I have been having a contentious discussion with a friend concerning this system.

• I contend that the rules are designed to be constructive, based on narrative use. So for instance my position is that if you are faced with an opponent with a technique, you can counter that technique to some degree by use of Approaches and applicable choices. To me the Techniques (non spell) are some concrete examples in a sea of possibilities.
• He contends that the game is built to give characters MMO-like hot bar abilities that cannot be countered. So if a technique is used against you because a character is built to use the technique: a) no one without that technique can do that too even if its somewhat mundane like fending off a person with a spear and keeping them back. b) the character with that build is going to be unstoppable in that fight (as if it's not just an opportunity to switch tactics or RP/Describe some solution). If it is a PC who has the Technique the character will be able to use it regardless of the situation.

Which do you think is in the spirit of the game as it was designed? Or what hybrid position do you feel best describes the game?

Uh, I'm leaning toward number one, but I'm not really sure I understand either of your position. Is there a particular example you have in mind?

I think I personally would lean a bit towards the second (with the proviso that comparisons to MMOs are a bit fraught in this scene!) Treating the list of techniques as a set of examples is great and wonderful when creating your own, but less so for things that just anyone can spend their swirls on any time they like - they cost experience. This works both from the perspectives of modelling something akin to real life, as people do put quite a bit of effort into learning individual tricks and techniques, and it's also quite distinctively in-genre as well. If you wanted to, say, slap a two-swirl surcharge on all techniques that aren't known, that might work, but out of the box...

(This has been a perpetual argument in Dungeons and Dragons as well, going on a lot of years - whether fighty-types should have distinct abilities or just things that anyone can do. I am personally on the side against the idea that there's a five per cent chance someone who doesn't even know how to hold a sword can replicate a technique people spend months mastering.)

I do confess, though, that I'm a little lost on the latter half of your friend's position. There don't seem to be many techniques that are that good, beyond, like, a duel where one person knows iaijutsu and the other doesn't.

Iaijutsu was an example of something he did not like as it did seem to create a faceroll situation. I think that I was applying to this game the ideas used in SWRPG and Genesys that you are not expressly unable to do things most of the time unless it's something really extraordinary. D&D is famous for that, it is a pass/fail system built on exclusions. I eventually left it behind because of that.

I think there are certainly situations where you will face someone who is an expert and you are a neophyte and it will be a terrible and un-fun beat down. My thought was that this system allows you to at least look for some mitigating circumstances in the environment or in your approach that may help to keep it from being a one punch scene.

The other two FFG RPGs have that rapid play cinematic approach that allows for the space around the characters to be alive as well.

Well, that's always been kind of the case, only in prior editions, it was the Iaijutsu skill - though it can certainly be argued that for how important it is, way more bushi schools should've started with Iaijutsu rather than forcing players into paying an XP tax to be halfway functional in a really important thing, and even then, if your name wasn't Kakita or Mirumoto you were going to have a super bad time if your opponent's was. Mind, you could say the same thing about Etiquette, Sincerity, and Investigation, which were also really super important.

But I can see how it'd be wise to avoid that little whoopsie rather than just assuming players will know to grab Iaijutsu before they get into a duel.

@Lindhrive makes a good observation, techniques cost XP; if you didn't buy the technique, you can't use the technique (or something similar). Perhaps in some supplement we'll see some guidelines for inventing techniques, if you find the official lists insufficient.

So @Archlyte , I think that means they work more like "hot bar" abilities. But does that mean a character can use a technique regardless of the situation, and it just happens to their victims targets? Not really.

TL;DR: most techniques in the beginner's box face some sort of opposition or difficulty. Few are "automatic".

Looking at the NPC abilities from the beginners box, the vast majority of the technique that do something harmful/negative to someone else have some sort of barrier--like a TN to use the technique or a resistance. There are only two such techniques that aren't somehow opposed: dirty tricks (on the experienced bandit), and sworn protector (on the veteran bushi) (sworn protector costs a void point and is limited to 1 per round, so it won't be rampant/breaky).

