4 hours ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

Yeah, makes sense. Although each toon may differ.

Yes it is a feature, and it is an option in the game. I also think it is cool.

The part that isn't cool or intended is what has been said about approaches. Always trying to use earth approaches isn't who you are, its gaming the system, destroys roleplaying, and often makes the GMs job more difficult than it should be.

I have been GMing Fate for years. Having run fate accelerated, which is a version that plenty of people have the worry of spamming your best trait, I can say that it does none of those things.

If the fiery, brash guy always uses his fire approach to get the best dice... great. Maybe he is dealing with a polite person who responds well to a water approach (1 sux), moderately to earth and air (2 sux), and badly to fire.

Maybe that brash guy has less dice if he is calm, and takes the correct approach, but it gives him opportunity to swallow his temper IC. Or not, and risk failure. Or makes him lean on someone else. Someone better at that approach.

One small thing I like a lot though, is that schools aren't just 'X bush, Y shugenja, Z courtier' but have something different. That is something I like a lot. Quite curious about what will be the names be for some of the schools not in the beta (Asahina shuggie, Moto bushi mainly)

10 hours ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

Always trying to use earth approaches isn't who you are

It kinda is. If the character has an "Earth Ring personality" then he is going to use Earth Approaches. It wouldn't make much sense for him to use anything else much. Heck, if I had more trust in the writers, then I would say that they made a mind-blowing allegory with Rokugani Bushido because as far as the tenet of Honor goes: the decisions you make and how those decisions are carried out (Approaches!) are a reflection of who you truly are .

I also disagree with mono-Approaching being difficult for the GM because it makes the character super predictable and thus easier to manage. From my personal experience, it also makes for more interesting games because a high Ring translates into more kept Opportunities and thus more colorful play.

As of now, the problem seems to be twofold:

1. Approaches doing a bit too much because the other half - the Skill system - is a mess.
2. The rest of the rules do not really acknowledge the existence of Approaches and just let them hang out to dry.

10 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

It kinda is. If the character has an "Earth Ring personality" then he is going to use Earth Approaches. It wouldn't make much sense for him to use anything else much. Heck, if I had more trust in the writers, then I would say that they made a mind-blowing allegory with Rokugani Bushido because as far as the tenet of Honor goes: the decisions you make and how those decisions are carried out (Approaches!) are a reflection of who you truly are .

I also disagree with mono-Approaching being difficult for the GM because it makes the character super predictable and thus easier to manage. From my personal experience, it also makes for more interesting games because a high Ring translates into more kept Opportunities and thus more colorful play.

As of now, the problem seems to be twofold:

1. Approaches doing a bit too much because the other half - the Skill system - is a mess.
2. The rest of the rules do not really acknowledge the existence of Approaches and just let them hang out to dry.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. You are all hitting on things we discussed much earlier in this post and I completely agree with you. We've already discussed varied TN's, exclusive approaches(only 1 approach works), and different outcomes for a successful roll based on what approach is use(love this).Its clear that what I said still hasn't been understood by some so I'll try again.

One point I was trying to communicate is the need for better definition/examples of the approach system and as Ato mentioned above, tie in approaches with the rest of the rules. I have already expressed in the above posts.

The other point, which I have also mentioned a few times now, has a couple parts. The presentation of the game, with approaches clearly on the character sheet encourages power-gaming. This is not an opinion, this is fact, by seeing what approaches are tied to what ring, the game itself is incentivizing power gaming and not roleplaying. This information should be somewhere for the GM to check after the character describes their actions, to say, "As you try to recall what you know about poison from stories and your training roll your earth ring". Instead it can become forced(now I recognize some of you may not have this problem or feel that it takes away from the game, which is why when I posted I explained dealing with certain types of players this can become a problem) where a player just looks down at his sheet for the highest ring, then looks under approaches, and says "Oh, I uh try to recall what I know about poison. I'll now roll my 4 earth along with my skill." Some of you are saying this is normal and fine as that is their earth oriented character's style, maybe it is. And if the opportunities spice up the story in the process, fantastic. But would they have chosen to do that without knowing it was directly attached to the Earth Ring? Some players might decide to analyze the poison, even though their character has a high earth ring(assuming they are allowed to use it).

