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.

Have you ever heard someone say it's too complex, and not detail the reasons? I have. Many times.

Dovetailing and introducing redundancy into learning processes reduces complexity. This is a small reduction, granted. But many small reductions can be as powerful as a few sweeping changes.

I don't think there's anything to be gained in changing the naming convention. It may be argued that it reduces complexity (something very flimsy, that is tied both in individual preferences and personal characteristics of the player(s) ), but it also creates a pair of very real, very big problems. One was already mentioned - the exhaustion of synonyms. With every new edition, you'll need to come up with a synonym for "shugenja" (for example)... and it would invariably get very silly, as you will quickly be forced to use words that don't fit the setting. I mean, anyone looking forward for "Isawa Firebender"? Or "Moto Necromancer"?
The second problem was briefly mentioned by Yandia:

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.

As you have an exhaustion of generic names, you'll need to alter fundamental rules of the LCG in order to allow functional decks to exist. The moment you need to create exceptions all over the place in order to accommodate a mere style preference, is (IMHO) a sure sure sign that your preferences don't serve the overall game.

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.

As you have an exhaustion of generic names, you'll need to alter fundamental rules of the LCG in order to allow functional decks to exist. The moment you need to create exceptions all over the place in order to accommodate a mere style preference, is (IMHO) a sure sure sign that your preferences don't serve the overall game.

I'm not sure I follow the leap from Yandia's suggestion that they hope for a specific mechanic to the presumption that any possible unnamed non-unique personalities require additional mechanics to be functional. Unnamed personalities exist in L5R *now* and don't require exceptional mechanics.

If they didn't have Yandia's proposed trait, they would operate perfectly well within established game rules (and presumably, FFG's version).

A named character could just as easily have Yandia's proposed trait. After all, if you can have 3 of the same named character, why not a trait that allows 6 of one in particular?

Edit: To bring this back around to topic a bit, one nice thing is that if any cards *do* get this trait, you can count on FFG to include 6 copies in pack. Although really, I'd rather just have 3x and another card at 3x.

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.

Have you ever heard someone say it's too complex, and not detail the reasons? I have. Many times.

Dovetailing and introducing redundancy into learning processes reduces complexity. This is a small reduction, granted. But many small reductions can be as powerful as a few sweeping changes.

Too complex yes, have heard a lot. And I have been definitely one in favor of reducing game complexity. There is plenty of redundancy and in fairness to the design team, they had started to weed a lot of it out.

Changing the title of a card is not reducing any redundancy. Whether it is Bayushi Bob or Bayushi Bodyguard it doesn't make a difference. If you are trying to save on keywords, by using card titles that imply their role instead of keywords like Shosuro Shinobi, Shosuro Spy or Shosuro Ninja, it doesn't work, otherwise your cards that intend key off them will be ambiguous, or will require text like if you control a Spy,Saboteur or Ninja do X, which actually is a root cause of redundancy (the reason, Absent, Tireless and Home were intrrduced). Unless of course, you want 25 personalities in your deck with no abilities/the same ability called Bayushi Ninja. Which isn't the best use of design space and card slots for a set.

Again, in all my years of playing teaching people L5R, it was never the card titles that was a sticking point, it was usually the amount of card types, when you could play them and the dual deck concept. The confusion about when you could attack or not and then having to explain assignment& resolution was another.

Finally, in L5R, naming has never ever been redundant space. They have always been characters in a story and a tangible representation of a samurai. People respond well to characters, and actually become quite fond of them, whether it be their ability, stats, storyline or sometimes name. Imagine if Toku's name was something generic, like "Unaligned Ronin" of which you could have 20 in a deck. You would lose the character and his story.

Used to be that non-uniques who were popular would graduate to experienced uniques. It was a goal people had for their favourite non-unique personalities. Sometimes it is nice to see a personality grow from a low ranking non-unique bushi to clan champ then to tainted monster. (Bayushi Paneki for example.) If you try to artifically engineer this too much, by designers selecting and creating uniques all the time, then you lose some of that player interaction. Designers used to like to know what personalities people would like to see get experienced versions.

