5 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

This is where they should take the good look. Simplicity is key: it allows for fast conflict resolution, clear courses of action, and a lot of possibility for diverse yet roughly equal choices. Note that the basic rules allow tons of choices from the get-go via Opportunities, so even if you implement the 4ed duel system 1:1, we would still end up with a lot more tactical (and even strategic!) choices simply because Opportunities exist.

excessive simplicity is not of value.

Meaningful choices are. 3rd had meaningful choices - up the difficulty or have the opponent strike. I can't speak to 4, but I've heard complaints of lack of meaningful choices in 4E dueling. One is made above by WHW.

If one wants simple, nothing is simpler than an opposed roll. But that lacks meaningful choices past "Do I duel or not?"

51 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

excessive simplicity is not of value.

Excess is obviously bad for everything, even for meaningful choices.

Crab really can do crazy things with tanking in duels. Try using your opening attack to get as many Opportunities to pump into Striking as Earth as possible turn 1, and provoke a Finishing Blow during Staredown, especially during Iaijutsu duels - Iaijutsu techniques put you into one handed grip and by provoking the Finishing Blow at that exact time, Crab is forcing you to use one handed grip for Finishing Blow - which means that the base deadliness will be only 10. With boosted Resistance due to Striking as Earth, Crab School Ability can cut the Finishing Blow in half if no more before even rolling for Fitness. Then, Crab is free of the danger of Finishing Blows and can go full ham with Strife, while also having heavy advantage on the Initiative front

2 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

Excess is obviously bad for everything, even for meaningful choices.

The trick is to figure out where a good medium is.

A large number of equally viable options during a duel will likely lead to option paralysis that can stall a game. The same is not as true when creating or advancing characters.

Characters created to duel will likely have their primary, secondary and possibly even tertiary method of winning the duel planned out ahead of time based on the techniques they have and type of duel so option paralysis shouldn't be a problem. The key from there will be insuring that following those methods will not take an excessive amount of time or amount of rolls.

13 hours ago, WHW said:

4e dueling was terrible(1). It offered 0 player choice and could be basically run by an app, because all that was to it was literally rolling dice and seeing what happens(2). It was slow, uninvested, and didn't really offer anything interesting(3), plus it was a minigame entirely removed from how anything else about the game worked(4).

1. Opinion are not facts

2. This was changed by player request from 3rd. The game made stats important and got rid of the bidding that took most of the time an led to nothing most of the time.

3. Not seeing how three rounds in normal rounds is slow. But each to their own.

4 The 3rd system fits this complaint not the 4th. 4th the dueling was integrated into the rounds as a three rounds no more no less. with each section happening at the same time as everyone elses action.

how is that entirely removed?

Tehnchi, I see ZERO meaningful choices in your 4E description. None. it's zero improvement over 3E's...

3E as I recall it...

Center (much like the 4E) roll for information. May drop at this point, honor satisfied, by conceding the issue.

Into rounds. On your turn, either raise both sides' TNTBH or have your opponent strike you.

If they fail to hit, you may perform an attack on them.

Then, into skirmish if both survive and it's not to first contact nor first blood.

6 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Tehnchi, I see ZERO meaningful choices in your 4E description. None. it's zero improvement over 3E's...

don't remember making any claim about meaningful choices.

The improvement was in the integration of the duel into the combat round, and shortening it to 3 rounds all together.

The duel was more mechanically orientated, which allowed for the PC stats to matter.

As 3e duels could go on for long periods and devolve into a skirmish by just bidding higher then you or they could hit.

6 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

3E as I recall it...

Center (much like the 4E) roll for information. May drop at this point, honor satisfied, by conceding the issue.

indeed

6 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Into rounds. On your turn, either raise both sides' TNTBH or have your opponent strike you.

Not quite. you only raised your opponents TN to be hit.

it was basely a game of name that tune. Raise=" I can hit you at TN 15", Strike= "Hit me"

6 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

If they fail to hit, you may perform an attack on them.