Looking at the PC folios, Skulk (on the scorpion) might be considered "automatic", but it is highly restricted (by situation and the target's vigilance). Pelting Hail is also "automatic"--and it's less restricted than skulk--but it only inflicts strife. One of the Crane techniques (learning a worldly possession that the target desires) is not resisted, but there's no obligation on the GM that the desire be secret/scandalous/etc.

There's ways to foil all of those techniques, even if they're not resisted outright:

Dirty tricks: get out of range

Sworn protector: really the only thing to do is run them out of void points, or separate the bushi from his charge (but that would be tricky).

Skulk: op-spend spend for a light source so the Scorpion isn't obscured, cluster around the light

Pelting hail: spread out, don't clump together

[technique on the Crane that I forgot the name of]: be a monk, desire nothing ? this one is actually really hard to avoid, but it's also not super powerful. Sure, you learn something the target wants, but you still have to make good use of that information; you'll face another skill check at some point.

12 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I have been having a contentious discussion with a friend concerning this system.

• I contend that the rules are designed to be constructive, based on narrative use. So for instance my position is that if you are faced with an opponent with a technique, you can counter that technique to some degree by use of Approaches and applicable choices. To me the Techniques (non spell) are some concrete examples in a sea of possibilities.
• He contends that the game is built to give characters MMO-like hot bar abilities that cannot be countered. So if a technique is used against you because a character is built to use the technique: a) no one without that technique can do that too even if its somewhat mundane like fending off a person with a spear and keeping them back. b) the character with that build is going to be unstoppable in that fight (as if it's not just an opportunity to switch tactics or RP/Describe some solution). If it is a PC who has the Technique the character will be able to use it regardless of the situation.

Which do you think is in the spirit of the game as it was designed? Or what hybrid position do you feel best describes the game?

I would very much agree with your position, but I understand your friend's.

Techniques do give you unique things you can do mechanically, but there's no question you can do that sort of thing narratively.

10 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Iaijutsu was an example of something he did not like as it did seem to create a faceroll situation. I think that I was applying to this game the ideas used in SWRPG and Genesys that you are not expressly unable to do things most of the time unless it's something really extraordinary. D&D is famous for that, it is a pass/fail system built on exclusions. I eventually left it behind because of that.

I think there are certainly situations where you will face someone who is an expert and you are a neophyte and it will be a terrible and un-fun beat down. My thought was that this system allows you to at least look for some mitigating circumstances in the environment or in your approach that may help to keep it from being a one punch scene.

Taking the example of an iaijutsu duel: Can you fight in an iaijutsu duel without iaijutsu cut: rising blade?

• Yes.
• An Iaijutsu duel is a set of 'rules' covering the narrative and mechanical behaviour of a formal duel - often a legal 'trial by combat' or 'policy debate'.
• The key elements of the duel are that it's a formal setting - meaning potentially ceremonial weapons and armour only, and/or no wargear items - and that the rules mandate that you begin with weapons sheathed.
• Iaijutsu techniques obviously let you perform an attack with a sheathed weapon.
• If you don't have an iaijutsu technique, however, any character can use water stance:

  • "During your turn, you may perform 1 additional action that does not require a check."

• If I get a higher inititive roll and/or burn more strife, act first, use my free action to draw my blade, use my normal action to strike, and inflict a critical which removes some important extremity from my opponent before he can act, how is that not (narratively) an iaijutsu kill?

• Don't get me wrong. I also agree with your other point. When you come up against a veteran Kakita duellist, you're still probably going to lose - but then, thinking purely narratively, you probably should . That's not the same as not being able to try .

Taking the other example of 'fending off someone with a spear' (presumably iron forest style) - yes, it's a good ability and it's not directly duplicatable via the 'standard' rules (i.e. by someone without that technique) because PINNED is a condition unique to the technique.

