On 1/8/2018 at 9:48 PM, AK_Aramis said:

The 3rd/4th divide was a big gulf. 3rd is procedurally complex, 4th isn't nearly so. I loved 3rd's bonuses for high skills. And that it was a 0-10 skill levels, with 1-5 allowed for rings (and 6 for a few NPCs).

There was never such a restriction in 3rd?

human range in 3rd was 1- 9, with only 10 restricted from players.

20 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

There was never such a restriction in 3rd?

human range in 3rd was 1- 9, with only 10 restricted from players.

Page 68 puts a starting limit of 2+(Free ranks).

And while, technically you're correct, the wording on page 86 reads:

"Beginning characters start with all Rings and their component Traits at 2. These ma y be increased through family or schoo l bonuses (see below) , or thr ough the expendilure of Character Points (see page 159) . Rings have a scale of I to 10, w ith 1 being below average and 10 being superhu man. Most samurai have Rings berween 2 and 5. Exceptional individual s may possess Rin gs of 6 or 7, and truly legendary heroes ma y have one or more Rings of 8 or even 9 . No mortal creature has ever achieved a Ring of 10, though divine creatures s uch as Fortunes or foul demons such as Oni may attain such power."

Note also: the experience examples stop at trait rank 5.

On 12/29/2017 at 9:44 PM, tenchi2a said:

More likely, if the 5th does poorly they will chalk it up to lack of interest in a RPG and drop the idea of making anything RPG related.

FFG just strikes me as the "if you don't like what we give you then you don't want an RPG" types.

This is why, if we are going to not buy 5th Edition, someone should organize a protest where participants buy the PDF of the 4th Edition Core Rules from Drive Thru RPG during the release week of the new RPG.

It would be felt by FFG (as it would hit sales figures twice), and it would show that there is interest in an RPG, just not the one they are trying to push.

9 hours ago, sndwurks said:

This is why, if we are going to not buy 5th Edition, someone should organize a protest where participants buy the PDF of the 4th Edition Core Rules from Drive Thru RPG during the release week of the new RPG.

It would be felt by FFG (as it would hit sales figures twice), and it would show that there is interest in an RPG, just not the one they are trying to push.

The issues here is that it would be a vary expensive form of protest.

What I would say is don't by the new game but keep posting about 3rd-4th, a revised version of 4th etc.

That way they see that there is still interest in the rpg, just not in their version of it.

It is expensive, yes, but it will probably be less expensive than buying the new game (guaranteed). And by spending money, you show FFG that there is money to be made that they CAN access with the right product.

Post all day, every day about the better, older version of L5R, and it will not show up once in a business analytics report unless the company directly asks for it. I know this. I am a data analyst.

Buy a previous version of the game during the week they have their entire analytical team watching sales figures? They will notice. Especially if sales of older versions eclipse the new version.

It makes it easier for FFG to notice the protest, since they will already be looking, and looking in the numerical you will be impacting.

Thing is, I prefer 3rd over 4th by a pretty significant margin. I might even prefer 1st, but I know there’s probably a bit of a nostalgia factor there. And I own tons of stuff for all these editions already, and even if FFG cans 5th edition for a while I’m sure they have zero incentive to start producing new material for a previous edition. So where’s the gain? What do we win by letting FFG know we want an L5R RPG, but not this one?

To be honest, purely mechanically 5th can - at least in my opinion - compete with 4th. The “issue”, for lack of a better word, is that its core goals are different from previous editions which can be a turnoff for veteran players. I’m not getting 3rd back as the edition of choice, so it’s between a supported 5th and an unsupported, but for my groups completely stocked, 4th. I’m not saying 5th is going to take off with my groups, almost certainly not with all of them, but all told I am probably getting more out of 5th getting released than not. Realistically, my best chances of getting something truly exciting out of this is arguably 5th getting released, FFG noting there are some significant flaws, and those flaws (or at least some of them) getting adressed.

When it comes to which edition is the best Overall. As a GM for my group and from the response of my players, I would have to say 4th.

1st was way to linked to the card game. The schools where way to specialized leaving certain schools useless when not in their element.

