22 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? Is that player lying when they say their character has had enough of that courtier's words?

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?

Is this an example of unmasking? Mechanically, no. Not unless the PCs strife exceeds their composure. The b box says you can only unmask once per scene, while compromised. But you're right, it sounds a lot like unmasking. So I think it'd be reasonable to assign the relevant negative consequences of such an unmasking (like a glory/honor hit), though the PC will not get the benefits (removing all strife, reduced TN).

"Is the player who is choosing to stand up for their friend now roleplaying their character incorrectly?" Also no. Being compromised means that "the tumult of emotions that has built up" puts the samurai "at their emotional limit" (b box p. 8 ). Strife is "emotional, mental, and spiritual turbulence " (emphasis added)--in other words, strife is emotional/mental/spiritual experience that puts the character closer to their emotional limit (which, as I argued earlier, can easily be emotions that the samurai has chosen to ignore/repress/not consciously experience).

I cannot find b box RAW that claims either:

• strife or being compromised measures the total of the samurai's emotional experience
• strife or being compromised represents emotional investment (you might keep strife dice because you are emotionally invested in the outcome of an action, but that's different)

I cannot find RAW that "CLEARLY STATE your character is not that emotionally invested". Emotional investment is very different than emotional limit.

As far as I can tell, RAW, your character can have whatever emotions you want, even when no strife is assigned. If they express emotion without unmasking, it's because they chose to express it, even though they could have contained it. But that doesn't mean that the emotion isn't genuine.

You can play the strife/compromise system as narrowly as you're interpreting it if you want, but I don't see RAW that requires it. As far as I can tell, the only infringement on player agency by the strife/composure system is that every PC has an emotional limit. Which emotions get you there and what you do when you reach the limit are totally up to the player. Certainly, it's a smaller infringement on player agency than damage/fatigue/critical strikes.

FWIW, it's perfectly ok to not like strife/composure/compromise because you just don't like them ? I have a friend who doesn't like bacon.

16 hours ago, jmoschner said:

Not sure this bit survived the beta, but note that in the beta PCs can get strife for narrative reasons and the GM can slap them with strife if they see fit:

In a situation where a player feels their character would take on strife and unmask the player should inform the GM and the GM should probably give them strife and let them unmask if it is appropriate to the character and the situation. This is where dialogue between players and GM comes in.

16 hours ago, jmoschner said:

Characters can also acquire strife for other reasons , such as facing their
Anxieties (see page 60), neglecting their Ninjō (see page 22) or Giri
(see page 24), being affected by abilities used by other characters, and
for narrative reasons. Players should feel free to suggest times that their
characters should suffer strife to the GM, and the GM can inflict strife on
characters as circumstances dictate.

I think this is the really key part. The GM could have, instead of saying "nope you don't have enough strife," asked "would you like some strife?" This solves pretty much any "I don't have enough strife to Unmask but I really wanna" problem.

@AtoMaki , it's just clear we have very different views on a few things. I have responses, but talking around is circles is pointless, so I'm dropping it. Your Rokugan and My Rokugan are different.

The @jmoschner solution I think is the best, and most in keeping with the way the Strife system should actually work.

Players should be allowed, with GM permission, to gain enough Strife to become Compromised and then Unmask. Remember, becoming Compromised is a mechanically disadvantaged state, and Unmasking, even with the TN reduction, has strong mechanically negative effects (lower Honor / Glory / Status means you will gain Disadvantages / lose Advantages). This restores a degree of player agency over their character's emotional state (you have the choice to become MORE stressed, but not less stressed).

However, I will not that it removes one of the strategies of Courtier chicanery, in specific using Earth Opportunities to keep the Bushi from becoming Compromised so should they choose to challenge me on my lies and insults, it appears to be "faked outrage".

Personally? I am happy to sacrifice the latter for the former.

18 minutes ago, sndwurks said:

However, I will not that it removes one of the strategies of Courtier chicanery, in specific using Earth Opportunities to keep the Bushi from becoming Compromised so should they choose to challenge me on my lies and insults, it appears to be "faked outrage".

I don't think it necessarily would. As I read it, and maybe I'm just interpreting it differently:

1. To smoothly lie and cover for it, the Courtier is probably taking the Air approach, so Earth opportunities aren't available (or are available at double cost? don't recall).

2. Is the Courtier getting a roll that could provide opportunities between the Bushi voluntarily gaining the Strife and then Unmasking? I figured that would all happen at the same time on the Bushi's turn (assuming a turn order), when the Bushi rolls to respond to the Scheme (if there is a contested roll, it could happen at the same step where he would gain Strife from the rolls), or at the time the Player decides he's had enough (if not actively in an initiative-controlled scene).

2 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

Your Rokugan and My Rokugan are different.

