I prefer to start from aesthetics and let the mechanics evolve from the aesthetic choices made. What I like about L5R is that conflict occurs in a variety of domains (battle force, battle dueling, battle attritiobn, honor, enlightenment, *perp control*, *holding control*, *honor control*) and deck construction involves planning for asymetry in your chosen domain with some protection against your opponent's asymetrical choices. I would describe this aesthetic as strategic design.

The other aesthetic I enjoyed was how gameplay constructed narrative. Choices in the game suggested narrative, a story to follow. I used to like reading tournament reports because they read like stories. I would describe this aesthetic as 'game as narrative'

The third aesthetic is the cultural difference between Japan and Western conceptions of both gameplay and strategy. I spent 6 years living in Japan and when L5R worked it understood the subtle differences and features of the culture it was modelling. When L5R was awful, it was imposing Western constructs on the setting. In Japanese aesthetics there are different understandings of space that L5R seemed to incorporate well

1. ba - knowledge mobilizing space - the manifestation of the interactions of the cards selected and their application

2. wa - relational space - interaction with the other players - a non-interactive deck winning Gencon was the death of the game for me

3. ka - physical space - the provinces and battles being represented in physical space - I've always preferred control with movement in my decks and being able to physically point to the playspace was a great feature

4. ma - rhythm/absence - always a challenge in the game as the arms race (honor or battle) always pushed the game to clock it seemed - I would love to see more intentional design in how to structure interaction and allow for more diverse paces of play (more mid-game activity as opposed to blitz or late game)

My 2 cents and excited (although impatient) for what comes next!

I'm very excited about the acquistio

Me like multiple win conditions. Keep game fresh and varied. So me want Dishonor/Honor Victory, Military Victory, Enlightened Victory to stay.

Me like how the game lays out. (Dynasty deck, 4 provinces, Fate deck, 5 fate cards in starting hand.)

Dishonor no leave. Dishonor meant to keep Honor in check. However the dishonor/honor system should be changed.

Followers and Personalities are must. Makes board a bit cluttered if you are running swarmy deck, yes-yes, but me like that interaction. Followers need to stay.

Me would like 30/30 minimum-sized decks.

Dueling be fun but it needs to be a built-in mechanic.

Ooh! Me know. Me would like to keep Naval and Tactician and Cavalry.

Honestly, I can see a lot of L5R in a lot of FFG's other card games.

The secondary value of focus in the "shield value" in 40k. The provinces mirrored in Netrunner's Corp servers.

The one on one duels seen in the challenge step of AGOT.

Things I'd like to keep:

- Chi (this goes hand-in-hand with the oriental theme of the game)

- Multiple win conditions (they allow for greater variety in strategy and deck designing, and mirror the setting's notion of victory being achievable through different means)

- Two decks (not only are they iconic and set L5R apart from other games - identity is important here - but mechanically they also help prevent that horrible situation of Magic and other games: the "Resource" screwed game)

Edit: Note that while I argue the win conditions should remain, I don't think they should remain immutable. Honor/Dishonor and Enlightenment could sure use some rethinking. Military is pretty straightforward though.

I think resource screw is still going to a factor unless adressed to where you are garunteed a source with more being a bonus.

I thinks there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of the Honor/Dishonor victory conditions. However, their approaches on how to engage players are flawed. Many strategies involve simple point-grabs that don't require strong caveats or choices by the opposing player. Gaining an honor victory because you won a huge battle and collected your enemy's heads for glory is awesome; Honor victory because you proclaimed a 3 honor courtier, pumped it up to 5 and bowed a few holdings all while systematically locking your opponent from engaging you is frankly dull.

Here's hoping FFG has fresh ideas on how to reinvigorate the game without breaking it.

An honor meter that has to be earned and which can be lost is the most distinctive part of the game for me. Take that away, and you're left with L5R in name only. May be a victory condition or not, though I would prefer it to be. It should also be something that can be gained outside battle through diverse means (yes, sanctified temples and fantastic gardens), though they would need to be carefully balanced.

