13 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:Our first intrigue scene that we made was with us, the 3 players trying to convince our daimyo that it was best to trade the new found vein of Jade in our province to the Crab in exchange for Kaiu Steel.
The GM started reading the rules (which took 10 minutes) and realized that it would be extremely broken with all 3 players contributed to the same momentum pool so each one would have its own. We argued that it made sense if it was a skirmish of 3 against 1. The lone one should be at a disadvantage. In the end, we all agreed (after talking for 10 minutes) that the daimyo would try to convince one of us to agree with him and hoard the Jade and if he convinced one of us before he was convinced otherwise, that would be the end of the scene.
We, as the group, came together, but the fact that we had to spend 20 minutes (of a 2h30 game) just to agree on how to play a scene because the book doesn't tell us, extremely frustrating.
The fact now, if one player decides, for a good reason, to play as a treasure hunter, pretty much makes him immune in intrigue conflicts, extremely annoying.
I think we play similarly to you.
Separate momentum tracks. 3pc vs 1npc is still easy win, 2pc help/assist 1pc who is the one "leading" the conversation (usually the courtier).
But a shared momentum track is just ridiculous. I think.
Also, I do "attack" with the NPC, and if one NPC "win" well, the targeted PC will be forced to be "persuaded".
Which makes it interesting for us.
So in the case of the Treasure hunter... well the NPC would simply target another PC. Sure, the treasure hunter is immune... (and it is so-so design) but at least not all the party is. Or I would be nasty, and use all my NPC with high Fire and Strife dumping abilities and compromise the Treasure hunter (which is how L5R plays at higher rank, cheese vs cheese).