I'd like to see them make cycles for all sorts of eras, even 1st Day of Thunder and redoing 2nd Day of Thunder. I thought that L5R had too much rehashing of the same ideas and they personalities were often not as interesting versions of the original main characters. Everytime they brought back someone like Mitsu, Kokujin, Icuhiban, Toku, Akodo Kage etc it was a major shot in the arm for the story.

1) Same or similar number of cards per core and big box, same maximum cardpool: similar cycle period to Netrunner

2) Increased number of cards per core and big box, same maximum cardpool: cycling period is greatly reduced (not probable, but not impossible)

3) Increased number of cards per core and big box, increased maximum cardpool: similar cycle period to Netrunner

4) Same or similar number of cards per core and big box, increased maximum cardpool: similar cycle period to Netrunner: increased cycle period (highly doubtful)

I'd say the odds are about 35% - 15% - 45% - 5%

Yeah, they are not increasing the number of cards in the core and big boxes. They are going to treat this the same as any other LCG in terms of distribution. There are some variances in contents, but it is hardly a significant amount.

It is going to be fascinating to see L5R veterans deal with a reduced card pool to what they are used to.

What if FFG just decides to do something different with L5R because of the story? I could see deluxe boxes essentially similar to Lord of the Rings: setting the stage for the upcoming cycle. However, I'd rather there was many more cycles of packs before a new deluxe story box rotated out the previous one.

There would still be room for faction deluxe boxes that form the basis of the clans. I'd rather see fewer unique characters in these besides very iconic or important story characters. Rather, unique items and locations seem like better cards because of whole "age" issue.

What if FFG just decides to do something different with L5R because of the story? I could see deluxe boxes essentially similar to Lord of the Rings: setting the stage for the upcoming cycle. However, I'd rather there was many more cycles of packs before a new deluxe story box rotated out the previous one.

There would still be room for faction deluxe boxes that form the basis of the clans. I'd rather see fewer unique characters in these besides very iconic or important story characters. Rather, unique items and locations seem like better cards because of whole "age" issue.

Yeah, deluxe boxes linked to an adjacent cycle is something they could do without altering the business model at all. I think my preference would be for big boxes being climactic throwdowns rather than setting the stage, but either way could work. I could also see a box+cycle+box story, then a standalone cycle of some kind (a small story, or non-story "themed" cycle?), then a new cycle of box+cycle+box. I still kind of doubt they'll switch to rotating out deluxe boxes for story reasons, though. I think it's a lot more likely that if there are stories running in various products, they're just going to get mixed on the table; rolling rotation doesn't mesh well with clean story breaks.

Also, extra deluxe boxes aren't unprecedented. LotR has a line of Saga boxes that are released alongside the main deluxe+cycle routine. I rather doubt we'll see these for L5R for a variety of reasons (not least being the way deluxe boxes interact with rotation, which doesn't affect LotR), but they're not unheard of.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

"Soul of"is an option. So is, "you can;t pick Shiba Bob for the new Emerald Champion, because he's been dead for a thousand years. But you can have him named a Fortune if you like."

I doubt soul of is going to be a thing in FFG's game. They tend not to produce mechanically identical cards, simply because card slots are at such a premium in the LCG model. Likewise for Experienced: They've had plenty of opportunities to do experienced characters or something like them across their various games, but seem to prefer just making identically named characters mutually unique.

Unless soul of came to mean something other than "I am a reprint of Doji Bob" later in the game's life?

What if FFG just decides to do something different with L5R because of the story? I could see deluxe boxes essentially similar to Lord of the Rings: setting the stage for the upcoming cycle. However, I'd rather there was many more cycles of packs before a new deluxe story box rotated out the previous one.

There would still be room for faction deluxe boxes that form the basis of the clans. I'd rather see fewer unique characters in these besides very iconic or important story characters. Rather, unique items and locations seem like better cards because of whole "age" issue.

Yeah, deluxe boxes linked to an adjacent cycle is something they could do without altering the business model at all. I think my preference would be for big boxes being climactic throwdowns rather than setting the stage, but either way could work. I could also see a box+cycle+box story, then a standalone cycle of some kind (a small story, or non-story "themed" cycle?), then a new cycle of box+cycle+box. I still kind of doubt they'll switch to rotating out deluxe boxes for story reasons, though. I think it's a lot more likely that if there are stories running in various products, they're just going to get mixed on the table; rolling rotation doesn't mesh well with clean story breaks.

