55 minutes ago, Lindhrive said:

Well - I'm not certain that is entirely the case. I recall from the Beta there were a few points of Strife being Awesome Fuel - Lions used it, and Shugenja, I believe, got to base their damage on it.

Shugenja got to lose control of the Invocation with too many Strife icons being kept, while the Ikoma Bard could use Social skills to lower their Strife by increasing and opponent’s Strife.

The Fire Stance also gives bonus Successes on Strife Icons, but these are all ways that Strife Icons can be positive. Strife itself is a “negative play” mechanic, for most characters. Fire Stance in combat is just they same as running a mech hot (generate more heat than you have heat sinks) in Mechwarrior.

28 minutes ago, sndwurks said:

Shugenja got to lose control of the Invocation with too many Strife icons being kept

They actually retain full control over it, just produce some annoying side-effect that might or might not be actually helpful.

On 9/2/2018 at 12:19 AM, sndwurks said:

And that is what the system requires you to play. You cannot, by the system, play a genuinely unphased, hyper competent expert, who always succeeds and never loses their cool. As in the above example, you can theoretically choose to never get Strife, but that WILL come at the cost of either choosing to fail a lot of rolls, or just not taking Actions to begin with.

While 'hyper-confident' and 'always succeeds' are in-themselves only a function of how good the dice roll, I would suggest that there is no RPG out there where any character is guaranteed to always succeed.

As for genuinely unphased and never loses their cool, I disagree: if you live in Void stance, you will always ignore the strife. Play a character with decent Void, always take the Void approach, and ignore your strife.

10 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

As for genuinely unphased and never loses their cool, I disagree: if you live in Void stance, you will always ignore the strife. Play a character with decent Void, always take the Void approach, and ignore your strife.

It is a little nitpicky, but that will only apply in Conflict scenes. Outside of Conflict Scenes, such as a Narrative Scene where you are investigating a crime, a Downtime Scene where you are creating a work of art, or the like? There are no Stances. Taking the Void approach still gives you Strife. In fact, on the vast majority of dice rolls, the only way to prevent gaining Strife is by not keeping dice, and thus choosing to fail.

Which is fine, as a narrative mechanic. You do not want to gain Strife, and risk the negative consequences of too much Strife (becoming Compromised and thus vulnerable, needing to Unmask and losing Honor / Glory / Status / your life), just do not try to succeed. The best way to keep your Strife manageable? Choose to fail. Or, even more effective? REFUSE TO ROLL THE DICE EVER, and just let the rest of the party do the hard work.

56 minutes ago, sndwurks said:

Or  , even more effective? REFUSE TO ROLL THE DICE EVER, and just let the rest of the party do the hard work. 

Thank you for being such a reasonable conversationalist. It's such a breath of fresh air compared to the doomsayers decrying the new edition.

/s

7 hours ago, deraforia said:

Thank you for being such a reasonable conversationalist. It's such a breath of fresh air compared to the doomsayers decrying the new edition.

/s

Except that this is, quite simply, a flaw in the mechanics of the game, just the same as D&D 3E subpar options (openly admitted to being “bait for foolish players” by Monte Cook) or old L5R’s use of Honor as a literal superpower (Tests of Honor, Honor adding to the defense of various rolls, Lore: Bushido / Intelligence to figure out someone’s Honor Rank). And it is an exploit I had a player at my Beta table choose to exploit, simply to see if it could be done.

And it can.

As a mechanic, Strife works when players buy into the idea of it being an emotional “heat” system. To succeed, you have to WANT to succeed. That is expressed by gaining Strife by keeping dice to achieve their goals with Strife Icons, and running “hot”. The mechanical penalties of becoming Compromised and Unmasking (both of which heighten the chances of character death, I will point out) are the long term risks to be measured against the immediate gain, and characters who run “hot” for too long risk “overheating” and breaking down.

There is nothing wrong with this system. It just has its exploits, just like every system. Also, it is explicitly designed to limit player agency over their character’s emotional state (while you can dictate how they are becoming emotional, your ability to control how emotional they are in the given moment is limited; you cannot just GET Strife in order to become Compromised, and you cannot just Unmask to get the TN assistance without being Compromised) by making a mechanic which controls it. It also is designed to limit “bleed”, or the empathy a player can feel for their character, and that separation is a feature of the Strife system, called out by its designer.

The TL; DR is that I was pointing out an exploit and failure of the system. All systems have them and the new game is no different. We should be honest about them and approach them for what they are: exploits.

While this is technically off topic for the Character Creation articles, and relate more to the Unmasking article, I have a question regarding Strife, Unmasking, and player agency.

Say, for example, a player has had enough of a courtier NPC's moral equivocation, two-faced rhetoric and charming insults directed at another character in the party. This player has their character throw decorum to the side, and flat out challenge the courtier to a duel.

Is this Unmasking?

It sounds a LOT like an Unmasking, doesn't it? But does it count? If the character is not Compromised, can they Unmask? Or is that cheating, because the rules CLEARLY STATE your character is not that emotionally invested?

