The twenty years of baggage contain a good part clan war, which so many people still hold dear. The war against the darkness had some issues, but i would say it was still good overall, it was basically the logical bigger bad after clan war, the power that played all sides. AEG luckily made then a time jump (even though they did the spirit war into that time jump). The four winds worked in my opinion also well, you hade a succession war. Well and after that it starts to become rather convoluted and clustred with all kinds of stuff, which would would be okay, if it would not contain so many events that all ruined the whole nation and somehow it kept going without a much needed time jump, so that with the insanity of teh destroyer war I just could not continue reading all that crap. The time jump came too late in my opinion, and the whole Iweko dynasty feels now kinda pointless. There have been so many ideas that never have been used to the full potential, like the second Gozoku, or having really a shogunate. So many stories without having to do another race to the throne, that was made meaningless just a few years later again.

I started in Emperor Edition, just after Destroyer War. With the 2 year hiatus, I am going to read all the fiction. I only read the current fiction, and unreliably at best.

Why do people hate the Destroyer War? Why was it so bad?

Why do people hate the Destroyer War? Why was it so bad?

It went on and on and on.

And then at the end, the Spider white knighted in leaving everyone else looking pointless and ineffectual.

Plus you knew then and there the Spider were going to **** over the Empire sooner or later.

I started in Emperor Edition, just after Destroyer War. With the 2 year hiatus, I am going to read all the fiction. I only read the current fiction, and unreliably at best.

Why do people hate the Destroyer War? Why was it so bad?

For me it was partly that the Destroyers were largely unrepresented in the cards, and that their march and downfall was completely scripted. Combine that with some weak storytelling, and pacing issues, and the whole thing was a mess.

Contrast that with Moto Chagatai's march where the players had a face to the villain, the villain was powerful, but had mortal, had motivations, and could very well be represented in the game by your friend Mike who would happily crush you to take the storyline victory.

I don't think they will do a story line reboot, there is no need as any new player would never have known the heroes of old except through flavor text and that is how it should be as that will give us older players a chance to talk about the great and terrible things that happened in L5R's past. A reboot would ruin that.

Looks pretty clear that they will move on with the story like I said in anther post AEG is sending FFG the results of the fall Koteis. Odds are they scrap most of the recent fiction and start up something new which would be right and proper as it's FFG game now the future is theirs to shape and mold...Bring it I say

Looks pretty clear that they will move on with the story like I said in anther post AEG is sending FFG the results of the fall Koteis.

My money's on FFG tossing these in a drawer, but I guess we'll see.

I thought it was AEG giving FFG the results just in case they want to use them. Every post from AEG alluded to, "We have no idea what is happening with the story."

We all have to acknowledge that FFG could and can change literally anything about the game.

I agree though and hadn't thought of using the flavor text. I think it would super cool to have "old" l5r represented through the flavor text on the new l5r. That way vets can play and participate in a thematic way, as opposed to trying to hold onto mechanics. In the end, I think we all know that mechanics are secondary to the setting and lore.

In the end, I think we all know that mechanics are secondary to the setting and lore.

Noooope. I'm here to play the game. The extent to which I care about the story is that which is represented by the mechanics. The most important thing about the game is the actual gameplay. If I to focus on setting and lore, I'll read a book or play an RPG.

I'm not saying I'm in the majority, but let's not use sweeping terms like "we all know XX." Different players favor different aspects of the game.

I kid you not when I tell you I played the reboot of Doomtown for about a year, read one piece of fiction and barely glanced at flavor text (I couldn't quote a single one). That's just not why I play card games these days.

In the end, I think we all know that mechanics are secondary to the setting and lore.

Noooope. I'm here to play the game. The extent to which I care about the story is that which is represented by the mechanics.

I'm not saying I'm in the majority, but let's not use sweeping terms like "we all know XX." Different players favor different aspects of the game.

I kid you not when I tell you I played the reboot of Doomtown for about a year, read one piece of fiction and barely glanced at flavor text (I couldn't quote a single one). That's just not why I play card games these days.

Neither do I. I also barely read the fiction and is something I want to change.

My point is I seriously doubt you would have as much fun with no art and names like "Mantis Character 1"

There is more to setting and lore than fiction and flavor text. Mechanics are used to help establish setting and lore too.

I wouldn't call the mechanics secondary, so much as "the facet of the game pretty much everybody agrees could do with a few core alterations, and we trust they're in good hands."

In the end, I think we all know that mechanics are secondary to the setting and lore.

Noooope. I'm here to play the game. The extent to which I care about the story is that which is represented by the mechanics.