Indeed. One of our players hated the Tsuruchi not carrying a katana so much that he referred to anyone playing by such setting parameters as playing in Hershey Rokugan. There was no small amount of consternation at our table over that. ?

17 minutes ago, Wyrmdog said:

Indeed. One of our players hated the Tsuruchi not carrying a katana so much that he referred to anyone playing by such setting parameters as playing in Hershey Rokugan. There was no small amount of consternation at our table over that. ?

That's hilarious. I'm a big Tsuruchi fan, on the other hand. Viva la Wasp!

On 9/4/2018 at 1:59 PM, Lindhrive said:

Regarding the duels - I don’t have easy access to my beta book right now, but is that whole rigamarole with needing to call home for a duel even still present? I mainly ask because I had noticed, to my delight, that the Kick *** Or Don’t Come Home rule for mass combat was gone. And really, if a samurai game doesn’t have plentiful duels, something is wrong.

The game has never limited duels, in my understanding. It's not that illegal duels don't happen (or shouldn't happen), it's that they are illegal and have consequences for having them. Players should be fine with having duels, and the GM should be fine with changing the direction of the story slightly when they do happen. That framework can also be used to protect a player from a silly decision they made (i.e.: Their daimyo schedules the fight for a year from now, giving the player the ability to continue on without having to fight a duel they would lose; their daimyo considers the ask moot because of the consequence they will mete out - sending them to the Colonies, etc.). You are welcome to have as many duels in your game as you see fit, and then steer the story in the direction you want based on the consequences of the duel (if you even cared to stay in line with RAW and setting canon - which is optional!).

On 9/2/2018 at 11:32 PM, sndwurks said:

The hard line the designers are taking in the game against the concept of "bleed" (a form of role playing where the intention of the experience is for you, the player, to genuinely empathize, or feel the feelings of, your character) is interesting.

If Strife is meant as a Resource Management mechanic, to create a dynamic environment of Risk vs Reward where the player has to judge immediate success (keeping dice with Strife icons to get Successes, Explosive Successes, and Opportunities) against long term vulnerability (becoming Compromised and being unable to keep Strife icons, Unmasking and losing Honor / Glory / Status / Your Life), then it is actually successful.

However, the article proposes the intention of Strife is to deliberately prevent "bleed" by introducing a mechanic to keep you, the player, emotionally separated from your character's emotional state. It is an interesting choice, but perhaps one that will not resonate with all players. I, for example, consider players experiencing "bleed" to be a sign I have succeeded as a GM, and if I can get you immersed enough in your character's thoughts that you are literally feeling what they are feeling? Then that is an amazing experience.

I will agree that Strife as a system is less impactful on player agency than the "Mind Control Courtier Techniques" of certain other editions and games, but it is a more present and immediate one. Every time you pick up dice, you are probably going to get Strife. That can weigh on a player. You need players who buy into the idea that Strife is not a punishment mechanic, but is instead a "heat" mechanic.

Every Strife icon is a bit of "heat" your character gets when they keep that dice. You have to figure out a way to manage how to keep your "heat" low, or you will become Compromised. Become Compromised at the wrong time, and you could die. Unmask, and you clear out the Compromised state, but it's going to cost you. And for those who comment that Inappropriate Remark or Compromise are fine Unmaskings without compromising player agency, I will point out that losing Honor and Glory does actually weaken your character mechanically, as having too low Honor or Glory gives you Disadvantages.

Maybe I read the article a bit different then you. I didn't get the feeling it was trying to make you feel separated from your character, but more that it was providing this as an insight into how your character may feel so that you can act more in line with it. For example - I may have an NPC tell a lie to a PC. Based on what the player knows, what I said is obviously a lie. Based on what that PC knows, what the NPC said is obviously the truth. Is it a disconnection between player and character to now instruct my player that they should play their character as if they are fooled, when they (the player) are not? Is this an opportunity for them to become closer to their character, as the player must now adopt a different persona from their own in order to continue the scene?

On 9/5/2018 at 1:22 PM, sndwurks said:

Again, just to make this clear, you are saying that the PC in the above situation is not emotionally invested enough in the situation for the emotional outburst that the player has chosen for their character, and it is instead a calculated political move, "fake diplomatic outrage" as you put it.

And so, this player is, in fact, CHEATING when they say that their character IS emotionally invested enough in the situation to throw decorum aside, because that PC does not have enough Strife to actually, genuinely care about the situation.

Now, it is theoretically possible within the system that this PC has made several rolls already in the situation, and just has not had any Strife icons come up (luckily or unluckily, however you wish to interpret the whimsy of dice). It is also theoretically possible that the Courtier has been making several Earth rolls, and spending Opportunities to keep said PC's Strife down (the Opportunity Table does not say that the person having their Strife reduced must be willing). The latter option is then a valid strategy in an Intrigue scene, as it keeps the Bushi from being Compromised and thus being mechanically ALLOWED to Unmask and genuinely call the Courtier out on their insults, and we are again attacking player agency from another angle now.