The attribute/skill system imbalance was at its worst.

magic was tacked on and overall the system was new and needed a 2nd edition.

As for 2nd edition. Well second was a joke. the link to d20 made for class bloat.

As every prestige class/new class needed a school or path.

The fact that they had to balance classes/schools for two games also lead to some major problems with the schools.

The fix for the attribute problem made every low to mid level PCs useless most of the time.

Now my problems with 3rd are not that big.

The school bloat was still there.

Some of the rules where wanky.

some schools seemed like they had not been play-tested at all.

and other schools where still to narrowly focused to be of any use.

But it had some good ideas also.

1. Paths fitting into character school progression and not replacing it

2. Flowing initiative (tide of battle)

3. Special abilities for all weapons.

4. Better skill level bonuses

4th fix a lot of the problems with 3rd, But made some mistakes along the way.

The reduction of bloat allowed for better balancing of the schools.

All the subsystems of the game were better integrated into the whole.

With 13 years, three editions and a pretty complete story under their belts AEG was able to build the game without fear of new mechanics being needed.

The problems that 4th had were more related to an attempt to simplify the game.

And in doing so some of the flavor of the setting was lost.

5th/beta/SWRPG lite is a travesty.

The system is a joke.

They have taken everything that made it L5R out and produced a generic samurai game.

The Clans are all the same with nothing to make them unique.

The system is dumb down.

The character creation in a mad-lib system that takes the PCs out of the hands of the players and states boldly that this is how to create you PC and no deviation will be allowed.

The skill system is a mess, and generic as ****.

dueling is a "stop poking me fight"

The writers have show they have little to no understanding of the setting outside of a few small examples.

The story is for the most part a retelling of the original with gender-swapping as its main changes and some small name and small detail changes .

And before I get the FFG said they where all fans of the game.

Watch the video interview with the 3 main writers of the LLG. Only one had ever even played the game before. And his way for introducing the other to it was to pull out his decks and beat on them.

Now this is where I think a 4th revised or a R&K 5th would come in

3rd for its flaws was good and 4th corrected a lot of 3rd flaws.

But 4th removed some of the best additions of 3rd while fixing 3rd flaws.

To me the best parts of both editions fix the worst parts of the other

So a hybrid of both would make the greatest R&K system ever.

I would buy it and I know many others would.

Remember this is MHO so some my disagree.

Quote

As for 2nd edition. Well second was a joke. the link to d20 made for class bloat.

As every prestige class/new class needed a school or path.

The fact that they had to balance classes/schools for two games also lead to some major problems with the schools.

The fix for the attribute problem made every low to mid level PCs useless most of the time.

This statement is very misleading.

2nd Edition L5R RPG was actually a cleanup of 1st Edition. Of which, the backbone was used to create the D20 system port for Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.

So, while I DO agree that the D20 system L5r for DnD 3.0 was bland, 2nd Edition L5R (D10) is actually quite good.

22 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

5th/beta/SWRPG lite is a travesty.

The system is a joke.

They have taken everything that made it L5R out and produced a generic samurai game.

The Clans are all the same with nothing to make them unique.

The system is dumb down.

The character creation in a mad-lib system that takes the PCs out of the hands of the players and states boldly that this is how to create you PC and no deviation will be allowed.

The skill system is a mess, and generic as ****.

dueling is a "stop poking me fight"

The writers have show they have little to no understanding of the setting outside of a few small examples.

The story is for the most part a retelling of the original with gender-swapping as its main changes and some small name and small detail changes .

And before I get the FFG said they where all fans of the game.

Watch the video interview with the 3 main writers of the LLG. Only one had ever even played the game before. And his way for introducing the other to it was to pull out his decks and beat on them.

While I understand it is a Beta, I still really felt the game was incomplete along with having major issues that made it unattractive. While I am still finishing up my L5R campaign ( 1 or 2 more long sessions), I wanted to expand on your thoughts here with some of mine.

-Dice are fun and good

-Strife system doesn't accomplish what it was intended to.

-Character creation worst of any L5R game, very little customization.