• It's not invincible because there are two key weaknesses to the effect, neither of which depends on specific techniques:
  • It requires a check to advance on the opponent whilst you are pinned. But any check can be passed - especially in air stance, where the check is only TN2 - and it doesn't require an action to do, just the check as part of a normal move action.
  • The effect of earth stance is " When other characters make Attack action checks and Scheme action checks that target you, they cannot spend * to inflict critical strikes, conditions, or persistent effects on you ." Pinned is a condition, therefore you cannot use Iron Forest Style to apply PINNED to an opponent in Earth Stance. It might delay them advancing for a turn, but it expires at the end of their turn and thanks to Earth Stance you can't re-apply it. At which point they can switch to fire stance, advance and stab you a bit with a katana.
• The narrative effect of Iron Forest Style is 'stop my opponent advancing by attacking them':
  • That isn't especially different from using a critical strike or any of quite a lot of other techniques to apply immobilized, prone or any other 'you can't move' condition.
  • Equally, to duplicate the 'stab you as you close', you could perform a Wait action with the specified event "my opponent advances" and react to them moving close by hitting them, which requires no specific technique

And yes, the game is designed in a fairly loose, narrative way. The GM is the main choke point to throttle the assorted Bovine-Faeces that players who want to game the system - rather than play the game - from hitting the game world at large. Cases in point:

• I use my best ring:
  • Players should be able to describe their intended action, generally in the form of I [verb] the [object] (I fix the sword, I survey the landscape, etc. etc.)
    • The [object] defines the skill and is generally therefore fixed in a given situation
    • The [verb] defines the approach (and hence the ring to be used). This is a debate between the player and GM but the GM has the final say.
      • The GM should be prepared to discuss and/or offer different approaches
      • Different approaches may suit different player's rings, but they should also vary the TN for the check, and the TN of the check is also at the GM's discretion. If someone is determined to try and use a totally illogical approach for what they want to achieve, then ultimately, they should be allowed to, but the chance of it succeeding (bugger all) should be reflected in the TN, which should be suitably daunting.
• I harvest opportunities for [effect]
  • The GM defines when a check can be made. As per the TN0 and When To Ask For A Check rules, you only roll dice (and hence only have the potential to roll opportunities) if there is a meaningful and interesting effect of success and failure, and a credible chance of both failing and succeeding.

If someone were to want to do something in a skirmish scene 'outside the rules' - then that's what 'use a skill' action is for. If the action makes sense, then define a TN, make the check and go with the results.

• Remember that checks should only do 'one thing' - if the check is 'force your opponent back', then that's what it does. It doesn't also knock them prone, or disarm them, or wound them, or prevent you being noticed, or whatever. Achieving more than one thing with a check is precisely what opportunities are for.
• Equally, note that checks for narrative stuff that's beyond the scope of normal rules is specifically called out to in the game - such as a single TN3 martial arts Melee check to quietly dispatch a guard. This isn't useable in a conflict scene (because if you've bothered making it a conflict scene it's presumably because you're bothered enough about the outcome to do so) but it's a good example of 'yeah, you can do that'.

14 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Techniques do give you unique things you can do mechanically, but there's no question you can do that sort of thing narratively. 

So much this. Techniques allow you a mechanical benefit when doing something. That never precludes being able to do them in a narrative fashion or finding some alternative route to the same result.

On ‎8‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 4:12 PM, Wyrmdog said:

So much this. Techniques allow you a mechanical benefit when doing something. That never precludes being able to do them in a narrative fashion or finding some alternative route to the same result.

This was my understanding and experience of it as well. The game has to be able to give out something to represent special knowledge or training, but there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

On ‎8‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 1:26 AM, Magnus Grendel said:

I would very much agree with your position, but I understand your friend's.

Techniques do give you unique things you can do mechanically, but there's no question you can do that sort of thing narratively.

Taking the example of an iaijutsu duel: Can you fight in an iaijutsu duel without iaijutsu cut: rising blade?

• Yes.
• An Iaijutsu duel is a set of 'rules' covering the narrative and mechanical behaviour of a formal duel - often a legal 'trial by combat' or 'policy debate'.
• The key elements of the duel are that it's a formal setting - meaning potentially ceremonial weapons and armour only, and/or no wargear items - and that the rules mandate that you begin with weapons sheathed.
• Iaijutsu techniques obviously let you perform an attack with a sheathed weapon.
• If you don't have an iaijutsu technique, however, any character can use water stance:

  • "During your turn, you may perform 1 additional action that does not require a check."