Yes, players will eventually realize that how their character goes about actions determines the ring used, but this should be kept as vague as possible and for the GM to determine from the very beginning . It may sound nitpicky, but in play this minor change actually has profound impact on how the game is played. After a roll or two the player may now know "As I recall, this type of dress indicates ...I roll my earth ring." This obviously is unavoidable so, as I and others have mentioned, the power gaming cannot be prevented. That's not the point here.

Now for you devil's advocates, even with approaches on the sheets some players may not do this. In fact, it may be beneficial in those cases as they can easily see what approaches allow what dice justified by that is just "their style" and it giving more character. Fine, yeah I get it. But instead of thinking about how their character will address the subject, they are thinking of how they can use an earth approach. To me this takes away from the roleplaying experience and the immersion into a fantasy world; whether it is someone's earth personality or not. But the Beta rules still say the player should describe their action(what they are doing-skill- and how -approach- they are going about it) and in my experience the game is a lot more fun when this is done. I just don't think most players need/should have a list of approaches to describe what their character is doing.

Its obvious to me that people are aware of the value and importance of approaches beyond just choosing what your highest ring is, which is why this topic was on my original post. I was just sharing a couple of things that I will be looking for that reinforces this idea.

14 hours ago, KveldUlfr said:

I have been GMing Fate for years. Having run fate accelerated, which is a version that plenty of people have the worry of spamming your best trait, I can say that it does none of those things.

If the fiery, brash guy always uses his fire approach to get the best dice... great. Maybe he is dealing with a polite person who responds well to a water approach (1 sux), moderately to earth and air (2 sux), and badly to fire.

Maybe that brash guy has less dice if he is calm, and takes the correct approach, but it gives him opportunity to swallow his temper IC. Or not, and risk failure. Or makes him lean on someone else. Someone better at that approach.

Absolutely. If he's really doing it because that's how they are roleplaying then that is exactly the intention! Much more fun that way rather than a dry mechanical player. Someone also mentioned different outcomes with approach even on a successful roll. (The example of whether or not a guard who was charmed, bribed, or intimidated would remember you)

The big point here isn't whether or not its ok to spam your highest trait. Its about how it can(but not always) negatively affect the roleplaying aspect and things that could be done to minimize the incentive to do so. I can't force my players to role play or this wouldn't be an issue.

1 hour ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

I can't force my players to role play or this wouldn't be an issue.

1

The basic idea behind the Approaches is that they are doing the forcing because the player has to put a lot more thought and effort into them than into a classic characteristic. You don't have to roleplay lifting a crate with Strength, it is pretty darn clear-cut what you are doing and how. Lifting the same crate with Overwhelm, however, requires quite a lot more description and thus immersion.

It surprised even me when I played the Beta. No more "I attack", I had to describe how I Sacrifice (a very tricky Approach to explain) to strike my opponent.

1 hour ago, M4S-_-T3R said:

1) The presentation of the game, with approaches clearly on the character sheet encourages power-gaming. This is not an opinion, this is fact, by seeing what approaches are tied to what ring, the game itself is incentivizing power gaming and not roleplaying [emphasis added]. This information should be somewhere for the GM to check after the character describes their actions, to say, "As you try to recall what you know about poison from stories and your training roll your earth ring". Instead it can become forced [snip] where a player just looks down at his sheet for the highest ring, then looks under approaches, and says "Oh, I uh try to recall what I know about poison. I'll now roll my 4 earth along with my skill." Some of you are saying this is normal and fine as that is their earth oriented character's style, maybe it is. And if the opportunities spice up the story in the process, fantastic.

