So, how should I deal with PCs squaring off against Adversary NPCs in skirmishes and duels and dealing the last blow? By RAW, the adversary gets incapacitated and he still gets one last turn to act; is this correct, or should I only follow this rule as written for PCs? I haven't played the full rules yet, my only experience was as a player in the Topaz Championship adventure, which was really fun and got me interested in the full rules, but by reading the endurance/fatigue rules it makes me feel like they would kind of break the pace of combat and "rob" players of a satisfactory finishing blow against an important opponent; My interpretation of the rules as written give me the impression that most fights against named/important NPCs would play out like this: PC gets NPC's fatigue maxed out with a massive blow, basically he has won, but the NPC is not technically wounded: he's still standing but unable to take complex actions. Now the PC is standing in front of a defenseless opponent, who will either run away, or stand still to take the final blow, which seems a bit awkward to have happen every time you beat an important character. I realize the "proper" way to get kills is by dealing crits, but dealing a killing blow seems so extremely unlikely that I don't see it as a regular occurring event.

Now, as I said, I haven't played the game using the full rules, so I'd like to know if anything in my interpretation of the rules is wrong, and/or if during gameplay things go smoothly and, most importantly, entertainingly enough that this is not really a problem.

so far I had all my npcs "die" when incapacitated aside the named npcs.

if they are incapacitated, they will use calming breath until they can come back in the fight.

don't see it as "the dude is waiting for the final blow", but, see it faster than that. like you strike the bad guy, he becomes incapacitated "you get an opening" and then your next turn you right away slash him down. its not like, ok hes incapacitated and you are just standing there being all relax. see it like a video game when you hit the boss weak spot and then he becomes "vulnerable" for a few moment. "incapacited" should be seen more like "my defenses are down" than "i'm KOed". if that makes sense.

16 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

so far I had all my npcs "die" when incapacitated aside the named npcs.

if they are incapacitated, they will use calming breath until they can come back in the fight.

don't see it as "the dude is waiting for the final blow", but, see it faster than that. like you strike the bad guy, he becomes incapacitated "you get an opening" and then your next turn you right away slash him down. its not like, ok hes incapacitated and you are just standing there being all relax. see it like a video game when you hit the boss weak spot and then he becomes "vulnerable" for a few moment. "incapacited" should be seen more like "my defenses are down" than "i'm KOed". if that makes sense.

At the same time, the fact that the adversary isn't unconscious or dead (yet) does give you the chance for minions to intervene/a dramatic escape/whatever if they are supposed to be a recurring villain.

But yes, they're not just standing their like a lemon. They're winded, possibly lightly wounded (as in 'series of bruises and bad shaving cuts' level wounds) and out of breath from deflecting and dodging your last series of attacks. They will keep attacking you, but they need an instant or two to gather themselves. During which time, you can badly wound them and render them unconscious. @Avatar111 's example of a 'vulnerable' boss in a videogame is a good one.

Acting whilst incapacitated is perfectly feasibly, because there are plenty of things they might be able to do to save their neck. Calming Breath or Warrior's Resolve can get them back in the fight. Manoeuvre twice can get them three range bands away and safe (ish). Switching to Air Stance makes the adversary harder to hit with your finishing blow whilst as an action without a check they can Assist another NPC. In an extreme case, An Experienced Bandit can order Get Them, You Fools!, giving two of his henchmen an immediate move and assisted attack to clobber the person who just incapacitated them.

I generally agree with sentiments above, and also would like to add that in L5R, actually killing has a lot of serious weight - not just in narrative but also in your social attributes. The fact that an Incapacitated enemy can still technically act to either get back in the fight or do something else means he's not strictly-speaking helpless, so actually landing a killing blow should probably not tick anyone's Honor scores, unlike stabbing an Unconscious man. This works for the NPCs too, and can help characterization and thematics. An honorable enemy might see that he's beaten and accept defeat and give a death poem, a cowardly one might sacrifice his own Honor and Glory to do like @Magnus Grendel possibly suggests and scarper off, shouting how the players will "rue the day!!!".

And then on top of this, there is actually the fact that players really should get a choice in killing many enemies, because they will feel pretty major story repercussions from it. Letting out a battle yell and decapitating the Head Bandit when you've defeated him is probably fine, but, say, actually killing your ex-betrothed now in an enemy clan when you could just bop her over the head and take her hostage is probably not good for your emotional state and might make her relatives mighty annoyed with you. Plus the way justice in Rokugan works, confessions are pretty important, if you shank a guy with more status than you without getting him to fess up, your Magisterial career will be short. It's good to give players that beat (keeping in mind I'm pretty sure rounds represent as much time as you like or is dramatically appropriate) to think about their actions and pick what they want for the story, and make accidents less likely.

Both Ferocity and Soft-Hearted are disadvantages, so the ability to take that moment and choose should be seen as quite important, I think.

EDIT: Also yeah, this is basically how I handled SWRPG's adversaries as well. Minions and Rivals tend to be dead or alive based on the method used to take them out when they exceed their Wounds, a Nemesis gets treated like a PC with full crit damage and everything, so they're fairly robust. L5R is a bit less robust in general, but I'd generally treat "Adversaries" the same way, it's only courtesy to them and to the PCs to have them on even footing in that sense. Dramatic narrative always takes precedence over the numbers though, a guy committing seppuku doesn't need to take in account his wakizashi DLS, he's just pretty dead. But not all the way dead, that's what the second is for.