• If I get a higher inititive roll and/or burn more strife, act first, use my free action to draw my blade, use my normal action to strike, and inflict a critical which removes some important extremity from my opponent before he can act, how is that not (narratively) an iaijutsu kill?

• Don't get me wrong. I also agree with your other point. When you come up against a veteran Kakita duellist, you're still probably going to lose - but then, thinking purely narratively, you probably should . That's not the same as not being able to try .

Taking the other example of 'fending off someone with a spear' (presumably iron forest style) - yes, it's a good ability and it's not directly duplicatable via the 'standard' rules (i.e. by someone without that technique) because PINNED is a condition unique to the technique.

• It's not invincible because there are two key weaknesses to the effect, neither of which depends on specific techniques:
  • It requires a check to advance on the opponent whilst you are pinned. But any check can be passed - especially in air stance, where the check is only TN2 - and it doesn't require an action to do, just the check as part of a normal move action.
  • The effect of earth stance is " When other characters make Attack action checks and Scheme action checks that target you, they cannot spend * to inflict critical strikes, conditions, or persistent effects on you ." Pinned is a condition, therefore you cannot use Iron Forest Style to apply PINNED to an opponent in Earth Stance. It might delay them advancing for a turn, but it expires at the end of their turn and thanks to Earth Stance you can't re-apply it. At which point they can switch to fire stance, advance and stab you a bit with a katana.
• The narrative effect of Iron Forest Style is 'stop my opponent advancing by attacking them':
  • That isn't especially different from using a critical strike or any of quite a lot of other techniques to apply immobilized, prone or any other 'you can't move' condition.
  • Equally, to duplicate the 'stab you as you close', you could perform a Wait action with the specified event "my opponent advances" and react to them moving close by hitting them, which requires no specific technique

And yes, the game is designed in a fairly loose, narrative way. The GM is the main choke point to throttle the assorted Bovine-Faeces that players who want to game the system - rather than play the game - from hitting the game world at large. Cases in point:

• I use my best ring:
  • Players should be able to describe their intended action, generally in the form of I [verb] the [object] (I fix the sword, I survey the landscape, etc. etc.)
    • The [object] defines the skill and is generally therefore fixed in a given situation
    • The [verb] defines the approach (and hence the ring to be used). This is a debate between the player and GM but the GM has the final say.
      • The GM should be prepared to discuss and/or offer different approaches
      • Different approaches may suit different player's rings, but they should also vary the TN for the check, and the TN of the check is also at the GM's discretion. If someone is determined to try and use a totally illogical approach for what they want to achieve, then ultimately, they should be allowed to, but the chance of it succeeding (bugger all) should be reflected in the TN, which should be suitably daunting.
• I harvest opportunities for [effect]
  • The GM defines when a check can be made. As per the TN0 and When To Ask For A Check rules, you only roll dice (and hence only have the potential to roll opportunities) if there is a meaningful and interesting effect of success and failure, and a credible chance of both failing and succeeding.

If someone were to want to do something in a skirmish scene 'outside the rules' - then that's what 'use a skill' action is for. If the action makes sense, then define a TN, make the check and go with the results.

• Remember that checks should only do 'one thing' - if the check is 'force your opponent back', then that's what it does. It doesn't also knock them prone, or disarm them, or wound them, or prevent you being noticed, or whatever. Achieving more than one thing with a check is precisely what opportunities are for.
• Equally, note that checks for narrative stuff that's beyond the scope of normal rules is specifically called out to in the game - such as a single TN3 martial arts Melee check to quietly dispatch a guard. This isn't useable in a conflict scene (because if you've bothered making it a conflict scene it's presumably because you're bothered enough about the outcome to do so) but it's a good example of 'yeah, you can do that'.