I'm not saying I'm in the majority, but let's not use sweeping terms like "we all know XX." Different players favor different aspects of the game.

I kid you not when I tell you I played the reboot of Doomtown for about a year, read one piece of fiction and barely glanced at flavor text (I couldn't quote a single one). That's just not why I play card games these days.

Neither do I. I also barely read the fiction and is something I want to change.

My point is I seriously doubt you would have as much fun with no art and names like "Mantis Character 1"

There is more to setting and lore than fiction and flavor text. Mechanics are used to help establish setting and lore too.

You indicated mechanics were of secondary importance and "we all know it." All I'm saying is that's not the case. Gameplay is king, everything else is secondary. Without a good game, new players are never going to care how good or bad the story is, or how interesting the settings, and FFG needs new players.

Part of that, yes, is saying, "I want to play a Mystic Samurai fantasy game, do these mechanics reflect that?" Art and whether characters have names or not is a distant second for me. Flavor text and all the other story stuff AEG does outside the game? Zero consideration from me.

Like I said, I realize I'm in the minority, and even my tastes have changed. I got my start in the game industry writing fiction for one of AEG's game lines. That's not what I'm interested in in gaming anymore. Which I'm sure is part of why I'm eager to see FFG take over.

*shrug*

I think its fair to say the setting is important, but not at the exense of game balance and a solid set of rules to play by. However, I don't want the setting trounced on either.

Yeah, I don't think it has to be. The vast majority of the time, I doubt there'll be a conflict. And when there is, it'll usually be, "Huh. That mechanic seems weird for what it's supposed to represent."

I think it'll be rare that FFG finds themselves in a position where, in order to make the game work the way they want it to, they have to make some fundamental change to the setting.

Any changes to the setting are much more likely to be for marketing purposes (regardless of whether it's a good call or not).

Actually the flavor beet the crunch philosophy of AEG was what lead to L5r beeing sold to FFG in the end. It led to things like the Abbot which did nothing before an errata or Rings which have no effect when discarded instead of played. Really mechanics are the most important things when it comes to the question how to produce a functional and great game be is a Card or roleplaying game.

Therefore I want good mechanics which are supported by a good story and setting and not the old L5R which had a great setting and lore but a bad mechanical underlaying in terms of rules and mechanics.

The GAME needs good mechanics to be successful. A good design team can incorporate good mechanics with good flavor and good story, and make a product that has all three in equal measures. Look at Goju Kumoru, for example. He was an excellent example of good mechanical design, good flavor, and good story.

Hopefully, FFG will be able to deliver all of this together.

I feel like everyone decided that what I said was "we don't need good mechanics, they are irrelevant. Know what even? Go ahead and make them bad"

In the end, I think we all know that mechanics are secondary to the setting and lore.

They bought L5R. L5R is so intrinsically about the setting that because they bought L5R, I assumed they wanted the setting. If FFG wants to make another wildly successful card game, irrelevant of theme or universe, they could. FFG is great at making good games.

But they bought L5R. We *shouldn't* assume anything but I am going to make a couple assumptions anyway.

1 - They want to make a good game. No company intends to do poorly so I assume they want their game to be good.

2 - They don't NEED L5R - Since they could make any game they wanted and had good and fun mechanics, the fact that they bought L5R means (I guess to me) that they WANT the setting. They can use whatever mechanics they want, but they WANT the setting.

So yea, I guess the problem was that I said everything else was secondary? Just because it is secondary doesn't mean it is necessarily bad. a 99% is secondary to 100%.

Look at Love Letter. That is game where mechanics come first. This clear since they can, and have, themed it in a million different ways. The game doesn't change, the setting does.

If FFG wanted to focus on Mechanics, they would not have bought L5R, they would have invented their own setting for new mechanics.

They bought L5R. I assume they want to use the setting.

But sure, this will be my last defense of my thought, that I thought was both clear and apparent. To be fair posting at 4 am could make my comment less clear than I thought it was. But I am going to hold onto: "they bought l5r because they want to use l5r"

At that point we have to decide what the most intrinsic thing about l5r is. You could say it is the mechanics and then ditch the setting. Then you'd have a GAME that PLAYS like L5R. I even would say, "okay sure, this is a lot like L5R". But they have already said that there is going to be a mechanical overhaul in the game. So clearly FFG does not value the mechanics. In that case, we could keep the setting and throw the mechanics. Then you'd have game that doesn't LOOK like L5R but FEELS like L5R.

Either of those directions is okay when talking about "what makes l5r, l5r". The thing is, FFG has already said they they are going to do a mechanical overhaul. That means they value the setting more than the mechanics. so again, The mechanics are secondary to the setting. Even FFG has told us that.