1.5) But would they have chosen to do that without knowing it was directly attached to the Earth Ring? Some players might decide to analyze the poison, even though their character has a high earth ring(assuming they are allowed to use it).

2) Yes, players will eventually realize that how their character goes about actions determines the ring used, but this should be kept as vague as possible and for the GM to determine from the very beginning . [snip]

3) Now for you devil's advocates, even with approaches on the sheets some players may not do this. In fact, it may be beneficial in those cases as they can easily see what approaches allow what dice justified by that is just "their style" and it giving more character. Fine, yeah I get it. But instead of thinking about how their character will address the subject, they are thinking of how they can use an earth approach. To me this takes away from the roleplaying experience and the immersion into a fantasy world; whether it is someone's earth personality or not. [snip]

Just so that you know I'm actually following, I'll restate your case as I read it:

Beta encourages power gaming, especially through presentation of approaches; power gaming is bad, because roleplaying is better. Which is an opinion--one I happen to share--but that opinion doesn't mean the game has a problem if you can power game instead of roleplay. Again, power gamers will always power game; that's how they got the name.

1) Ok, but its way more complicated than cut and dry "this is not an opinion, this is fact". Power gaming isn't binary; it's a matter of degree, a pile problem. Lots of people do it a little bit, but "power gamers" do it so much its a problem (which is a moving target, because different groups have different preferences). Same with encouragement. Hiding the approaches also seems to contradict the value implicit in revealing TNs by default, namely that players should understand the intersection of story and mechanics when they undertake an action. Should we hide their character sheets, and instead give them a few vague phrases about their characters? I, for one, like knowing how a game works when I play it (or at least have access to the information; can't memorize a whole book!). And I like it when my players know, too.

1.5) Why does it matter why they chose it?

I like it when the GM determines the approach, too, but I think that should happen in dialogue with the players. I'm not perfect, I'll make mistakes, and players sometimes help me identify the right approach. And sure, players occasionally try to bargain for a suspiciously advantageous approach. And I say "Nah, that sounds like power gaming" and they say "Ok you're right" and we get on with the fun.

2) Or they'll look in the rulebook to see what approaches are tied to what rings and make a list (you don't hide the rulebook, do you?). Power gamers will power game.

3) Again, not everyone values immersion like we do. Or they might not value it in every circumstance. Sometimes you just wanna have a good roll, you know? That's fine.

If power gaming players ruin the fun for the other players, that's a problem among the people at the table . People aren't on the same page. They were expecting one kind of experience, but got another. Just communicate and make sure everyone's playstyles fit together.

If a game is so easy to power game that it makes the mechanics boring, that's a also a problem, but a different problem than roleplaying > power gaming.

5 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

Just so that you know I'm actually following, I'll restate your case as I read it:

Beta encourages power gaming, especially through presentation of approaches; power gaming is bad, because roleplaying is better. Which is an opinion--one I happen to share--but that opinion doesn't mean the game has a problem if you can power game instead of roleplay. Again, power gamers will always power game; that's how they got the name.

1) Ok, but its way more complicated than cut and dry "this is not an opinion, this is fact". Power gaming isn't binary; it's a matter of degree, a pile problem. Lots of people do it a little bit, but "power gamers" do it so much its a problem (which is a moving target, because different groups have different preferences). Same with encouragement. Hiding the approaches also seems to contradict the value implicit in revealing TNs by default, namely that players should understand the intersection of story and mechanics when they undertake an action. Should we hide their character sheets, and instead give them a few vague phrases about their characters? I, for one, like knowing how a game works when I play it (or at least have access to the information; can't memorize a whole book!). And I like it when my players know, too.

1.5) Why does it matter why they chose it?

