9 minutes ago, DarkIxion said:

So maybe you managed to squeeze through a set of bars in a canal and were able to infiltrate a castle, throwing open the gate for an invading force! Or maybe you defeated a giant of a man in the topaz championship sumai tournament in spite of your size!

I mean, I see what your beef is. You want to pick a certain advantage but don’t want to shoe horn it in. Okay, how are you going to feel when you have to shoe horn the advantage into play? The ninja who chose small and used it to sneak into a castle? Yeah, I feel like he could find a use for it again. The person who couldn’t work it into a bit of backstory? Maybe you should pick something else.

I get you. I really do.

Of course I can explain a distinction and how it came into play with my greatest accomplishment.

But I could right down the greatest accomplishment as " I finished school training faster then all of my classmates", pick as distinction "Small Stature" and call it a day. (This is what I say that the character creation feels shoehorned into the 20 questions.)

Those things don't need to be related in any way shape or form. And I don't like that every distinction of every character has to be for some contrived reason responsible for the greatest accomplishment of that character.

That is just bad story telling.

I mean why isn't there a list with accomplishments instead of distinctions? There is no reason why there are distinctions in the systems. It could as well be acomplishments.

7 minutes ago, Yandia said:

I get you. I really do.

Of course I can explain a distinction and how it came into play with my greatest accomplishment.

But I could right down the greatest accomplishment as " I school training faster then all of my classmates", pick as distinction "Small Stature" and call it a day. (This is what I say that the character creation feels shoehorned into the 20 questions.)

Those things don't need to be related in any way shape or form. And I don't like that every distinction of every character has to be for some contrived reason responsible for the greatest accomplishment of that character.

That is just bad story telling.

I mean why isn't there a list with accomplishments instead of distinctions? There is no reason why there are distinctions in the systems. It could as well be acomplishments.

Well, I think this points to an interesting thing. You can be small without having it as an advantage. Perhaps you just aren’t good at making the best use of your size. One day you might accomplish something where your small stature mattered and then perhaps you will pick up the advantage.

The system isn’t telling you that you can’t be X. It’s saying that it’s not mechanically important yet. My character can enjoy drinking sake without having sake as a passion. Perhaps it will eventually develop into passion, but right now it’s not big enough a thing for my character.

Honestly, I feel like you could do worse than answering the question and picking something unrelated. At least you developed some backstory, even if the two aren’t linked.

18 minutes ago, DarkIxion said:

You can be small without having it as an advantage.

Can you? Honest question here...

I would not expect this at all, if there was an advantage in the system which specificlly attaches this description.

I mean if I tell you "oh, my character is smaller than most people and only has one eye", but later you find out that this has no mechanical effect at all?

15 minutes ago, Yandia said:

Can you? Honest question here...

I would not expect this at all, if there was an advantage in the system which specificlly attaches this description.

I mean if I tell you "oh, my character is smaller than most people and only has one eye", but later you find out that this has no mechanical effect at all?

I don’t see why not?

Your not gaining any kind of advantage from doing so. Maybe you’ve learned to cope really well so that having one eye isn’t a big hinderance to you. As long as you are roleplaying that having one eye isn’t that big a deal, it seems fine to me.

This is easier to acomplish with some disads than others. Blind would be an example of one that would be harder to have but not have selected. Many GM’s I know would be fine with allowing a player to have extra negatative traits. Sure, they could help you get void back more often, but you’d also be failing and outbursting more often. As long as the GM doesn’t pull punches, I wouldn’t see a major issue with it.

8 minutes ago, DarkIxion said:

I don’t see why not?

Your not gaining any kind of advantage from doing so. Maybe you’ve learned to cope really well so that having one eye isn’t a big hinderance to you. As long as you are roleplaying that having one eye isn’t that big a deal, it seems fine to me.

This is easier to acomplish with some disads than others. Blind would be an example of one that would be harder to have but not have selected. Many GM’s I know would be fine with allowing a player to have extra negatative traits. Sure, they could help you get void back more often, but you’d also be failing and outbursting more often. As long as the GM doesn’t pull punches, I wouldn’t see a major issue with it.

I think it is more that I know a lot of player which would have felt lied to, because the description of my character doesn't follow the established rules of the system.