Let us say that this player has a character with a high Composure, or has only taken a few tangential Strife due to the insults all going towards a friend and not them. If this is not Unmasking, is the player who is choosing to stand up for their friend now roleplaying their character incorrectly?

This is the problem at the root of the Strife mechanic. It is a rules system which, at its core, is meant to represent how emotionally charged a character is, and by tying that to dice rather than player choice, the system limits player agency. Again, this is not BAD, nor any worse than no system at all (old L5R) or "Mind Control Courtier Techniques" (also old L5R). It is simply an aspect of the system that needs to be examined and addressed.

10 hours ago, sndwurks said:

It is a little nitpicky, but that will only apply in Conflict scenes. Outside of Conflict Scenes, such as a Narrative Scene where you are investigating a crime, a Downtime Scene where you are creating a work of art, or the like? There are no Stances. Taking the Void approach still gives you Strife. In fact, on the vast majority of dice rolls, the only way to prevent gaining Strife is by not keeping dice, and thus choosing to fail.

Which is fine, as a narrative mechanic. You do not want to gain Strife, and risk the negative consequences of too much Strife (becoming Compromised and thus vulnerable, needing to Unmask and losing Honor / Glory / Status / your life), just do not try to succeed. The best way to keep your Strife manageable? Choose to fail. Or, even more effective? REFUSE TO ROLL THE DICE EVER, and just let the rest of the party do the hard work.

Actually, I appreciate your nitpicky-ness here. I missed that in the rules. I thought the Stance/Approach were the same thing, so that, for instance, if I rolled Void/Games, I didn't get strife, Fire/Games, I got bonus successes, etc. So, thank you!

1 hour ago, sndwurks said:

While this is technically off topic for the Character Creation articles, and relate more to the Unmasking article, I have a question regarding Strife, Unmasking, and player agency.

Say, for example, a player has had enough of a courtier NPC's moral equivocation, two-faced rhetoric and charming insults directed at another character in the party. This player has their character throw decorum to the side, and flat out challenge the courtier to a duel.

Is this Unmasking?

It sounds a LOT like an Unmasking, doesn't it? But does it count? If the character is not Compromised, can they Unmask? Or is that cheating, because the rules CLEARLY STATE your character is not that emotionally invested?

That's a reasonable question, but I would say that it is not an Unmasking. Characters, like people, can get emotionally invested in certain things, care deeply about single issues, while being generally unphased by many others. Sometimes there's just that one darn thing that really makes people go off.

2 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

Actually, I appreciate your nitpicky-ness here. I missed that in the rules. I thought the Stance/Approach were the same thing, so that, for instance, if I rolled Void/Games, I didn't get strife, Fire/Games, I got bonus successes, etc. So, thank you!

Nope - noted as 'conflict only' on the character sheet.

At least in part because - outside a conflict scene - you (the player) don't get final say over what ring is used; the approach is determined by the GM, based on what you are trying to do and how you're trying to do it. By comparison, inside a conflict scene, you decide your stance, and the stance effects are one thing which might tempt you to use something other than your strongest ring.

1 minute ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Nope - noted as 'conflict only' on the character sheet.

At least in part because - outside a conflict scene - you (the player) don't get final say over what ring is used; the approach is determined by the GM, based on what you are trying to do and how you're trying to do it. By comparison, inside a conflict scene, you decide your stance, and the stance effects are one thing which might tempt you to use something other than your strongest ring.

Thank you for the clarification. I'm the GM in this case, but its good to know that I should have had an NPC build up a lot more strife in that Go game I just rolled...

He got 5 exploding successes (two, then both were explosions again, then one blank and one explosion, it was insane), but all of them were the Strife + Explosion one. But I was like, hey, he's Void approaching it, no biggie!

4 hours ago, sndwurks said:

Say, for example, a player has had enough of a courtier NPC's moral equivocation, two-faced rhetoric and charming insults directed at another character in the party. This player has their character throw decorum to the side, and flat out challenge the courtier to a duel.

Is this Unmasking?

It sounds a LOT like an Unmasking, doesn't it? But does it count? If the character is not Compromised, can they Unmask? Or is that cheating, because the rules CLEARLY STATE your character is not that emotionally invested?

I get what you mean while at the same time I like to see Strife and Unmaskings more like the time when you just TOO emotionally drained.

I agree with you that it is a matter of how much does the character want this, because if a they do they will make a bunch of roles, keep what they need and that will make a character easily build up strife. The character is then obviously emotionally invested enough to reach a compromised state.

If said character goes for the challenge as a more calculated move or because of convenience, then they aren't emotionally invested enough that it would be called a unmasking.

The problem is the situations inbetween. When you know your character is already fed-up but the strife hasn't accumulated yet. Perhaps add a house-rule that the characters can unmask in a certain fashion but only at GM-discretion?

4 hours ago, sndwurks said:

The TL; DR is that I was pointing out an exploit and failure of the system. All systems have them and the new game is no different. We should be honest about          them and approach them for what they are: exploits.

Not participating in rolls is not an exploit of the system; it's not participating in the game. If I have a player not taking part to that extent, I either need to talk to them about how I can make them more comfortable at the table or, if they're purposely avoiding rolls in the way you suggest, maybe I just need not invite them to the next game.