Strife, at its core, is designed to limit player agency over their PC's emotional state, and to separate a player from their character's emotions. This is the designer's intent with the system.

It does not matter that the PLAYER has had enough of the Courtier's lies and insults, because their PC does not have enough Strife to justify calling the Courtier out on it, and any attempt to do so is, INHERENTLY, that PC lying or faking outrage.

This is a valid criticism of the Strife system, and a reason for people to dislike it. If you want control over your PC's emotions? Do not play the new L5R RPG.

I'm a bit confused... A courtier is using two faced rhetoric and charming insults while speaking to the target. This sounds to me like they are acting quite condescending. While they are doing this they are going out of their way to make it appear to others as if they are not actually attacking them (lowering strife in the room) to all observers. An image comes to mind of a person who is berating a target while trying to seem quite friendly on the outside... Am I off base here? Really if that is what they are doing, and they succeed... then don't they succeed? Should a player be allowed to have their character act according to the players understanding? Or should the player be reminded of their character's understanding, which is different from their own, and be challenged to play their part as the fool?

What if the courtier were lying to the target, and the observer were unable to see through the lie, would the character be bound by the mechanics of the lie? Or would you allow the player to intervene in spite of the deception mechanics?

@shosuko - To answer your last point first, you are asking the right questions. In the case I have outlined, that is exactly what the Courtier is doing, which is the root of the question to the situation above. Is Strife a good system to measure character emotional investment when it can be manipulated? And should a player be considered cheating (breaking the rules of shared play which we agree to) by having their character get outraged anyways? Is the answer to, as is outlined above, allow the PC to give their character Strife anyways, so they can Unmask? If they do not get enough Strife to Unmask, is their outrage objectively disgenuine in character because they do not have enough Strife for it to be real?

As a GM in the new system? It is a question you will need to answer. Allow the player to gain Strife without rolls or Anxiety, then Unmask, and you are siding with player agency, but against the social contract of a strict adherence to the RPG rules set. Not allow it, and you are siding against agency but standing with the rules.

When playing a game? Games have rules. It is all in how we modify and interpret them.

As for your first point, I would agree that there is some language which agrees with your statement, and that might even be the attempt. However, by tying Strife to something as arbitrary as dice, the system fails to respect that ideal relationship between player and character, and instead places the majority of Strife generation as a cost to participating in the story. This rewards behavior which avoids participation, by introducing a growing risk (being Compromised and dying as a result) over time.

4 hours ago, sndwurks said:

As a GM in the new system? It is a question you will need to answer. Allow the player to gain Strife without rolls or Anxiety, then Unmask, and you are siding with player agency, but against the social contract of a strict adherence to the RPG rules set. Not allow it, and you are siding against agency but standing with the rules.

When playing a game? Games have rules. It is all in how we modify and interpret them.

Except, as we noted, the GM and player agreeing to take on additional, optional, Strife is specifically provided for in the rules. So even with a 'strict adherence' to the rules, it's provided for.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

I'm a bit confused... A courtier is using two faced rhetoric and charming insults while speaking to the target. This sounds to me like they are acting quite condescending. While they are doing this they are going out of their way to make it appear to others as if they are not actually attacking them (lowering strife in the room) to all observers. An image comes to mind of a person who is berating a target while trying to seem quite friendly on the outside... Am I off base here? Really if that is what they are doing, and they succeed... then don't they succeed? Should a player be allowed to have their character act according to the players understanding? Or should the player be reminded of their character's understanding, which is different from their own, and be challenged to play their part as the fool?

I suppose this would boil-down to IC knowledge v OOC knowledge. If the Character does know that the Courtier is lying his rear-end off and pulling the wool over everyone else, then the Character getting real mad regardless of how smooth-talking the Courtier is is perfectly fine. There will certainly be other social issues if he calls out the Courtier, but that's part of the game.

On the other hand, if the Character doesn't know the truth, and the Courtier has rolled well enough, and/or the Character poorly enough, that the Character should be fully flummoxed and believes the Courtier, then it shouldn't matter that the Player knows the Courtier is lying. In that case, it's perfectly appropriate for the GM to tell the Player no. That's meta-gaming, using exclusively-OOC knowledge to make decisions that your Character would have no idea about.

Now, in the latter case, I'd assume that if the Courtier has gone to the extent of controlling this entire Intrigue scene for the express purpose of weaving this enormous lie that is somehow personally important enough that the Character should get flaming upset about it, then there will be a chance later for the Character to get their chance to discover/reveal the truth.