-Advantage/Disadvantage system nearly has no impact in games, takes away from character creation.

-Ninyo/Giriu(sp) just doesn't work, especially when players have any input. Furthermore, the pivotal event solution suggestion doesn't work either.

-The skill system was forced into categories, and should be reworked, making subskills all full skills. This would require work throughout the spell section, techniques, all the scenes, etc.

-Duels are still a problem. While the most current implementation of strife every round and the current iteration of actions in duels seem to have improved them, there is no benefit to having the skill Iajutsu other than using the techniques and characters without Iajutsu are not at much of a disadvantage. I think they should be reworked to be the "one strike" they are meant to be with whoever striking "better" declared the victor, and if it is to the death and contestants are standing they begin a skirmish to finish the job. That said, those who aren't skilled in drawing and striking with a sheathed weapon will need to be weary about getting into a Iajutsu duel.

-I also sensed a lack of understanding of what Iajutsu Duels are, why they are used, and when they are appropriate vs. any other kind of challenge.

-Combat: in practice Strike as a fixed TN2 makes Armor/Damage mitigation much more valuable. In previous versions, TN to be hit could be raised by reflexes and armor, so there was a balance. This game has few damage mitigation/avoidance measures so I think in the current system armor, especially heavy armor, is too good. My concern is power gamers will just all be forced into heavy armor-wearing bushi.

-The weapons and armor lacked uniqueness, balance, and in general are less interesting than previous editions (1 type of arrow, which is unlimited).

-Mass combat incomplete & fails logic tests.

-Character progression confusion. I think the developers overlooked eliminating 2 attributes from rings and thus making them a single stat. This makes rings vastly more powerful even before you consider the skill approach/stance system. This means a number of things 1) their cost should be substantially higher 2) Skill approaches need to be more rigid 3)game mechanics need to reflect the weight for balance continuity.

-The writers have shown good understanding of the setting, have some really fun/creative ideas, but ignored some things that made L5R attractive. Also in many instances, it seems a genuine lack of playtesting has occurred which suggests laziness and I have noticed testers are very put off by the "scent" of this if you will.

-The story IS a retelling, which is great, that includes some differences. Doji Hoturi= Doji Hotaru, Toturi is Emerald Champ. I have no complaints here

So with all this, the Beta team really made a huge mistake. With beta testers all seeing so many issues and wanting to actually provide feedback, all they were given were surveys focused on the weekly topic, and the surveys were multiple choice answer only. As a result, many of the solutions to major issues fell short. I will give them credit for the updates actually fixing/balancing issues.

It will be interesting to see what the future for this game holds.

7 hours ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

This statement is very misleading.

2nd Edition L5R RPG was actually a cleanup of 1st Edition. Of which, the backbone was used to create the D20 system port for Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.

So, while I DO agree that the D20 system L5r for DnD 3.0 was bland, 2nd Edition L5R (D10) is actually quite good.

There is some debate over which one was designed first as the game licence was in the hands of Wizards of the Cost at the time, but that's neither here nor there.

The main issues that I was getting at was this was the dreaded Dual-Stat era of AEG. when they where Dual-Stating all of there main licences.

And while I respect that you like this version of the game most players I have known do not.

The edition was weighted down with to many schools, paths, and advanced schools. with some being way overpowered and others being a joke.

The skill system made for some of the weirdest rolls. Example: 1k3 or 1k2 +5TN due to the roll Skill keep Trait system.

And just to be clear this skill system was not a part of 1st.

So in general I see 2nd as a brief departure from the system that 1st laid down that didn't work.

So I see 3rd as the cleaned up version of 1st not 2nd.

And again you are entitled to your opinions, but to call it good seems to be subjective as most of the new systems it added where dropped in later editions.

Quote

While I understand it is a Beta, I still really felt the game was incomplete along with having major issues that made it unattractive. While I am still finishing up my L5R campaign ( 1 or 2 more long sessions), I wanted to expand on your thoughts here with some of mine.

-Dice are fun and good

-Strife system doesn't accomplish what it was intended to.