I like it when the GM determines the approach, too, but I think that should happen in dialogue with the players. I'm not perfect, I'll make mistakes, and players sometimes help me identify the right approach. And sure, players occasionally try to bargain for a suspiciously advantageous approach. And I say "Nah, that sounds like power gaming" and they say "Ok you're right" and we get on with the fun.

2) Or they'll look in the rulebook to see what approaches are tied to what rings and make a list (you don't hide the rulebook, do you?). Power gamers will power game.

3) Again, not everyone values immersion like we do. Or they might not value it in every circumstance. Sometimes you just wanna have a good roll, you know? That's fine.

(4)If power gaming players ruin the fun for the other players, that's a problem among the people at the table . People aren't on the same page. They were expecting one kind of experience, but got another. Just communicate and make sure everyone's playstyles fit together.

(5)If a game is so easy to power game that it makes the mechanics boring, that's a also a problem, but a different problem than roleplaying > power gaming.

Bit out of context so let me try to clarify.

Its not that power gaming is bad. It is that the game is incentivizing it in addition to be played against its own design, which makes it just less of a game. I wasn't saying power gaming is bad as a fact, I was stating that it is being incentivized.

1) I think you misunderstood me here. I was referring to "The presentation of the game, with approaches clearly on the character sheet encourages power-gaming" . Gaming the mechanics to some degree is expected. Players don't need to know the approaches to describe their characters actions. The GM reveals the TNs right before the roll; maybe the GM needs to ask exactly what and how the player is performing their action before assigning the TN. No, character sheets have a lot of information that is required, whereas the approaches listed there is more of an aid. Eventually the players will learn or the GM may even tell them/they may ask. But based on behavior, not having them there is a bigger deal than it seems(particularly for new players).

1.5) This part is just my opinion, but when playing a roleplaying game and people opt to go out of character for mechanics repeatedly, eventually the game loses depth and ultimately enjoyment. I agree GMs are not perfect either. This is exactly why they shouldn't be on the sheet. This type of dialogue stems mainly from players judging your arbitration of their approach. This is a huge area for potential conflict, and again, while it won't eliminate the problem removing them, leaving the approaches listed for them is encouraging this behavior(again, some cases it may not be an issue).

2) Yes, this is also possible. No I don't hide the rulebook. The whole point is by not having them there it encourages the system to at least function temporarily the way it was designed and hopefully players develop a "muscle memory" if you will. At the very least they will learn how this part of the game was intended to work. Then, if they still want to game for better ring rolls at least they will be used to the process; as we've said the mechanics for the game fully take into account the possibility of using the same ring for everything. By doing this, it encourages playing the game the way it was designed(which is better).

3) Of course, with 8+ billion people of the planet statistically anything is possible(Just joking here). But yes, again, gaming the mechanics is expected and cannot be prevented if there is any mechanics at all. And yes it is fine for those players, who for whatever reason, use the higher ring; in fact it is a component of the variety of ways to build a character(a good thing). The point is to not encourage this while not punishing it, but encourage the game's own design; a player thinking and describe their approach as opposed to picking it off a list. For those players who really don't want the immersion and must know the mechanics, they will likely look in the book or somehow find out as you said. But at least they will know that is not what was intended. The explanation of approaches contradicts having them listed under the rings on the character sheet. If that is what FFG is going for, they should just say "choose your approach from the list" in the explanation.

4) Yes you are absolutely right, it is a problem with the players. Some groups may never have this issue, but I can guarantee you quite a significant percentage of the beta testers have. Good game design shouldn't incentivize power gaming while simultaneously contradicting its own design. I don't think I have ever had a group that was able to communicate and make sure their playstyle fits together, or everyone on the same page. Its a social situation where people sorta adapt. I wish I had players that did this. But as an aside, the game design should not create so many opportunities for conflict, with the approach system being one of many.

