A lot of Star Wars players have replaced Range Bands with Zones. It's a pretty clean conversion in that game, it makes keeping track of positioning easier, and it allows easier tagging of terrain. Anyone in the same Zone as you is at Short range, and you can just put your figures together to indicate Engaged.

This would be pretty darn easy in L5R except for one thing: Range 0. I get what they're going for. If you have a knife, trying to close in on a guy with a katana is going to be dangerous. On the flip side of the coin, if you're wrestling an enemy, that knife is going to be a lot easier to stick in his ribs than a 3' sword.

However, it seems to me that an extra range band is more of a pain to overcome mechanically than it should be. Near as I can tell, if I'm in spear range to an enemy, (so, in the same Zone, but not directly engaged), and all I have is a knife, Water stance is my only option to attack, regardless of what they're armed with (aside from Kata). I know Water is the movement stance, but this is just crossing a room. Thematically, Air of Fire should do that pretty well.

I'm trying to think of a simple way to make engagement a single move, but reflect the advantages of different weapon lengths. Increase the TN by one? Require an Opportunity?

While I do agree the range band system in L5R is not to my liking (I honestly would prefer a full on narrative system with very loose "technical crunch", and zones, instead of the cumbersome system they did. Especially considering all the tracking you have to do for NPC... stances, strife, fatigue, range, void points, conditions, opportunities, time consuming checks, etc...), I do not think it would be easily feasible to change it at this point without screwing up with a lot of things.

If you really want to allow other rings to move 2 range bands, maybe a 2opp for 1 range band (like water have) for every rings is the simplest/safest way. It still make the other rings less mobile than water, but, a bit more mobile than they currently are?

Though, if you have a dagger against a spear, it might be worth to simply lose your action to get to range 0 of the target. Now it is their turn, and they have to back up 2 range to attack you, which they can only do with water also.
I think this game is all about "hard counters". You have the solution, or you don't. That is basically what it is in so many ways. It is often a question of the GM pulling your "counter" or not.

We do use a kind of narrative zone system in our homebrew, and we figured that the inability of moving and attacking in the same turn is not necessarily wrong. Because zones are pretty big, movement is a bigger deal too: moving between zones is often a strategic decision like joining or leaving the fight. We also thought that with zones (especially narrative ones) characters should be able to move other characters too. Moving and attacking in the same turn is reserved to certain techniques.

10 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

maybe a 2opp for 1 range band (like water have) for every rings is the simplest/safest way.

Arguably they already do, if you allow Cross-Ring Opportunities (Page 299) - though that would require

25 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Because zones are pretty big, movement is a bigger deal too: moving between zones is often a strategic decision like joining or leaving the fight.

Indeed. I do think having weapon reach matter in a game whose combat elements are pretty much entirely melee-centric makes sense*, but you don't have to link that to 'strategic movement' per se.

* My first RPG-esque experience was Inquisitor, which was a Games Workshop tabletop part-RPG-part-wargame, and the respective reach of weapons made a big difference that I felt was done rather elegantly; at arm's reach longer weapons got a proportional bonus to parry over shorter weapons (making swords and polearms de rigeur), whilst the bonus - or penalty - was reversed up close (favouring knives and powered gauntlets).

40 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

We do use a kind of narrative zone system in our homebrew, and we figured that the inability of moving and attacking in the same turn is not necessarily wrong. Because zones are pretty big, movement is a bigger deal too: moving between zones is often a strategic decision like joining or leaving the fight. We also thought that with zones (especially narrative ones) characters should be able to move other characters too. Moving and attacking in the same turn is reserved to certain techniques.

How do you represent the different range of melee weapons/attacks/techniques?

Or you simply disregard that data?

1 hour ago, Avatar111 said:

How do you represent the different range of melee weapons/attacks/techniques?

There are four "positions": heavily engaged (when you are in the thick of the fight), engaged (when you are fighting but not where it is the thickest), disengaged (when you are around the fight but not actually fighting), and reserves (when you are not near the fight). You can move "closer" (reserves->disengaged->engaged->heavily engaged) or "further" (the opposite) from the fighting step-by-step and/or make one or more other characters do so (usually with some kind of limitation, like you can only move them to the direction you moved). Note that actual, physical positioning is completely handwaved, it is assumed that the characters can maneuver around in their position freely and players are encouraged to give colorful descriptions of how their characters move around even if they don't change position.