-Character creation worst of any L5R game, very little customization.

-Advantage/Disadvantage system nearly has no impact in games, takes away from character creation.

-Ninyo/Giriu(sp) just doesn't work, especially when players have any input. Furthermore, the pivotal event solution suggestion doesn't work either.

-The skill system was forced into categories, and should be reworked, making subskills all full skills. This would require work throughout the spell section, techniques, all the scenes, etc.

-Duels are still a problem. While the most current implementation of strife every round and the current iteration of actions in duels seem to have improved them, there is no benefit to having the skill Iajutsu other than using the techniques and characters without Iajutsu are not at much of a disadvantage. I think they should be reworked to be the "one strike" they are meant to be with whoever striking "better" declared the victor, and if it is to the death and contestants are standing they begin a skirmish to finish the job. That said, those who aren't skilled in drawing and striking with a sheathed weapon will need to be weary about getting into a Iajutsu duel.

-I also sensed a lack of understanding of what Iajutsu Duels are, why they are used, and when they are appropriate vs. any other kind of challenge.

-Combat: in practice Strike as a fixed TN2 makes Armor/Damage mitigation much more valuable. In previous versions, TN to be hit could be raised by reflexes and armor, so there was a balance. This game has few damage mitigation/avoidance measures so I think in the current system armor, especially heavy armor, is too good. My concern is power gamers will just all be forced into heavy armor-wearing bushi.

-The weapons and armor lacked uniqueness, balance, and in general are less interesting than previous editions (1 type of arrow, which is unlimited).

-Mass combat incomplete & fails logic tests.

-Character progression confusion. I think the developers overlooked eliminating 2 attributes from rings and thus making them a single stat. This makes rings vastly more powerful even before you consider the skill approach/stance system. This means a number of things 1) their cost should be substantially higher 2) Skill approaches need to be more rigid 3)game mechanics need to reflect the weight for balance continuity.

-The writers have shown good understanding of the setting, have some really fun/creative ideas, but ignored some things that made L5R attractive. Also in many instances, it seems a genuine lack of playtesting has occurred which suggests laziness and I have noticed testers are very put off by the "scent" of this if you will.

-The story IS a retelling, which is great, that includes some differences. Doji Hoturi= Doji Hotaru, Toturi is Emerald Champ. I have no complaints here

So with all this, the Beta team really made a huge mistake. With beta testers all seeing so many issues and wanting to actually provide feedback, all they were given were surveys focused on the weekly topic, and the surveys were multiple choice answer only. As a result, many of the solutions to major issues fell short. I will give them credit for the updates actually fixing/balancing issues.

It will be interesting to see what the future for this game holds.

My complaints about the stories is not that they changed a few thing here and there.

Its that that's all they seem to be doing.

And most of the changes seem to be for PR reasons more then to tell a better story.

They had the chance to do one of two things IMHO.

Tell an all new story with new characters and events as to make the story their owm

Or to retell the same story with in a cleaned up coherent way.

What they chose to do IMHO was retell the story and make gender-swaps and lesbian sub-stories to attract groups that probably will still not be interested in the game.

I have said it before but do they really think that so-and-so was not interested in the game because there was only 4 female main characters and that changing that to 6 is going to change their minds.

In this case it was more likely that so-and-so was not interested in the game because it was an RPG or about Samurai.

While they may get a very small number of new players. The real question is will this make-up for the losses in old players.

8 hours ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

-The story IS a retelling, which is great, that includes some differences. Doji Hoturi= Doji Hotaru , Toturi is Emerald Champ. I have no complaints here

This one is a major issues for me.

And not for the reasons you may think.

The issues here is Doji Hotaru and Bayushi Kachiko are having an affair, So what?

It was was not a big deal in Japan for two men or two women to have one and was actually common.

Just because it not in our time doesn't make it a big deal in Rokugan.

Also this story is misses the whole point of the original.

First lets clean up some misconceptions.

