4 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

L5R 5 is much like Fate and CP - failure isn' to be feared, bu embraced, and the token reward is a good motivator.

That's all well and good, but you don't get a VP for failing - you get one for making a check with hidden TN, whether you fail or succeed.

Also, the examples from other systems you give correspond fairly closely with getting a VP for having an advantage inverted. That I don't mind (in fact, I like it), as it drives the narrative aspect of the game and thus makes sense. I don't think any such argument applies to hiding TNs. particularly when the designers themselves suggest you normally should not do this and only use the option if it is logical for the character not to be able to assess the difficulty.

59 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

I don't     think any such argument applies to hiding  TN  s  .

But hiding the TN inherently makes guessing how to choose die results more difficult. True, getting VP isn't tied to success or failure (only whether the TN was hidden or not in this specific case- since we're not taking about disadvantages here); it's about perspective and lacking choice in refining the outcome. Without knowing TN, a PC is forced to choose success and strife over opportunity results rolled. Opportunity can be spent to modify the outcome (more efficient, subtle, precise, etc). By effectively denying PCs the flexibility to use opportunity, they bias their decision toward potentially over shooting the TN or not using opportunity to cover up their failure. I think it's worth giving a VP for that uncertainty, that they can apply later.

2 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

That's all well and good, but you don't get a VP for failing - you get one for making a check with hidden TN, whether you fail or succeed.

Also, the examples from other systems you give correspond fairly closely with getting a VP for having an advantage inverted. That I don't mind (in fact, I like it), as it drives the narrative aspect of the game and thus makes sense. I don't think any such argument applies to hiding TNs. particularly when the designers themselves suggest you normally should not do this and only use the option if it is logical for the character not to be able to assess the difficulty.

you hide TN like once per few sessions, maybe you have a "special" npc with some "special" abilities and you don't want the players to know some stuff right away. or maybe, by hiding the TN you WANT them to fail ?
anyway, this really should not happen a lot, not more than once per session, if even (probably much less).
keep that rule for extremely special moments.
or never hide the TN. easy!

thats it.

6 hours ago, T_Kageyasu said:

But hiding the TN inherently makes guessing how to choose die results more difficult. True, getting VP isn't tied to success or failure (only whether the TN was hidden or not in this specific case- since we're not taking about disadvantages here); it's about perspective and lacking choice in refining the outcome. Without knowing TN, a PC is forced to choose success and strife over opportunity results rolled. Opportunity can be spent to modify the outcome (more efficient, subtle, precise, etc). By effectively denying PCs the flexibility to use opportunity, they bias their decision toward potentially over shooting the TN or not using opportunity to cover up their failure. I think it's worth giving a VP for that uncertainty, that they can apply later.

I'm not disputing that's how it works (though I think it could be an interesting discussion whether this whole strife management metagame is all that great in the first place). I can agree that there being some kind of compensation for this uncertainty might be ok too (though there as well a discussion can be had whether it's not simply to be expected that uncertain outcomes are more likely to cause strife and less likely to allow the characters involved to exert a measure of control), and I wouldn't know what else would be better. What I'm saying is that 'VP for uncertainty' is a purely mechanical exchange that has no other reason than 'things are a bit more difficult than normal so we throw you a bone for later'. It's not consistent with the narrative, it doesn't relate to what strife is supposed to represent, there is no common sense reason why you'd get a Void point purely because a TN is hidden from you. That's why I think it's silly.

4 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

you hide TN like once per few sessions, maybe you have a "special" npc with some "special" abilities and you don't want the players to know some stuff right away. or maybe, by hiding the TN you WANT them to fail ?
anyway, this really should not happen a lot, not more than once per session, if even (probably much less).
keep that rule for extremely special moments.
or never hide the TN. easy!

It happens more often than that in my sessions, simply because it makes sense - in my opinion anyway - for some TNs to be hidden. For instance if an antagonist makes his counterargument after you tried to convince the daimyo of something, or even without you knowing that's what he's doing, how would you know how hard it's going to be to succeed? I do try to give the players a chance to 'read the situation' with some RP whenever possible though, which can serve to justify them being able to make a decent estimate of the difficulty of what they are about to attempt. Regardless, that's not really the issue. I don't hide TNs for any other reason that that I think they should be hidden because it makes sense. It's fine, it's not a problem. I just think it's silly that when I do, this magically results in them having a VP later.

3 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

there is no common sense reason why you'd get a Void point purely because a TN is hidden from you. That's why I think  it'  s silly.

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative perk the PCs should gain for not knowing something they are usually entitled, but logically shouldn't always have? Void Points are pretty good currency for allowing PCs to invest in rolls they care about. Since it comes up often enough in your game I wouldn't suggest XP, but maybe a pool of "story points" in which a PC could use to force a reroll of dice made by an antagonist? Again, this might lack common sense and be silly.

I just wanted to add that the GM has at their disposal the ability to thwart the actions of PCs for narrative reasons (eg. that villain NPC really didn't die, he escaped last minute!), with rules giving PCs VPs for this fiat. So it's not like giving VPs for hidden TNs is without precedent.

1 hour ago, T_Kageyasu said:

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative perk the PCs should gain for not knowing something they are usually entitled, but logically shouldn't always have? Void Points are pretty good currency for allowing PCs to invest in rolls they care about. Since it comes up often enough in your game I wouldn't suggest XP, but maybe a pool of "story points" in which a PC could use to force a reroll of dice made by an antagonist? Again, this might lack common sense and be silly.

I'd prefer something that applies to the check itself. Maybe some sort of opportunity benefit, like getting 2 extra opportunities regardless of the actual outcome of the roll or one extra opportunity for every kept die that isn't an opportunity result. Would help the narrative, address the issue of potentially losing out on opportunities due to not getting to pick the "best" result, and wouldn't affect a completely unrelated roll at a later time.