That concept of appeasement tactics is a good and useful one for this discussion. I think it merits distinguishing from the related strategy of maintaining the current player base. If you don't really care about maintaining that base, what use is there in trying to appease them? To maintain the player base, FFG would have to focus on continuity with AEG. We already know this is off the table in the most crucial sense, i.e. , FFG is making a LCG rather than a CCG. So maintaining the existing base is clearly not FFG's primary goal. Therefore, appeasement tactics are of little to no use.

Contrast this with FFG's approach to Dark Heresy 2E. After a lot of push back on the beta document, FFG decided to emphasize continuity with the most recent 40k RPG release (Only War) rather than -- as we could tell from the beta release was the initial plan -- break out into some new directions. The maintenance strategy was effected by appeasing the existing base. Whether that was wise or not, I don't know. The Dark Heresy 2E line seems pretty underdeveloped to me.

Applying these concepts to the point I have been trying to make ITT, I refuse to make my attitude about FFG's L5R contingent upon FFG appeasing me. I would rather see L5R open up to a much bigger population of gamers than FFG working (often enough in vain) to maintain the current base. Although this means FFG is not catering to me directly, the result is I get more L5R! Rather than (as with Dark Heresy 2E) a line that sort of putters along between tons of Star Wars releases.

Let's keep in mind that this is more than just a card game and its rules, it's also a setting, and an RPG in that setting along with the card game. When people are talking about changes, they're not just talking about "the new card game won't be the old card game".

I think many people are seeing this as an opportunity for things they don't like right now to be changed, without really turning that around and seeing that something they really like the way it is could just as easily be changed.

Typo.

And that's just another kind of demand for appeasement: change what I don't like, keep what I do.

Let's keep in mind that this is more than just a card game and it's rules, it's also a setting, and an RPG in that setting along with the card game. When people are talking about changes, they're not just talking about "the new card game won't be the old card game".

I think many people are seeing this as an opportunity for things they don't like right now to be changed, without really turning that around and seeing that something they really like the way it is could just as easily be changed.

Your second point is very valid. As a Spider fan, I am under no illusions that the faction as a whole will be spared the chopping block for the LCG, and possibly even the setting. And, if they end up being axed for a short time, or even permanently, I can make peace with that decision if the game and setting benefit from it.

If I wanted to address the structural problems with both the setting and games, I would simply sit down and ask questions of each element:

• What is the function of this element (e.g. dueling, Shadowlands taint, individual Clans and families, etc) in the setting? In the game?
• Does this element still function in our (FFG's) vision for how the games and setting should be framed?
• If an element does not work, what should we do with it (erasure, revision, or repackage)?

And as you say, I would put everything on the table and determine what all needs to be in the games and in the setting, noting that something can be in one and not the other, and work on new models that contain the elements deemed necessary.

(Sorry about the double post.)

The advice to remember with any potential rework of a setting is "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

We can assume that FFG spent the money to aquire this particular baby for reasons that don't include alienating large sections of the old playerbase.

"Don't misidentify bathwater as being a vital part of the baby."

If we want to play the "run the analogy into the ground" game... identifying the baby usually isn't the problem.

Why does no one mention the wash basin?

But *how large* is the old playerbase really? Wizards of the Coast had "no problem" alienating most of it's playerbase when they made D&D 4e and then doing it AGAIN with D&D 5e. And they had a lot more to lose than FFG have now, with the acquisition of L5R.

Actually the 5th edition did not alienate their players so muc. The reason for this was that wizzards did one of the best beta phases I ever saw and participated in. Providing the entire material without any cost and beeing completly open for changes was a very great approach and lead to actuall 175,000 people testing it. So to be clear a huge part of the world wide fan base was involved and so not so many player were alienated cause they actually had time to adapt and to say if something should be changed or kept.

For L5R I think the perchentage of old players is not as high as old D&D players and therefore it should not be such a danger if you alienate some of them but for the best result I would like to have a beta phase like the D&D 5th editon one and get all players the chance to work on the product they love and want to buy.

Yes, it was a nice little play test and I'm glad I was a part of it. It was one of the reasons why I posted about having a beta test for the LCG.