1. Doji Hoturi and Bayushi Kachiko did not technically have an affair. At the time she was still Shosuro Kachiko.

This one can be confusing due to the story in Winter Court: Kyuden Seppun being a flash-back. As Kachiko and Hoturi have parted ways and are both married at that time. And Shiba Ujimitsu who was not at the winter court in the flash-back is the clan champion during Winter Court: Kyuden Seppun.

2. Before her marriage she told Shoju of the affair and after her marriage she broke off the relationship with Hoturi. And Hoturi married Ameiko (The kitsune)

3 The issues was not that she had had an affair with Hoturi, but that they had a son because of it.

This 2nd and 3rd points is where all the story comes from

The fact that both of them still love each other and where forced apart by society.

The fact that Hoturi killed his son during the scorpion clan coup.

The betrayal of Ameiko by Hoturi.

Kachiko's uses of the egg to get revenge on Hoturi for killing their son.

Kachiko forgiving Hoturi as he die in her arms, and more importantly her insuring Hoturi that Ameiko forgave him to.

all these points and this massive and heart wrenching tale are lost with the simple switch of Doji Hoturi to Doji Hotaru.

16 hours ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

This statement is very misleading.

2nd Edition L5R RPG was actually a cleanup of 1st Edition. Of which, the backbone was used to create the D20 system port for Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.

So, while I DO agree that the D20 system L5r for DnD 3.0 was bland, 2nd Edition L5R (D10) is actually quite good.

Yeah, no. 2nd was quite a departure from 1st in terms of how R&K worked, and nobody I know ever felt it was an improvement. 2nd was not a cleanup or a rewrite, it was a fairly significant redesign. 3rd had to reverse all of that. There are aspects of 2nd I like, but not the core mechanics and those are the most important part of the system.

Quote

Yeah, no. 2nd was quite a departure from 1st in terms of how R&K worked

First off I was just clarifying that the 2nd Edition L5R D10 and D20 systems are different since your original post was not clear.

I haven't had any issues with 2nd edition.

It is clear as you mentioned, your favorite is 3rd Edition. I have not played 3rd or 4th, so maybe if I had then I would also think 2nd has major issues. But thank you. Now I am intrigued about 3rd edition.

Quote

all these points and this massive and heart wrenching tale are lost with the simple switch of Doji Hoturi to Doji Hotaru.

**** good point. It will be tough to replace that kind of plot with Hotaru(Strong magic needed), how can this be an improvement I wonder?

Toturi as Emerald champion is exciting though.

1 hour ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

First off I was just clarifying that the 2nd Edition L5R D10 and D20 systems are different since your original post was not clear.

I haven't had any issues with 2nd edition.

It is clear as you mentioned, your favorite is 3rd Edition. I have not played 3rd or 4th, so maybe if I had then I would also think 2nd has major issues. But thank you. Now I am intrigued about 3rd edition.

Not sure about Nameless, but I'm more of a fan of 4th which in my opinion is a cleaned up version of 3rd.

Not to say 4th doesn't have its issues.

What I am playing now is for the most part 4th with some of the rules from 3rd and some house rule and my players seem to love it.

1 hour ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

**** good point. It will be tough to replace that kind of plot with Hotaru(Strong magic needed), how can this be an improvement I wonder?

Toturi as Emerald champion is exciting though.

I just don't see them being able to make the new Hotaru story-line relevant beyond shock value or a lame PR stunt. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

As for Toturi as Emerald champion. I honestly didn't know he was.

Stopped reading the stories some where around Service and Sacrifice.

was just not getting into the story.

And since I don't play the LCG, just to be clear I don't play any card games anymore.

I was only looking to see if I was going to use the new or old timeline in my upcoming campaign.

3 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Not sure about Nameless, but I'm more of a fan of 4th which in my opinion is a cleaned up version of 3rd.

Not to say 4th doesn't have its issues.

What I am playing now is for the most part 4th with some of the rules from 3rd and some house rule and my players seem to love it.

