When discussing the differences between L5R 4th ed and L5R 3rd ed (or 3rd ed revised, if you prefer) with one of the people in my game, I noticed something.
The thing I noticed is this: one of the things that my friend doesn't like about 4th ed, is that in 4th ed you do not regain a void point if you roll 3 or more explosions on a dice roll. He feels like you should get something for rolling well. This is also a view he expressed when running a trial run of one of my games, where he immediately put in the optional rule for multiple 6s to give a bonus to the die roll.
The thing is, both the system I made and L5R are specifically designed (at least for the most part) to not care what the person rolled, aside from how it answers the question "did you beat the difficulty?" There is no default "critical success" mechanic in L5R, nor is their a "botch" mechanic. You either succeed or you fail. If you want to succeed more, and do better at the task, you need to call raises. Those raises give you the extra effect, but even with raises it doesn't matter if you roll a 40 or a 400, as long as you beat the difficulty you completed the task with the extra effect.
Obviously there are some exceptions (initiative and damage spring to mind), but my question for you today is this: is there something about a good die roll that is inherently deserving of reward?
My personal belief is to say no. I don't think so. Sure, some systems have crit/botch mechanics, and in those systems you have the reward for a good/bad roll. However, I do not think such a thing is necessary, or should be seen as a bad thing if it is gone. My reason for this? What did the player do that was special? Nothing. They through the die, it bounced, it rolled, and it came up on a good value. It was just as likely to come up a 2 as it was that natural 20, and I've never heard anyone say they expected something awesome because they rolled a natural 2.
Keep in mind, I am talking about systems where the die roll is used for a binary result (success/failure) and not used for degrees of success. Those systems have a reward built in, and that is fine. But to answer the question, you need to assume there is another way - not die related - to determine degrees of success or failure.
On the side against me, I can see some of the arguments. Other games have us trained that high rolls are better than lower rolls, and that truly high rolls get a reward (crits). However, those games also (usually) have penalties for truly low rolls. A nat 20 critically succeeds; a nat 1 critically fails. Is that acceptable? Random awesome, but also random horrible?
I'm curious what some of you will say about this, from GM, Player, and a Game Design stand point. Obviously, rewards are awesome and make people feel good. But does a high roll inherently deserve to be rewarded? By the same token, does a bad roll inherently deserve to be penalized?