Also, extra deluxe boxes aren't unprecedented. LotR has a line of Saga boxes that are released alongside the main deluxe+cycle routine. I rather doubt we'll see these for L5R for a variety of reasons (not least being the way deluxe boxes interact with rotation, which doesn't affect LotR), but they're not unheard of.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

The named versus unnamed issue will be based on what happens with Followers in the new game. If they still exist in a similar form, then most characters will probably be named. Otherwise, we'll probably see some sort of mixture. However, I expect far more named characters than what aGoT does. Also, I'd expect that most unnamed characters are lower caste too, so many merchant class and ashigaru guys running around with some monks, sohei, wave men, ronin, and evil barbarian gaijin

Are any of the LCG lines exactly similar. They seem to have general similarities like deluxe boxes and cycles of six packs, but they all seem to be tailored to their individual universe. Makes me wonder what twist FFG will make with L5R's schedule.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

It's not as if every named personality amounted to much in CCG L5R anyhow...

Let's pick a single set- a DTP set, just to keep things amusing.

In The Shadow's Embrace, Crab alone got:

Chiisai (an elephant. A literal pachyderm)

Hida Bakari

Hiruma Hikazu

Hiruma Nikaru XP.

Kaiu Fumiko

Kuni Renyu

Yasuki Ikke.

Of these seven, Renyu, Nikaru, Fumiko, and Chiisai had appearances in fiction that anyone would remember- Fumiko appeared in some flavor texts (like, two), Nikaru and Renyu were both the Experienced Version poster boys for a bit (Renyu until the bitter end), and Chiisai was the "let's make the Story Team write about this friggin' elephant for fun" playerbase option.

Of the seven Phoenix, like, ONE ended up appearing elsewhere in fiction. Ditto for the Crane. The Dragon had their shirtless female Togashi keep popping up due to player choices and XP versions, and nothing else. One Lion out of six. One Mantis. One Scorpion. One Spider.

So with the LCG model, could be everybody gets a name- the amount of attention individual characters got could be decidedly uneven in any event.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

It's not as if every named personality amounted to much in CCG L5R anyhow...

Yeah, I know.

There's a usability advantage to naming unique characters and not naming non-unique characters. It's a handy learning device for new players: "This guy has a name, so he's unique and you can only have one," is more intuitive than, "That little icon by his name means he's unique and you can only have one." Likewise, "This is guy is a Scorpion Samurai. You can have a bunch of him," is more intuitive than, "This guy has a name, so he's an individual, but you can have as many copies in play as you like."

With the relatively small amount of fiction I expect FFG to turn out, it's not like they'll need an army of named characters, and there's also nothing to prevent naming a Scorpion Samurai (for the example above) when he appears in fiction. A quick search shows 61 unique characters in AGoT's core set. That seems like it would be plenty to work with for fiction.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

It's not as if every named personality amounted to much in CCG L5R anyhow...

Yeah, I know.

There's a usability advantage to naming unique characters and not naming non-unique characters. It's a handy learning device for new players: "This guy has a name, so he's unique and you can only have one," is more intuitive than, "That little icon by his name means he's unique and you can only have one." Likewise, "This is guy is a Scorpion Samurai. You can have a bunch of him," is more intuitive than, "This guy has a name, so he's an individual, but you can have as many copies in play as you like."

With the relatively small amount of fiction I expect FFG to turn out, it's not like they'll need an army of named characters, and there's also nothing to prevent naming a Scorpion Samurai (for the example above) when he appears in fiction. A quick search shows 61 unique characters in AGoT's core set. That seems like it would be plenty to work with for fiction.

The difference too is that aGoT already has the basis of fiction to work from rather than L5R and the emphasis on an ever increasing and changing story line. Adaptation versus continuation. Yes, I know that aGoT might have a new book(s) some future decade from now.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

It's not as if every named personality amounted to much in CCG L5R anyhow...

Yeah, I know.

There's a usability advantage to naming unique characters and not naming non-unique characters. It's a handy learning device for new players: "This guy has a name, so he's unique and you can only have one," is more intuitive than, "That little icon by his name means he's unique and you can only have one." Likewise, "This is guy is a Scorpion Samurai. You can have a bunch of him," is more intuitive than, "This guy has a name, so he's an individual, but you can have as many copies in play as you like."