4th can be considered a clean-up of 3rd, to a large extent. It made a bunch of mechanics simpler but otherwise kept a lot of things the same. It probably would have been my favourite edition had it done that more elegantly, so to speak, but most of the reduced complexity to me feels unnecessary and unasked for, and resulted more in a flavorless bunch of rules that fail to immerse me than a streamlined, lean ruleset that’s just there to get the job done and stay in the background.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

4th can be considered a clean-up of 3rd, to a large extent. It made a bunch of mechanics simpler but otherwise kept a lot of things the same. It probably would have been my favourite edition had it done that more elegantly, so to speak, but most of the reduced complexity to me feels unnecessary and unasked for, and resulted more in a flavorless bunch of rules that fail to immerse me than a streamlined, lean ruleset that’s just there to get the job done and stay in the background.

As the designer's diaries for 4th had said that was the point.

They where going for a rule set that did the job, but did not run the show so to speak.

At this task I think they did a good job.

But as you said, I also feel they went to far in some areas.

They simplified areas that did not need it.

most of this can be fix easily with 3rd ed transfers and house rules.

With these addition 4th works great.

1. added back the tide of battle rules from 3rd.

2. Use options from "Little Truths" by Sean c. Riley ( https://www.scribd.com/doc/111756399/L5R-Little-Truths )

Raises,Reach,etc.

3. Optional rules: Shugenja and Religion from Imperial Archives

4. Sacred Weapons, Expanded document

5. Okuma’s guide to Gaijin parts 1&2 and others by Okuma ( http://www.kazenoshiro.com/rpg/unofficial-content/okuma/ )

6. Adding back the Shugenja innate abilities and most of the raise rules from 3rd

3rd brought the complexity up, but also fixed several good ideas of 2nd by making them work - like narrow skills as options

4th was a literal "Let's dumb it down, 3rd scares people."

If you like mechanical greeblies galore in your mechanics, go for 3rd.

If you want more streamlined, less mechanicalized mechanics, go 4th.

If you want the most sensible storystate to start in for an instant intrigue, early portions of 2nd for setting, 3rd or 4th for rules.

14 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

With these addition 4th works great.

1. added back the tide of battle rules from 3rd.

2. Use options from "Little Truths" by Sean c. Riley ( https://www.scribd.com/doc/111756399/L5R-Little-Truths )

Raises,Reach,etc.

3. Optional rules: Shugenja and Religion from Imperial Archives

4. Sacred Weapons, Expanded document

5. Okuma’s guide to Gaijin parts 1&2 and others by Okuma ( http://www.kazenoshiro.com/rpg/unofficial-content/okuma/ )

6. Adding back the Shugenja innate abilities and most of the raise rules from 3rd

Not sure why I’d want to houserule 4th to this point rather than just go with 3rd. I mean, I play a rank 4 Tamori in a stock 4th campaign at the moment. He’s got 2 Void. Admittedly more to prove a point than anything else, but it’s still ok in practice. Two VP between meditations and being capped at two Raises is entirely doable in 4th, for an IR 4 character. Do I really want to bother replacing everything to do with Raises? Because that would include going over the entire spell list too. Third is not perfect, but what is so bad about it I’d go to that amount of trouble to thirdify 4th?

Basically, the edition I play is the one my GM wants to play or my group wants to play. If I have the final say, it’s going to be 3rd with some minimal houserules (and those usually more based on the campaign than on balance issues). I don’t want to reinvent the wheel, when we have a couple of perfectly serviceable ones ready to go.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

Not sure why I’d want to houserule 4th to this point rather than just go with 3rd. I mean, I play a rank 4 Tamori in a stock 4th campaign at the moment. He’s got 2 Void. Admittedly more to prove a point than anything else, but it’s still ok in practice. Two VP between meditations and being capped at two Raises is entirely doable in 4th, for an IR 4 character. Do I really want to bother replacing everything to do with Raises? Because that would include going over the entire spell list too. Third is not perfect, but what is so bad about it I’d go to that amount of trouble to thirdify 4th?

Basically, the edition I play is the one my GM wants to play or my group wants to play. If I have the final say, it’s going to be 3rd with some minimal houserules (and those usually more based on the campaign than on balance issues). I don’t want to reinvent the wheel, when we have a couple of perfectly serviceable ones ready to go.

This really only come to 1 or 2 page(s) of rule.