Changing the title of a card is not reducing any redundancy.

I'm saying it increases redundancy, but in a positive way. There's the rules based icon that indicates uniqueness (see any FFG for an example of this), but it's easy to overlook, or forget when you're learning the various aspects of cards. This specific redundancy would be a mnemonic device to help new players distinguish between unique and non-unique characters -- indeed to remember there *is* a distinction as they're learning the game. You may not agree that's necessary, but the point of the suggestion was not to reduce redundancy.

I'm also not saying FFG should use card titles for keywords, nor have they ever done such a thing. The foo rule in L5R, as I recall, caused a lot of problems. Nothing about the mechanics of gameplay change at all in the model I'm talking about. Re: traits, I simply said that, in response to worries about running out of card titles for Ninja, that the card title of a non-unique Ninja needn't explicitly reference that the card is a Ninja, as it can be made clear in his Ninja keyword. Cards that are titled XX Ninja or Ninja XX or whatever would also have that keyword, but it also allows you to title a Ninja card "Shosuro Actor," for example, while still being clear via the keyword (and likely art, flavor, and hopefully ability) that the card is a Ninja.

Used to be that non-uniques who were popular would graduate to experienced uniques. It was a goal people had for their favourite non-unique personalities. Sometimes it is nice to see a personality grow from a low ranking non-unique bushi to clan champ then to tainted monster. (Bayushi Paneki for example.) If you try to artifically engineer this too much, by designers selecting and creating uniques all the time, then you lose some of that player interaction. Designers used to like to know what personalities people would like to see get experienced versions.

Well, I'd prefer the game to be more designer driven, myself, so this seems like a win to me. I'm quite aware we're on opposite sides of that argument.

At any rate, this is almost certainly another issue where AEG's L5R and FFG's design practices are going to collide. Maybe it goes one way, maybe it goes the other, maybe it winds up somewhere in between. We'll see!

Now now, you can't presume that everything you propose is FFG's view on things

Now now, you can't presume that everything you propose is FFG's view on things

I don't, of course. I'm sure some of my guesses will be wrong. But it's not crazy to look at a design approach in every LCG they've made and say, "You know? They might just do it here, too." It's like finding out JJ Abrams is making the next Star Wars and going, "Yep. Probably going to be lens flare." (Although that's such a tired joke by now that he may be over it.)

I *might* be wrong on Netrunner, as I haven't played it in a while, but I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure unique "characters" there get proper names, while non-uniques don't. Even thought they're not actually called characters in that game.

Now now, you can't presume that everything you propose is FFG's view on things

I *might* be wrong on Netrunner, as I haven't played it in a while, but I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure unique "characters" there get proper names, while non-uniques don't. Even thought they're not actually called characters in that game.

A selection of Unique Netrunner cards, as shown by the diamond beside the name (which indicates one on the field at any one time) or the 'limit 1 per deck' text. Of course IDs are one per player as well.

Assets! That's what I was going for.

Same for Resource: Connections runner side.

A quick surf over to cardgamedb's database and the theory seems to hold: Cards that represent characters in the setting get names if they're unique. If not, they're "Film Critic," or "Inside Man," or "Paparazzi."

Also, thanks for posting a pic of the uniqueness icon in practice, Internutt. It looks a bit different in every FFG game, but it's always a little symbol to the left of the card title, for anyone unfamiliar.

Yeah, the unique dot at this point I would assume has become the industry standard, and will be applied to the new L5R.

And I fail to see the issue with generic names for generic cards. It seems fairly logical.