But I feel losing honor should be largely the result of your own choices and actions (eg, corrupt cards, etc) - not something other players try to foist on you as a deliberate way to win.

Political control and manipulation (both Crane and Scorpion politics) should be represented in a different way that has very little to do with the honor mechanism ; possibly as an alternate way of fighting over provinces. The Scorpion would use dishonor (of personalities) to control who can or cannot fight against their political offensives, and to weaken opposing armies . Less focus on Shame/Breach and other honor bleed, more Test of Honor/Remorseful Seppuku/Bow a dishonored personality effects.

If anything changes in the game, I hope FFG can figure out a way to remove the advantage of going first.

Without multiple victory conditions and two decks, the game would lost much of its identity...

I think resource screw is still going to a factor unless adressed to where you are garunteed a source with more being a bonus.

Well, yes. But the key word here is probability.

For the sake of argument, let's reduce the Dinasty deck to just Personalities and Holdings/Resources, 20 of each. Each of your 4 Provinces has 50% chances of revealing a Holding... and it's nigh impossible that you get absolutely no Holding on the 4 Provinces.

Sure it happens, but it's mighty rare.

Now, of course that when you start adding more card types to the deck (Events, Regions, etc) and reducing the ammount of Resources, then the probabilities of getting Resource-screwed increase. But that's an argument to reduce the variety of cards, or at least consolidate some of them... not an argument to remove the dual-decks from the game.

Multiple win conditions is key to the setting. But, although I am a Scorpion fan for life, dishonor as an elimination condition could be dropped. There are plenty of other ways to implement dishonor, and in the setting dishonor is just a means to some other end. Honor could also be implemented as a more general political victory condition.

Two decks might be iconic to the CCG, but they are not key to the setting.

Dueling is key to the setting, though there are plenty of other ways to implement it.

I think dishonor would work better as a card-removal mechanic.

The same way the Crane use duels to remove samurai that get on their bad side, the Scorpion do the same with dishonor and blackmail. Same goal, similar mechanic, different name...

Now, of course that when you start adding more card types to the deck (Events, Regions, etc) and reducing the ammount of Resources, then the probabilities of getting Resource-screwed increase. But that's an argument to reduce the variety of cards, or at least consolidate some of them... not an argument to remove the dual-decks from the game.

I would say dual decks actually improves the situation re: resource screw, especially for new players.

Essentially, you get a 9 card hand, but you're *guaranteed* that 4 of those cards will be from the subset of personalities and holdings (and a few other things that seem less vital to the design, including events, are generally played in far smaller amounts).

You can obviously still build a bad dynasty deck, but the game does prevent you from resource screwing yourself by playing too many actions or followers (for example).

I REALLY wouldn't want honor to be conflated with a "political victory". That's not what honor originally was meant to be, and while some design teams (by mistake, in my opinion) conflated the two, at its heart, honor is about your standing and reputation in Rokugani society - how many people look up to you, how closely you follow (or people believe you follow) the tenets of bushido and filial piety, how respectful of tradition and culture you are, etc.

The essence of the honor victory is becoming an unassailable paragon with so many friends and allies that no one could possibly come against you (in the initial game, it was actually becoming emperor by popular acclamation). The essence of the dishonor defeat is becoming a villain that all the whole empire turn against (ie, the Shadowlands, but without being nearly as strong as they are). And, flavor-wise, that's excellent.

Politics can be used to manipulate that (eg, make yourself or others appear more or less honorable than they really are), but honor as a distinct thing should not be reduced to politics.

That's not to say there couldn't or shouldn't be a political victory condition (I like the idea of political warfare being an alternate way of conquering/taking provinces). Just it would be a mistake to turn honor into influence or politics.

I think resource screw is still going to a factor unless adressed to where you are garunteed a source with more being a bonus.

