art as the proper way of settling disagreements. When Soshi Saibankan and Doji Hatsuo codified the laws of Rokugan in the year 153, iaijutsu was officially adopted as part of the legal system. In situations where a samurai’s guilt was not clear, or where his honor and repute had come into question, he could demand a trial by combat with iaijutsu. The laws also codified the rules for official (and therefore lawful) duels, requiring samurai to gain the permission of their lords before entering a lethal duel. Up until this time duels of all kinds had been quite commonplace, and many warriors would challenge others to duels for the slimmest of offenses, or merely to prove their strength or eliminate a rival. Some samurai traveled the Empire, challenging others wherever they went, or hiring themselves out as champions. The new laws greatly reduced these sorts of abuses and reinforced the social conventions which the Crane Clan was trying to erect around dueling. In modern Rokugan, iaijutsu dueling is accepted everywhere as the true, proper, and honorable method of resolving differences between samurai. Although some clans still maintain their own internal traditions—the Crab sometimes resolve quarrels with wrestling matches, the Tsuruchi with archery contests—for the Empire as a whole, iaijutsu reigns supreme. Consequently, almost every bushi in the Empire has learned at least the rudiments of iaijutsu dueling so they can defend their honor if called to do so, and almost every clan can boast of at least a few iaijut

If you want Iai to not be the standard for formal duels, for resolving matters of honor, I get that. Multi-discipline duels are cool. That said, where does that leave the Kakita and their reputation as masters of single combat? It’s not exactly plausible that they can dominate duels if everyone gets to do whatever they do best, yet that is what they are supposed to be able to do (and I’m not even going into the mechanical side here). If they can’t, what does that mean for the Crane? And why would they devote as many resources as they do to a dueling school that can’t deliver consistent dueling champs and doesn’t deliver proper training for warfare either? If the nature of the formal duel is changed, then the Kakita and to a certain extent the entire Crane clan need to be changed accordingly as well.

54 minutes ago, shosuko said:

This post is amazing, and insightful. Why have duel rules at all? Why not just reduce the rulebook to only approach and ring tied to skill with advantage and disadvantaged roll narrative die and u can determine outcome for GM and player to tell story together? It all makes PERFECT SENSE! 10/10 would read again.

Smartassery at its basest. For people of that ilk, Risus does everything but the funky dice.

13 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

If you want Iai to not be the standard for formal duels, for resolving matters of honor, I get that. Multi-discipline duels are cool. That said, where does that leave the Kakita and their reputation as masters of single combat? It’s not exactly plausible that they can dominate duels if everyone gets to do whatever they do best, yet that is what they are supposed to be able to do (and I’m not even going into the mechanical side here). If they can’t, what does that mean for the Crane? And why would they devote as many resources as they do to a dueling school that can’t deliver consistent dueling champs and doesn’t deliver proper training for warfare either? If the nature of the formal duel is changed, then the Kakita and to a certain extent the entire Crane clan need to be changed accordingly as well.

Kakita do it fresh from school. Others have to play catch-up.

5 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Kakita do it fresh from school. Others have to play catch-up.

Do what fresh from school? And are we talking fluff-wise, or mechanics?

Anyone can draw a katana (or any weapon, if that matter) and attack at the same turn. No one will convince me that this is not a quick draw. Even if you judge necessary to posses the Iaijutsu Kata to act on the description of a draw and strike in continuous flow. The kakita does have advantage on Iaijutsu Duels due to being able to have a crazy high severity that will acomplish the objective goal of the duel. (Hitting a critical of severity x).

But i would rather be a Hida, take the penalty for being a disrespectful guy and appearing on my formal duel, that was decided three months ago, with heavy armor and have at least a -6 on the severity of the enemy strike, before i even get to roll fitness.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

Do what fresh from school? And are we talking fluff-wise, or mechanics?

They get Iaijutsu in school. The current techniques are both School Rank 2, and the Kakita should be getting access at rank 0 (cadet in school).