Here's a list of AGoT characters (Stark characters from the 2nd edition Core Set), find the unique ones: Arya Stark, Bran Stark, Catelyn Stark, Direwolf Pup, Eddard Stark, Grey Wind, Robb Stark, Sansa Stark, Summer, Tumblestone Knight, Vanguard of the North, Winterfell Steward. And a similar list for locations: Gates of Winterfell, Heart Tree Grove, The Wolfswood.

Whether you agree with BDFlory about its effect on learning the game or not, FFG does use the pattern of named = unique, unnamed = non-unique in all of its LCGs (I've played AGoT, NetRunner, Star Wars and Conquest; I've also played some games of Warhammer, LotR and even CoC). Also, FFG never ran out of generic names for AGoT 1st edition in 13 years* (Core Set, 6 boxes and 12 cycles for the LCG, 5 blocks** and 1 big set for the CCG - there is some overlap between CCG and LCG, but not that much), so they aren't likely to run out any time soon.

* The CCG started in 2002. The change to LCG was in 2008.

** CCG blocks were 1 big set (about 240 cards) and 2 small sets (about 140 cards each).

No one disputes that this is how FFG does it.

What we all dispute is BDFlory's agressive assertions that anything he doesn't like is somehow a problem, but anything others don't like is just their personal preference.

At this point, the only real question is whether FFG want to preserve L5R's tone as a game (so all individual names) or standardize L5R (so individual names for unique only).

No one disputes that this is how FFG does it.

What we all dispute is BDFlory's agressive assertions that anything he doesn't like is somehow a problem, but anything others don't like is just their personal preference.

At this point, the only real question is whether FFG want to preserve L5R's tone as a game (so all individual names) or standardize L5R (so individual names for unique only).

Id presume they do. They didnt buy the IP just to reskin what they have done in other games.

L5r won't be the same, but they will certainly capture the essence of it. I cant see them diluting it down or turning it into a clone.

This whole "debate" reminds me of all the complaints from Star Wars fans about how the new movies won't be the same without the Fox fanfare at the beginning. I really don't think generic names will ruin the tone or turn it into a clone of anything.

Here's a list of AGoT characters (Stark characters from the 2nd edition Core Set), find the unique ones: Arya Stark, Bran Stark, Catelyn Stark, Direwolf Pup, Eddard Stark, Grey Wind, Robb Stark, Sansa Stark, Summer, Tumblestone Knight, Vanguard of the North, Winterfell Steward. And a similar list for locations: Gates of Winterfell, Heart Tree Grove, The Wolfswood.

Whether you agree with BDFlory about its effect on learning the game or not, FFG does use the pattern of named = unique, unnamed = non-unique in all of its LCGs (I've played AGoT, NetRunner, Star Wars and Conquest; I've also played some games of Warhammer, LotR and even CoC). Also, FFG never ran out of generic names for AGoT 1st edition in 13 years* (Core Set, 6 boxes and 12 cycles for the LCG, 5 blocks** and 1 big set for the CCG - there is some overlap between CCG and LCG, but not that much), so they aren't likely to run out any time soon.

* The CCG started in 2002. The change to LCG was in 2008.

** CCG blocks were 1 big set (about 240 cards) and 2 small sets (about 140 cards each).

With regards to the naming convention. Weren't those games that way long before FFG got hold of it? Things like Bodyguard and informer I seem to remember from agot.

Both Netrunner and AGOT are very recognisable to their original inception. They were streamlined and tidied up a lot, but they still have their own identity. I'd expect FFG's L5R to follow that trend

AGOT was always FFG. They just converted from CCG to LCG. In fact, FFG is one of the first licensees of AGOT.

This whole "debate" reminds me of all the complaints from Star Wars fans about how the new movies won't be the same without the Fox fanfare at the beginning. I really don't think generic names will ruin the tone or turn it into a clone of anything.

Change the tone, not ruin it.

Which it would. Not a dramatic change, but a difference.

It's not going to ruin it, and it's not going to be a decisive factor for me either way. I'd prefer them to stick to the all-individual-name approach that has been L5R's, but if they don't, too bad.