Currently nothing is stopping you from taking Small and Large at the same time and I think many player would raise an eyebrow if I take both.

1 minute ago, Yandia said:

I think it is more that I know a lot of player which would have felt lied to, because the description of my character doesn't follow the established rules of the system.

Currently nothing is stopping you from taking Small and Large at the same time. And I think many player would raise an eyebrow if I take both.

Tell them to stop metagaming? I could describe my crane as tall without him being large. What I can’t do is then expect to be bigger than the Hida who did actually take large.

As far as not telling people they can’t take opposed traits... I think that if you have to tell someone that then maybe you should just consider asking them to take a hike. “Hey, I can see you aren’t taking this seriously at all. Maybe you should find another game that fits better with your theme.”

Just now, DarkIxion said:

Tell them to stop metagaming?

What is problem with metagaming?

Also I am not qute getting you. You basiclly said that the mechanical advantages and the in world description doesn't need to go together. Or in other words that the fluff and crunch of the advantages can have a disconnect without a big problem.

Following the same logic, what would be the problem with taking small and large? Perhaps it is an average sized person who essentially can harness the full power of his average size.

18 minutes ago, Yandia said:

What is problem with metagaming?

Also I am not qute getting you. You basiclly said that the mechanical advantages and the in world description doesn't need to go together. Or in other words that the fluff and crunch of the advantages can have a disconnect without a big problem.

Following the same logic, what would be the problem with taking small and large? Perhaps it is an average sized person who essentially can harness the full power of his average size.

Because they are not just the mechanics. They are supposed to be things which are true. You cannot be small and also be large. One cannot be true for the other to be.

1 minute ago, DarkIxion said:

Because they are not just the mechanics. They are supposed to be things which are true. You cannot be small and also be large. One cannot be true for the other to be.

In the game world truth is what you can build with the mechnics given. When the mechnics allow it it is true.

3 minutes ago, Yandia said:

In the game world truth is what you can build with the mechnics given. When the mechnics allow it it is true.

There are lots of things which are true but lack mechanics. Take your own example of choosing your greatest triumph and then picking an advantage which doesn’t correlate. Is that triumph not true because there is no mechanic to back it up?

14 minutes ago, Yandia said:

In the game world truth is what you can build with the mechnics given. When the mechnics allow it it is true.

If the mechanics allow something to be true that shouldn’t be, they’re bad mechanics.

10 minutes ago, DarkIxion said:

There are lots of things which are true but lack mechanics. Take your own example of choosing your greatest triumph and then picking an advantage which doesn’t correlate. Is that triumph not true because there is no mechanic to back it up?

The funny thing is that you don't even have to answer the questions at all. The only relevant part of the whole thin is that you pick a distinction. You don't need to tell anybody how you answered the 20 questions. So they might as well not exists. The only thing that matters in the end is the character sheet. (This is what I meant as I said previously the 20 questions are gimicky.)

Just now, nameless ronin said:

If the mechanics allow something to be true that shouldn’t be, they’re bad mechanics.

Exactly! Crunch builds fluff. If the fluff doesn't work the crunch is bad.

Just now, Yandia said:

Exactly! Crunch builds fluff. If the fluff doesn't work the crunch is bad.

So it being possible for one person to be both small and large at the same time is fluff that works?

Just now, nameless ronin said:

So it being possible for one person to be both small and large at the same time is fluff that works?

Not at all... Just bad mechanics as you correctly pointed out aka I absolutely agree with you.

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

The funny thing is that you don't even have to answer the questions at all. The only relevant part of the whole thin is that you pick a distinction. You don't need to tell anybody how you answered the 20 questions. So they might as well not exists. The only thing that matters in the end is the character sheet. (This is what I meant as I said previously the 20 questions are gimicky.)

Exactly! Crunch builds fluff. If the fluff doesn't work the crunch is bad.

eh... I gotta say no. That is not true. I have had some RP's where we were very involved with building back story with each other, and building up a world - and we never got to play a single game! Some games don't end up happening fr whatever reason, but they are still a great RPs. We have a lot of fun even though we never get to the part where dice matter.

Each group is different. For some groups having fluff is more important.

