One of my players came up with the idea that the disadvantage he got due to his relationship with his mentor not being very good should represent him generally having trouble following orders.

I think that's a lovely idea, but I'm not sure if it ends up too broad or giving him too much trouble in Rokugan.

I'm thinking that it should either force him to reroll when he tries to impress or convince people of higher status, or give him strife when taking orders that aren't blatantly necessary.

How about "the first time in a given scene, when the PC is the subject of a command check from a particular family, before dice are kept *they* have to reroll one die with a success or explosive success." Failure results in (the presumable) NPC gaining a void point. Does this fall into the category of subverting an advantage? Even if they don't have it?

If the PC needed to roll a courtesy check, then I might be more inclined to either have the PC reroll successes or take strife following appropriate standard rules but it sounds like his deal is with following orders rather than politely declining to save face.

8 hours ago, T_Kageyasu said:

How about "the first time in a given scene, when the PC is the subject of a command check from a particular family, before dice are kept *they* have to reroll one die with a success or explosive success." Failure results in (the presumable) NPC gaining a void point. Does this fall into the category of subverting an advantage? Even if they don't have it?

I'd be very hesitant to change the rules for advantages; a big part of the balancing act is that they all have the same effect, and offloading the 'downside' onto someone else is potentially making it a good thing for you.

I would agree with @Myrion that the time it's going to trigger is when someone in authority is giving him orders he doesn't agree with - since that's not really a situation he's likely to be making a check in, I'd make it an anxiety advantage; gaining 3 strife for [insert classic cop movie reference to the chief] makes sense, as would gaining 3 strife for ignoring a situation you know you could help in 'because orders'.

37 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I'd be very hesitant to change the rules for advantages; a big part of the balancing act is that they all have the same effect, and offloading the 'downside' onto someone else is potentially making it a good thing for you.

I would agree with @Myrion that the time it's going to trigger is when someone in authority is giving him orders he doesn't agree with - since that's not really a situation he's likely to be making a check in, I'd make it an anxiety advantage; gaining 3 strife for [insert classic cop movie reference to the chief] makes sense, as would gaining 3 strife for ignoring a situation you know you could help in 'because orders'.

I definitely agree, especially as an anxiety as you suggested. I would say though, that making it harder for your boss to succeed at something is definitely not a way to make friends and influence people (positively or advantageously).

True, but...how can I put this? In a game session, your boss is not going to be making checks unless you're being obstreparous.

The fact the check exists in the first place is your samurai's negative impact on their life.

Thank you both a lot for your input! Really helped clarify how we can make this work.

I'll pose the choice to the player to pick between an Anxiety that triggers when he has to take and follow orders he doesn't like or an Adversity that affects Fire rolls to impress and convince superiors. The player wasn't quite clear on what he meant, now that I've been thinking about it.

7 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

True, but...how can I put this? In a game session, your boss is not going to be making checks unless you're being obstreparous.

The fact the check exists in the first place is your samurai's negative impact on their life.

I'm thinking about this not only from the perspective of a PC but as a GM too.. if I was running an NPC (ronin) who had problems with authority, what would I roll if PCs were commanding him about? Mostly spit balling here, and thinking about how it works while wearing a different hat. Appreciate your response!

10 hours ago, T_Kageyasu said:

I'm thinking about this not only from the perspective of a PC but as a GM too.. if I was running an NPC (ronin) who had problems with authority, what would I roll if PCs were commanding him about?

Generally, you'd have the PCs roll, with an appropriate TN - either an abstract value or else his focus (note the latter is generally more suitable for an objective's momentum requirement in an extended intrigue than for a single check!).

What I'd do for an NPC with 'problems with authority' is to have an appropriate (custom) demeanour; one that would penalise you for trying to order them about but would be easier if you actually treat them with some respect (regardless of relative status) and ask for their input.

Something like Rebellious: Earth+1 Fire +1, Water -1.

Approaches along the lines of overwhelm , withstand , incite , reason - basically lecturing them or acting like you're 'in charge' (even if you are) are all going to be harder, but trying to charm them or offering a quid-pro-quo exchange will work much better.

This sounds more like an Anxiety in line with the one that triggers on being the of attention (meek i think it's called), than a reroll drawback. (cant remember the proper name for those).
This model is based on making the char feel bad (stress) whenever orders are forced upon them.

If you want it to be a reroll drawback, you could model it of the curse that makes peaseant dislike you and have it trigger on people with status 50+, or something along those lines.
This model makes it harder for the char to interact with people in positions of authority.

So it's actually about if you want this to be an internal thing or an external thing.