There are four ranges for attacks and other effects: Close range requires both the character and the target to be heavily engaged, Short range allows both the character and the target to be either heavily engaged or engaged, Medium range lifts the position limit to heavily engaged, engaged, and disengaged, while Long range includes reserves too. Unarmed attacks and non-polearm melee weapons have Close range, polearms and throwing weapons are Short ranged, most non-throwing ranged weapons are Medium ranged, and siege weapons are Long ranged. So, for example, a character with a naginata can target anyone who is heavily engaged or engaged as long as they are heavily engaged or engaged too (they can strike an engaged target while being heavily engaged or strike from engaged at someone who is heavily engaged, and of course they can attack engaged -> engaged or heavily engaged -> heavily engaged too).

The normal Move action allows you to either move two positions to the same direction or move one position and move another character to the same direction. This means that characters only exchange blows if they both commit because otherwise either of them can prevent attacks being made by switching positions. Even then, the system heavily favors the "defender" as the character who moves into striking distance automatically gives up the chance of first attack to their opponent. Because attacks are pretty friggin' deadly here and you get to make two with the normal Attack action, charging a skilled and prepared opponent is basically suicide, as it should be, unless you have a trick or two up in your sleeve (like a technique). And yeah, this produces lots of tense standoffs where two opponents just stare at each other just outside of striking distance, and see who loses patience first - a very samurai scene if you ask me.

44 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

There are four "positions": heavily engaged (when you are in the thick of the fight), engaged (when you are fighting but not where it is the thickest), disengaged (when you are around the fight but not actually fighting), and reserves (when you are not near the fight). You can move "closer" (reserves->disengaged->engaged->heavily engaged) or "further" (the opposite) from the fighting step-by-step and/or make one or more other characters do so (usually with some kind of limitation, like you can only move them to the direction you moved). Note that actual, physical positioning is completely handwaved, it is assumed that the characters can maneuver around in their position freely and players are encouraged to give colorful descriptions of how their characters move around even if they don't change position.

There are four ranges for attacks and other effects: Close range requires both the character and the target to be heavily engaged, Short range allows both the character and the target to be either heavily engaged or engaged, Medium range lifts the position limit to heavily engaged, engaged, and disengaged, while Long range includes reserves too. Unarmed attacks and non-polearm melee weapons have Close range, polearms and throwing weapons are Short ranged, most non-throwing ranged weapons are Medium ranged, and siege weapons are Long ranged. So, for example, a character with a naginata can target anyone who is heavily engaged or engaged as long as they are heavily engaged or engaged too (they can strike an engaged target while being heavily engaged or strike from engaged at someone who is heavily engaged, and of course they can attack engaged -> engaged or heavily engaged -> heavily engaged too).

The normal Move action allows you to either move two positions to the same direction or move one position and move another character to the same direction. This means that characters only exchange blows if they both commit because otherwise either of them can prevent attacks being made by switching positions. Even then, the system heavily favors the "defender" as the character who moves into striking distance automatically gives up the chance of first attack to their opponent. Because attacks are pretty friggin' deadly here and you get to make two with the normal Attack action, charging a skilled and prepared opponent is basically suicide, as it should be, unless you have a trick or two up in your sleeve (like a technique). And yeah, this produces lots of tense standoffs where two opponents just stare at each other just outside of striking distance, and see who loses patience first - a very samurai scene if you ask me.

Very similar to the actual system, no? It doesn't seem simpler, less tedious to manage.

9 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

Very similar to the actual system, no? It doesn't seem simpler, less tedious to manage.

Not at all because these positions are like steps on a ladder: everyone on the same step occupies the same "space" in relation of everyone else, each character can only climb up or down, they can't single out a position against someone else. So you cannot be disengaged against a specific opponent, you are either disengaged to every opponent or not. It is simple to manage because you only have to remember your current position and that's all, but I admit that it can slow down the game due to the players thinking a lot about when and how to change their characters' positions. Usually it doesn't really matter because everyone starts the fight at heavily engaged so attacks can start flying left and right (readying a weapon does not require an action here) immediately.

3 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

There are four "positions":

This sounds very similar to The One Ring and their engagement levels. So, let's say I'm attempting to engage some archers with my katana, do I need to move to Heavily Engaged, and then drag them to Heavily Engaged? How do I do that?

Just now, The Grand Falloon said:

and then drag them to Heavily Engaged? How do I do that?