I think the 20 questions were designed better in this beta to build a character based on their story than any other game I've played. It takes you through the mechanical steps of putting a character together while leading you through the fluff at the same time. Or vice versa - it can take a player who wants to go through the fluff, and it gets them through the mechanical parts at the same time. This duality is what makes the 20 questions important. If you decide you don't care about fluff and want to just crank out a character, then feel free to do so. The fluff is easy to put aside if you don't want it - but I would argue that every character in my group has a kick *** distinction and an advantage that supports it because I lead them through with the 20 questions, and the fluff and mechanics were built together.

I think the "What is your greatest accomplishment" question has been a central factor in building good characters because it also answers another important question "why me?" Why is this character worth having the Kami Togashi summon for a quest? Why is this character being selected for a special group of Emerald Magistrates? Why is this character going to be ambushed by the enemies? Often great success invites greater opportunities, and greater challenges.

5 minutes ago, shosuko said:

eh... I gotta say no. That is not true. I have had some RP's where we were very involved with building back story with each other, and building up a world - and we never got to play a single game! Some games don't end up happening fr whatever reason, but they are still a great RPs. We have a lot of fun even though we never get to the part where dice matter.

Each group is different. For some groups having fluff is more important.

I think the 20 questions were designed better in this beta to build a character based on their story than any other game I've played. It takes you through the mechanical steps of putting a character together while leading you through the fluff at the same time. Or vice versa - it can take a player who wants to go through the fluff, and it gets them through the mechanical parts at the same time. This duality is what makes the 20 questions important. If you decide you don't care about fluff and want to just crank out a character, then feel free to do so. The fluff is easy to put aside if you don't want it - but I would argue that every character in my group has a kick *** distinction and an advantage that supports it because I lead them through with the 20 questions, and the fluff and mechanics were built together.

You get me wrong fluff is very important. Actually it is the most important part of an RPG.

But a rulebook is first and foremost that: a rulebook. An assambly of rules (crunch) perhaps withe a few texts, short stories and pictures (more fluffy) to set the rules in a context. The rules on its own should already be able to create characters with some fluff attached. The best solutions to a problems should always be the must fluffy solutions to a problem.

But the 20 questions have it backwards. They don't inspire me to create a character, they want me to come up with a complete character concept and force that into the rigid structures of the rules. Instead of the rules being the solid foundation to jump from, they are designed to cage in the freedom of expression.

If I would right down a greatest archivement of my character or any other part of the 20 questions, I would need to search for a fitting distinction, which might or might not exist. And from my experience it didn't exisit. So I would have to build it myself, which kind of defeats the point of beta testing (and buying a rulebook for that matter).

Or you do it backwards and look through the list of distinctions first, and then come up with the answer to the question at which point I am sitting there and think... Hmmm. Why not simply build my character without the weird questions and come up with a kick *** backstory after I am done with character building... Like you do in 90% of all other RPGs.

The 20 questions are gimicky and pretentious, and I have yet to see an arguement, why they are needed or essential for the game.

53 minutes ago, Yandia said:

If I would right down a greatest archivement of my character or any other part of the 20 questions, I would need to search for a fitting distinction, which might or might not exist. And from my experience it didn't exisit. So I would have to build it myself, which kind of defeats the point of beta testing (and buying a rulebook for that matter).

Or you do it backwards and look through the list of distinctions first, and then come up with the answer to the question at which point I am sitting there and think... Hmmm. Why not simply build my character without the weird questions and come up with a kick *** backstory after I am done with character building... Like you do in 90% of all other RPGs.

The 20 questions are gimicky and pretentious, and I have yet to see an arguement, why they are needed or essential for the game.

Okay - I feel you here, trust me. I think there is a problem in the dissonance between the 20 questions, which seek to create a very flavored character build, and the list of Distinctions which are pretty standard "this is an rpg advantage" stuff.

That doesn't mean the rule book is bad - in fact, quite the opposite. What this system does, is it makes it extremely easy to craft a custom Distinction advantage. None of my characters in my group have a cookie cutter Distinction. They are all custom, driven by the 20 questions wording of "what was your characters greatest accomplishment" and then looking at what part of that makes them special - and carries forward with them.