With the relatively small amount of fiction I expect FFG to turn out, it's not like they'll need an army of named characters, and there's also nothing to prevent naming a Scorpion Samurai (for the example above) when he appears in fiction. A quick search shows 61 unique characters in AGoT's core set. That seems like it would be plenty to work with for fiction.

The difference too is that aGoT already has the basis of fiction to work from rather than L5R and the emphasis on an ever increasing and changing story line. Adaptation versus continuation. Yes, I know that aGoT might have a new book(s) some future decade from now.

I'm not sure what your argument is, other than that AGoT and L5R are different. Which, of course they are. But I'm not sure why that difference means FFG couldn't do 60ish named and unique characters in L5R's core set, as well as 40 ish non-unique unnamed characters to fill out decks with basic abilities.

If anything, I would say a new story launching would need fewer named characters than a game where people who are fans of the books and shows are going to be looking for their favorite characters, even if they're relatively minor. Bear in mind they can always add more unique characters in expansions, and I'm sure they will.

I think we're probably going to see fewer unique characters in general, because of the lower card counts in FFG's model. Whether this means there will be a lot of unnamed personalities in the game remains to be seen, but the normal practice across FFG's lines, I believe, is for named characters to be unique, and non-uniques to be unnamed.

It's not as if every named personality amounted to much in CCG L5R anyhow...

Yeah, I know.

There's a usability advantage to naming unique characters and not naming non-unique characters. It's a handy learning device for new players: "This guy has a name, so he's unique and you can only have one," is more intuitive than, "That little icon by his name means he's unique and you can only have one." Likewise, "This is guy is a Scorpion Samurai. You can have a bunch of him," is more intuitive than, "This guy has a name, so he's an individual, but you can have as many copies in play as you like."

With the relatively small amount of fiction I expect FFG to turn out, it's not like they'll need an army of named characters, and there's also nothing to prevent naming a Scorpion Samurai (for the example above) when he appears in fiction. A quick search shows 61 unique characters in AGoT's core set. That seems like it would be plenty to work with for fiction.

The difference too is that aGoT already has the basis of fiction to work from rather than L5R and the emphasis on an ever increasing and changing story line. Adaptation versus continuation. Yes, I know that aGoT might have a new book(s) some future decade from now.

I'm not sure what your argument is, other than that AGoT and L5R are different. Which, of course they are. But I'm not sure why that difference means FFG couldn't do 60ish named and unique characters in L5R's core set, as well as 40 ish non-unique unnamed characters to fill out decks with basic abilities.

If anything, I would say a new story launching would need fewer named characters than a game where people who are fans of the books and shows are going to be looking for their favorite characters, even if they're relatively minor. Bear in mind they can always add more unique characters in expansions, and I'm sure they will.

Part of that entirely depends on how you see flavor and depth in a game. I'd much rather have a card like Shosuro Ozu than some generic ninja spy. No, I don't mean the real ninja spy, although the real one does present the opportunity for non-named character. However, he/she/it is also a mysterious ninja so it can fit within the flavor of the game easily.

Part of that entirely depends on how you see flavor and depth in a game. I'd much rather have a card like Shosuro Ozu than some generic ninja spy. No, I don't mean the real ninja spy, although the real one does present the opportunity for non-named character. However, he/she/it is also a mysterious ninja so it can fit within the flavor of the game easily.

The usability argument is still the more important one. Even from a pure story standpoint, every character having a name for the sake of having a name is silly, and as pointed out, it's not like there will be a shortage of named characters. Names are part of how we as audiences distinguish important characters from not, regardless of medium. 100 "important" characters in a core box? Too many.

Although if they do change this practice for the FFG version, I rather hope they do refer to them as characters instead of personalities, because Mysterious Ninja is not a personality, but could be a minor character.

A potential problem with NOT naming is that at some point...you run out of descriptors to use. Even with cards being much rarer, at some point, if you want a Scorpion Ninja deck to be eventually possible, you need to print a goodly number of them, and you run out of different ways to say "Scorpion Ninja". Early on, not too likely to be an issue, but it could get pretty troublesome in the long term. In AEG's later years, followers had to reach more and more to find (kind of, vaguely, but not really) workable names.

There are likely better ways to distinguish uniques and non-uniques than "has a name" and "has a title". Especially if FFG want to keep the option of uniques with title-like names (eg, to use examples from AEG's history - "The Hodded Ronin", "The Abbot", etc).

