1 minute ago, Diogo Salazar said:

You don't need movement in mass combat. The rules say that you can reach any point of the battlefield in a given turn. It's not me being literal, it's me reading the book as presented.

So, these are the four basic actions for Mass Battle they all share the Movement keyword with the exception of Rally and they all require a check, so, again, Water Stance won't give you an extra action and won't give you extra movement. And nothing says I can't use Fire Stance to lead a really scary cavalry charge or even Void if I am willing to lead a cavalry charge against a wall of spears.

you are being too literal. You would use water approaches for charges, flexible tactics cavalry charges, the key words of the approaches are what matter.

Lol, let’s agree to disagree shall we? I am not saying that a cavalry charge should only be performed with Water Stance. I am saying most likely it would be, but it could be with any other Ring. Or are you saying that if me as a player in control of a cavalry unit and you as GM wouldn’t allow me to use a Feigned Opening against another cohort or Lightning Raid? Why not? Even the flavour text of Lightning Raid is saying how the Unicorn are famous for quick strikes with cavalry to sow chaos.

And your words, not mine what if I want to Sacrifice my cavalry units against a wall of spears? Isn’t that Void Stance?

it is all about the intent of your manuever, what are you trying to accomplish and that should decide what stance. look at the key words for the stance. is what your intent going off what key word? use the stance for that key word

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

it is all about the intent of your manuever, what are you trying to accomplish and that should decide what stance. look at the key words for the stance. is what your intent going off what key word? use the stance for that key word

So you agree that I can lead a Cavalry Charge in Void Stance? A yes or no will suffice.

1 hour ago, Diogo Salazar said:

So you agree that I can lead a Cavalry Charge in Void Stance? A yes or no will suffice.

If your approach is void yes. But what your intent is has to be void. So i cant rule off cavalry charge i need more info. And you cant just say i am rolling void melee for my attack. What you are doing has to fit a void approach

So the same thing can be said of Water. My initial argument was a scary cavalry charge (Fire) or lead a suicidal charge against a wall of spears (Void), I would wager they both can fit their respective themes.

46 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:

So the same thing can be said of Water. My initial argument was a scary cavalry charge (Fire) or lead a suicidal charge against a wall of spears (Void), I would wager they both can fit their respective themes.

Yes depending on intent

32 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Yes depending on intent

Even though intent has nothing to do with it. All of them are assault an enemy cohort with cavalry units. What matters is how . How do you intend to lead your cavalry against the enemy matters which Ring to choose. Or possibly, the other way around. I choose a Ring for my stance that round and then I will think of a way of explaining that stance with the action I am going to take that turn.

1 hour ago, Diogo Salazar said:

Even though intent has nothing to do with it. All of them are assault an enemy cohort with cavalry units. What matters is how . How do you intend to lead your cavalry against the enemy matters which Ring to choose. Or possibly, the other way around. I choose a Ring for my stance that round and then I will think of a way of explaining that stance with the action I am going to take that turn.

Are you trying to overwhelm them? That is fire. Are you trying to trick them? That is air.

I applaud your efforts Daeglan, though I feel the need to point out that this is all rather far off-topic for the thread.

5 minutes ago, Myrion said:

I applaud your efforts Daeglan, though I feel the need to point out that this is all rather far off-topic for the thread.

I agree, if we want to move this to another thread, I am all for it. I just want to point out that this back and forth began when I said that during mass combat, Air, Water and Earth Rings don't provide any bonus, which he disagreed and then started moving the goal posts. He was the one that started saying that a cavalry charge can only be done with Water, which is very much not so.

On 8/25/2020 at 12:51 PM, Masakiyo said:

Finally, it's funny how so many "Narrative" games bury themselves in dice rolling mechanics when 90% of that stuff could just be role-played.

Just the observations from an outsider with big plans in development, but no real experience yet:)

This has a lot to do with the miss interpretation of the idea of a "Narrative" games by both players and game designers.

A "Narrative" games should be about role-playing the situation with dice used only to stops the "I shot you , no you missed" issues that arise.

Unfortunately, a lot of games that claim to be or players claim they are "Narrative" games tend to be about some mechanic like Strife, Fate, or "Narrative" result tables in general telling the players or GM how to run the scene.