My only problem with 5th edition is the way it has been handled after launch. Mostly from a lack of books and the push for just campaign books, which are largely pretty lackluster. And maybe because Pathfinder pumps out material on a consistent basis.

Were we part of the same playtest? Because I recall advice being repeatedly ignored by the team so Mike Mearls could make his favorite edition (3.5) again, and the result has been a mild improvement over 3.5 and a step back from 4E.

I will also never forgive Mearls for the disdain with which he has treated the warlord class.

Yeah, this is the first time I saw someone actually speak good things about that beta.

I think many people are seeing this as an opportunity for things they don't like right now to be changed, without really turning that around and seeing that something they really like the way it is could just as easily be changed.

I think this is different for people who currently play some form of the game vs. those who don't (which seems obvious, but bear with me).

A former player who isn't currently involved in the game and brand has very little to lose in this equation, because worst case, they continue not being involved in the game and brand.

At the same time, I think it's healthier for the game in the long run if FFG treats it as already lost, and does what's necessary to bring it back, rather than not lose it, whatever that may be.

But again, a lapsed player can afford to be much more sanguine about that.

But *how large* is the old playerbase really? Wizards of the Coast had "no problem" alienating most of it's playerbase when they made D&D 4e and then doing it AGAIN with D&D 5e. And they had a lot more to lose than FFG have now, with the acquisition of L5R.

Actually the 5th edition did not alienate their players so muc. The reason for this was that wizzards did one of the best beta phases I ever saw and participated in. Providing the entire material without any cost and beeing completly open for changes was a very great approach and lead to actuall 175,000 people testing it. So to be clear a huge part of the world wide fan base was involved and so not so many player were alienated cause they actually had time to adapt and to say if something should be changed or kept.

For L5R I think the perchentage of old players is not as high as old D&D players and therefore it should not be such a danger if you alienate some of them but for the best result I would like to have a beta phase like the D&D 5th editon one and get all players the chance to work on the product they love and want to buy.

Yes, it was a nice little play test and I'm glad I was a part of it. It was one of the reasons why I posted about having a beta test for the LCG.

My only problem with 5th edition is the way it has been handled after launch. Mostly from a lack of books and the push for just campaign books, which are largely pretty lackluster. And maybe because Pathfinder pumps out material on a consistent basis.

Were we part of the same playtest? Because I recall advice being repeatedly ignored by the team so Mike Mearls could make his favorite edition (3.5) again, and the result has been a mild improvement over 3.5 and a step back from 4E.

I will also never forgive Mearls for the disdain with which he has treated the warlord class.

Iam not sure. I for my part had good results with sugesting things to them. Also the getting away from 4th edtion was actually what I really like cause 4th was to much a board game and to less a Pen and Paper thing.

But *how large* is the old playerbase really? Wizards of the Coast had "no problem" alienating most of it's playerbase when they made D&D 4e and then doing it AGAIN with D&D 5e. And they had a lot more to lose than FFG have now, with the acquisition of L5R.

Actually the 5th edition did not alienate their players so muc. The reason for this was that wizzards did one of the best beta phases I ever saw and participated in. Providing the entire material without any cost and beeing completly open for changes was a very great approach and lead to actuall 175,000 people testing it. So to be clear a huge part of the world wide fan base was involved and so not so many player were alienated cause they actually had time to adapt and to say if something should be changed or kept.

For L5R I think the perchentage of old players is not as high as old D&D players and therefore it should not be such a danger if you alienate some of them but for the best result I would like to have a beta phase like the D&D 5th editon one and get all players the chance to work on the product they love and want to buy.

As some people upthread made clear, it did alienate most of the 4E players.

Ah, double post, sorry.

Iam not sure. I for my part had good results with sugesting things to them. Also the getting away from 4th edtion was actually what I really like cause 4th was to much a board game and to less a Pen and Paper thing.

What.

With Rokugan you can't do that. Everything told in the fiction is canon and it used as such in the RPG and the CCG. You don't have tiers, or a clear-and.cut point where you can say: "it will be canon up to this point", because the fictions also re-told facts of the past, or gave more insights to famous arcs. The first day of thunder was given another look, Shinsei built the Tomb of the Seven Thunders when he disappeared, the Throne exchanged hands a couple times. Heck, even a peasant revolt appeared in the past.