What the rule book does poorly is the list of pre-fab advantages, these are all fairly bland and uninteresting. It does set a clear standard for the effect of an advantage though, and you can easily put anything you feel fits in that place. This is a great point for GM + Player collaboration.

Example:

In my game we have a Shosuro Infiltrator. Her claim to fame was that she participated in a parade through Otosan Uchi, and while the parade was in front of the Emperor she put on an improv drama piece that brought the Emperor to tears. When the Emperor asked who that Shosuro Actress was, of course Yogo Hiroue said she was his protoge, and that he'd be seeing more of her around. Not that Hiroue knew anything about her before, but he wasn't going to let this opportunity slip. Suddenly the actress is thrust into better training, and riskier jobs. She doesn't get to act in plays anymore... but she is does get that advantage - When people in the courts see her, the recognize her from her performance. When she does a dramatic (fire) performance she can re-roll 2 dice.

Its so easy to make a custom, functional advantage or disadvantage out of anything with this game. The rules are great because they give you a great structure to make any advantage, even if their pre-fab ones are bland and tasteless, pasted from generic-rpg-advantages-tbl-5.1.2

I also think the powerlevel of a new character is fine. Maybe just one or two free skill points would be nice, not to make the character more powerful but to make them a little costomised. I would like if the random heritage table would be changed into a proper choice collection for example, or if there would be a dojo added to the question catalogue.

But I think most imporatn would be to make ninjo and giri more important and give them more weight. And also add to question of death also some game mechanic that actually makes it meaningful to have that. After all those are what samurai drama is about, and so having those key elements so strongly neglected is just a huge mistake that needs to be adressed.

11 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

Why would you be shocked? If they wanted to give a bit of XP for initial customization, why would they not include that in the beta?

I'll be shocked because people on both sides of the 20 questions argument agree they want some starting XP, and I doubt it's that hard of a thing to add in. WHW's idea would be ideal for me, but I'd take a fixed number for all characters just as easily.

1 minute ago, llamaman88 said:

I'll be shocked because people on both sides of the 20 questions argument agree they want some starting XP, and I doubt it's that hard of a thing to add in. WHW's idea would be ideal for me, but I'd take a fixed number for all characters just as easily.

People on both sides of the argument want the process to be less restraining and/or allow for more customization. Handing out some starting XP is one way to go about that, but certainly not the only one.

I just don't see how it's so restraining. You get to choose all 4 advantage/disadvantage. You get a skill or two of your choosing. And then you get everything the old game gave you except the 40xp, but also you get a half dozen choices it never gave you in previous editions. Simple fix; toss in a comparative amount of xp. I think we'll see that in a future update.

5 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

I just don't see how it's so restraining. You get to choose all 4 advantage/disadvantage. You get a skill or two of your choosing. And then you get everything the old game gave you except the 40xp, but also you get a half dozen choices it never gave you in previous editions. Simple fix; toss in a comparative amount of xp. I think we'll see that in a future update.

You don’t get to choose 4 (dis)advantages. You have to choose them. And it’s not an entirely free choice either.

Just now, nameless ronin said:

You don’t get to choose 4 (dis)advantages. You have to choose them. And it’s not an entirely free choice either.

Why is that bad?

1 minute ago, llamaman88 said:

Why is that bad?

Whether it’s bad or not I’ll leave aside. What it is is restraining. I get why it is how it is, there’s too much related stuff that doesn’t work if (dis)advantages aren’t regimented, but that doesn’t change that it’s a hamfisted approach to character creation. “Your character must have such and so qualities, and they must be defined as mechanics, because otherwise the system doesn’t work.”

5 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

You don’t get to choose 4 (dis)advantages. You have to choose them. And it’s not an entirely free choice either.

Being a character in a story, I imagine you have some reason for your character to stick out, and be "the one" who is given these tasks right?

I told my players during the "biggest accomplishment" to think about what would have drawn attention to them, that makes them so important. Every character in my game has a unique Distinction that really sets them apart from the crowd. I think its the most rewarding part of the 20 questions game.

From my experience most players want a dramatic point in their backstory, and they want disadvantages that define them as a character now. What is your experience?

Do you often have players who want no advantages or disadvantages?