7 hours ago, RenanBarcellos said:

This section "Removing Strife In addition to removal of strife as a result of an outburst, characters naturally remove strife as time passes. At the end of each scene, each character removes a number of strife equal to their Water ring rank." must be ignored too?

I don’t think so.. this still works in the new system in my view.

7 hours ago, RenanBarcellos said:

This section "Removing Strife In addition to removal of strife as a result of an outburst, characters naturally remove strife as time passes. At the end of each scene, each character removes a number of strife equal to their Water ring rank." must be ignored too?

I can't guarantee that this is fact, but normal when a update tells you to remove a sentences they list all the parts of the sentence you are to remove. So if that part is left then its still part of the rules.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:35 PM, Nihilogos said:

I have to admit, the option to remain Compromised by emotional turmoil at the cost of not taking dice with Strife on them, or to outburst and blow of steam actually warms me to the system a lot. As characters get more experienced and get better dice pools they can manage to stay functional even while seething with turmoil, while younger and more inexperienced samurai are more likely to suffer some kind of outburst or to falter and fail. That seems like a pretty good model for handling the delicate balance of seeming and necessity.

If the final system makes Opportunity spends easier to find and decide on, and tweaks the advancement system, I might actually be able to get behind this.

I think there needs to e a cap, tho', as once there, you can suck others' strife attacks ad infinitum...

Oh, in re preview... no school? Grr. Strife noted!

3 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

I think there needs to e a cap, tho', as once there, you can suck others' strife attacks ad infinitum...

I was also thinking about what happens after you have unmasked once in a scene and go back to high Strife levels... I guess a cap would be theoretical though (if a scene lasts long enough for this to become a problem, it is probably too long and should be split), but if that happens, it's not exactly free to suck strife attacks indefinitely. The compromised character could be stuck in this state over into the next scene as well - you only ever heal but [Water Rank] Strife at the end of the scene. The restriction on kept dice is still a drag, even for high level characters. Once a new scene starts, they could of course Unmask right at the beginning...

20 minutes ago, Franwax said:

I was also thinking about what happens after you have unmasked once in a scene and go back to high Strife levels... I guess a cap would be theoretical though (if a scene lasts long enough for this to become a problem, it is probably too long and should be split), but if that happens, it's not exactly free to suck strife attacks indefinitely. The compromised character could be stuck in this state over into the next scene as well - you only ever heal but [Water Rank] Strife at the end of the scene. The restriction on kept dice is still a drag, even for high level characters. Once a new scene starts, they could of course Unmask right at the beginning...

After twice composure, perhaps it should become fatigue, as it wears you down.

5 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

After twice composure, perhaps it should become fatigue, as it wears you down.

Not bad

On 10/28/2017 at 1:43 AM, AK_Aramis said:

After twice composure, perhaps it should become fatigue, as it wears you down.

You'd need to avoid players trying to angle for critical strikes off cutting words, but I'm sure a simple rules exception would do.

On that note, perhaps damage could do with re-themeing somehow so that it's distinct from the implication of direct harm? As things stand, damage is your ability to overwhelm your opponent's defence with force and cause them to submit - with or without actually causing serious wounds. That's a nuaced idea (I quite like it) but I think it needs effective communication to the players which is currently lacking. Resilience is *kind of* hit points, but not quite. Damage is *kind of* like damage in other rpgs... but not quite. Renaming it might be useful, though I'm drawing a blank on any suggestions. Threat perhaps? It's a minor thing, but theme informs expectation.

I dont think thete is a need for double penalty for compromised. Unability to keep strife devastates your ability to keep stuff. Look at its effects on a ring die.

1 hour ago, WHW said:

I dont think thete is a need for double penalty for compromised. Unability to keep strife devastates your ability to keep stuff. Look at its effects on a ring die.

Bull.

It hurts, halves your expected successes. If you're skilled, even less of an issue.

It's limiting, not crippling.

It literally allows you to only keep 3/6 of possible ring results - one of which is a success, one an opportunity and one is a blank. "Turns 50% of ring dice results into blanks" is pretty strong.