Thank you so much for this detailed response. I feel like this does explain the basic dynamics of the game and to me it fits my interpretation as well. My friend feels like any sort of pre-made exclusive power that a "class" gives you is outright crap. I don't like games with rigid classes and what not, but I believe my friend is blowing it out of proportion.

Your explanation of having the TN be your main permission/hindrance mechanism seems like a big part of the answer.

On 8/30/2018 at 10:56 PM, Archlyte said:

My friend feels like any sort of pre-made exclusive power that a "class" gives you is outright crap.

When only class XYZ can 'move silently' or 'charm people', then I agree.

Techniques - disregarding stuff like invocations, maho, and high-end kiho, which are literally magic - are 'ways of doing stuff'.

If you have a given technique, it generally lets you achieve [effect] better than someone who doesn't have it, but there are very few cases where there is no way to duplicate the effect to some extent. Lightning raid boosts everyone's initiative with an action but normal fire opportunity spends could boost initiative individually. Iaijustu gives you a 'free draw' of you weapon, but so does water stance. Whispers of court is great for starting rumours but a sufficiently good intrigue check can do that anyway - but the non-courtier will need to actually spend an action doing it not just lob one out as an opportunity spend.

The whole 'ring plus skill dice' is a case in point; anyone can 'sneak' using fitness + air - even (unlike a lot of RPG systems) if you don't have any ranks in fitness. For that matter, even a character with air 1 can theoretically pass a fitness + air stealth check of any TN with a string of explosive successes. The odds become quite impressively low above TN2, but it is possible, especially with relevant advantages (or exploited disadvantages), assistance and void points thrown into the mix.

THe big benefit to Iajutsu Cut is that you can draw and cut in any stance, not just water.

I'll also note that the BG lacks the ability to push up initiative with fire opportunity spends. I don't know if that's a BG-specific simplification or an indicator of things to come in the core.

Beta duels took way too long, even with the climbing strife.

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, AK_Aramis said:

THe big benefit to Iajutsu Cut is that you can draw and cut in any stance, not just water.

I'll also note that the BG lacks the ability to push up initiative with fire opportunity spends. I don't know if that's a BG-specific simplification or an indicator of things to come in the core.

Beta duels took way too long, even with the climbing strife.

Agreed. They're not bad in theory, but any game element which almost by definition fixes the spotlight on one player to the exclusion of others almost has to be a quick one to resolve. It's why I massively prefer the one-roll duel option from the beta.

On 9/1/2018 at 1:26 PM, AK_Aramis said:

Beta duels took way too long, even with the climbing strife.

I was really surprised by this. I did a practice duel between NPCs as an example for my players, and just called it at 5 rounds. One contestant was Compromised once, but switched to Water stance and didn't roll any strife her next check, so dropped the 2 and got back below threshold. She won by a point - did 5 damage, but hit second, whereas the other did 1 damage, but hit first.

20 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

I was really surprised by this. I did a practice duel between NPCs as an example for my players, and just called it at 5 rounds. One contestant was Compromised once, but switched to Water stance and didn't roll any strife her next check, so dropped the 2 and got back below threshold. She won by a point - did 5 damage, but hit second, whereas the other did 1 damage, but hit first.

....Did the finishing blow miss?

1 hour ago, Magnus Grendel said:

....Did the finishing blow miss?

Maybe I did it wrong. I thought the Finishing Blow only came when a character Unmasked, not when they got Compromised. I haven't presented it to my players yet, so if I did it wrong, let me know so I can fix it, please!

1 hour ago, Hida Jitenno said:

Maybe I did it wrong. I thought the Finishing Blow only came when a character Unmasked, not when they got Compromised. I haven't presented it to my players yet, so if I did it wrong, let me know so I can fix it, please!

At least in the beta:

"The first time each character’s strife exceeds their composure during a duel, their opponent may immediately perform a finishing blow."

So it's the moment you become compromised. Unlike unmasking, receiving a finishing blow is not at the player's discretion.

9 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

At least in the beta:

"The first time each character’s strife exceeds their composure during a duel, their opponent may immediately perform a finishing blow."