I disagree. Any fiction or series of fictions can be contradicted by later works, so long as it maintains the larger picture.

Revisionist history has long been a part of L5R, and there are large sections of earlier books that you simply can't take at face value. Sometimes you get a reader's omniscient perspective, sometimes you get an unreliable Rokugani narrator, or simply the filtered Rokugani perspective. Sometimes you can't tell the difference without knowing there are contradictions elsewhere. Even 4e Core has information that's become revised history in later 4e books.

With Rokugan you can't do that. Everything told in the fiction is canon and it used as such in the RPG and the CCG. You don't have tiers, or a clear-and.cut point where you can say: "it will be canon up to this point", because the fictions also re-told facts of the past, or gave more insights to famous arcs. The first day of thunder was given another look, Shinsei built the Tomb of the Seven Thunders when he disappeared, the Throne exchanged hands a couple times. Heck, even a peasant revolt appeared in the past.

I disagree. Any fiction or series of fictions can be contradicted by later works, so long as it maintains the larger picture.

Revisionist history has long been a part of L5R, and there are large sections of earlier books that you simply can't take at face value. Sometimes you get a reader's omniscient perspective, sometimes you get an unreliable Rokugani narrator, or simply the filtered Rokugani perspective. Sometimes you can't tell the difference without knowing there are contradictions elsewhere. Even 4e Core has information that's become revised history in later 4e books.

I agree that large parts of the history can be adapted but the core concepts of the universe should be kept in place. In short, L5R is about idealized samurai (whether bushi, shugenja, or courtiers) who serve their Emperor/Empire, lord, and, most importantly, their clan. Other than that, very generalized things like the kami and their teachings work too. Oh and the idea that Honor and Bushido have a real meaning and force .

Iam not sure. I for my part had good results with sugesting things to them. Also the getting away from 4th edtion was actually what I really like cause 4th was to much a board game and to less a Pen and Paper thing.

What.

The 4th edition of D&D was more liek a board game withtheir activated powers to tap, their battle boards and desciroiptions of actual suqares on these board when looking for reach and movement etc and their figures than a Pen and Paper game were most things happen in your head.

Iam not sure. I for my part had good results with sugesting things to them. Also the getting away from 4th edtion was actually what I really like cause 4th was to much a board game and to less a Pen and Paper thing.

What.

As noted elsewhere, AD&D 4th seemed to me like an attempted to make a tabletop MMO.

Iam not sure. I for my part had good results with sugesting things to them. Also the getting away from 4th edtion was actually what I really like cause 4th was to much a board game and to less a Pen and Paper thing.

What.

As noted elsewhere, AD&D 4th seemed to me like an attempted to make a tabletop MMO.

Yeah, it felt way too much like a table top to me too.

I've heard it called the MMO rpg quite a number of times myself. It did feel very much like World of Warcraft a few times, albeit without the much cooler universe. Ironically, the WoW rpg was based on the 3rd edition OGL.

The 4th edition of D&D was more liek a board game withtheir activated powers to tap, their battle boards and desciroiptions of actual suqares on these board when looking for reach and movement etc and their figures than a Pen and Paper game were most things happen in your head.

D&D was originally a tactical miniatures game, and spells are ‘active powers’. The latter has actually never changed, only expanded to include a greater number of classes.

As noted elsewhere, AD&D 4th seemed to me like an attempted to make a tabletop MMO.

Okay, I tried this back in 2007 and it has haunted my nightmares ever since, so I am not going to have the ‘4E = MMORPG?’ conversation.

I would be super okay with FFG resetting the story. I'm sorry but 20 years of story is plenty. Write it off as AEG's story.

Let FFG tell its own L5R epic and new players start the story where the LCG begins.

I would be super okay with FFG resetting the story. I'm sorry but 20 years of story is plenty. Write it off as AEG's story.

Let FFG tell its own L5R epic and new players start the story where the LCG begins.

That could really hurt the older/ccg players. What about something that mixes both elements? Start with the basic tenets of the ccg (the origin story, the current clans, and the samurai stuff) while adjusting the stuff that didn't really work or didn't work well. If you have to, adjust the clan origins so they all fit in a new context and story arc.

