Lots of games do something like this, I wouldn't call them bad. World of Darkness and Exalted have huge followings and do this. DnD's alignments aren't so different from it either. That's 3 of the biggest games I can think of.

24 minutes ago, shosuko said:

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?

I’ve seen players handle (dis)advantages pretty much every possible way, from taking none in either or both to taking as many advantages as allowed and/or as many disadvantages as they could get bonus points for (and occasionally more points worth than the cap too). Having to choose 2 of each, of specific types, and another of either that had to relate to one of your teachers - no more, no less - is quite a bit more regimented than “do what you want, just no more than this amount”.

1 hour ago, nameless ronin said:

I’ve seen players handle (dis)advantages pretty much every possible way, from taking none in either or both to taking as many advantages as allowed and/or as many disadvantages as they could get bonus points for (and occasionally more points worth than the cap too). Having to choose 2 of each, of specific types, and another of either that had to relate to one of your teachers - no more, no less - is quite a bit more regimented than “do what you want, just no more than this amount”.

Just because its different than you've done, doesn't mean its bad or restrictive. The problem with the previous system was that there were so many disadvantages, and you got a direct point boost for taking them, so you were encouraged to throw your character under the bus - and more importantly - these typically got forgotten about afterword. With 3-5 disadvantages per character you can't really make them all relevant to a story, especially when they only cost a few points...

With the new system they are always relevant - but can also be whatever you want them to be. If you want your distinction to be more bland, go ahead. I just assume a person is going to want something interesting about their character they are designing...

For narrative RPG (which FFG has turned L5R into) advantages and disadvantages are core to your character. FATE chargen is basically writing 5 character points that are either advantages or disadvantages, and then you make up skills... L5R does this much better. Its important to understand these points are more central to your character than your air, earth, or void ring.

10 minutes ago, shosuko said:

For narrative RPG (which FFG has turned L5R into) advantages and disadvantages are core to your character.

I get this. I pointed it out myself. I know why FFG makes them a mandatory part of chargen. That doesn’t change the fact that chargen is more restraining than in previous editions, precisely because it has more mandatory parts and less optional ones. It is what it is, let’s not pretend otherwise.

14 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

I get this. I pointed it out myself. I know why FFG makes them a mandatory part of chargen. That doesn’t change the fact that chargen is more restraining than in previous editions, precisely because it has more mandatory parts and less optional ones. It is what it is, let’s not pretend otherwise.

I mean I guess. But it's also not the same game as previous editions. I'm not sure that's a fair measuring stick to judge by. When the game was a d20 system there were even less mandatory choices, so it being less restrictive is great? No, no it was not. I'm not saying this edition is end all be all, it's a beta and it needs work, but I just don't see how having to choose certain things is a flaw in the game when those things are part of the mechanics. It's not a restriction, these advantages and disadvantages are nothing like the old game's version, which were totally optional. They're a system within the game like WoD's vices and virtues.

27 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

I mean I guess. But it's also not the same game as previous editions. I'm not sure that's a fair measuring stick to judge by. When the game was a d20 system there were even less mandatory choices, so it being less restrictive is great? No, no it was not. I'm not saying this edition is end all be all, it's a beta and it needs work, but I just don't see how having to choose certain things is a flaw in the game when those things are part of the mechanics. It's not a restriction, these advantages and disadvantages are nothing like the old game's version, which were totally optional. They're a system within the game like WoD's vices and virtues.

I’m just saying that when players complain the chargen process is too restrictive, they have a point. That doesn’t imply anything about other aspects of the game, but I really don’t see how you can argue it doesn’t impose restrictions on how you can build your character.

I'm arguing that they're no more restrictive than plenty of other games. I'd say pick X or Y is more freedom than many other games where you're stuck with just X. Is it, in it's current form, more restrictive than 4e? Sure... but only because of the 40xp (which if FFG doesn't fix on their own, I'm sure most people will just house rule it). Barring that you get more choices than the old game.

People pointing to needing one of each type of advantage and disadvantage as restrictive makes no sense to me, because it's comparing apples to oranges. They're not as similar between the two games as rings and skills are. The old game's advantage and disadvantage system were wholly optional (and honestly a weakness of the system in a lot of cases). The new system they're more like the vice/virtue from WoD or similar mechanics that are cooked into the system.