6 hours ago, WHW said:

It literally allows you to only keep 3/6 of possible ring results - one of which is a success, one an opportunity and one is a blank. "Turns 50% of ring dice results into blanks" is pretty strong.

Not really. Especially not if skilled. A typical skilled roll is already dropping half the dice. (2+2k2, 3+3k3 are the modal rolls i've seen.)

Given a potential to use a distinction to reroll, or to have +(0+1k1) from assistance on opportunity... it's really not a huge penalty.

It's only really a major hit if unskilled, as the explosion is impossible.

Not only have I done the math, I've seen it in play. As yet, about 20 rolls in one group, and most of them refusing to take any strife from rolls, and they're having no problems succeeding the common TN 1-3 tasks.

Why should it be crippling when a character does something within their capacity? I thought that was part of the point of skill dice - making skills attractive investments.

I don't think the intent is to force PCs to unmask, but rather to increase the pressure when they choose not to - a pressure that will be felt far more intensely by characters acting outside their areas of expertise.

14 hours ago, GaGrin said:

Why should it be crippling when a character does something within their capacity? I thought that was part of the point of skill dice - making skills attractive investments.

I don't think the intent is to force PCs to unmask, but rather to increase the pressure when they choose not to - a pressure that will be felt far more intensely by characters acting outside their areas of expertise.

It's not that big a pressure, unless you're psychologically predisposed to negative views of the odds. (As WHW seems to be.)

The math:

Expected successes per ring die, taking strife: 172/216 †; 79% roughly 4/5
Expected successes per skill die, taking strife: 1099/1728 †, 63%, just shy of 2/3

Expected successes per ring die, no strife: 2/6; 33%
Expected successes per skill die, no strife: 628/1728 †, 36% just a hair over 1/3.

My players are strife averse from the get go, so only take strife to get explosions.
Expected successes per ring die, taking strife only to explode: 129/216 †, 59%.
Expected successes per skill die, taking strife only to explode: 785/1728 †, 45%

For strife averse players, the reduction in odds from explode only to none are not bad at all. Keeping best 3 on 3+3k3, you expect a bit over 3 successes keeping all, or only taking strife for explosions; No strife at all, you still expect ~2.5, and so 2 is pretty reliable.

† recursing only to 3 terms EG: Ring keep all = 4/6 + 4/36 + 4/216; one could recurse further, 4/1272, but doing so adds increasingly less value.

19 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

It's not that big a pressure...

Sure, but are you saying it needs to be? I don't see why this is a problem, I'm clearly missing some part of the argument.

2 minutes ago, GaGrin said:

Sure, but are you saying it needs to be? I don't see why this is a problem, I'm clearly missing some part of the argument.

Yes, there ABSOLUTELY needs to be a way of pushing past the breaking point.

See, the current version has the following issues

• For strife averse players, it makes little to no difference at all
  • their rolls are almost always "keep no strife unless you get an explode"
• There's almost no mechanical reason to be strife averse, anyway, as
  • you can unmask immediately and become strife immune for rest of scene (except in duels)
  • unmasking can be done now (thanks to wording changes in week 4) in a manner that precludes even honor or glory losses almost all the time
  • the loss of competence is mostly felt in unskilled attempts.
• except in duels, there's very little reason to use strife inflicting attacks...
  • the primary reason for strife inflicting techniques in beta (week 0) was to force a reveal of a disad, or force dishonorable behavior
    • Without a forced to unmask level, these no no longer have any actual effect in that manner, instead merely reducing their competence
  • without a force unmask, you cannot embarrass someone publicly in intrigue, either - no one ever has to lose their cool and/or loose their frustration upon the court.. pretty much nerfing bayushi.

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

Yes, there ABSOLUTELY needs to be a way of pushing past the breaking point.