This is not "Narrative" gaming, this is directed gaming with the power of the Narrative being taken from the PC/GM and controlled by the game. Now to me this is good for an introductory scenario/Boxset to teach mechanics and get players uses to role-playing, but are bad for a full fledged RPG.

Overall the truth is, any game (D&D, Shatterzone, 7th sea, etc.) can be "Narrative" if the players and the GM put the effort into playing it that way. That to me is the point of role-playing, and in a market where RPGs have now become more mainstream that idea has been lost for the idea that you have to tell player what to do.

Just my 2 cents

To be fair, dice can also be used to stop issues such "I humilliated, no you didn't" as well and I guess Strife is a good mechanic to measure such a thing. Because, after all, a true "narrative" session is basically improv theatre if you really want to go down all the way.

Not to continue the other oft-repeated conversation... any bets on what schools are in this one? Says there will be 10. At least one earmarked for Badger that's still a lot left. Could have a generic warrior monk school, or maybe even a "ronin/ashigaru" school, but probably gonna see a bunch of Great Clan schools. I think both Akodo and Matsu might get one, like how the Crane book had two crane schools.

I am guessing:

• the Ikoma Ninja Shinobi School from 4th edition. Forget its name now.
• Possibly the Lion's Pride Title.
• It would be nice if the Daidoji Harriers showed up either as a School or Title.
• A school completely unrelated to the theme, let's say the Asako Monk School.

25 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

Not to continue the other oft-repeated conversation... any bets on what schools are in this one? Says there will be 10. At least one earmarked for Badger that's still a lot left. Could have a generic warrior monk school, or maybe even a "ronin/ashigaru" school, but probably gonna see a bunch of Great Clan schools. I think both Akodo and Matsu might get one, like how the Crane book had two crane schools.

Maybe Dragons Flame School

2 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:

I am guessing:

• the Ikoma Ninja Shinobi School from 4th edition. Forget its name now.
• Possibly the Lion's Pride Title.
• It would be nice if the Daidoji Harriers showed up either as a School or Title.
• A school completely unrelated to the theme, let's say the Asako Monk School.

We got the Ikoma Shadow School (Courtier, Shinobi) (CoS, pg 92)
But the Akodo and Matsu each have one school currently

The Shinjo only have one school currently
The Soshi only have one school currently
The Ide only have one school currently
The Iuchi only have one school currently
The Hida only have one school currently
The Hiruma only have one school currently

What schools are missing from these families?

10 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

This has a lot to do with the miss interpretation of the idea of a "Narrative" games by both players and game designers.

A "Narrative" games should be about role-playing the situation with dice used only to stops the "I shot you , no you missed" issues that arise.

Unfortunately, a lot of games that claim to be or players claim they are "Narrative" games tend to be about some mechanic like Strife, Fate, or "Narrative" result tables in general telling the players or GM how to run the scene.

This is not "Narrative" gaming, this is directed gaming with the power of the Narrative being taken from the PC/GM and controlled by the game. Now to me this is good for an introductory scenario/Boxset to teach mechanics and get players uses to role-playing, but are bad for a full fledged RPG.

Overall the truth is, any game (D&D, Shatterzone, 7th sea, etc.) can be "Narrative" if the players and the GM put the effort into playing it that way. That to me is the point of role-playing, and in a market where RPGs have now become more mainstream that idea has been lost for the idea that you have to tell player what to do.

Just my 2 cents

The majority of RPGs these days fall on the Narrative side of things to varying degrees. Narrative/Cinematic/etc simply means not-Simulation. I'm not even sure it has meaning anymore. It had meaning when Vampire first came out whilst AD&D and Shadowrun were popular.

It's now more of a how much game vs role-play something has, as most of the mechanics in this game don't add to either narrative or simulation.

And therein lies the barrier for new players. Tons of mechanics and things like strife, but for what? Flavor? Good role players don't need that and others may just find it constraining. So I appreciate what they're trying to do but a lot of it seems needlessly clunky. That's a;so how I feel about things like exploding successes, and opportunity. Can add flavor, but can also really bog things down.