Not keeping strife results on rolls is valid. Not rolling in the first place is not.

3 hours ago, deraforia said:

Not participating in rolls is not an exploit of the system; it's not participating in the game. If I have a player not taking part to that extent, I either need to talk to them about how I can make them more comfortable at the table or, if they're purposely avoiding rolls in the way you suggest, maybe I just need not invite them to the next game.

Not keeping strife results on rolls is valid. Not rolling in the first place is not.

To answer this specifically, I would disagree that this is not participating in the game. While yes, you as a GM have the choice on who to invite to your table or not, the strategy of "I do not take Actions outside of Conflict Scenes which require rolls, in order to ensure my PC's long term survival" is a valid approach to the Strife system, in a vacuum. Other players may dislike this, a GM may dislike this, but it is still participating in the game. After all, you can always provide Assistance to the PCs making the rolls and refuse to gain Strife to negate the Strife Icons on the primary roll.

It is like the PC who always tries to Take 10 or Take 20 in D&D 3E / Pathfinder / d20 variants, and if they can't, they only assist someone else, because the GM has a "botch" rule for people who roll natural 1's. They are not cheating. In fact, their behavior is entirely within the rules written for this game. However, they are using those rules to avoid ever picking up and rolling a d20, because they never want to roll the natural 1, and thus avoid botching. It works within the rules of the game as written, but does not follow the rules as intended by the GM (who wants PCs to "botch", or would not have that house rule otherwise), and is thus an exploit.

Also, rules as written in the Beginner's Set, at least, you ALWAYS have to keep at least 1 die (pg 4 of the Rulebook), so if ALL your dice come up with Strife Icons, you cannot choose to keep none of them and gain no Strife. You HAVE to keep at least 1 die, and thus gain at least 1 Strife, simply for even attempting a rolled Action. So there is that.

6 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

That's a reasonable question, but I would say that it is not an Unmasking. Characters, like people, can get emotionally invested in certain things, care deeply about single issues, while being generally unphased by many others. Sometimes there's just that one darn thing that really makes people go off.

So, then is this PC cheating by having their character go off like that, since their Strife is not that high? Are they roleplaying their character wrong, because a mechanic is telling the player that their PC does not care enough to lose Honor / Glory / Status over an outburst like this? I do not think any good GM would say yes to either of these, but when examining a system of rules, if a system NEEDS interpretation to not inhibit fun, then that is a flaw in the system.

@MirumotoOrashu - Keep in mind, it is mechanically possible for this PC to have made MANY rolls, and gotten lucky / unlucky and simply not had any dice with Strife marks. Unlikely yes, but mechanically possible. This actually came up when I was running the Beginner's Set, as one PC reached the final Conflict scene, and wanted to have their character Unmask since they felt their character would actually cast decorum to the side because of the specifics of the situation. Rules as written, they could not, and instead had to Unmask later in the scene when it was not as dramatically appropriate.

I have said (and will say many many times, so no one misquotes me), this does not mean Strife is a bad system. It is simply a system which limits a player's agency over their PC, and was written that way intentionally. And the whole "Can I choose to have my character break decorum due to frustration?" is a valid question, as the system would state that a PC doing so by any means other than being Compromised, then Unmasking, is either that PC being disingenuous in their frustration or the player cheating because the rules about Strife say their PC does not actually care that much.

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 6:35 AM, sndwurks said:

Say, for example, a player has had enough of a courtier NPC's moral equivocation, two-faced rhetoric and charming insults directed at another character in the party. This player has their character throw decorum to the side, and flat out challenge the courtier to a duel.

Is this Unmasking?

It sounds a LOT like an Unmasking, doesn't it? But does it count? If the character is not Compromised, can they Unmask? Or is that cheating, because the rules CLEARLY STATE your character is not that emotionally invested?

Let us say that this player has a character with a high Composure, or has only taken a few tangential Strife due to the insults all going towards a friend and not them. If this is not Unmasking, is the player who is choosing to stand up for their friend now roleplaying their character incorrectly?

These situations are far to vague to be effective examples. If you're taking a verbal beating from someone in court, you're probly taking strife for it. If unnamed courtier is an Ikoma Bard, you absolutely are. You say it sounds like unmasking, but is it? Roleplaying takes precedence here. Are you a courtly type who would twist the courtiers words into legitimate grounds for insult and a duel? Are you a wayward Hida, stereotypically unconcerned with honor, who just doesn't have an emotional investment in taking the honor hit to get to the point? (In this case you would forfeit honor to call the duel, instead of unmasking).

What about the second option? If your character is invested enough in their friend's well being to stand up and make a scene, their fate is probly tied to your passions or Ninjo. Rules as written in Beta stated that ignoring your Ninjo will result in strife equal to your honor or more "at the player's discretion". So, yes, if you're playing a character with strong personal feelings tied to the well being of your friends, say a hot headed Matsu or a stoic loyal Mirumoto, you are absolutely NOT cheating if you unmask as a result of enduring an insult that conflicts with you Ninjo, as long as your GM rules it is narratively appropriate.

I can't help but feel like answers to these questions are already there.