See, the current version has the following issues

• For strife averse players, it makes little to no difference at all
  • their rolls are almost always "keep no strife unless you get an explode"
• There's almost no mechanical reason to be strife averse, anyway, as
  • you can unmask immediately and become strife immune for rest of scene (except in duels)
  • unmasking can be done now (thanks to wording changes in week 4) in a manner that precludes even honor or glory losses almost all the time
  • the loss of competence is mostly felt in unskilled attempts.
• except in duels, there's very little reason to use strife inflicting attacks...
  • the primary reason for strife inflicting techniques in beta (week 0) was to force a reveal of a disad, or force dishonorable behavior
    • Without a forced to unmask level, these no no longer have any actual effect in that manner, instead merely reducing their competence
  • without a force unmask, you cannot embarrass someone publicly in intrigue, either - no one ever has to lose their cool and/or loose their frustration upon the court.. pretty much nerfing bayushi.

I am not seeing this as bad. Likely needs tweaking. But I see it as a step in the right direction.

I see the loss of competence being lost predominantly in unskilled attempts as a plus of this method, tbh. To each their own.

As to the rest, I think I mostly agree with your points though I don't think pushing strife is intended to be a primary conflict method simply an auxiliary one. Even a single success lost in a contest can change the relative advantage. If they want strife to bite more then yes, it needs bigger teeth.

27 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I am not seeing this as bad. Likely needs tweaking. But I see it as a step in the right direction.

So, all thr courtiers should be unable to do anything to force peoples hand, as they have been able to do in all prior editions?

Seriously, I think the forced breakdown should be double composure -

And here's why I think that.

As a kid, and even into college, I was subjected to a lot of taunting. Sometimes sufficient to goad me to action. It was often easier to give in and act out in a controlled way before they could trigger me into psychotic rage.

And I'm not being metaphorical - I have bipolar, and when enraged, do have psychotic breaks.

But I've seen that sufficient badgering can force a break in others, too. Modern society is more stressful in general, than that of my parents generation, even of my youth. And I'm seeing a lot of people giving in to base impulses to curse, rage, and troll because it's much safer than getting provoked to object overt hostility.

If there's to be a stress mechanic, it needs to have teeth. Either some point a forced resolution, or (as with duels), a potential for insta-end. I think the voluntary unmask should likewise be allowed well before that.

Which is why I think double composure is the right point at present.

3 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

It's not that big a pressure, unless you're psychologically predisposed to negative views of the odds. (As WHW seems to be.)

The math:

Expected successes per ring die, taking strife: 172/216 †; 79% roughly 4/5
Expected successes per skill die, taking strife: 1099/1728 †, 63%, just shy of 2/3

Expected successes per ring die, no strife: 2/6; 33%
Expected successes per skill die, no strife: 628/1728 †, 36% just a hair over 1/3.

My players are strife averse from the get go, so only take strife to get explosions.
Expected successes per ring die, taking strife only to explode: 129/216 †, 59%.
Expected successes per skill die, taking strife only to explode: 785/1728 †, 45%

For strife averse players, the reduction in odds from explode only to none are not bad at all. Keeping best 3 on 3+3k3, you expect a bit over 3 successes keeping all, or only taking strife for explosions; No strife at all, you still expect ~2.5, and so 2 is pretty reliable.

† recursing only to 3 terms EG: Ring keep all = 4/6 + 4/36 + 4/216; one could recurse further, 4/1272, but doing so adds increasingly less value.

This reads like a ring die has 4 success faces on it: that doesn't match up with the rulebook. Also You see to be using 7/12+7/144+7/1728 for the skill die which isn't accurate because that explodes 1/6 of the time.

Using the same process I get

Ring die, keep all: 129/216 approx 60%

Skill die, keep all: 1204/1728 approx 70%

Ring die, no strain: 36/216 approx 17%

Skill die, no strain: 628/1728 approx 36%

Ring die, strain to explode: 86/216 approx 40%

Skill die, strain to explode: 860/1728 approx 50%

(all percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number)

These numbers make things much worse when compromised with risk averse players losing over half their expected successes on ring dice and about a quarter on skill dice.

2 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

So, all thr courtiers should be unable to do anything to force peoples hand, as they have been able to do in all prior editions?

Seriously, I think the forced breakdown should be double composure -

And here's why I think that.