I really don’t care what it’s like compared to any other games. I also don’t care if and how people might houserule it. The relevant comparison what the actual rules say vs previous editions of the same game, and from where I’m standing it’s decidedly more restrictive.

41 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

I’m just saying that when players complain the chargen process is too restrictive, they have a point. That doesn’t imply anything about other aspects of the game, but I really don’t see how you can argue it doesn’t impose restrictions on how you can build your character.

The advantages and disadvantages are not the point where chargen is more restrictive - if anything, it is more liberating. Previously you would have to go through lists spanning multiple books to track down the advantages and disadvantages you would want to use, each with a point system dictating how much each was "worth" often giving you a restricting budget to stick to.

This gives a very flexible system which is balanced by universal mechanics - all you do is pick how broad or narrow you want your advantage or disadvantage to be purely from a narrative standpoint. In this game these can be whatever you want! If there was ever a more flexible system that actually worked, I can't say when. Any system with purely defined advantages is going to be more restrictive in that you MUST use the options presented to you, the game is balanced only for those options and creating anything unique may mess up game mechanics. Any system which is more broadly defined is lacking in the mechanical balance making advantage and disadvantage design a crap shoot as you have to give it a best guess for what an advantages should be, or cost.

The part of chargen that is restrictive is the fact that you get 1 ring trait, and 1 skill that are actually freely chosen - and that skill only if you take a disadvantage... That is the part that is too restrictive.

11 hours ago, DarkIxion said:

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.”

I don't think you know what that word means. Your description has nothing to do with it.

Metagaming is the act of using out-of-character information to your advantage in a game.

example: you know that the assassination was there, but your character failed his test while searching the room. So instead of giving up you keep rolling till you succeeded. Or something like that.

What you are describing is powergaming, where a player takes advantages or uses bad approaches because it gives an advantage or will provide the best results.

That brings up one of my issues with this system. The game to me promotes powergaming. From the use best build style of character creation, to the use the approached linked to your highest ring even if it make no sense. I know that was not the intent, but the truth is when you give a player a foot they will take a mile.

5 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

I don't think you know what that word means. Your description has nothing to do with it.

Metagaming is the act of using out-of-character information to your advantage in a game.

example: you know that the assassination was there, but your character failed his test while searching the room. So instead of giving up you keep rolling till you succeeded. Or something like that.

What you are describing is powergaming, where a player takes advantages or uses bad approaches because it gives an advantage or will provide the best results.

That brings up one of my issues with this system. The game to me promotes powergaming. From the use best build style of character creation, to the use the approached linked to your highest ring even if it make no sense. I know that was not the intent, but the truth is when you give a player a foot they will take a mile.

I shouldn’t have used the term metagaming. It means too many things to too many people. My favored use of it wasn’t even the one I invoked. Anyhow, rephrasing: they are trying to gain a mechanical advantage they haven’t earned yet. L5R has many ways you can discover someone’s weaknesses or desires. If they had tried to discover the person’s flaws they might have known that being small was not one of them.

I do take issue with your described style of powergaming only because the player is not the one who has final say on which ring is to be used on any test. They can try to take actions in line with their strengths, but it’s the GM who gets to tell them that the approach they are describing is not what they are asking to roll with. Hence the game includes a moderator to keep that type of powergaming from happening.

59 minutes ago, DarkIxion said:

ecause the player is not the one who has final say on which ring is to be used on any test. They can try to take actions in line with their strengths, but it’s the GM who gets to tell them that the approach they are describing is not what they are asking to roll with.

Exactly so. No matter how you phrase it and rephrase it, you don't get to do awareness/recon type tests with Earth, for example.

Actually the advanatage/disatvanatage system is a point in the character creation that is mroe restrictive than in others iterations of L5r. The reason for that is that in 4th edition you could allways choose to not take any advanatage/disadvanatage. You can´t do that here so you have less options to choose from and therefore you have a more restrictive advantage/disadvanateg system that is more restrictive than 4th edition.

19 hours ago, Yandia said:

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.

Thing is, because all distinctions (or adversities, or whatever) do mechanically the same thing, it's a lot easier if you want to create a custom distinction which does line up with an accomplishment because all you have to agree with the GM is whether the criteria for the reroll are too easy to meet, or not likely to come up enough in the story setting he's planning to tell.