5) Well said. The beta was easy to power game, making the mechanics awkward at times(I won't go into detail). You misunderstood me when you said rpg > power gaming as that was not my point at all(personally I believe in a good balance of role play and mechanics: too much of either is problematic). It is that the game is encouraging power gaming by incentivizing it, more than it encourages its own design! This really causes a lot of problems throughout the meta of the game and in turn the quality of the game itself.

In my beta test, I had to constantly ask players to ignore the list on their sheet, and describe to me what their character was doing. Sometimes I would ask questions for them to expand on things in order to determine what approach they were using. Most of the time, the approach that I came up with was not the one they chose prior to thinking about the task at hand, either because they couldn't think of a tangible way to use that approach in the circumstances or because they realized they were just arguing for the mechanics of the approach they chose initially. Sometimes a dialogue between us on some approaches that were borderline where I would usually let them choose between 2 that would fit their action. The approaches listed on the sheet were a distraction more than anything. Humans don't like being told they can't have something, so it helps if we take the puppy out of the window, even though the puppy is still for sale.

I really like the approach design but for it to work it has to unfold as described. Player describes their action, GM determines skill and maybe asks to clarify how the player is going to accomplish the action if needed, GM determines skill, approach, TN, and asks for the roll. There is no rewinds, such as "Oh well I don't want to analyze the debris(because that's the wrong ring), I wanted to survey the room". Eventually players may realize what their characters are actually good at but its not expected that going into every roll they should know what ring possibly even what skill is going to be called for; maybe after some time of playing they will be able to.

Hope this helps

What the character wants to do is technically governed by the Skill Groups and not the Approaches. The latter only defines how they do it. An easy way for a player to define their intent and action is saying "My character does [Skill Group description] by [Approach desription]." Then extrapolate from there as necessary.

For example, if you want to attack an enemy with Water you should say "I overcome an opponent [Martial Skill Group] by shifting an opposing force to work for me [Shift Approach]." Then explain the second part if you want to say more or the GM has his doubts.

Yeah, it is kinda weird because they don't explain this until Chapter 3 and Skill Groups are non-characteristic and thus easy to forget. But again, blame goes to the Skill system here - they should have had the Skills describe the action (what the character is doing) and not go full 'original content pls don't steal' with this Skills-are-expertises thing.

I like the skill/approach system.

lets compare to D&D; you want to do a perception check, well, it is "wisdom + perception". all the time. And if there is a skill not on the skill list, for example I want to drive a chariot or, I want to cook. well I am screwed because the skill doesnt exist so the GM will probably default to a single attribute. How boring is that ? The new L5R system gives the GM the ability to create rolls for all kinds of skills and the players can pitch in ideas too! That is MUCH more fun to me.

The only issue I can see with this skill system is that it requires a bit English proficiency to fully enjoy it. ie: if you want to climb a wall, to me it sounds like a fitness-water(shift) because the definition of shift is "move over a small distance, a slight change in position, direction, tendency". So i feel that climbing is more "shift" than "feint, sacrifice, withstand, overwhelm".

The system does need a GM with a decent skill and authority to choose the right approaches but to me, its much more enjoyable that way.

2 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

The only issue I can see with this skill system is that it requires a bit English proficiency to fully enjoy it. ie: if you want to climb a wall, to me it sounds like a fitness-water(shift) because the definition of shift is "move over a small distance, a slight change in position, direction, tendency". So i feel that climbing is more "shift" than "feint, sacrifice, withstand, overwhelm".

2

It is Shift if you just walk to the cliff and climb it. It is Overwhelm if you jump at the cliff and try to climb it through sheer momentum. It is Withstand if you climb the cliff in one go. It is Sacrifice if you use a grapnel and a rope. It is Feint (pretty bad name tbh) if you search for a crevice and take the easy way up.

1 hour ago, AtoMaki said:

It is Shift if you just walk to the cliff and climb it. It is Overwhelm if you jump at the cliff and try to climb it through sheer momentum. It is Withstand if you climb the cliff in one go. It is Sacrifice if you use a grapnel and a rope. It is Feint (pretty bad name tbh) if you search for a crevice and take the easy way up.