Then, into skirmish if both survive and it's not to first contact nor first blood.

This was one of the major issues with this system it was easy to drive the fight to a skirmish losing all the bonus that the duel had created.

13 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

don't remember making any claim about meaningful choices.

No, but both WHW and I have. A lack of them is a very valid complaint about 4E. The only real meaningful choice is to quit or not, to resolve in 3 rounds what is mechanically just a trio of rolls. No player input required unless they wish to yield or someone else wants to interfere.

Player skill makes zero difference in 4th.

In 3rd, the player's skill at knowing the expected ability to roll is at least of value - it's a meaningful choice - narrowly construed, but quite present. And its pretty typical for historic Iaido... many are both miss their swings.

40 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

On your turn, either raise both sides' TNTBH or have your opponent strike you.

13 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Not quite. you only raised your opponents TN to be hit.

Wrong, Tenchi.

3E, page 170. Quoth below. I can't speak to 3.1, as i never acquired it. It's the same as for 2E (check the example in the sidebar on 2E PG pg 164).

Quote

ff you choose "Focus" you must make a Choice/Iaijutsu roll vs. your opponent's current TN to Be Hit. Tf this roll is successfuL both opponents' TN to Be Hit increases by 5, and the option to Focus or Strike passes to the other duelist. II this roll fails. the TN to Be Hit does not increase, and you must declare "Strike" -see below. You may only choose "Focus" a number of times equal to the Trait or Ring chosen by your opponent at the beginning of the duel. If you cannot Focus any more, you may spend a Void Point to Focus again, and may continue to do so as long as yoLI have Void Points remaining .

it's both a press your luck (on Iaijutsu) and gauge your opponent's skill set.

Since you're rolling in the open, once you start in, you know their dice pool for Iaijutsu and for their ring (tells you by how many kept).

32 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

No, but both WHW and I have. A lack of them is a very valid complaint about 4E. The only real meaningful choice is to quit or not, to resolve in 3 rounds what is mechanically just a trio of rolls. No player input required unless they wish to yield or someone else wants to interfere.

Player skill makes zero difference in 4th.

In 3rd, the player's skill at knowing the expected ability to roll is at least of value - it's a meaningful choice - narrowly construed, but quite present. And its pretty typical for historic Iaido... many are both miss their swings.

Roll 1: Iaijutsu (Assessment) / Awareness

Roll 2: Contested Iaijutsu (Focus) / Void

Roll 3: Iaijutsu / Reflexes

Player skill seem to be very important here not sure why you would think it was not?

32 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Wrong, Tenchi.

3E, page 170. Quoth below. I can't speak to 3.1, as i never acquired it. It's the same as for 2E (check the example in the sidebar on 2E PG pg 164).

Not totally, wrong

The second part is right. and the biggest problem with 3rd system.

12 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Player skill seem to be very important here not sure why you would think it was not?

Character Skill does not equal Player Skill.

2 players of different skill levels using identical characters are likely to have similar results which are only influenced by the randomness of the rolls.

4 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

Character Skill does not equal Player Skill.

2 players of different skill levels using the identical characters are likely to have similar results which are only influenced by the randomness of the rolls.

Its a RPG out of character skill should have no Bering on the game IMHO.

You are playing the PC not yourself, what you are implying is if you character has a Strength of 1 but you are a body builder your PC should be able to lift a 500 lb weight.

The point of the games rules are to add mechanical representations of what your PC can do not you.

7 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Roll 1: Iaijutsu (Assessment) / Awareness

Roll 2: Contested Iaijutsu (Focus) / Void

Roll 3: Iaijutsu / Reflexes

Player skill seem to be very important here not sure why you would think it was not?

That's CHARACTER SKILL not PLAYER SKILL .