I would be super okay with FFG resetting the story. I'm sorry but 20 years of story is plenty. Write it off as AEG's story.

Let FFG tell its own L5R epic and new players start the story where the LCG begins.

That could really hurt the older/ccg players. What about something that mixes both elements? Start with the basic tenets of the ccg (the origin story, the current clans, and the samurai stuff) while adjusting the stuff that didn't really work or didn't work well. If you have to, adjust the clan origins so they all fit in a new context and story arc.

These both seem compatible to me. I think it's just an issue of different players are going to have different ideas of what, "write off AEG's story," and "adjusting the stuff that didn't work or didn't work well," actually means.

I mean, I think FFG is going to try to do something that is recognizable. I do think it's going to be a fresh relaunch, though, and the significance of the changes is hugely depend on the specific player. At risk of bringing up a hot button for example, dropping Spider and bringing back Horde seems like a trivial change to someone who primarily played when they were Horde, and perhaps counts as adjusting something that doesn't work well (and yes, I realized you included the caveat that current clans go unchanged). It's a huge change for someone who's only ever known (and maybe loved) them as Spider.

I don't think they should change things for the sake of change; but I don't think they should keep things the same for the sake of similarity, either. The only question should be, "What's best for FFG's launch?" If they figure that out, the game will be successful, and that's what we all want.

I would be super okay with FFG resetting the story. I'm sorry but 20 years of story is plenty. Write it off as AEG's story.

Let FFG tell its own L5R epic and new players start the story where the LCG begins.

That could really hurt the older/ccg players. What about something that mixes both elements? Start with the basic tenets of the ccg (the origin story, the current clans, and the samurai stuff) while adjusting the stuff that didn't really work or didn't work well. If you have to, adjust the clan origins so they all fit in a new context and story arc.

These both seem compatible to me. I think it's just an issue of different players are going to have different ideas of what, "write off AEG's story," and "adjusting the stuff that didn't work or didn't work well," actually means.

I mean, I think FFG is going to try to do something that is recognizable . I do think it's going to be a fresh relaunch, though, and the significance of the changes is hugely depend on the specific player. At risk of bringing up a hot button for example, dropping Spider and bringing back Horde seems like a trivial change to someone who primarily played when they were Horde, and perhaps counts as adjusting something that doesn't work well (and yes, I realized you included the caveat that current clans go unchanged). It's a huge change for someone who's only ever known (and maybe loved) them as Spider.

I think the idea of something "recognizable" is a key point to make on it. One of the reasons why I put the bold tag on it. I think that FFG will go with the notion of trying to make a game that new players can get into easily but doesn't necessarily hurt older players. How can FFG arrive at that? We'll find out some day.

I did use the idea of "current clans" but I don't think they can be unchanged. That's why I included the idea of adjusting them to better fit in the post above.

Personally, I knew both sides of the Shadowlands (I stared down my fair share of the old Akuma no Oni and destroyed many a province with him) and find that the current incarnation actually works with the game far far far better than the old one ever did.

I'm not sure how an ongoing story would even work in an LCG model. They could always treat it like they do with Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

Release sets based on specific periods of history, and use famous characters as that... and not have an ongoing story.

I imagine the CCG players might feel a bit of a loss since they will lose control over the direction of metaplot. OTOH as an RPG player I will tell you, almost everyone I've played with generally ignores the CCG plot. 4th Edition thankfully allows for that.

Spider might be awesome for CCG Players, but I feel like they're like Dirty Secrets of the Black Hand for the RPG. More like a completely different game in of itself.

(I would be all for FFG not having the Spider or Mahou in the core L5R book, and just making a separate core book focusing on the Spider and Shadowlands, Like what they do with 40K or Star Wars).

I don't want any "reboots"

I want it the way it is. We accept the mistakes and move on from there to gradually correct them.

Its like sweeping stuff under a rug and hoping it will never pop out again.

We must accept the effort, work, dedication and worth of the players and people who contributed to the community.

A time jump would be slightly more acceptable than a roll back, but it still won't fix stuff that has come to pass.

Not everything is bad, there are good things that have happened and I really don't want to loose those to oblivion.