Well you could print a card named Shosuro Shinobi, Bayushi Saboteur, Soshi Windwisper, and what ever comes to your mind.

However if they ever make generic personas for each clan I hope the give them a trait like. "May be included 6 times in you deck." and put as many copies in the box.

Lion Paragon

Crane Artisan

Phoenix Ishiken

Dragon Tattooed Monk

Unicorn Death Priest

Crab Berserker

Scorpion Shinobi

Or they make something like that for every family.

But I think I would rather like to see named personalities in the future.

And please stop printing Elephants and War Dogs as personalities. Make them Follower but personalities should have a names.

A potential problem with NOT naming is that at some point...you run out of descriptors to use. Even with cards being much rarer, at some point, if you want a Scorpion Ninja deck to be eventually possible, you need to print a goodly number of them, and you run out of different ways to say "Scorpion Ninja". Early on, not too likely to be an issue, but it could get pretty troublesome in the long term. In AEG's later years, followers had to reach more and more to find (kind of, vaguely, but not really) workable names.

There are likely better ways to distinguish uniques and non-uniques than "has a name" and "has a title". Especially if FFG want to keep the option of uniques with title-like names (eg, to use examples from AEG's history - "The Hodded Ronin", "The Abbot", etc).

I think the definite articles mark those characters as ones who would also be unique under this model. "A Hooded Ronin" would be non-unique, although it would probably just be "Hooded Ronin," as indefinite articles tend to be dropped in...really every card game I can think of, when referring to characters (or whatever the card type is) who aren't unique individuals. It's a very natural use of language (for English speakers) which is what makes it intuitive. Of course Shoju Bob is unique. Of course Shoju Ninja aren't. There's only one Shoju Bob, but many Shoju Ninja.

It also wouldn't be the only way they're distinguished. As noted, FFG marks unique characters with a specific icon before their name, in addition to (almost always) using this naming convention.

The name and icon matching is simply a usability tool. It's like giving each clan a distinctive background design -- you don't technically *need* it, if the personalities are marked with a clan mon (and in L5R, the clan trait/keyword/whatever it's called as well), but it helps both as a teaching tool and in momentary recognition (assuming consistency).

And please stop printing Elephants and War Dogs as personalities. Make them Follower but personalities should have a names.

I agree with the animals part for sure.

I'd be content with the distinction between followers and unnamed personalities being that followers are groups and personalities are individuals, as a rule. Like, you can have in individual Shosuro Ninja as a Personality, and a Shosuro Ninja Clan as a follower card. I can just imagine the screaming if they called them, "Shosuro Ninjas" or "Lion Samurais," though.

You ignored the bigger issue, which is (again) that there are only so many ways of saying "Bayushi Ninja" before you get into ridiculous card names. A problem L5R followers (a much less common card type!) have been afflicted with for quite some time now.

I mean, at some point, after enough monthly packs and cycles, - and this is something we've seen with followers in AEG's version - we'll have Elite Bayushi Shinobi, Veteran Bayushi Shinobi, Senior Bayushi Shinobi, Master Bayushi Shinobi, and so forth, which is frankly really cumbersome just to say we don't give them name.

Not a short-term problem, but should be a long-term consideration. And, quite honestly, somethign that strike me as a bigger loss for the game (having cumbersome annoying names all over the place) than whatever microscopic gains can be made on the simplicity front by giving generic names to non-uniques.

Wasn't that more caused by a desire to avoid reprints in non-base sets, but at the same time have cards that filled the same role as an older card?

How many cards were jokingly referred to as [Old Strategy/Follower] XP [X]?

I mean, at some point, after enough monthly packs and cycles, - and this is something we've seen with followers in AEG's version - we'll have Elite Bayushi Shinobi, Veteran Bayushi Shinobi, Senior Bayushi Shinobi, Master Bayushi Shinobi, and so forth, which is frankly really cumbersome just to say we don't give them name.

I think that was addressed by Yandia. Each clan has multiple families, which gives you 4 or 5 different ninja right there. You also have synonyms, like shinobi, as well as alternatives like (off the top of my head) saboteur, sneak, assassin, spy, infiltrator, shadow, and more (each of whom would have appropriate art and the Ninja trait). That right there is 32 options out of just basic plug and play two word combinations. To say nothing of card titles where Ninja serves as an adjective (Ninja Vassal, Ninja Acolyte, Ninja Poisoner) or where the card title is unrelated, but implied through art, trait and flavor (Shosuro Actor, say, could be a Ninja).