I disagree with that. I think it is always Water. If you play as you say, then all rings are always usable and i don't think that it is the intent...

there is no FEINT in searching for a crevice. there is no WITHSTAND in climbing in one go. there is no OVERWHELM in jumping at it and "try to climb it".

I think you extrapolate waaaay too much. climbing a wall is a Fitness:Move and only Water(shift) does that. Using a rope is a bonus to your check at best. If you want to survey or analyse the wall, see some "crevices" and then get a bonus to your fitness check (if there are crevices), ok.

if you want to use the system as you explain, then I can do Sneaking with fitness:Void because i use special slippers. or sneaking with fitness:Fire because i walk on my hands. that is laughable at best.

basically, for fitness, thats how i see it:

Air: sneaking, sleight of hand

Fire: breaking, pushing/pulling

Water: athletic, acrobatic

Earth: resisting, enduring

EDIT: though to be fair, the system needs a lot of clarification. ie: resisting poison is Fitness:Water (but to me it would be a fitness:Earth check) So yeah... the design is shaky and there is no right or wrong answer. hopefully they can make it a bit clearer in the final product...

Nah, as I said above, Approaches are not what you do but how you do it. You have all your "what" needs covered with Fitness, it already establishes that you try to move. You need Approaches to show how you move it. With a burst of power (jumping at the cliff and climbing it with momentum)? Overwhelm. Giving up an asset (grapnel and rope) to do it? Sacrifice. Find the easy way up (the crevice)? Feint. Just climb? Shift if you don't want to get all bloody and tired, Withstand if you don't care. Out of all these, Sacrifice probably gives -1 TN but requires some set-up time so narratively might be bad if you want to climb NOW. Overwhelm might be normal TN but failure will make the character land painfully from all that big momentum. Shift is the normal go-to Approach. Feint is +1 TN because finding the crevice and crawling through it is harder than it sounds. Withstand is normal TN but the cliff will be Dangerous Terrain.

Sneaking would work similarly: Overwhelm to dash corner-to-corner and rely on speed, Feint to rely on distractions, Sacrifice to waste your precious time for the perfect opportunities, Shift to move around impossible places, and Withstand to sneak around slowly but carefully. Using special slippers would reduce the TN (you don't Sacrifice them unlike the rope and the grapnel), and sneaking around on your hands is a Fire Opportunity because it does not actually relate to the intent but is surely a flashy way to go around.

So in the end, all Rings/Approaches are viable, but not really. What is important is that the player has options, so he can throw in some flavor or succeed in unusual circumstances. This can be also a good source of narrative shenanigans and funny character interactions when a player chooses a subpar Approach or exploits an unlikely Approach. By using Withstand to climb the cliff, the Hida Bushi now looks like someone fresh out of a brawl; the Shinjo Scout laughs at him for being such a knucklehead and not using Shift like him, but the last laugh is for the Shiba Bushi who uses Sacrifice and climbs atop the cliff on his rope (the Hida player used the character's highest Ring, the Shinjo player picked the most obvious Approach, and the Shiba player just played his character and stumbled into the best solution).

well.. if it is really as you say, the system is broken. Everybody can do everything.

you are a big brash loud guy with ton of fitness because you can lift rocks ? well, you can do stealth also! because why not! just find a stupid "earth approach to stealth".

so yeah, i REALLY hope they figured how to explain it in the final product otherwise this game will fail hard. (IF its as you say it is, in other words; awful).

well, nothing stops you from playing how you want and me playing how i want. and yeah, i will be much more strict when it comes to approach (if i get the game at all at this point).

To me it is obvious the approach are meant to subdivide the skills. if the approach is only "flavor" then the game is missing a lot of skills. you literally cannot put all physical skills into "fitness"...