Not much more then was in the errata sheet for 4th.

1. one small side-bar

2. This document adds rule that in some cases where missing from both 3rd and 4th.

The rules I use from it are Reach, Improved raises, Improvised weapon, Puts back in weapon categorize rules and some missing weapons. All a small paragraph or less.

3. An official 4th optional rule anyway. This rule set tries to keep Shugenja from becoming just L5R wizards. an issues with all the versions of the game. Imperial Archives was write by AEG.

4. A 1/2 page document that add some new Sacred Weapons.

5. Gaijins are not covered very will in any version of L5R.

6. Again a simplification from 3rd to 4th that ended up weakening higher ranked Shugenja.

As I said its not as much as it looks like. Any only two small parts are ports from 3rd.

Now when I played 3rd I used a 65 page Optional rules document to play.

That said I was not trying to convince you or anyone else to use this, I was just saying what I uses to play.

7 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

3rd brought the complexity up, but also fixed several good ideas of 2nd by making them work - like narrow skills as options

Even a edition as bad as 2nd was bound to have one or two good ideas.

Quote

4th was a literal "Let's dumb it down, 3rd scares people."

I don't agree with the dumb it down statement. I have always seen it more as they tried to simplify the rules as the complexity of some of them caused to much confusion and fixed some major imbalances in the schools. Now I will say that AEG went a little overboard on the simplification and in the process lost some good rules.

Quote

If you like mechanical greeblies galore in your mechanics, go for 3rd.

If you want more streamlined, less mechanicalized mechanics, go 4th.

If you want the most sensible storystate to start in for an instant intrigue, early portions of 2nd for setting, 3rd or 4th for rules.

For me its

Timeline: Pre-coup (1st)

Ruleset: 4th with above add-ons.

On 09/02/2018 at 2:37 AM, tenchi2a said:

5. Okuma’s guide to Gaijin parts 1&2 and others by Okuma ( http://www.kazenoshiro.com/rpg/unofficial-content/okuma/ )

Thanks for appreciating my work ;-)

For what matters, a lot of 3rd edition wasn't playtested (I know, I was there), and it's easier to adjust a more balanced, more playtested game that the bloat that was 3rd (unless you decide to not use a good part of what is available, but it's technically an homerule to do so).

5 hours ago, okuma said:

Thanks for appreciating my work ;-)

For what matters, a lot of 3rd edition wasn't playtested (I know, I was there), and it's easier to adjust a more balanced, more playtested game that the bloat that was 3rd (unless you decide to not use a good part of what is available, but it's technically an homerule to do so).

I realize I’m probably in a minority here, but I personally have no problem with bloat itself and fairly few problems with school imbalances in L5R. If something is blatantly, abusively overpowered that’s a real problem. If something is a little better than it should be, I’ll cover it with GM choices. If something is a bit under the curve but interesting enough that someone wants to play it, I can cover that too. If something is just terribly weak, that’s a shame but unlikely to ever come up in game so not a problem. None of which means I don’t value balance, of course I do, but if 2/3 of the schools are within acceptable parameters and there’s only few that are far too good then the game is in “works for me” territory. Better is better, but good enough is good enough.

1 hour ago, nameless ronin said:

I realize I’m probably in a minority here, but I personally have no problem with bloat itself and fairly few problems with school imbalances in L5R. If something is blatantly, abusively overpowered that’s a real problem. If something is a little better than it should be, I’ll cover it with GM choices. If something is a bit under the curve but interesting enough that someone wants to play it, I can cover that too. If something is just terribly weak, that’s a shame but unlikely to ever come up in game so not a problem. None of which means I don’t value balance, of course I do, but if 2/3 of the schools are within acceptable parameters and there’s only few that are far too good then the game is in “works for me” territory. Better is better, but good enough is good enough.

And if it works for you then have at it.

I don't think anyone here is saying your wrong for liking it.

But I think your are missing the point on the subject of bloat, and overpower issues.

Its not just the fact that there is a ridiculous amount of schools in 3rd.

Since most will never see the light of day in the average campaign.