And, since I copied from an OCR from my 3.0 book, I know I happen to be correct. And 2E, the sidebar shows that player 2 has a TN 10 and raises to 15 or lets his opponent strike with TN 10.

2E, PG page 164:

Quote

An Example of an Iaijutsu Duel

A Phoenix samurai and a Crab samurai enter into an irujutsu duel. The Crab has an Agility of 3, an laijutsu of 2 and a Void of 2. The Phoenix has an Agility of 2, an laijutsu of 2 and a Void of 1

The Crab rolled higher on his initial laijutsu/ Awareness roll. so he may choose first whether to Strike or Focus. He chooses to Focus. He Raises the TN, which starts at 5, making it a 10.
lt is now the Phoenix samurai's turn. He may choose to Strike or Focus. If he chooses to Strike, the Crab will get the first opportunity to roll at a TN of 10. He chooses to Focus, Raising the TN to 15.

Both duelists have Raised once. They may only make a number of Raises equal to their Void Trait. The Crab may only Raise once more (Void 2), while the Phoenix may Raise 2 more times (Void 3). The Crab samurai chooses to Focus once more (making the TN a 20), as does the Phoenix (TN 25).

The Crab is out of Raises and must choose to Strike. Because the Crab called "Strike': his opponent gets the first opportunity to roll his Attack The Phoenix must roll against the last TN he Raised to, which was a 25. If he misses, the Crab will get a chance to strike him at the last TN he Raised to. which was 20. The Phoenix decides to usc his Shiba School Technique. and spends 2 Void Points. He now rolls a total of (Iaijutsu 2 + Void Points 2) 4 dice, keeping (Agility 2 + Void Points 2) all four. Unfortunately, he only rolls a 22. He misses his strike and now it is the Crab's turn to roll at his TN of 20...

Note that after 1 raise each, if the crab calls strike, the phoenix rolls against 15, not 10, If the phoenix calls strike after the crab's second raise, his TN is 20, not 5+10.

Done wasting my time with your erroneous "corrections"?

We get it, you like 4E. You seem to think 4E is the only real edition, and that anyone who doesn't like it has something wrong. But you don't know 3 half as well as you seem to think, based upon what I've seen.

3E has more choice in the duels (the duelists pick the attributes), and that gamble is player skill, plus character skill, both contributing. Far more interesting to play when the player's skill matters.

What I like about 4th edition - it is fixed to x rounds. The problem with the current beta dueling, as with previous L5R dueling was the endless series of rounds... I don't like the lack of choice in 4th edition, but the choice in Beta just doesn't quite hit the mark either...

We need to bring both of these together. I think I posted something about what I would want already, but I think this would make a good dueling set

1) Both players may secretly bid an amount of Strife and a Ring choice. Then each may pick their opening approach and make their Assessment check.

At this time the bid is revealed. The amount of Strife bid is added to that character's composure and their initiative is increased by the amount bid. If the revealed Ring choice was the ring the opponent used for their assessment they gain +3 Strife.

2) Both players make a hidden selection of 2 rings, one for them and one for their opponent.

At this time the hidden selections are revealed. Each player enters the stance they chose for themselves. If the ring chosen by your opponent matches the ring you selected for them reduce the TN to hit them by 1 for the duration of the duel.

3) The player with the higher initiative now makes an attack check on their opponent. If they hit and victory conditions are met then it is a win. If they miss, or the victory conditions are not met then their opponent returns a strike at them.

When a player lands a strike in a duel it will always deal the weapon damage in fatigue to the opponent AND a critical hit with deadliness equal to the deadliness of the weapon plus that character's current Strife level.

As normal - if either player's composure limit is reached or exceeded their opponent gets to immediately deliver a Finishing Blow.

You may not spend Void to parry.

If victory conditions are not met after each player strikes the duel is considered a loss for both of them - or they may continue as a skirmish.

3 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Its a RPG out of character skill should have no Bering on the game IMHO.