I'm pretty sure they'll be fine as far as card titles. That's enough for 3 Ninja per 6 pack cycle and Scorpion focused box for...5 or 6 years? In about 5 minutes. And I'm pretty sure the average number of unnamed Scorpion Ninja per cycle/box will be lower, but it'll spike to more than three for cycles or boxes where they're a featured mechanic.

Same goes on all fronts for just about any type of unnamed personality you care to name.

It really isn't a problem.

As far as cumbersome annoying names, I find the AEG's naming practice far more annoying, personally. It's much easier to remember and discuss cards when you don't have to remember the name of the non-unique personality who makes equipment cheaper, because he's simply the, "Lion Blacksmith." Aligning descriptive card titles and thematic abilities is much more accessible than expecting players to identify a card by name when he hits the table, which speeds up gameplay. Different strokes for different folks, but FFG would be wise to tack more toward accessibility and usability.

There will soon be triple digit numbers of named characters, even if non-uniques don't get names. That's plenty, and that many characters will be worth a *lot* of story, with more being released all the time.

Each clan may have multiple family, but in many cases - the Scorpions are the exception - those families are fairly clearly delineated, and most of the trademark professions are restricted to one or two families within the clan. Crane duelists is the Kakita with some Doji ; Crane Courtiers is the opposite. Lion Tacticians is largley an Akodo-and-Ikoma show Dragon Tatooed Monks is a one-family core theme.

Like I said, yeah, it's not a big problem, but then, neither is the one you're "solving". "People don't know what personality they're talking about" and "Personalities get confused about uniqueness" have never, not in twenty years of L5R history, been any sort of even vaguely significant issue. Some new players asked once why "Name" was not unique...and then got the explanation, and never asked again.

It's, quite frankly, a problem that seems to exist largely because you want there to be a problem.

You're trading one set of (at most) very minor inconveniences for another set of equally minor inconveniences.

You're trading one set of (at most) very minor inconveniences for another set of equally minor inconveniences.

I would suggest that non-unique characters not having individual names doesn't even rise to the level of inconvenience. It's a matter of taste. It doesn't actually inconvenience anyone that "Lion Blacksmith" isn't Akodo Chet, or whatever. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to prefer they have names, but let's call it just that: A preference.

L5R is a complex game. LCGs likewise, but I really do expect FFG to make great strides in making the game accessible to more players. That's one area in which they can easily do so, at what is a small cost to theme for some players (as I said, I find it more thematic for an ability to reflect the card title, rather than appear on random Rokugan name #73, with movers and shakers -- aka unique cards -- getting names). "The game will be easier for new players to learn and smoother to play and discuss," are pragmatic usability issues. Prioritizing this, likewise, is a preference, but also removes an actual barrier to teaching new players the game.

Taking a bigger picture view, I expect FFG to make *many* such seemingly minor changes in the name of improving accessibility, that when taken as a whole will result in a much more approachable game that will live on for many years.

I will grant you I'm trading one thing for another, but those things are not equal.

But that's just it. You're constantly repeating that this makes the game more accessible to new player like some self-evident major truth, but it isn't. At most, if it's an improvement, it's a laughably minor one, because uniqueness has never been an issue or a source of confusion.

You label the things you don't like (that's preference) as problems over flimsy excuses that don't stand up to the test of actual L5R experience (uniqueness vs named personality has never been an issue), and expect everyone else to accept your word that it is a problem.

Well no, we don't. You're making problems out of empty air to justify saying the game should be set to your preferences.

The problem I raised about personality names is about as serious as the one you raised about people being supposedly "confused" about personalities being unique or not. In both cases, they're "problems" that exist only because they agree with our own pet preferences.

Learning processes are faster when paired with devices like pattern recognition (in this case, units named/unnamed = unique/non-unique). This is well-established science in education, user interfaces, and a variety of other fields. Is it true for everyone? No, of course not. But it's true for enough people for it to remove a barrier in learning the game and acquiring skill and speed at playing, which makes it more likely for players to stick with it.