Honestly, a generic opportunity (even a ring-specific one) to allow you to force an opponent to move one range band would be a nice addition for a whole slew of reasons.

5 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Honestly, a generic opportunity (even a ring-specific one) to allow you to force an opponent to move one range band would be a nice addition for a whole slew of reasons.

That would overlap on some techniques that push or pull (or otherwise move someone else that isn't you).

And I'll refrain myself to elaborate on why techniques in L5R remind me of D&D 4e.

5 hours ago, The Grand Falloon said:

So, let's say I'm attempting to engage some archers with my katana, do I need to move to Heavily Engaged, and then drag them to Heavily Engaged?

Exactly! But it is not very simple to get into that situation because if nobody is at engaged or heavily engaged then the combat immediately ends (obviously), and when (any) combat starts then everyone present is automatically at heavily engaged or maybe engaged in some cases. So there is no combat where you by your lonesome at disengaged have to fight a group of archers also at disengaged, because the fight essentially resets and you all move to heavily engaged for "free". The disengaged and reserves positions are for characters who don't want to fight or who arrive late to the party, fighting exclusively from disengaged is fairly unrealistic.

If there are multiple combatants on both sides then you don't even have to move but let your allies pull your target to you. You can go really creative with moving your enemies around if you coordinate actions with your buddies. As I said above, these tactical decisions are what slow down the game with this system.

5 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Honestly, a generic opportunity (even a ring-specific one) to allow you to force an opponent to move one range band would be a nice addition for a whole slew of reasons

There are a few techniques that tackle this problem, usually by allowing move+attack with a single action. For a generic solution, one of the baseline unarmed profiles is a flying/sliding kick that has Short range, you have to work with that.

Just a random thought about all of this...

Isn't the issue more about the fact that you can simply freely "disengage" in L5R ?
If you couldn't so easily run away (back away) then the water stance kiting shenanigan wouldn't be so cheesy.

Maybe the issue isn't the fact that you should be able to use opportunities to move range bands (which, imo, is a bit gamebreaking sometimes because it can be used on resist checks. So I personally do not even play with that). The issue should be seen from a different perspective.

Would need to think about how to implement such "penalty" in L5R though.. It could easily lead to other kind of abuses.

Indeed. This was one thing I remember flagging up before - it's not so much being able to back off (if you've got space to back off into, and you're competent, I've no real problem with "I step back out of sword's reach" - it's a default defensive move), so much as there being no penalty to moving into range and out of range again 'past' someone.

That is, if my PC is attempting to protect someone from a knife-wielding madman*, my default reaction would be to park myself between the attacker and their intended victim and prevent them getting close. I can use 'wait' to have a strike which will be triggered if they try to push past me to range 0 of the target, but unless I have either Iron Forest Style and a polearm or a weapon or technique which can apply Immobilised I can't actually stop them.

* The reason doesn't matter, but for the sake of adding flavour to the example assume it involved five bottles of sake, the Otomo daimyo's favourite shoji set, a badly-folded origami crane and a little-known allergy to shellfish.

That's a problem most RPGs have and where the answer usually is Grappling. (Which could work here too.)

I wonder if it would be possible to have a Guard Zone action that projects some sort of zone of control that enemies couldn't cross. Make them test to get through anyway or something.

55 minutes ago, Myrion said:

That's a problem most RPGs have and where the answer usually is Grappling

In most RPG rule sets, if the answer is "grappling" the question is "what is the most unnecessarily an painfully convoluted bit of the rules".

Mechanically, we have something very similar in the effect of Iron Forest Style.

I dunno. I guess you can deal with it to a degree; wait-to-strike will either intimidate an opponent into staying back or it won't, and you've almost always got the 'hand' profile available - and you don't actually have to succeed to trigger snaring.

2 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

That is, if my PC is attempting to protect someone from a knife-wielding madman*, my default reaction would be to park myself between the attacker and their intended victim and prevent them getting close.

In our homebrew, the Guard action allows you to pull back a friendly character by two positions (from heavily engaged to disengaged, for example) or increase that character's Hit-TN by 2, or pull them back by one position and increase their Hit-TN by 1. So when weapons are pulled and everyone suddenly find themselves in heavily engaged the Yojimbo can do a Guard and put their charge out of harm's way (into disengaged) no problem.

1 hour ago, Magnus Grendel said:

In most RPG rule sets, if the answer is "grappling" the question is "what is the most unnecessarily an painfully convoluted bit of the rules".