Well, yes. But the key word here is probability.

For the sake of argument, let's reduce the Dinasty deck to just Personalities and Holdings/Resources, 20 of each. Each of your 4 Provinces has 50% chances of revealing a Holding... and it's nigh impossible that you get absolutely no Holding on the 4 Provinces.

Sure it happens, but it's mighty rare.

Now, of course that when you start adding more card types to the deck (Events, Regions, etc) and reducing the ammount of Resources, then the probabilities of getting Resource-screwed increase. But that's an argument to reduce the variety of cards, or at least consolidate some of them... not an argument to remove the dual-decks from the game.

Actually the chance for this is about 5%. So you see it every 10th game, since you and your opponent flip 4 cards during turn 1.

This is far from impossible. I would not even call it unlikely, when you think about how many games are played during a tournament.

Cycling on turn one reduces the chance to 0.25% (probably a bit smaller), so every 200th game which is a lot better. But again on a grand tournament a few guys will loose because of this.

How gold is managed is indeed an interesting topic.

Gold pooling is a fairly new concept in L5R and I like it.

Gold screw and gold flood was always a big problem. Which was largely fixed due to the cycle ability helped a lot... Even though I sometimes needed a hand cycle more then a dynasty cycle, but that is a different topic.

But all in all I am not even sure if I would want gold production as part of the dynasty deck. When I would get a holding at the start of every round which would produce 2 gold no effects no nothing and all strongholds would produce 4 gold. The economic victory would not be a thing at all. I had a clear linear gold curve. Only wrong spending and bad deck construction would get me into economic troubles.

That would not even mean that the dynasty deck would be completely colorless. Regions and Events would still have a place in there. Also non-gold producing holdings with fancy abilities.

Multiple win conditions is key to the setting. But, although I am a Scorpion fan for life, dishonor as an elimination condition could be dropped. There are plenty of other ways to implement dishonor, and in the setting dishonor is just a means to some other end. Honor could also be implemented as a more general political victory condition.

Two decks might be iconic to the CCG, but they are not key to the setting.

Dueling is key to the setting, though there are plenty of other ways to implement it.

I think they should just change dishonor into something like making yourself look better by comparison (pseudo honor gain) rather than elimination.

I do think that the why you win by honor and military should be changed or updated. Rather than have military campaigns or battles destroy a province, you could have them "steal" or "raze" holdings in the province, kill a personality that hasn't been bought yet, and so on. The only question is how to achieve a victory with military (some sort of power mechanic that isn't like the GoT)

For what should be kept in the game:

A. Two Decks

B. Multiple victory paths

C. Five Rings (it's in the name for God's sake!)

I think an economic engine mostly separated from the clan would also be beneficial (yes, I know, Crane and Mantis players), with a set of cards for a burst economy that would benefit those more affluent clans.

What are the core gameplay elements that make Legend of the Five Rings the game it is, without which, it would no longer be Legend of the Five Rings? Why?

Speaking as someone who helped build and maintain those mechanics for many years, take this to heart - honor the themes of L5R, not the mechanics .

Honor, Dishonor, Battle, Magic, Armies, Rokguan, and the Great Clans etc - these are themes . Creating a new Living Card Game out the brand means you give a treatment to these themes.

Honor Points, Fate Decks, Bowing, Attack Phases, etc - these are mechanics , and they old . They were old and cumbersome when 7th Sea came out, if not when Legend of the Burning Sands came out. Don't inherit any sacred cows in terms of mechanics from the L5R CCG. Their time has come and gone. It's time to give the Brand and Themes of L5R the modern mechanics they deserve. FFG can do better than rehashing a legacy of unnecessary complexity and snowball game play from the 90s.

So butcher the sacred cows of mechanics and hose down the design table, but keep the Core Themes of the brand close to your heart. You guys will do just fine.

