I'm trying to figure out how to asses rarity and/or value for Design, Composition, etc works,a nd I can't seem to find it in the book except as mentioned vaguely in counter to the smithing complex process

Help?

If you're trying to make something extant (i/e Design to weave some Ceremonial Clothes rather than Smithing to bang out some armor) i'd base it off how Smithing weapons and armor works, otherwise unless such notes are forthcoming in Courts of Stone, you'll probably have to wing it. Most artisan samurai aren't in it for the pursuit of material wealth, so value will probably be very much whatever price somebody is willing to pay - I'd say Glory is probably a more typical reward for like a really well made piece of art - especially if that art is something ephemeral like a haiku. Rarity I dunno, if I was ballparking I'd say equal to bonus success on the Artisan check to make?

This is an important question since gift giving is supposedly such a big deal in Rokugan. Gifts become more valuable to the recipient if they were made by the giver.

It annoys me that so much lip service is made to artisan skills, yet almost no rules support is given.

15 minutes ago, AndyDay303 said:

This is an important question since gift giving is supposedly such a big deal in Rokugan. Gifts become more valuable to the recipient if they were made by the giver.

It annoys me that so much lip service is made to artisan skills, yet almost no rules support is given.

It isn't a game about rules. It is a heavily GM controlled drama "game" with a funky system and rythm that are not clearly explained.

An artisan roll is enough to make a gift. Wing some random bonuses of your choice (advantage, reduce tn, extra opportunity if you like to play with those) if the character have extra informations about the recipient or components to create the gift. You also decide the time it takes and the final rarity.

Why would you want it more complicated than that? It basically tells the GM; do whatever you want. One narrative opportunity on a check can be useless or extremely powerful depending on the GM. Nobody plays the game the same way, that is the beauty of this mess!

49 minutes ago, AndyDay303 said:

This is an important question since gift giving is supposedly such a big deal in Rokugan. Gifts become more valuable to the recipient if they were made by the giver.

It annoys me that so much lip service is made to artisan skills, yet almost no rules support is given.

That's... not how Rokugani gift-giving works. Their worth isn't measured in koku. It's measured in meaning and effort (which is why the gift is more valuable when it's made by the giver; it doesn't suddenly make that katana be worth more koku). A poem speaking well of the receiver's holdings (tastefully, of course; it wouldn't do to be CRASS about it) is worth far more than a silk kimono in terms of gifting, but the kimono has a higher koku value. In fact, the silk kimono could be taken as an insult depending on circumstances, because it might be taken as you implying the receiver can't dress themselves appropriately. It's the same reason why weapons and armour are terrible gifts, unless you make them intricately decorated with appropriate motifs, giving them a mostly decorative function: otherwise, you'd basically be saying that either the receiver or its lord have failed to equip them properly.

1 hour ago, JBento said:

That's... not how Rokugani gift-giving works. Their worth isn't measured in koku. It's measured in meaning and effort (which is why the gift is more valuable when it's made by the giver; it doesn't suddenly make that katana be worth more koku). A poem speaking well of the receiver's holdings (tastefully, of course; it wouldn't do to be CRASS about it) is worth far more than a silk kimono in terms of gifting, but the kimono has a higher koku value. In fact, the silk kimono could be taken as an insult depending on circumstances, because it might be taken as you implying the receiver can't dress themselves appropriately. It's the same reason why weapons and armour are terrible gifts, unless you make them intricately decorated with appropriate motifs, giving them a mostly decorative function: otherwise, you'd basically be saying that either the receiver or its lord have failed to equip them properly.

Not answering the question. What "roll" does the character make to "craft" a gift ? That it needs to be meaningful is relative to the knowledge you have of the setting (which I agree with your above description), but the question is how do you know if the artisan made a wonderful tea set or a cheap looking one.

4 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

Not answering the question. What "roll" does the character make to "craft" a gift ? That it needs to be meaningful is relative to the knowledge you have of the setting (which I agree with your above description), but the question is how do you know if the artisan made a wonderful tea set or a cheap looking one.

Bonus successes determine quality above and beyond "normal", which should be TN 2, unless there's some reason why you feel something is particularly hard to make.

On 6/21/2019 at 7:32 AM, Avatar111 said:

It isn't a game about rules. It is a heavily GM controlled drama "game" with a funky system and rythm that are not clearly explained.

An artisan roll is enough to make a gift. Wing some random bonuses of your choice (advantage, reduce tn, extra opportunity if you like to play with those) if the character have extra informations about the recipient or components to create the gift. You also decide the time it takes and the final rarity.

Why would you want it more complicated than that? It basically tells the GM; do whatever you want. One narrative opportunity on a check can be useless or extremely powerful depending on the GM. Nobody plays the game the same way, that is the beauty of this mess!

You could say the same thing about any of the types of conflict. Why make rules about them when the GM can just decide how he wants it to go?

Not everything needs rules. I prefer rules lite systems like L5R5. But when you have something as important as gift giving, giving guidance to a GM seems vital to me. Otherwise a player might sink a mountain of XP into making a gift-creating munchkin, only to find that a super awesome gift does him little good in the mechanics or story. Saddling that all on the GM is pretty weak design. “This is important... so YOU figure it out!” *sigh*

I mean, the rule book L5R does not have enough space to run down all instances of a gift, so on some level you'd always have to figure it out yourself. Any gift can mean any thing and have any result based on the exact circumstances and intent at the moment it is given - it's foolish to ask the designers to try and build a system for all that. Instead, it should be like any other check, the player has to declare their intention with the gift first. If dramatic risks and rewards are present, you make a check. The result is then based on success or failure and opportunity spent.