Mechanically, we have something very similar in the effect of Iron Forest Style.

I dunno. I guess you can deal with it to a degree; wait-to-strike will either intimidate an opponent into staying back or it won't, and you've almost always got the 'hand' profile available - and you don't actually have to succeed to trigger snaring.

Unless I am very mistaken (I could be), I think you can use the Guard action on another target, defending them.

It still doesn't really solve the "kiting" and backing off freely from characters threatening you though, which is Falloon's main problem (and mine too). That would need something different.

Unless that is mostly, strictly, resolved by your Water Ring. Which is... ok. And attack of opportunity in that system would be too tedious, unless they are like "automatic" damage.

3 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

It still doesn't really solve the "kiting" and backing off freely from characters threatening you though, which is Falloon's main problem (and mine too).

To be honest this is only a problem if you are the threatening character and not the character being threatened.

1 minute ago, AtoMaki said:

To be honest this is only a problem if you are the threatening character and not the character being threatened.

Obviously

but as in Falloon's example, a character with a dagger (range 0) and a character with a spear (range 2) all becomes about water ring. Which I personally don't mind too much, this game is very "counter based". But I can see it becoming irritating if you play this game more for tactical combat.

16 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

But I can see it becoming irritating if you play this game more for tactical combat.

If you play the game for tactical combat then you don't try to fight a spear-armed opponent with a knife. That's tactically unsound from the get-go, you can't reasonably expect it to work.

34 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

If you play the game for tactical combat then you don't try to fight a spear-armed opponent with a knife. That's tactically unsound from the get-go, you can't reasonably expect it to work.

The hard part should be to get in the spear range. When you are there, you can definitely expect the opponent with the spear to drop their spear. That is logically, realistically, what would happen (just check japanese spear combat on youtube). It is like MMA. Once both opponents are at close range, it is a different game, unless they both agree to back off.

This is somewhat well represented by having "minimum" ranges on spears.

The "kiting" happens when you use water stance. Which, imo, isn't that big of a deal, but is still a bit gimmicky. I was mostly just trying to discuss on the original post. I personally do not houserule anything about that, water stance can kite and the only generic counter is, well, water stance (which is the issue the original poster have). Then I merely suggested that it is indeed a bit too "free" to back away from an opponent, which can be something that could fix his issue, if he manages to figure it all out with a rule.

On 2/27/2020 at 4:33 AM, Avatar111 said:

which is Falloon's main problem

Actually, my main problem is range bands in general. I just don't like them. They straddle this weird line between "theater of the mind," and "tactical movement," and they do it in an awkward way. I had already started using Zones in Savage Worlds, which is designed for a grid, before SWRPG came out. Fortunately, Zones translate over to SWRPG pretty easily, and you can (and should!) slap little tags on each Zone to make things interesting and encourage use of Advantages and Threats. "Scattered Crates," "Slippery," and "On fire. Dude, it's ON FIRE!" all suggest ways to spend those symbols, and don't require the GM to put little fire symbols down on specific spaces. Folks who had a problem with Range Bands found this solution pretty darn quick, so it didn't require a lot of tinkering.

The trouble with Zones in L5R is that there are 3 melee ranges, each of which requires a full move. Yes, if I have a knife and I wanna stab Spear-boy, I need to figure out how to get past his spear. It's fine that Water is my best chance for doing that. However, if Knuckles and I are in my living room, both unarmed, I don't need a Water stance to tackle him. Range 2-1 is not very far at all, and Range 1-0 is literally about 2-3 feet.

The simplest solution is to ignore the difference between Range 0 and Range 1, and call those both Engaged. Then say Range 2 is anything in the same Zone that you're not Engaged with. This would make polearms pretty darn handy (maybe too handy), but I like having at least some sort of granularity between short and longer weapons. I like that using a knife to attack someone with a katana is difficult, and I like that when being grappled, a wakizashi is easier to use than a katana.

A thought occurs. Perhaps just say that using a Range 0 attack against a longer-ranged melee weapon has its TN increased by 1. Then, add a new tag, usually used on a Zone, called "Close Quarters." Close Quarters will apply to most Zones indoors, except for large audience rooms and such. Narrow hallways, tight alleyways, dense forests, packed mobs of people, any of these might be Close Quarters. In such spaces, you pretty much can't use a Range 2 melee weapon, and Range 1 has its TN increased by 1, and the Range ) increase is ignored.