So it's the moment you become compromised. Unlike unmasking, receiving a finishing blow is not at the player's discretion.

Thank you!

So her composure was 8, and she had 8 strife. Thus, it didn't exceed her composure, and she didn't become Compromised. Would that be correct? She's "at her limit" but not "pushed past the limit."

"While a character’s strife exceeds their composure, the tumult of emotions that has built up causes the character to become compromised."

So equalling your composure does not compromise you, you do not suffer a finishing blow and you can (once!) perform a check and accept die results including one or more strife icons.

Also - surprised you can make it to 5 rounds.

As per the beta update, in the staredown you gain strife equal to the round number.

Unless you're reducing strife - a lot - that means you are on 1 strife before round 1, 3 before round 2, 6 before round 3, 10 before round 4 and 15 before round 5, without throwing in any strife from checks, predict actions, and fire opportunities.

I'm surprised you got 5 rounds into a duel without someone getting a finishing blow.

10 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Also - surprised you can make it to 5 rounds.

As per the beta update, in the staredown you gain strife equal to the round number.

Unless you're reducing strife - a lot - that means you are on 1 strife before round 1, 3 before round 2, 6 before round 3, 10 before round 4 and 15 before round 5, without throwing in any strife from checks, predict actions, and fire opportunities.

I'm surprised you got 5 rounds into a duel without someone getting a finishing blow.

Again, I must have missed that in the update. I thought the strife in the staredown was a secret bid to increase your initiative, not an automatic gain. Probably shouldn't have been watching Kitchen Nightmares in the background... That means my higher Focus character would have been hit with Finishing Blow on Round 2.

3 minutes ago, Hida Jitenno said:

Again, I must have missed that in the update. I thought the strife in the staredown was a secret bid to increase your initiative, not an automatic gain. Probably shouldn't have been watching Kitchen Nightmares in the background... That means my higher Focus character would have been hit with Finishing Blow on Round 2.

It's both:

"During the staredown, each character suffers strife equal to the round number (1 strife for the first round, 2 for the second, 3 for the third, and so forth).

Additionally, during the staredown, each character may bid additional strife to increase their initiative value for that round.

To bid, each participating character secretly chooses a number between 0 and their focus attribute.

Then, all simultaneously reveal the number, and each suffers that amount of strife.

Finally, each character adds the number they chose to their current initiative value to determine their initiative value for the round."

It was added in Beta Update 4, which dramatically overhauled duels.

24 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

It's both:

"During the staredown, each character suffers strife equal to the round number (1 strife for the first round, 2 for the second, 3 for the third, and so forth).

Additionally, during the staredown, each character may bid additional strife to increase their initiative value for that round.

To bid, each participating character secretly chooses a number between 0 and their focus attribute.

Then, all simultaneously reveal the number, and each suffers that amount of strife.

Finally, each character adds the number they chose to their current initiative value to determine their initiative value for the round."

It was added in Beta Update 4, which dramatically overhauled duels.

Okay, thanks. For NPC v NPC, I was skipping the bid for obvious reasons. I was tabbing back and forth between the Beta, the 4.0 Update, the Doc file I was typing the action up in, and Discord where I was rolling my dice, lol. It was inevitable that I missed stuff, so I appreciate the help.

Next step is me putting all that together into a document without all the sidebars and double columns.

12 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

....Did the finishing blow miss?

Rerolling it now that I'm home and... yes. Yes the finishing blow missed with all blank faces, save for one Void opportunity.

The other character then got a Finishing Blow... and missed. She was still Compromised, and all the dice rolled Strife faces, save for one success... against an opponent in Air Stance. SO... THIS IS GREAT.

If I'm correct, no more finishing blows, yes? They only happen the first time each character is compromised?

.... I totally missed that there was a 4.0 update... cannot find an active link. Anyone have one?

57 minutes ago, sidescroller said:

.... I totally missed that there was a 4.0 update... cannot find an active link. Anyone have one?

How about I do you one better?

l5r00_beta_updates_v40.pdf

Thank you @Hida Jitenno !!