On 9/9/2018 at 12:54 AM, sndwurks said:

@shosuko - To answer your last point first, you are asking the right questions. In the case I have outlined, that is exactly what the Courtier is doing, which is the root of the question to the situation above. Is Strife a good system to measure character emotional investment when it can be manipulated? And should a player be considered cheating (breaking the rules of shared play which we agree to) by having their character get outraged anyways? Is the answer to, as is outlined above, allow the PC to give their character Strife anyways, so they can Unmask? If they do not get enough Strife to Unmask, is their outrage objectively disgenuine in character because they do not have enough Strife for it to be real?

As a GM in the new system? It is a question you will need to answer. Allow the player to gain Strife without rolls or Anxiety, then Unmask, and you are siding with player agency, but against the social contract of a strict adherence to the RPG rules set. Not allow it, and you are siding against agency but standing with the rules.

When playing a game? Games have rules. It is all in how we modify and interpret them.

As for your first point, I would agree that there is some language which agrees with your statement, and that might even be the attempt. However, by tying Strife to something as arbitrary as dice, the system fails to respect that ideal relationship between player and character, and instead places the majority of Strife generation as a cost to participating in the story. This rewards behavior which avoids participation, by introducing a growing risk (being Compromised and dying as a result) over time.

As a mechanic, I like it, especially now that unmasking is (1) once per scene only, (2) when you feel ready to do so, and (3) it provides a benefit on the following roll. Made a huge differences in scene 5.

I'm likely to add (as a houserule) a forced unmask at strife > 2× composure, just like I suggested to them in the beta. Forced to have a second? Forced to flee or go catatonic. Not easy to push someone to that degree, but it's doable. (Fire spends especially help to do so.)

-1 TN is like having extra kept Ring dice that automatically shows Success. A thing to ponder when evaluating Rings and Approaches. Spending a Void Point on a roll your Unmasking boosted is like having almost 2 Ring more than you have in reality. Very interesting.

12 hours ago, WHW said:

-1 TN is like having extra kept Ring dice that automatically shows Success. A thing to ponder when evaluating Rings and Approaches. Spending a Void Point on a roll your Unmasking boosted is like having almost 2 Ring more than you have in reality. Very interesting.

Which makes sense if it's representing (for example) an absolute half-bezerk effort of strength.

13 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

I'm likely to add (as a houserule) a forced unmask at strife > 2× composure, just like I suggested to them in the beta. Forced to have a second? Forced to flee or go catatonic. Not easy to push someone to that degree, but it's doable. (Fire spends especially help to do so.)

I dunno. Something like this, or else redefining the 'undermine an opponent' to count as 'make them become compromised', because otherwise there's no way to complete that intrigue objective without your opponent's co-operation.

9 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Which makes sense if it's representing (for example) an absolute half-bezerk effort of strength.

I dunno. Something like this, or else redefining the 'undermine an opponent' to count as 'make them become compromised', because otherwise there's no way to complete that intrigue objective without your opponent's co-operation.

Intrigue uses rhetoric points, not composure (See BG-R for RP) - tho composure is a good metric to base them upon, IMO. And Vigilance is the default TN.

If in Character Voice preferred mode, don't forget to add +1 to +3 TN for lame narration, and –1 to –2 TN for appropriate dialogue and narration.

12 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

Intrigue uses rhetoric points, not composure (See BG-R for RP)

Most do, but one of the sample objectives doesn't:

Quote

Discredit Someone

Requirements: A character can back someone into a corner by causing them to have an outburst Unmask. They can do this by inflicting strife on the target (or getting others to do so), which in turn is something they can accomplish by using various  (see page 18) and techniques.

Completion: At the end of any round in which a character suffers an outburst Unmasks this way, the character must either forfeit glory equal to their glory rank (as they allow themself to be humiliated or shamed for a moment of vulnerability) or retire from the intrigue.

Because the change from outburst to unmask put the triggering of the event in the controlling player (or GM's) hands, as noted you cannot now complete this objective without their active co-operation.

5 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Because the change from outburst to unmask put the triggering of the event in the controlling player (or GM's) hands, as noted you cannot now complete this objective without their active co-operation.

I knew there was something in the back of my mind tickling about that. They didn't address it in the Intrigue section of Update 4.0?

I suppose the easy errata to that would be "back them into a corner causing them to become Compromised" instead. The Outburst was automatic upon becoming Compromised, so I'd just go with that.

4 hours ago, Hida Jitenno said:

I knew there was something in the back of my mind tickling about that. They didn't address it in the Intrigue section of Update 4.0?

I suppose the easy errata to that would be "back them into a corner causing them to become Compromised" instead. The Outburst was automatic upon becoming Compromised, so I'd just go with that.

Given that the outburst is explicitly not automatic in the BG, and isn't in an area likely to be dumbed down much in the BG (It's too core to the feel). I would not be surprised to see either a shift to compromised or a 2x Composure forced unmask (which still being the player's choice)...