It's some of the claims made in support of that change that I take exception with, namely any claim that it's the One Obvious Answer and that seek to dismiss the opposing view as being "just personal preference" or "just about flavor".

There is nothing here but personal preferences, on both sides.

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

Pretty much every card that should have just been a reprint of an old card that already filled the exact same role and wasnt legal in the current arc.

That doesnt really mesh with how the family / gempukku system in l5r works though, unless we're going to say that the establishing world of the setting doesnt really matter, at which point, calling it l5r is kinda meaningless, and they could have gone with Generic Samurai World. .

Its also been explained in multiple rulebook sources forever, Personalities are representative of armies led by someone of similar ability. Its significantly more interesting to play with people who have names than assign "Generic Derpoff Yourclan Samurai" to battle, even for someone who is literally nothing but derpoff yourclan samurai,. There infinitely more memorable as well.

I certainly played decks with Kamoko and Goshi and Shirasu in the wayback machine, not "Otaku Battle Maiden_01", "Shinjo Commander_02" and "Shinjo Magistrate_01".

Im just waiting to play a deck with

Horiuchi Shugenga, Horiuchi Bloodpeaker, Horiuchi Meishodo Shugenja, Moto Shugenja, Moto Water Shugenja, Moto Death Priest, Iuchi Death Priest, Iuchi Water Shugenja

because thats going to be SO much easier to remember than something like Shoan, Lixue, Shahai, Ming Gwok, Karasu, ect. Only not. At all. Ever.

If you are trying to save on keywords, by using card titles that imply their role instead of keywords like Shosuro Shinobi, Shosuro Spy or Shosuro Ninja, it doesn't work

Yup.

​

With regards to the naming convention. Weren't those games that way long before FFG got hold of it? Things like Bodyguard and informer I seem to remember from agot.

Both Netrunner and AGOT are very recognisable to their original inception. They were streamlined and tidied up a lot, but they still have their own identity. I'd expect FFG's L5R to follow that trend

I'm sure there were bodyguards and informers mentioned in the books that never got named, so I suppose you could say that yes, that's an artifact of the source material.

re: the character of Netrunner, I seem to recall some outcry leading up to Netrunner's release about FFG adding factions (classic, as I understand, was pretty much anything goes). Factions weren't a thing in Netrunner, it went against the spirit of the game to restrict the card pool, etc. But FFG went ahead and did factions, and the objections have fallen by the wayside.

I'm reasonably sure that changes FFG makes to L5R are going to be similar. Some people will object, the changes will be much less significant than they're being made out to be, the game will go on to be a success, and objectors will either decide it's not a problem or move on.

Im just waiting to play a deck with

Horiuchi Shugenga, Horiuchi Bloodpeaker, Horiuchi Meishodo Shugenja, Moto Shugenja, Moto Water Shugenja, Moto Death Priest, Iuchi Death Priest, Iuchi Water Shugenja

because thats going to be SO much easier to remember than something like Shoan, Lixue, Shahai, Ming Gwok, Karasu, ect. Only not. At all. Ever.

Horiuchi Shugenja Shinomen Warden

Horiuchi Bloodspeaker Dabbler in Darkness

Horiuchi Meishodo Shugenja Believer in the Old Ways (callback to SWLCG)

Moto Shugenja Callow Disciple

Moto Water Shugenja Master of Tides (Lindsey Stirling shout-out)

Moto Death Priest Devout Death Priest

Iuchi Death Priest Keeper of Gaijin Scrolls

Iuchi Water Shugenja Scryer of Iuchi

Naturally, since names usually come late in the design process, they will generally try to reflect the flavor of what the card is doing. But this is just a sample of names that come to mind when faced with nothing but a basic description. You'll note that very few of them reference the Unicorn Clan; this is because the card template will do that itself. Conceivably, a card named Handmaiden could have been dropped into any House faction in Thrones 2.0, but they went with Targaryen because of the important role Dany's handmaidens play in her story. Same rule applies here.