Same idea as you use crafting; Earth to REPAIR a sword and Fire to CRAFT a new one and Water to MODIFY an existing one. they are subdividing the "crafting" skill and its pretty darn obvious....

The Skill system SUCKS (like this, with caplock), I'm not debating that .

There is a whole Sub-Skills mechanic for subdividing Skills, by the way, so Approaches are definitely not for that.

what page the sub-skill thing ?

and i dont see whats wrong about using the rings to sub-divide the skills. it makes so much sense. If you are Air invested character, then all your skills are better if you use them with their Air sub-div. They are still "ok" otherwise but not as good. so if you want to min-max a ring, then you become really good at some stuff but not so good at a lot of other stuff, which is logical.

Page 79

And again, while you could use any Approach, it doesn't mean that you should do that. The whole thing is mostly for flavor, creative and intuitive gaming, and to allow characters to contribute to the scene even if they do not have the "right" Ring for it. The GM must consider penalizing "wrong" Approaches and otherwise make the choice matter. It is not "free choice" but "choose wisely".

if you read Fitness skill:

The Fitness skill can be used as follows with the appropriate ring:

• Withstand Approach (Earth Ring): Moving cautiously, pushing one’s body up to the breaking point without suffering permanent harm, marching long distances, holding up heavy objects for long periods of time, hiding by standing still, shrugging off hits with toughness.

• Shift Approach (Water Ring): Moving around obstacles and through crowds without slowing, fitting through small spaces, performing exercises to speed recovery from injury, losing someone in terrain or a crowd, rolling with the punches.

• Overwhelm Approach (Fire Ring): Moving without heed for obstacles, leaping long distances, pushing and lifting heavy objects quickly, breaking things, catching someone in a footrace, blocking hits with force.

• Feint Approach (Air Ring): Moving stealthily, maintaining balance, trailing someone without them realizing it, falling safely and landing gracefully, evading someone in a footrace, controlling where hits land on your body or evading the worst of a blow.

• Sacrifice Approach (Void Ring): Acting on sheer instinct, pushing one’s body beyond the breaking point to achieve a goal, overcoming physical limitations with sheer will, taking hits directly.

to me it is clear that this divide the skills. each rings does "different" things. its not just flavor. and overall i find my "approach" more logical

according to above, yeas a few things overlap, but barely.

Most of the described "Ring-specific" things listed at the Skills are indeed things where certain Approaches are unviable. You probably can't make up a way to shadow someone with Withstand, for example. Then again, it is not like the player cannot try , but then the GM might want to tell the player that winning stupid games yields stupid prizes, so to speak.

3 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Most of the described "Ring-specific" things listed at the Skills are indeed things where certain Approaches are unviable. You probably can't make up a way to shadow someone with Withstand, for example. Then again, it is not like the player cannot try , but then the GM might want to tell the player that winning stupid games yields stupid prizes, so to speak.

I guess it is DM's choice after that point. I think personally I will probably be very strict and that there is 1 approach that is the right one (stealth is AIR), basically using Rings to divide the skills. In the same way that as the book mention, to resist poison you roll "fitness: water", and nothing else.

Maybe if the players are very creative, or if what they want to do could have a couple of fitting rings (can happen with some weird actions they want to take but should not be the majority of the time), I can allow it with some TN penalty.

I will probably print them the skill chapter for them to check between their turn, so that they can figure out what to do (and learn what can be done).

Quote

Pg 5 The Way of the Five Rings:
In every task they undertake, they must choose an elemental approach, and the suitability of one approach over another can give them the edge they need or diminish their chance of succeeding.

Quote

Pg 13 Determine Approach:
Then, the GM selects which of the five elemental approaches corresponds to the methods the player described.

Quote

Pg 178 - Multiple approaches
If you’re letting the player choose their approach, it’s helpful to tell them which ring will be easier and which one will be harder so that they can make an informed choice. Additionally, remind them that different approaches can have different consequences in the case of success or failure, and give them a hint of what these might be.