I'm pretty sure in the history of this setting like, somebody could present the lord of the court with a piece of lint and if he can make the social check to spin it right, that can be a profound and mystical gift. And you can make a bitchin' sword, greatest in all the world, you present that to the wrong person and it's a grievous insult which will get you cast out. There's no like, absolute system of giving gifts, so the game doesn't treat it as such.

Exact.

Yes, this game relies on the GM to be flexible and make all characters worthwhile. An artisan with shuji, skills, advantages to create and give gifts should have as much impact on the narrative of the story as any other characters.

This is a hard game to GM. I've said it many times. And playing with more than 3 characters can be extremely difficult for the GM as he might need to rely on generic story resolutions that tend to favor winning fights.

But, as far as my experience goes with the system ... A good GM will be able to make situations with open endings.

Sure, the published adventures dont have this flexibility, hence why I just don't like them. L5R requires big dramatic moments and climax that shake the very emotional core of players and npc. That can be hard to predict and play out within the confine of a pre-written adventure with npc that do not tie in to the player characters "persona".

In theory, npc allegiances and goals should be able to switch when manipulated in the right way. It is preferable to have many "grey" npc in this game than just "good vs evil". And it is preferable to have npc that have a very strong link to the players advantages/disadvantages/story/background etc.

If you rather play a hack and slash, heroic fantasy. L5R is probably not the game for you. You "could" have all players focus on the options that favor this playstyle and enjoy some evil bashing. But I do not see the appeal of L5R 5e rule system for those type of campaigns. More than that, I am not very fond that the system even try to make this playstyle work as it is, in my opinion, the weakest part of its design (the tactical, hack and slash gameplay).

On 6/23/2019 at 7:54 PM, UnitOmega said:

I mean, the rule book L5R does not have enough space to run down all instances of a gift, so on some level you'd always have to figure it out yourself. Any gift can mean any thing and have any result based on the exact circumstances and intent at the moment it is given - it's foolish to ask the designers to try and build a system for all that. Instead, it should be like any other check, the player has to declare their intention with the gift first. If dramatic risks and rewards are present, you make a check. The result is then based on success or failure and opportunity spent.

I'm pretty sure in the history of this setting like, somebody could present the lord of the court with a piece of lint and if he can make the social check to spin it right, that can be a profound and mystical gift. And you can make a bitchin' sword, greatest in all the world, you present that to the wrong person and it's a grievous insult which will get you cast out. There's no like, absolute system of giving gifts, so the game doesn't treat it as such.

I agree.

However, there are shuji that bank on the rarity of gifts you give. There are shuji that let you sense what people desire. So you make a courtier that is focused on giving gifts as a way to open doors. I did this (though never got to play them). Problem is, you invest all these points in being the Santa Claus of the courts, but then you have to rely on the largess of your GM to validate your investment. Any GM will let you succeed with your gifts once or twice. But when you try to spam it? A GM May allow his bias to kibosh you. And that isn’t a knock on the GM, since I’m sure GMs would get annoyed at you spamming ANY tactic that wasn’t fully supported by a rule. Like, if you made a guy who was an expert at stabbing out hearts, your GM would get fed up with it... but doesn’t since that is what Heart Piercing Strike lets you do.

In short, the designers DID design a gift giving mechanic... or at least, they designed half of it.

I also take exception to the concept of limited book content. 4E had a billion times more system and setting support than 5E. I’m at a loss on how 5E can have such a small amount squeezed into its pages.

16 minutes ago, AndyDay303 said:

I agree.

However, there are shuji that bank on the rarity of gifts you give. There are shuji that let you sense what people desire. So you make a courtier that is focused on giving gifts as a way to open doors. I did this (though never got to play them). Problem is, you invest all these points in being the Santa Claus of the courts, but then you have to rely on the largess of your GM to validate your investment. Any GM will let you succeed with your gifts once or twice. But when you try to spam it? A GM May allow his bias to kibosh you. And that isn’t a knock on the GM, since I’m sure GMs would get annoyed at you spamming ANY tactic that wasn’t fully supported by a rule. Like, if you made a guy who was an expert at stabbing out hearts, your GM would get fed up with it... but doesn’t since that is what Heart Piercing Strike lets you do.

In short, the designers DID design a gift giving mechanic... or at least, they designed half of it.

I also take exception to the concept of limited book content. 4E had a billion times more system and setting support than 5E. I’m at a loss on how 5E can have such a small amount squeezed into its pages.

the problem is many techniques are kind of badly designed or need some revisions, shuji are one of the worst designed category, then kihos. invocations and kata are in a decent spot.

(sorry for the trolling...)

On 6/25/2019 at 4:05 PM, Avatar111 said:

the problem is many techniques are kind of badly designed or need some revisions, shuji are one of the worst designed category, then kihos. invocations and kata are in a decent spot.

(sorry for the trolling...)

Well I find the gift giving shuji to be functional. The support system that establishes gift “value” is what is at issue here.

On 6/24/2019 at 10:33 AM, AndyDay303 said:

You could say the same thing about any of the types of conflict. Why make rules about them when the GM can just decide how he wants it to go?

Not everything needs rules. I prefer rules lite systems like L5R5. But when you have something as important as gift giving, giving guidance to a GM seems vital to me. Otherwise a player might sink a mountain of XP into making a gift-creating munchkin, only to find that a super awesome gift does him little good in the mechanics or story. Saddling that all on the GM is pretty weak design. “This is important... so YOU figure it out!” *sigh*

Agree with this. It's easy enough to scale back/ignore existing rules if you want but for those of us who prefer more guidance and/or structure in how to implement the various themes in a game session more would be appreciated. This goes for players as well as some in my group are finding the ambiguity offputting. And before anyone says "well maybe it isn't the right game for them".... they love the L5R setting and they love RPG's so they are the target audience.