Marty Lund

Right now you could take AGOT LCG, reskin the cards to have samurai and you more or less have a L5R LCG, minus more factions and enlightenment. All the other components are there. "Proviences" Military wins, honor wins, personalities including experienced ones, items, even a similar spell and kiho mechanic. Dishonor styles are there but not as prominent. Even a Yu mechanic is there. The games are very similar.

I loved l5R for years but AGOT is pretty much the same game and flows better.

I loved l5R for years but AGOT is pretty much the same game and flows better.

I don't enjoy AGoT, honestly (although in fairness, I haven't played the new edition). I find the core challenge mechanic (or whatever it's called with the three types of conflicts) kind of boring.

I hope they stay away from the standard FFG 3 stories/objectives/struggles/stats/planets whatever.

I recognize this may be a vain hope, but that underlying design structure feels a little same-same to me by now.

The things that I want to see in the new incarnation:

Two Decks - It doesn't matter if they change up exactly how they work or what's in them, but I loved the division of the decks. It was the way I could instantly find the L5R crowd in a crowded room, or could set up my fate and dynasty in an unfamiliar game shop and immediately have the other L5R players find me. There might be some sentimentality there, but

The Clans - If the clans don't come back in roughly their same incarnations (story and flavor wise, but reflected in the mechanics), it won't feel like L5R. Crabs should be good at smashing, Scorpions should be good at sneaking, and Phoenix should be good at burning. Families and themes and details can be shaken up to an extent, but the setting is the best part of the IP, and the Clans are the best part of the setting.

Honor/Military Push/Pull - Some version of the two primary victory conditions should exist. I'd love it if Enlightenment made a cameo, but the big two are the heart of the game. Two competing clocks that are fighting against each other. Dishonor can get rolled into one or both of those. By extension the *concept* of Limited vs Battle actions (eg, that there is a time for scheming and a time for face punching).

The Rings - whether tied to a victory condition or not, the rings need to exist in some shape or form.

Finally, I'd really love to see a well done mechanical corruption/taint/fall from grace. Something that represents the sacrifice of honor, purity, etc, that might then be punishable by the opponent. Temptation, corruption, and redemption are important themes in the story, and the times that they've been done well mechanically have been fun and interesting (and the times they haven't, have been... well...).

All but the last one are what I need to see to feel like I'm playing L5R, and not some different magical samurai game that uses some Rokugani place names.

I loved l5R for years but AGOT is pretty much the same game and flows better.

I don't enjoy AGoT, honestly (although in fairness, I haven't played the new edition). I find the core challenge mechanic (or whatever it's called with the three types of conflicts) kind of boring.

I hope they stay away from the standard FFG 3 stories/objectives/struggles/stats/planets whatever.

I recognize this may be a vain hope, but that underlying design structure feels a little same-same to me by now.

I wonder, does FFG have a LCG without that 3 cards in the middle there? Anyway, I am not that opposed to that idea, but how likely is it that they will make L5R that way?

I was actually considering starting this thread last night, but found that when I wanted to put it up (1am my time) that I needed time to gather my thoughts and not work on a knee jerk basis. As such, these are the facets of the game that I consider key to the Legend of the Five Rings experience:

-The Clans. These are not just a mechanical or storyline feature, but a part of the player culture that surounds Legend of the Five Rings. I, for example, am a Unicorn. My first love was the Phoenix, but that was an rpg thing. When I started playing the card game I found that I am indelibably a Unicorn. I play purple ponies loyaly, and the fate of the personalities in my clan feel almost like the lives a not so distant friends and family. The strategies my clan uses are aspects of my thinking. That last bit may be idiosyncratic to myself, but the clan loyalty is not. Many people are loyal to their clan regardless of the clan's own "viability" at a tournament level. The clans must be maintained as a core feature of deck and game design.