Now, in the Beta, each Skill group had a specific set of approaches to fit that skill group, each associated with an element. It looks like the starter box has simplified this a bit, and removed the intermediary step of the different approach names on the character sheet, sticking with the keywords and the elements. This may just be for simplicity, or it may discuss them in detail in the booklets. (I hope so. Approaches per skill group was just an extra level of complication without reasoning.)

Now, looking at the same fitness skill, it seems they are the flavor of the action, and the consequence.

Quote

Example: If I tell the players they are facing a cliff.

Hida: "I look at Kakita, and say 'First one to the top...' and I start up, moving as quickly as possible."

Me: "That sounds like water and fitness. Difficulty 3. But remember, you have no tools, so failure could be... tragic"

Kakita: "I know he is just trying to scale it quickly, but I get out the climing gear."

Me: "That sounds like earth (moving cautiously), and fitness. Diff 2."

That being said, it is perfectly reasonable to say some approaches will not work in a situation. Other times, a specific check or ability says ONLY certain approaches may be used. Sometimes there is but one path. Sometimes there are 5. These are also spelled out in the beta.

All in all, it really is like FATE Accelerated adding secondary skills, which I like.
It's all about a narrative give and take.
If I say something sounds like X and Y at Diff Z, they may say how about I do this instead, so it is A and Y, and difficulty C. And I find that great.

definitely agree sometimes multiple approaches can be valid.

but for the sake of sanity and structure. I think it is wiser to follow some of the guidelines provided in the skills section, ie: for fitness;

Vaulting over a gap: Fitness (Fire)

Sneaking past a person: Fitness (Air)

Marching a distance without tiring: Fitness (Earth)

Squeezing through a gap: Fitness (Water)

Instinctively waking from unconsciousness in response to danger: Fitness (Void)

If you start using, for example, Air for Vaulting/Jumping then you open a huge can of worms. and if you want to jump "stealthily" then I would require 2 checks; fitness:fire and fitness:air, or find another way like use only fitness:fire, as jumping should be, but increase the TN by 6 minus your air ring (unless there is another rule about combining skills in the book).

For every skills, the book will give you evident example as to what each ring do. i'm quite certain using those many guidelines, I can find a way to assign a ring to each actions.

28 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

If you start using, for example, Air for Vaulting/Jumping then you open a huge can of worms. and if you want to jump "stealthily" then I would require 2 checks; fitness:fire and fitness:air, or find another way like use only fitness:fire, as jumping should be, but increase the TN by 6 minus your air ring (unless there is another rule about combining skills in the book).

If one wants to jump "stealthily" then they should spend the Air Opportunity to do so. Multiple Skill Checks are generally a bad idea because of Strife.

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

I think personally I will probably be very strict and that there is 1 approach that is the right one (stealth is AIR), basically using Rings to divide the skills. In the same way that as the book mention, to resist poison you roll "fitness: water", and nothing else.

To be acutely honest here, I will only play the game with the Skill system being dumped into the trash where it belongs .

8 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

To be acutely honest here, I will only play the game with the Skill syste  m being dumped into the trash where it belongs . 

What would you do to revise it or create a new system, if I may ask?

18 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

If one wants to jump "stealthily" then they should spend the Air Opportunity to do so.

Can you use "air opportunities" on a fitness:Fire check ??

And honestly, if I take the skill system in a more rigid way as I explain it in my posts above, to me it is one of the best skill system there is. It covers a vast amount of skills (each skills, multiplied by each rings at least one time, sometimes more), and, you can always be creative and add different new "skills" to it as long as it kinda fits into the description of what it is possible to do with each skills/ring combos.

so, yeah, its an amazing system. Its only drawback is the complexity of having to check in the book what each skills can or cannot do depending on rings. and seeing as there is like 1 page per skill... it can be daunting, though very rewarding once you master it.