You are playing the PC not yourself, what you are implying is if you character has a Strength of 1 but you are a body builder your PC should be able to lift a 500 lb weight.

The point of the games rules are to add mechanical representations of what your PC can do not you.

Remember, that was one of Week 9's (last week's) questions...

My entire group prefers a mix of the two. Obviously you don't. And I can tell you why I hate that character skill only kind of play...

... it means fewer meaningful choices for the player. And without meaningful choices, the game is boring. Both for them as players, and me as a GM. If you want me to just tell a story, give me a tall horn of mead‡ and turn me loose. For me to enjoy the game, I want players talking in character. (RB, if you're reading this, it's a hint.) And I want both player and character skill to matter. Because therein lies the game.

‡ Mead is best drunk from the hollowed horn of a dead bovine. Heart of mead from the hollowed tips of a reindeer's antler. A glass will do in a pinch, tho'. Oh, and decent Plum Wine is great in any non-porous container. But I digress.

I think the problem is Player Skill isn't what they mean - what they mean is Player Choice. You want your character to have some duel interaction that is unique for dueling. It doesn't mean a player who can duel irl is going to excel at dueling in the game, or that you can easily know what the best choice is - just that you get some choice.

No player skill - Yes player choice - Yes character skill.

16 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Remember, that was one of Week 9's (last week's) questions...

My entire group prefers a mix of the two. Obviously you don't. And I can tell you why I hate that character skill only kind of play...

... it means fewer meaningful choices for the player. And without meaningful choices, the game is boring. Both for them as players, and me as a GM. If you want me to just tell a story, give me a tall horn of mead‡ and turn me loose. For me to enjoy the game, I want players talking in character. (RB, if you're reading this, it's a hint.) And I want both player and character skill to matter. Because therein lies the game.

‡ Mead is best drunk from the hollowed horn of a dead bovine. Heart of mead from the hollowed tips of a reindeer's antler. A glass will do in a pinch, tho'. Oh, and decent Plum Wine is great in any non-porous container. But I digress.

Not saying that players should not role -play.

But the game should allow all to play it not just good role-players.

Just because one player has more experience role-playing then another that should not make his character a better duelist then the other the skill of the PC should.

42 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

That's CHARACTER SKILL not PLAYER SKILL .

And, since I copied from an OCR from my 3.0 book, I know I happen to be correct. And 2E, the sidebar shows that player 2 has a TN 10 and raises to 15 or lets his opponent strike with TN 10.

2E, PG page 164:

Note that after 1 raise each, if the crab calls strike, the phoenix rolls against 15, not 10, If the phoenix calls strike after the crab's second raise, his TN is 20, not 5+10.

Done wasting my time with your erroneous "corrections"?

We get it, you like 4E. You seem to think 4E is the only real edition, and that anyone who doesn't like it has something wrong. But you don't know 3 half as well as you seem to think, based upon what I've seen.

3E has more choice in the duels (the duelists pick the attributes), and that gamble is player skill, plus character skill, both contributing. Far more interesting to play when the player's skill matters.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a example do you. I was not saying a strike was always a 15 TN, and when your opponent calls strike you always strike at your last successful bid. Only if you miss does your opponent get to strike at his lower bit. and just to so is does't come up kakita duelist can bid any number not just 5.

36 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

We get it, you like 4E. You seem to think 4E is the only real edition, and that anyone who doesn't like it has something wrong. But you don't know 3 half as well as you seem to think, based upon what I've seen.

3E has more choice in the duels (the duelists pick the attributes), and that gamble is player skill, plus character skill, both contributing. Far more interesting to play when the player's skill matters.

Devolving into name calling or insulting someone is not the way to discuss anything.

I have already address this above and will not again.

that said I did not have a 3rd ed book in front of me at school so, I think I did pretty well from memory since I had not played 3rd in 7 years.