16 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

a cowardly one might sacrifice his own Honor and Glory to do like @Magnus Grendel possibly suggests and scarper off, shouting how the players will "rue the day!!!".

I'll get you next time, Gadget Kaiu-San.

16 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

there is actually the fact that players really should get a choice in killing many enemies, because they will feel pretty major story repercussions from it.

This. One thing the rule does is make killing very much a deliberate choice, even in a battle; because if you can incapacitate a foe you always have the option of a low-deadliness punch or pommel-blow (improvised weapon) to render unconscious without risking the target spaffing a fitness check and spontaneously losing extremities.

By comparison, a finishing blow in a duel......yeah. Even if they survive that, they're likely to come out permanently missing some important bits unless you're a kakita and can tweak the final severity just so.

1 minute ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I'll get you next time, Gadget-San.

I've seen shinobi puppeteers do some pretty gnarly things in Naruto with prosthetics, get me a Kaiu and a black budget, I'll make Magistrate Gadget-san work!

When incapacitated (i don't like the name of the condition but whatever) you could be unwounded, totally fine.

In most boxing or ufc matches i see, if the opponent drop his gloves, the other one take advantage of that right away. I wouldn't consider an attack on an incapacitated opponent a loss of honor.

On an uncouncious opponent? That is another thing! In boxing and ufc they stop the match at this point.

Thanks for all the replies guys! This has been really helpful. Two further questions directly related to this topic come to my mind though: When to make a character an adversary, and when to use duels? Is every named character in the story to be considered an adversary, or only those the DM think should stick around longer than a couple of sessions? Are minions literally nameless mooks or can they be, for example, the named yet obviously antagonizing samurai serving the local daimyo?
And for duels, once the party has wiped the floor with the minions and only the leader remains standing still, is it reasonable to change the conflict type to duel involving the PC who first approaches him or should they always arise from challenges? How about using one-roll duels for clashes during skirmishes, would you do it or is it too deadly to be used casually like this?

7 hours ago, BlindPumpkin said:

1) Is every named character in the story to be considered an adversary, or only those the DM think should stick around longer than a couple of sessions? Are minions literally nameless mooks or can they be, for example, the named yet obviously antagonizing samurai serving the local daimyo?

2) And for duels, once the party has wiped the floor with the minions and only the leader remains standing still, is it reasonable to change the conflict type to duel involving the PC who first approaches him or should they always arise from challenges?

3) How about using one-roll duels for clashes during skirmishes, would you do it or is it too deadly to be used casually like this?

1) My personal rule of thumb: anyone who's intended to cause some trouble for the PCs is an adversary; anyone who's intended to be easily dealt with is a minion. Whether they get named has more to do with the scenes they'll be in than with their importance. Sometimes they'll get introduced, sometimes they won't be.

2) If it's appropriate, go for it. It'll make the player who gets to fight the duel happy. Not every opponent will be the dueling type - Shadowlands creatures, for the most part, aren't going to be all "show me your stance" in the middle of combat, if at all - but when the opportunity is there, why not make the most of it?

3) I don't, but mostly because the one-roll mechanic feels like auto-resolving battles in Total War games. You can use it, it's a feature, but I'd rather really play the game.

10 hours ago, BlindPumpkin said:

Is every named character in the story to be considered an adversary, or only those the DM think should stick around longer than a couple of sessions?

Not necessarily. After all, if a corrupt magistrate has hired some thugs to make trouble, and the PCs happen to hear the name of this thug, that won't spontaneously make them more of a threat. As with @nameless ronin , it's a question of "is this character supposed to be in the same league as the PCs?"

10 hours ago, BlindPumpkin said:

And for duels, once the party has wiped the floor with the minions and only the leader remains standing still, is it reasonable to change the conflict type to duel involving the PC who first approaches him or should they always arise from challenges?

Up to the players - and the enemy. Certainly offering a one-on-one duel is more strictly honourable, and I can see even the less honourable bad guys pulling a Ramsey Bolton and going " You suggested one-on-one combat, didn't you? I've reconsidered . I think that sounds like a wonderful idea. " after all the minions are dead...

10 hours ago, BlindPumpkin said:

How about using one-roll duels for clashes during skirmishes, would you do it or is it too deadly to be used casually like this?

It's no more or less deadly than any duel to the death..... tactics and technique can change the TN based on GM judgement and PC 'cunning plans'.

I'd advocate one-rolls for clashes during a skirmish or battle.

The issue with duels is they tend to leave all but one of the PCs standng about like lemons whilst the action is all about that one guy . Fine if the other players` are okay, but duels can take a fair chunk of time, where they can lose their sense of involvement a bit. One-rolls are a good answer to that - judge based on your players.

On 12/18/2018 at 9:56 PM, Magnus Grendel said:

I'd advocate one-rolls for clashes during a skirmish or battle.

The issue with duels is they tend to leave all but one of the PCs standng about like lemons whilst the action is all about that one guy . Fine if the other players` are okay, but duels can take a fair chunk of time, where they can lose their sense of involvement a bit. One-rolls are a good answer to that - judge based on your players.

During a skirmish, the duelists go last in the sequence, but only take one round of duel per 1 round of skirmish. that can be pretty tense. See clash in Skirmish, Page 263.

Quote

At the end of the round, participants fight one round of a duel using these steps:

So, in a skirmish, it doesn't have them delay the others- they just get their turns at the end of round, and have to take massive strife-loads.