Likewise, symbolic connection is an important learning aid. In this example, something called, "Shosuro Ninja" likely has a sneaky ability, and if the ability is well designed to match the card title -- i.e. reflects how a Ninja might behave or what he might do in the mind of the user -- it will be easier to habituate that mental connection. Multiply that improved process by however many non-unique personalities there are. It's a shorter period of time to card retention for many learners, whereas few will find a variety of foreign-sounding names that may or may not be all that distinct to be much of a learning aid. Again, something well established by research in a variety of fields, particularly in user interfaces (think icons on your desk top) and in education, two fields very relevant to game design.

You're welcome to claim that it's never an issue, and that it wouldn't make the game easier for anyone, but evidence doesn't really bear that out. We could quibble over percentages, and how *much* it matters to the process of learning the game, but it does matter. (And "microscopic" might as well be zero, for the purposes of discussion.)

On the other hand, missing that the "Lion Blacksmith" is not named "Akodo Chet" (name intentionally silly), or wishing he is won't make the game harder for anyone to learn.

Thus they're different, and which one is more important is a matter of our respective priorities. I never said that your preference for names didn't matter at all, simply that not following FFG's model in other games is sacrificing a learning tool that makes the game more accessible (based on many, many models of the way people learn across a huge variety of situations), though granted to some unknown percentage of potential players. I also said that I believe it's likely that FFG will take up this practice for L5R, as it's been in play across literally every single LCG they've produced, with relatively few exceptions.

The part that reflects my preference -- that unnamed characters with mechanics that clearly reflect who those characters are is actually the more thematic option -- is a wash with your preference. And sure, you could say, "But all of L5Rdom agrees with me!" Except 1) I'm sure not *all* of L5Rdom does. And 2) I can as easily say, but "All of the potential new players agree with me!" (which would also be not true). Neither one of us can prove it, just as you can't prove that there are no gamers out there who might have been L5R players, except they never overcame the many barriers to learning the game. On the flipside, learning and cognitive behavior in people suggests that there are at least some players who did not learn L5R to the degree of proficiency needed to hook them because of its complexity. That's not unique to L5R -- both more and less complex games can say the same. But it nonetheless is a real effect, and diminishing L5R's complexity in minor ways like this does lower the barrier to entry.

Arguably, what's gained by making the game more accessible in this and a host of other ways and gaining new players on the front end might be balanced, or even overshadowed by losing players due to diminished thematic investment on the back end. As said, I don't agree that this case represents reduced theme, but even if I agree that it does, neither of us knows how that balances out. But then, that wasn't an argument you made.

Finally, there's the point of emotional investment. As in, "L5R doesn't do it that way," or, "That's not L5R." Well, there's a lot of things that L5R doesn't do that it will, and a lot that it does that it won't in FFG's version. So it's kind of a non-starter.

We prioritize various aspects of the game differently, but "easier to learn," and, "more thematic" (again, stipulating that naming every single minor personality actually is such) are not arguments on the same axis, thus not equal. A thing can be both easier to learn and more thematic. Likewise, a thing can be both harder to learn and more thematic. It doesn't have be a trade off.

You're the one who was dismissive regarding "microscopic learning gains," whereas I happily engaged your theme issue by pointing out that it seemed more thematic to me and was my preference insofar as theme to have a somewhat smaller cast of named characters who are unique, while an additional cast of unnamed characters who are identical in play be referred to by some profession or what have you, so I don't have 3 Akodo Chets on my board.

But that's just it. You're constantly repeating that this makes the game more accessible to new player like some self-evident major truth, but it isn't. At most, if it's an improvement, it's a laughably minor one, because uniqueness has never been an issue or a source of confusion.

You label the things you don't like (that's preference) as problems over flimsy excuses that don't stand up to the test of actual L5R experience (uniqueness vs named personality has never been an issue), and expect everyone else to accept your word that it is a problem.

Well no, we don't. You're making problems out of empty air to justify saying the game should be set to your preferences.

The problem I raised about personality names is about as serious as the one you raised about people being supposedly "confused" about personalities being unique or not. In both cases, they're "problems" that exist only because they agree with our own pet preferences.

Pretty much agree with all this. Naming cards with generic names like Bayushi Bushi would take quite a lot from the theme and character development of the game. Which is one of L5R's unique selling points.

EDIT: Not to mention that it doesn't solve any problem that exists. There is no evidence whatsoever that names of personalities have been a cause in stopping people playing the game. In all my 15 years of being involved with L5r, i never ever heard someone complain about that before. A bit of a red herring.