5 hours ago, Masakiyo said:

And therein lies the barrier for new players. Tons of mechanics and things like strife, but for what? Flavor? Good role players don't need that and others may just find it constraining. So I appreciate what they're trying to do but a lot of it seems needlessly clunky. That's a;so how I feel about things like exploding successes, and opportunity. Can add flavor, but can also really bog things down.

Strife actually add a cost to keeping dice. Unlike previous editions where you just kept the best dice

Opportunities and Strife adds add a significant tactical level, compared to earlier editions.

Whether this is good or bad, depends on your groups and your preferences.

For me and the people I currently play with, it's an advantage.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Strife actually add a cost to keeping dice. Unlike previous editions where you just kept the best dice

Which is not a plus. I frankly don’t like the strife mechanic at all. I have strife in my daily life; no need for it in my games. What’s the point? You feel bad about something? So then when you feel too bad, you have a tantrum and move on. This is the problem with taking certain parts of drama or fiction or whatever and trying to mechanize it in the game. It becomes bland and constructive. It’s exactly how Cubicle 7 ruined the Lord of the Rings game. Now certainly some people like this, but my regular group will not touch this game because of all these clunky mechanics. Our sensibilities just don’t run this way.

1 minute ago, Masakiyo said:

Which is not a plus. I frankly don’t like the strife mechanic at all. I have strife in my daily life; no need for it in my games. What’s the point? You feel bad about something? So then when you feel too bad, you have a tantrum and move on. This is the problem with taking certain parts of drama or fiction or whatever and trying to mechanize it in the game. It becomes bland and constructive. It’s exactly how Cubicle 7 ruined the Lord of the Rings game. Now certainly some people like this, but my regular group will not touch this game because of all these clunky mechanics. Our sensibilities just don’t run this way.

Strife is not just negative emotions. It can be exuberance on a success and the strain. Samurai are not supposed to show any emotion. It is the stress of hiding how you actually feel.

3 minutes ago, Masakiyo said:

Which is not a plus. I frankly don’t like the strife mechanic at all. I have strife in my daily life; no need for it in my games. What’s the point? You feel bad about something? So then when you feel too bad, you have a tantrum and move on. This is the problem with taking certain parts of drama or fiction or whatever and trying to mechanize it in the game. It becomes bland and constructive. It’s exactly how Cubicle 7 ruined the Lord of the Rings game. Now certainly some people like this, but my regular group will not touch this game because of all these clunky mechanics. Our sensibilities just don’t run this way.

No, it isn't just 'feeling bad', and you don't simply 'have a tantrum'. You are finding things emotional in some manner. That includes frustration at things not working, yes, but also triumph at succeeding agasint the odds [I think that is quite likely when you get and keep a string of explosions] or joy at seeing your lover across the room. The emotional outburst is something tied to the circumstances. A Matsu letting their lust for revenge get the better of them and starting a fight is one way of doing it. Or your reserved Phoenix could suddenly burst out laughing at a particular clever and biting insult delivered during a game of Sadane. Or a Crab survives the battle against an Oni and just breaks down weeping for all their friends who didn't. I'll agree that your sensibilities may not run that way, but you are misrepresenting the mechanic.

12 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

No, it isn't just 'feeling bad', and you don't simply 'have a tantrum'. You are finding things emotional in some manner. That includes frustration at things not working, yes, but also triumph at succeeding agasint the odds [I think that is quite likely when you get and keep a string of explosions] or joy at seeing your lover across the room. The emotional outburst is something tied to the circumstances. A Matsu letting their lust for revenge get the better of them and starting a fight is one way of doing it. Or your reserved Phoenix could suddenly burst out laughing at a particular clever and biting insult delivered during a game of Sadane. Or a Crab survives the battle against an Oni and just breaks down weeping for all their friends who didn't. I'll agree that your sensibilities may not run that way, but you are misrepresenting the mechanic.

Because Good Samurai are stoic and unemotional...Being stoic and unemotional is not really possible, It is an impossible ideal to live up too. Also outbursts do not have to have negative outcomes. Going on a rant about how stupid the Crane are being might get you the result you want and everyone one in the room might agree with what you said. But it was unseemly s a minor loss of glory.