27 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Thing is, because all distinctions (or adversities, or whatever) do mechanically the same thing, it's a lot easier if you want to create a custom distinction

Agreed, but that wasn't the point... My question was why the questions "what is your greatest accomplishment?" gives you a list of distinctions to pick from and not a list of accomplishments. They could do mechanically the same but would be fluffed as accomplishments and not as distinctins.

When I really would look at the 20 questions and use it as foundation to create your character from a design standpoint it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to land on a list of distinctions to associate with that question. Even passions make more sense, because you are usually good at about things you are passionate about.

8 minutes ago, Yandia said:

Agreed, but that wasn't the point... My question was why the questions "what is your greatest accomplishment?" gives you a list of distinctions to pick from and not a list of accomplishments. They could do mechanically the same but would be fluffed as accomplishments and not as distinctins.

When I really would look at the 20 questions and use it as foundation to create your character from a design standpoint it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to land on a list of distinctions to associate with that question. Even passions make more sense, because you are usually good at about things you are passionate about.

Agreed. Given the list of 'answers', I think it's possibly the question that's at fault; given that your answer is essentially a distinction, and "A distinction represents a feature of your character that makes your character more effective in certain circumstances", then 'what is your character's most notable strength' or similar might be better phrased.

After all, theoretically a just-past-Gempuku newbie who doesn't really have any notable achievements under his or her belt should still have the option to pick a character-defining distinction, because the distinctions and disadvantages are one of the key ways to refine a character from the Clan/Family/School default assembly-line-issue character.

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

Agreed, but that wasn't the point... My question was why the questions "what is your greatest accomplishment?" gives you a list of distinctions to pick from and not a list of accomplishments. They could do mechanically the same but would be fluffed as accomplishments and not as distinctins.

To me the reason you aren't given a list of accomplishments to choose from is so you can make up what ever you want as you build your background and character. The list of advantages you get access to to fit with that accomplishment is their attempt to give a mechanic that is influenced by that open ended choice. Hence why most of the advantages are pretty generic. I can't help but feel that the only issue with this question is that it is one question. Had it been 2 separate questions 'what is your greatest accomplishment' and then the next step was 'choose a distinction' it wouldn't even be being discussed but yet it isn't any different.

56 minutes ago, Darksyde said:

To me the reason you aren't given a list of accomplishments to choose from is so you can make up what ever you want as you build your background and character. The list of advantages you get access to to fit with that accomplishment is their attempt to give a mechanic that is influenced by that open ended choice. Hence why most of the advantages are pretty generic. I can't help but feel that the only issue with this question is that it is one question. Had it been 2 separate questions 'what is your greatest accomplishment' and then the next step was 'choose a distinction' it wouldn't even be being discussed but yet it isn't any different.

Acutally if you ask them as 2 seperate questions it is completly different.
The reason for that being that when you ask the question as it is done in the 20 question part you are tying the distinction to your answer.That means the advanateg you get is a direct result of your greatest acomplishment so far. Which makes very little sense with certain advantages you can choose from like small stture etc.
If you ask them as 2 different points they are not directly tied to each other and therefore your greteast acomplishment does not need to provide a reason for taking the distinction you want to. The resutl is that you don´t get any problemwith the reasoning for your distinction here and can take things like small stature without problems.

it also gives you the option to provide a list of acomplishment persk for the qeustion what was your greatest one so that the mechanical benefit you get out of it makes actuall sense in the context of the question.

You are defining the relationship as Greatest Accomplishment generating Distinction. There is also the other way around - a preexisting Distinction helping you achieve your greatest achievement. "My small stature character managed to hide and survive an encounter with a man-eating Titan simply because she could get to a place where rest of her squad could not" is an example of "a Distinction spawning a greatest achievment".

37 minutes ago, WHW said:

You are defining the relationship as Greatest Accomplishment generating Distinction. There is also the other way around - a preexisting Distinction helping you achieve your greatest achievement. "My small stature character managed to hide and survive an encounter with a man-eating Titan simply because she could get to a place where rest of her squad could not" is an example of "a Distinction spawning a greatest achievment".