Im just waiting to play a deck with

Horiuchi Shugenga, Horiuchi Bloodpeaker, Horiuchi Meishodo Shugenja, Moto Shugenja, Moto Water Shugenja, Moto Death Priest, Iuchi Death Priest, Iuchi Water Shugenja

because thats going to be SO much easier to remember than something like Shoan, Lixue, Shahai, Ming Gwok, Karasu, ect. Only not. At all. Ever.

Except you're confusing card names with Traits . Not every, or even many cards with the Shugenja trait need have "Shugenja" in its title; nor do nameless mooks need to tell you which of their clan's families they belong to (sometimes you will be able to tell by their trappings or the mon they are wearing, depending on the art, but this is irrelevant). Your list of names is deliberately repetitive to make a point, but if you stop and think about it, it's not that hard to come up with evocative names for specific types of people in Rokugan. For example:

Horiuchi Shugenja Shinomen Warden

Horiuchi Bloodspeaker Dabbler in Darkness

Horiuchi Meishodo Shugenja Believer in the Old Ways (callback to SWLCG)

Moto Shugenja Callow Disciple

Moto Water Shugenja Master of Tides (Lindsay Stirling shout-out)

Moto Death Priest Devout Death Priest

Iuchi Death Priest Keeper of Gaijin Scrolls

Iuchi Water Shugenja Scryer of Iuchi

Naturally, since names usually come late in the design process, they will generally try to reflect the flavor of what the card is doing. But this is just a sample of names that come to mind when faced with nothing but a basic description. You'll note that very few of them reference the Unicorn Clan; this is because the card template will do that itself. Conceivably, a card named Handmaiden could have been dropped into any faction in Thrones 2.0, but they went with Targaryen because of the important role Dany's handmaidens play in her story. Same rule applies here.

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

With regards to the naming convention. Weren't those games that way long before FFG got hold of it? Things like Bodyguard and informer I seem to remember from agot.

Both Netrunner and AGOT are very recognisable to their original inception. They were streamlined and tidied up a lot, but they still have their own identity. I'd expect FFG's L5R to follow that trend

I'm sure there were bodyguards and informers mentioned in the books that never got named, so I suppose you could say that yes, that's an artifact of the source material.

re: the character of Netrunner, I seem to recall some outcry leading up to Netrunner's release about FFG adding factions (classic, as I understand, was pretty much anything goes). Factions weren't a thing in Netrunner, it went against the spirit of the game to restrict the card pool, etc. But FFG went ahead and did factions, and the objections have fallen by the wayside.

I'm reasonably sure that changes FFG makes to L5R are going to be similar. Some people will object, the changes will be much less significant than they're being made out to be, the game will go on to be a success, and objectors will either decide it's not a problem or move on.

They might also change very little and just tighten up the game mechanics.

The only reason L5R survived as long as it did is it's rich lore and themes. The mechanics themselves had been suffering for quite some time.

Tis kind of obvious to me where the game needs addressing. No point throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Tis kind of obvious to me where the game needs addressing. No point throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I think everybody has their own "obvious" fixes that many other people hate and think are ridiculous.

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

That you can tell them apart in conversation. "Iuchi Kalsang" doesn't tell you anything about the man except that he's an Iuchi, while descriptive names like Sower of Fear can remind players that, "Oh yeah, he's the guy with the Fear effect."

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

Several advantages have been discussed at length, but here's a new one, purely theme and story driven:

It marks significant characters (or potentially significant, given how many named characters there would be even without non-uniques) as significant at a glance. We know who to pay attention to, for the same reason we know to pay attention to the character the camera focuses on and ignore passersby, or that a character in a detective novel who gets a name might be returning, whereas the bellboy who never gets a name probably isn't important.

Even soap operas cap their main cast at around a dozen people. L5R doesn't need a hundred.