But one more time, secondary =/= irrelevant/trivial.

Edit: Typos and last couple lines to better clarify my point.

I agree, I think the setting, and the fan base's love of the setting, were what attracted FFG to the IP. It's been noted in other threads that many former L5R players/employees are now with FFG. It would make sense that some of these people may have had some influence on FFG pursuing the license. It's clear that in the wake of the sale, people are very passionate about the game and its setting. I'm just a casual player and I am still heavily invested in the universe of L5R with all of the good and bad that goes along with it.

I have do not think FFG will go scorched earth with regards to the setting and the story. That being said I agree with many others that perhaps the best thing would be to time jump the story a significant amount such that they can start fresh with their own stories and characters. That doesn't mean they have to totally ignore the past, however, because the legacy of L5R is so important. I would love to see "historical" cards in some form.

They bought the IP. Twenty years of baggage just happens to come with it.

Exactly. The setting is much stronger than the convoluted story that followed.

The setting really isn't that strong. It's got some cool elements, but a well-crafted, deep setting this isn't. It'S a bunch of random Asian cliché thrown together with some superficiail attempts to tie it all. It was the early stories (up to and including Gold), that really breathed life into the settings and made it work (not that those stories were particularly exceptional, but they took the elements that worked of the setting and made them come together while skidding across those elements that didn't work).

orry, but why would FFG necessarily want to use "the full richness of the setting they bought" as you are proposing... its not as if L5R did not suffer a giant mess of nonsense story decisions (gods ascending and being booted out of the heavens every few months is the one that bothered me the most). I agree that the 2nd thousand years of darkness idea for Onyx is the first decent story idea in a while... but its far from being necessary for FFG.

And even as it suffered from that "giant mess", it still managed to develop iconic personalities who became emblem of their clans. That there was (a lot of) bad in those years doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of good, too. If there was nothing good throughout the era, then the game would have died a lot earlier.

The benefit to FFG is pretty simple:

-It appeals to the old fans. That's a plus: more returning buyers.

-It doesn't harm the new fans: at worst they won't know who these are (same as with new personalities), and at best, the old fans will regal them with stories of their favorites (thus putting the new fans in contact with the setting's rich tradition).

-It advertise that this is a setting with a history, not some new thing they just came up with.

-It makes it easier for them to build the fiction and flavor text early on ; they don't really have to worry about it until the monthly packs start coming out (and then in smaller doses).

Or, you know, scare away prospective new players with two decades of accumulated dangling threads, dense lore, character upon character, and creaking plotline 'decisions'.

Certainly that has been far and away the largest factor I've encountered in attempting to recruit rpg players -- and my own return to the folds after some years' absence has been no joy of catching up, either.

Begin again, having learned from the mistakes made prior. It would only make sense.

A lot of scaring people away can be avoided by making a welcoming community and a game that plays well. Something that I think "old" l5r failed 1 front often, and failed in another more than I'd like.

It might just be how we dealt with new players differently, but I was always able to use the 20 yuears of history as a selling point. Look at this great place you can be a part of, with us. Though I have seen people do the opposite. "look at MY history. you want to be a part of it? Get learnin the past"

I think a welcoming community could make it so much easier.

*scrolls up and rereads*

Oh, rpg, yes. Nevermind I am on board. I haven't played the RPG yet because of that. Haha, So different between the ccg and rpg that historic sense.

Actually a group of friends and I are starting up the rpg. But none of us have ran a game in this setting, though several of us are seasoned RPG players. Any tips or guidelines or resources on how to start better?

As uninteresting the actual storyline might be for some and as seductive the beginnings may be for a nostalgic, a reboot of the new LCG would be better to propel players into renewal, promote change, improve customers’ journey and so extend the players’ base.

While some changes might be worthwhile, change for the sake of change never is.

The mistake that so many gaming companies make -- CCG, RPG, video games, etc -- is chasing the customer base they think they could or should have, at the expense of the things that got them the customer base they already have.

I'm not doing the Second Day of Thunder again. I rode this train twice now both the first time and then with the siege box. I've played this game for 18 years, and would rather just move forward and not be the L5R equivalent of the people who yearn for AD&D. It's just not for me, though I understand the nostalgia of some.

While some changes might be worthwhile, change for the sake of change never is.

The mistake that so many gaming companies make -- CCG, RPG, video games, etc -- is chasing the customer base they think they could or should have, at the expense of the things that got them the customer base they already have.

It's all about churn management.

The gaming market is driven toward constant renewal of players' base.