Now, you ready for the shenanigans? Any attack with Snaring may spend one Opportunity to put yourself and the target in Close Quarters until the end of your next turn (and most range 0 weapons have Snaring). So if you want to knife Spear-boy, you're going to have a hard time rushing him and stabbing him in one go. However, you could spend your one Move to Engage, make a fist attack, and spend the Opportunity to put you both at Close Quarters. Unless he does something about that, your knife-work just got easier. Basically, this represents not a full-on grapple, but you're getting in close enough to grab at him and make it hard to create distance. A katana will also have a hard time fighting back against you, but a wakizashi will still ruin your day, because it's at Range 0. I suppose your target could also spend * to break the Close Quarters, but the end result is pretty similar, since they have to spend one extra symbol to strike back at you.

Whaddya think? I realize it's a long read, but once understood, it's pretty simple, right?

4 minutes ago, The Grand Falloon said:

Actually, my main problem is range bands in general. I just don't like them. They straddle this weird line between "theater of the mind," and "tactical movement," and they do it in an awkward way. I had already started using Zones in Savage Worlds, which is designed for a grid, before SWRPG came out. Fortunately, Zones translate over to SWRPG pretty easily, and you can (and should!) slap little tags on each Zone to make things interesting and encourage use of Advantages and Threats. "Scattered Crates," "Slippery," and "On fire. Dude, it's ON FIRE!" all suggest ways to spend those symbols, and don't require the GM to put little fire symbols down on specific spaces. Folks who had a problem with Range Bands found this solution pretty darn quick, so it didn't require a lot of tinkering.

The trouble with Zones in L5R is that there are 3 melee ranges, each of which requires a full move. Yes, if I have a knife and I wanna stab Spear-boy, I need to figure out how to get past his spear. It's fine that Water is my best chance for doing that. However, if Knuckles and I are in my living room, both unarmed, I don't need a Water stance to tackle him. Range 2-1 is not very far at all, and Range 1-0 is literally about 2-3 feet.

The simplest solution is to ignore the difference between Range 0 and Range 1, and call those both Engaged. Then say Range 2 is anything in the same Zone that you're not Engaged with. This would make polearms pretty darn handy (maybe too handy), but I like having at least some sort of granularity between short and longer weapons. I like that using a knife to attack someone with a katana is difficult, and I like that when being grappled, a wakizashi is easier to use than a katana.

A thought occurs. Perhaps just say that using a Range 0 attack against a longer-ranged melee weapon has its TN increased by 1. Then, add a new tag, usually used on a Zone, called "Close Quarters." Close Quarters will apply to most Zones indoors, except for large audience rooms and such. Narrow hallways, tight alleyways, dense forests, packed mobs of people, any of these might be Close Quarters. In such spaces, you pretty much can't use a Range 2 melee weapon, and Range 1 has its TN increased by 1, and the Range ) increase is ignored.

Now, you ready for the shenanigans? Any attack with Snaring may spend one Opportunity to put yourself and the target in Close Quarters until the end of your next turn (and most range 0 weapons have Snaring). So if you want to knife Spear-boy, you're going to have a hard time rushing him and stabbing him in one go. However, you could spend your one Move to Engage, make a fist attack, and spend the Opportunity to put you both at Close Quarters. Unless he does something about that, your knife-work just got easier. Basically, this represents not a full-on grapple, but you're getting in close enough to grab at him and make it hard to create distance. A katana will also have a hard time fighting back against you, but a wakizashi will still ruin your day, because it's at Range 0. I suppose your target could also spend * to break the Close Quarters, but the end result is pretty similar, since they have to spend one extra symbol to strike back at you.

Whaddya think? I realize it's a long read, but once understood, it's pretty simple, right?

It is a lot of changes. Something I try to avoid. Hard to judge as it changes sooo many things.

But I do concur, that a "zone" system, with tags (love your "close quarter" tag) would be pretty awesome!!

And yeah, I'm not like the biggest fan of the L5R range system (a lot of things about L5R I am not a big fan of when it comes to mechanical crunch though. You know the drill: despite good fudamental ideas, they screwed up the polishing layers and finishing touches and a lots of the most precise rules of this game are, honestly, garbage.)

It's a lot to write out, but in practice, it's not that much. "+1 TN to attack at a disadvantageous range, * to put yourself at advantage" sums it up.