-Deck and Play Area Structure. This is another thing that set Legend of the Five Rings apart from the get go, TWO DECKS! In Legend of the Five Rings you effectively have two hands of cards, the fate hand, which is like a standard hand in most games, and the cards in your provinces, a second publically visible hand from which you recruit your army and resources. Then when they come into play cards are in one of two game locations, home or a battlefield. This stratification maintains the feel of being a feudal lord sending their vassals through out their lands and those of their enemies. Finally, Legend of the Five Rings has cards that are not ever in decks, your stronghold, sensei, or a few otehr similar card types from the past. And this creates one of the features of the game that is strange among card games. Legend fo the Five Rings is not actually a card game. It is a miniatures game, but instead of knowing exactly what you will have the miniatures arrive to the game randomly.

-Multiple Victory Conditions. Legend of the Five Rings is a game of samurai in a greater world than just constant warfare. It is a world where the power of the courts can hold armies in check, or the truly wise are able to remain irreproachable in the face of their adversaries. Honor, dishonor, and enlightenment create and maintain this feeling of a greater world than the battlefield. As an extention of this there are other features that come as consequences of this, namely the importance of honor in limiting access to powerful personalities, who would not truck with honorless dogs, and the need for cards representing the Rings (Air, Earth, Fire, the Void, and Water) in the game. This all having been said, I would love to see dishonor, in which you do not win but make your opponent lose, leave the game as a victory condition and become a means of board control.

-The Basic Turn Structure. Here I mean Action, Attack, Dynasty. Once again these phases in the turn help create the feel of the world. During the Action Phase you prepare your vassals for war, you politic to keep your enemies in check, and seek understanding. The Attack Phase is self explanitory. It is war. Finally in the Dynasty Phase you rebuild. You recruit new vassals, rebuild your resources, and ensure that the clan keeps going forward.

-Keywords. In Legend of the Five Rings it matters if a personality is a Samurai, or a courtier. It matters if one of your personalities items is a weapon, or armor. These card features tell you what types of people are in your army and by extention, your clan. The Phoenix are the masters of magic, so they have a large number of shugenja. Unicorn are considered somehow deficient if they are not comfortable on a horse, and so have a similar amount of cavalry. The Dragon are highly contemplative, so monks make up a large body with in their clan, even among some of their samurai. Have you given into the siren song of Jigoku's temptation? Then your personality has Shadowlands.

-Interactive Play Structure. Cards interact with one another. The best, and only formal, example of this is dueling, but other cards have similar effects making an opponent choose between the outcomes of an action, with neither choice being desirable. I have been trying to stress how important it is to Legend of the Five Rings to maintain the feel of the world, and this is ultimately how you do it. Which brings me to ...

-The Imperial Favor. If anything I am have listed seems to not belong on this list it is the Favor. In recent editions the favor has been less important and less powerful than in earlier editions. It has taken more of a back seat to other features of the game. But remember, Rokugan is an empire. The Emperor, the Child of Heaven, owns everything you see in this world. How closely you and your clan cleave to the seat of power influences the legitimacy of your actions. The might of the throne can sheild you from your enemies, or open acess to new resources.

I wonder, does FFG have a LCG without that 3 cards in the middle there? Anyway, I am not that opposed to that idea, but how likely is it that they will make L5R that way?

I think it would be a huge disservice to everyone if the game was a re-skinned version of AGOT.

I wonder, does FFG have a LCG without that 3 cards in the middle there? Anyway, I am not that opposed to that idea, but how likely is it that they will make L5R that way?

I think it would be a huge disservice to everyone if the game was a re-skinned version of AGOT.

I agree on that. Still I have to say, putting the win conditions on territories, so that players can have military or political battles for them would not feel too wrong for L5R either. But I have never played the the AGoT game (I have mostly seen the mechanic of the cards in the middle in Call of Cthulhu). So, don't get me wrong, I do not want L5R to become just a reskin, but I think it is reasonable to think about what options are there and could L5R benefit from taking some ideas from other games and get rid of a few of the sacred cows it currently has. Since this is the time to make the adjustments.