But thats bad form because if you want an advanateg you have to press your characters background into this question becasue it forces you to find a way to explain how your distinction is the reason for or is the consequence of your greatest achievement.
Instead you also could go for a far more flexible approach and use acomplishment perks that naturally fall to gether with your greatest acomplishment and make your dsitinction the result of the question how do you stand out from the others
That would acomplish that fells less forced and becomes more of a natural process.
In addtion it would also add a addtional layer of customisation which is also not a bad thing to have.

What I propose on page 1 is by the way not even that diffrent from the 20 questions chargen.

Because the 20 quesions collapse into a fairly standard 10 step character creation, I already posted in another thread:

1. Pick a school [each school belongs to a clan].
2. Pick a family from the same clan as your school.
3. Increase a ring [any ring].
4. Pick pick two advantages [one of them needs to be a distinction, the other one a passion]
5. Pick pick two disadvantages [one of them needs to be an adversity, the other one an anxiety].
6. Increase a skill [depends on clan: Crab (Aesthetics or Design), Crane Clan (Commerce), Dragon Clan (Seafaring), Lion Clan (Skulduggery), Phoenix Clan (Tactics), Scorpion Clan (Labor), Unicorn Clan (Culture)] or gain 5 glory.
7. Increase a skill [pick one of these: Commerce, Labor, Medicine, Seafaring, Skulduggery, or Survival] or gain 10 honor.
8. Increase a skill [any skill] and pick a disadvantage or pick an advantage.
9. Role twice on the Samurai Heritage and take the result you like better [sometimes you need two roll a second time to nail down a detail].
10. Write down a ninjo, a giri and an outburst.

In the end the 20 questions can be left unanswered, because what you choose in the end is all that matters.

5 minutes ago, Yandia said:

What I propose on page 1 is by the way not even that diffrent from the 20 questions chargen.

Because the 20 quesions collapse into a fairly standard 10 step character creation, I already posted in another thread:

1. Pick a school [each school belongs to a clan].
2. Pick a family from the same clan as your school.
3. Increase a ring [any ring].
4. Pick pick two advantages [one of them needs to be a distinction, the other one a passion]
5. Pick pick two disadvantages [one of them needs to be an adversity, the other one an anxiety].
6. Increase a skill [depends on clan: Crab (Aesthetics or Design), Crane Clan (Commerce), Dragon Clan (Seafaring), Lion Clan (Skulduggery), Phoenix Clan (Tactics), Scorpion Clan (Labor), Unicorn Clan (Culture)] or gain 5 glory.
7. Increase a skill [pick one of these: Commerce, Labor, Medicine, Seafaring, Skulduggery, or Survival] or gain 10 honor.
8. Increase a skill [any skill] and pick a disadvantage or pick an advantage.
9. Role twice on the Samurai Heritage and take the result you like better [sometimes you need two roll a second time to nail down a detail].
10. Write down a ninjo, a giri and an outburst.

In the end the 20 questions can be left unanswered, because what you choose in the end is all that matters.

I wouldn't mind if this was on the quick reference page for people who already know the setting, but i really like the 20 questions being tied to these steps for people who don't know to think about their sensei or their lord etc

I wouldn't mind seeing the 10 question version as an advanced/accelerated side bar but I disagree that only mechanical benefit choices are what matter.

On 22/10/2017 at 9:09 PM, nameless ronin said:

People on both sides of the argument want the process to be less restraining and/or allow for more customization.

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

(I am quite sure I once read a version of this that was clad in a sort of pseudo-zen koan phrasing more fitting for the game, but the alleged Orson Welles quote should do as well.)

5 minutes ago, blut_und_glas said:

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

(I am quite sure I once read a version of this that was clad in a sort of pseudo-zen koan phrasing more fitting for the game, but the alleged Orson Welles quote should do as well.)

In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister - Goethe. Only in limitation the master reveals himself (German nor English is my first language, but that should be close enough).

There’s truth in there for sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s entirely apt for the situation. I don’t think RPGs should be reserved for artists nor that they should require mastery before even getting started. Besides, any RPG chargen system is limited, because translating what’s quintessentially human into mechanics is inherently limited by language, simplicity requirements and many other factors. The question is whether the designers produced art in this instance, or merely something utilitarian.