As a kid, and even into college, I was subjected to a lot of taunting. Sometimes sufficient to goad me to action. It was often easier to give in and act out in a controlled way before they could trigger me into psychotic rage.

And I'm not being metaphorical - I have bipolar, and when enraged, do have psychotic breaks.

But I've seen that sufficient badgering can force a break in others, too. Modern society is more stressful in general, than that of my parents generation, even of my youth. And I'm seeing a lot of people giving in to base impulses to curse, rage, and troll because it's much safer than getting provoked to object overt hostility.

If there's to be a stress mechanic, it needs to have teeth. Either some point a forced resolution, or (as with duels), a potential for insta-end. I think the voluntary unmask should likewise be allowed well before that.

Which is why I think double composure is the right point at present.

Sounds like you want to force players to do things against their will. This generally goes over extremely negatively with players. Which as i recall is exactly the reaction people had to the earlier rules.

21 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Sounds like you want to force players to do things against their will. This generally goes over extremely negatively with players. Which as i recall is exactly the reaction people had to the earlier rules.

As has been pointed out before - Wounds do that, too.

At a certain point, either give it teeth, or get rid of it.

8 hours ago, Norgrath said:

This reads like a ring die has 4 success faces on it: that doesn't match up with the rulebook. Also You see to be using 7/12+7/144+7/1728 for the skill die which isn't accurate because that explodes 1/6 of the time.

Using the same process I get

Ring die, keep all: 129/216 approx 60%

Skill die, keep all: 1204/1728 approx 70%

Ring die, no strain: 36/216 approx 17%

Skill die, no strain: 628/1728 approx 36%

Ring die, strain to explode: 86/216 approx 40%

Skill die, strain to explode: 860/1728 approx 50%

(all percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number)

These numbers make things much worse when compromised with risk averse players losing over half their expected successes on ring dice and about a quarter on skill dice.

I second those results. Actually, there is a very simple way to calculate the number of expected successes taking into account exploding dice to infinity. If the probability of rolling a success of any kind on the 1st die is p and the probability of rolling an explosive success is q, then overall, the expectation of successes will be p/(1-1/q) (geometric sequence with a ratio of q...)

So in fact that probability on regular ring and skill dice is exactly 60% and 70% respectively.

40% and 50% if you only pick Strife on exploding successes (Strife averse method)...

And 16.666...% and 36.363636...% if Compromised!

That is a solid handicap! Let’s see what happens when you roll a decent 6k3. Expected number of *rolled* successes is 3.9

This falls to 2.7 in the “Strife averse” scenario (but still good chances of passing TN 2 checks), and 1.59 if Compromised! The difference here is that TN 2 or 3 become very very dicey. While there was not much impact using the Strife averse method for this range of TN, it really makes a dent in your chance of success when you cannot keep those Strife symbols.

It gets worse with lower skill. With 4k1, E(rolled successes) is 2.5 ; 1.7 ; 0.86 in the 3 scenarios.

Finally, not being able to keep Strife means that Ring dice do NOT explode at all anymore and Skill dice only do so on one single side out of 12. Good luck passing checks where the TN is higher than your kept dice with that.

TL;DR: I contend that it is an adequately crippling penalty.

You're neglecting to account for (typically) half the dice being dropped anyway.

I stand corrected on using 1/12 instead of 1/6 as I should have for skill dice.

Not really... on a 6k3 where you keep 3 dice, it’s true that successes beyond the 3rd are kind of wasted (except explosions), but this does not matter when checking if a roll will let you pass a TN 2 or 3 check. If the average roll gives you 1.59 successes and hardly explodes, that can be cause for trouble.

Edit: I went a step further and tried to see how likely one was to pass TNs from 1 to 3 with a 6k3 roll, whether you’re unhindered or Compromised (kept dice cap doesn’t matter because you can always keep at least 3 of those dice here, so if you roll enough successes, you will be able to pass the check).

TN1: 99% vs 82% - not much of a hindrance in this case, granted.

TN2: 93% vs 47% - slashed your odds of success in half, from what was an almost sure thing to a coin toss

TN3: 75% vs 17%... need I say more?