As for the bold faced info. you don't know me half as well as you think. I happen to like a lot of the rule from 3rd. Tides of Battle for one. and use them in my 4th ed games.

That said, No I never liked the 3rd ed dueling rules, and prefer 4th's.

26 minutes ago, shosuko said:

What I like about 4th edition - it is fixed to x rounds. The problem with the current beta dueling, as with previous L5R dueling was the endless series of rounds... I don't like the lack of choice in 4th edition, but the choice in Beta just doesn't quite hit the mark either...

An idea that I've come up with is to have each round of the duel inflict a steadily rising amount of Strife on both participants to give the duel a maximum time limit based on the participants' composure.

Round 1 would inflict 1 auto Strife, Round 2 2 Strife, 3 3, etc. With this method even a 5 Fire 5 Earth character (20 Composure) will be compromised by round 6 (21 auto strife) if not sooner.

7 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

An idea that I've come up with is to have each round of the duel inflict a steadily rising amount of Strife on both participants to give the duel a maximum time limit based on the participants' composure.

Round 1 would inflict 1 auto Strife, Round 2 2 Strife, 3 3, etc. With this method even a 5 Fire 5 Earth character (20 Composure) will be compromised by round 6 (21 auto strife) if not sooner.

That is not going to solve the people dont want them to go very long and the rest of the players get to sit with their thumbs up you know where while one player gets all the attention. I don't think going back to 3rd edition thinking is an improvement. We need real choices and those choices should not involve a bidding war. As that is just going to bog things down as people found in 3rd. It should be a couple die roles with a few options that effect those die rolls.

16 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

That is not going to solve the people dont want them to go very long and the rest of the players get to sit with their thumbs up you know where while one player gets all the attention. I don't think going back to 3rd edition thinking is an improvement. We need real choices and those choices should not involve a bidding war. As that is just going to bog things down as people found in 3rd. It should be a couple die roles with a few options that effect those die rolls.

It sets a rough soft cap on the number of rounds a duel can go. Combine that with removal of rolls from actions such as Center (making it a flat +1/+2 TN based on Rank) and even the most conservative defensive (i.e. no bidding just spamming Center) duel will resolve fairly quickly in real time.

8 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

It sets a rough soft cap on the number of rounds a duel can go. Combine that with removal of rolls from actions such as Center (making it a flat +1/+2 TN based on Rank) and even the most conservative defensive (i.e. no bidding just spamming Center) duel will resolve fairly quickly in real time.

Lets not. Lets not do a bidding thing. It is not a good mechanic and a soft cap does not really fix the problem. I get it you like the bidding thing. Most people including me seem to not like that mechanic. There are other options that would be better.

35 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Lets not. Lets not do a bidding thing. It is not a good mechanic and a soft cap does not really fix the problem. I get it you like the bidding thing. Most people including me seem to not like that mechanic. There are other options that would be better.

What? There is nothing in my suggestion about bidding (I'm not really a fan of it either) outside of it severely shortening the length of duels where no strife is bid for initiative or gained from rolls due to players being conservative with how much Strife they gain. My suggestion was fully focused around creation of a countdown clock that would prevent duels from stalling out.

With my suggestion Finishing Blows should be occurring after the following rounds of the duel if not sooner:

• Composure 4 to 6: Round 3
• Composure 7 to 10: Round 4
• Composure 11 to 15: Round 5
• Composure 16 to 21*: Round 6
• Composure 22 to 28: Round 7
• Composure 29 to 34: Round 8
• Composure 35 to 43**: Round 9

*A 5 Fire 5 Earth Rank 6 character would be compromised at this point.

**Even a 10 Fire 10 Earth Kami would be compromised if the duel went for 9 Rounds.

50 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Lets not. Lets not do a bidding thing. It is not a good mechanic and a soft cap does not really fix the problem. I get it you like the bidding thing. Most people including me seem to not like that mechanic. There are other options that would be better.

2E/3E was really a disguised auction mechanic.