It the idea that they felt that they needed a school for everything in 2nd-3rd edition.

Why did every Clan have to have a dueling school in 3rd?

Why did every clan have to have some form of archery school?

Why did we need schools for sumo wrestling?

On the subject of overpowered schools.

From the lack of play-testing we got schools that would be used offend that where not only broken, but broke immersion as well.

A major example was the Hojatsu's Legacy advanced school from Art of the Duel 3rd edtion .

While the Mirumoto the are excellent duelist this school made them gods of dueling.

It is hard to find a player that will not take this school if they want their PC to be a dragon duelist.

This school even overshadowing the Kenshinzen school in its powers.

During the time I played 3rd this was one of a few schools I was forced to ban from my game.

The thing is, its easier to add a small amount of missing rules and a school or two to a balanced game.

Then it is to go through hundreds of schools to ban the overly broken one and house rule pages of books in an unbalanced game to make the game work.

That said, as always play what you like and don't let anyone (including FFG) tell you how to play your game.

Now on the subject of balance.

The word itself needs to be clarified when in this context.

Balances in no way means everyone is completely equal at everything.

What would be the point in this.

Balances means that outside their niche everyone has an equal chance to complete the goal depending on their skills.

And that's not saying that a Kenshinzen should not be better then everyone else in dueling, This is his/her niche.

Now this in no way means that the Kenshinzen duelist should be a god either.

These where some of the problems of the earlier editions of the game.

1. From the very start there were schools that where way overpowered in one aspect or another.

2. Even basic schools focused on one aspect of being a samurai to the excursion of all others. (more a 1st and 2nd thing here)

3. With the school bloat the chances to properly play-test went out the window. (2nd and 3rd)

So overall while 4th is missing somethings that can for the most part be added back with little effort.

The 3rd schools which are the core of the game make it an issues to run. IMHO

Don’t go over every page in every book all at once to sniff out mechanics that might be overpowered. Look over what your players actually want to play and take care of anything in that small subset of mechanics if needed. After a while you’ll have come across most of the potentially problematic stuff anyway.

One of my problems with 4th is that while it does have fewer schools that are problematic, to me it’s the edition with the biggest imbalance between types. If I want to play an effective character in 4th, it seems like playing a shugenja is the optimal choice by a proverbial mile. Other editions had some of that too, for sure, just not quite to the extent that 4th does. Now, that isn’t an absolute problem. It’s not that shugenja break the game. But just like Raises feeling neutered in 4th it’s something that makes the edition less appealing to me and something that is hard to fix without a major overhaul.

12 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

Don’t go over every page in every book all at once to sniff out mechanics that might be overpowered. Look over what your players actually want to play and take care of anything in that small subset of mechanics if needed. After a while you’ll have come across most of the potentially problematic stuff anyway.

On this we defiantly have different views. I did not ban schools because I wanted to, but had to. That said I believe if its in the game it should be allowed. I hate banning classes/schools in games that I play. If I have to then to me this is a fundamental flaw in the system design. Which 3rd had way to many to count.

12 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

One of my problems with 4th is that while it does have fewer schools that are problematic, to me it’s the edition with the biggest imbalance between types. If I want to play an effective character in 4th, it seems like playing a shugenja is the optimal choice by a proverbial mile. Other editions had some of that too, for sure, just not quite to the extent that 4th does. Now, that isn’t an absolute problem. It’s not that shugenja break the game. But just like Raises feeling neutered in 4th it’s something that makes the edition less appealing to me and something that is hard to fix without a major overhaul.

Not sure I see or understand this shugenja problem that you do?

I have played many games of 4th, and while a shugenja is nice to have I never found that is was overpowered, necessary, or brought you out of immersion.

I would need to better understand this issues you see to agree or disagree with you one way or the other.

Now this is just a guess but if the issues is power, one of the main problems I have seen with shugenja is PCs and GMs alike tend to forget that they are priest.

Most are pacifist to the core and proponents of nature and life.

This was build into the world and if you ignore it and go all D&D wizard with them then you can have an issues.

That's not a issues with the game, it's issues with the play style.