I've given in to justifying why I should be allowed to discuss the topic rather than just discussing it. So I'm going skip past nailing down terms that have already proven unhelpful and try to get back on topic.
Fortunately, we can cut this whole tangent short with the reasonable assumption that any change that FFG makes to the established L5R setting will have a point. If it helps, I can add that any change will have a point from FFG's perspective . Even so, the point of a change is separate from (although not totally unrelated to) whether customers like or understand it. Furthermore, any prospective change worth talking about ITT will have a point that we can understand regardless of whether we like it.
We can also reasonably assume that (a) FFG bought this IP because they think the brand is strong enough to appeal to a wider audience than it does in its current form and (b) the overarching point of any change FFG makes will be to broaden the customer base. From there, the question becomes what is the best approach to change?
Here's the main dilemma: The dense if convoluted storyline of L5R has certainly contributed to its brand strength. But it has also contributed to the insularity of its customer base. How can FFG preserve the advantages of 20+ years of development while also shedding the disadvantages?
Edited by Manchu