Learning processes are faster when paired with devices like pattern recognition (in this case, units named/unnamed = unique/non-unique). This is well-established science in education, user interfaces, and a variety of other fields. Is it true for everyone? No, of course not. But it's true for enough people for it to remove a barrier in learning the game and acquiring skill and speed at playing, which makes it more likely for players to stick with it.

Likewise, symbolic connection is an important learning aid. In this example, something called, "Shosuro Ninja" likely has a sneaky ability, and if the ability is well designed to match the card title -- i.e. reflects how a Ninja might behave or what he might do in the mind of the user -- it will be easier to habituate that mental connection. Multiply that improved process by however many non-unique personalities there are. It's a shorter period of time to card retention for many learners, whereas few will find a variety of foreign-sounding names that may or may not be all that distinct to be much of a learning aid. Again, something well established by research in a variety of fields, particularly in user interfaces (think icons on your desk top) and in education, two fields very relevant to game design.

You're welcome to claim that it's never an issue, and that it wouldn't make the game easier for anyone, but evidence doesn't really bear that out. We could quibble over percentages, and how *much* it matters to the process of learning the game, but it does matter. (And "microscopic" might as well be zero, for the purposes of discussion.)

On the other hand, missing that the "Lion Blacksmith" is not named "Akodo Chet" (name intentionally silly), or wishing he is won't make the game harder for anyone to learn.

Thus they're different, and which one is more important is a matter of our respective priorities. I never said that your preference for names didn't matter at all, simply that not following FFG's model in other games is sacrificing a learning tool that makes the game more accessible (based on many, many models of the way people learn across a huge variety of situations), though granted to some unknown percentage of potential players. I also said that I believe it's likely that FFG will take up this practice for L5R, as it's been in play across literally every single LCG they've produced, with relatively few exceptions.

The part that reflects my preference -- that unnamed characters with mechanics that clearly reflect who those characters are is actually the more thematic option -- is a wash with your preference. And sure, you could say, "But all of L5Rdom agrees with me!" Except 1) I'm sure not *all* of L5Rdom does. And 2) I can as easily say, but "All of the potential new players agree with me!" (which would also be not true). Neither one of us can prove it, just as you can't prove that there are no gamers out there who might have been L5R players, except they never overcame the many barriers to learning the game. On the flipside, learning and cognitive behavior in people suggests that there are at least some players who did not learn L5R to the degree of proficiency needed to hook them because of its complexity. That's not unique to L5R -- both more and less complex games can say the same. But it nonetheless is a real effect, and diminishing L5R's complexity in minor ways like this does lower the barrier to entry.

Arguably, what's gained by making the game more accessible in this and a host of other ways and gaining new players on the front end might be balanced, or even overshadowed by losing players due to diminished thematic investment on the back end. As said, I don't agree that this case represents reduced theme, but even if I agree that it does, neither of us knows how that balances out. But then, that wasn't an argument you made.

Finally, there's the point of emotional investment. As in, "L5R doesn't do it that way," or, "That's not L5R." Well, there's a lot of things that L5R doesn't do that it will, and a lot that it does that it won't in FFG's version. So it's kind of a non-starter.

We prioritize various aspects of the game differently, but "easier to learn," and, "more thematic" (again, stipulating that naming every single minor personality actually is such) are not arguments on the same axis, thus not equal. A thing can be both easier to learn and more thematic. Likewise, a thing can be both harder to learn and more thematic. It doesn't have be a trade off.

You're the one who was dismissive regarding "microscopic learning gains," whereas I happily engaged your theme issue by pointing out that it seemed more thematic to me and was my preference insofar as theme to have a somewhat smaller cast of named characters who are unique, while an additional cast of unnamed characters who are identical in play be referred to by some profession or what have you, so I don't have 3 Akodo Chets on my board.

Not trying to be rude. Your posts could really do with some brevity.

You put forward so much in terms of size of posts, but i always find it conveys so little.

Less is more as they say

Not trying to be rude. Your posts could really do with some brevity.

You put forward so much in terms of size of posts, but i always find it conveys so little.

Less is more as they say

Eh, too many years paid by the word.

It's still an extra step in the process for me to trim my writing to where it needs to be thanks to that, which is a pain when I've transitioned to being paid by project.

And seriously, if you weren't trying to be rude, you could've left out, "And conveys so little."

In the interest of brevity.