Ah, the diplomacy double standard. PCs expect their courtier to be able to change people's mind with a single roll, but consider NPCs doing the same to them mind-control.

1) Past experience for many players is that some GMs can be very heavy-handed or even abusive towards the player or player enjoyment with the use of social rolls (independent of game or system). Skeevy example that too many of us have seen -- "Your character sleeps with him because he beat you on the contested seduction roll... hurhurhurhurhur."

2) There's a thin line between "role playing" and "roll playing" when it comes to driving actions or decisions or "consequences" through simple social rolls, regardless of the directionality between PC and NPC.

3) An NPC is just that, a non-player character, and isn't the "dramatis persona" (to coin a twisted term) of a single actual real person.

The abuse can go both ways, with players arguing they do not have to know how to swing à sword to be a good bushi, therefore they shouldn't be forced to be a good rhetorician to be a good courtier and using their 10k6 roll to push any npcs to ally with him.

But toxic Players and GMs will always exist and while rules could be designed to reduce abuse from rule lawyers, they shouldn't be the only reason. I will voice my support for à system which punishes characters who doesn't want to be swayed by the winner's argument through losses of honor, glory, void points or something similar, making it a choice the players or GM makes, not the dice.

Apocalypse World and the Powered by the Apocalypse games do some interesting things with social conflict. Brennan Taylor's Samurai World is an L5R hack for Apocalypse World, some of the mechanics there aren't the best fit IMO, but basically it offers a carrot and stick approach. To use courtier skills on a fellow PC, the PC can gain experience or be put into danger if they refuse. It is the type of thing that is worth thinking about. How to incentivize players to go with losing a social conflict. Also, as I've said other places, Fate is great for social conflicts, particularly because it allows a losing PC to concede and help define the consequence.

The abuse can go both ways, with players arguing they do not have to know how to swing à sword to be a good bushi, therefore they shouldn't be forced to be a good rhetorician to be a good courtier and using their 10k6 roll to push any npcs to ally with him.

This but let's also role playing a character isn't just about how good the player is. Let's say that a player which is a great rhetorician is player a character with very few social aptitude. That player have to play the character with fewer social aptitude than he's able to, or else, why should a good rhetorician player purchase social skills when he can do it? I never see skill ranks as "Dice pool" but more as the hability of the character. This is where you see a difference between bad player and good player. A good player will take the character limitation in consideration while the bad player will just ignore them.

Back on the topic, I'll add the biggest thing that I want to stay: Clan identity. This is what keeps us playing a clan instead of another. I will include the clan school in the clan identity because it's the system that defines the way the clan works for doing what they are doing. I would also like to have a few generic schools accessible to all clans because it's not true that all Bushis from one clan are trained in Clan specific schools. For this reasons, I would like some generic schools. For example, an archer school, not as good as the Tsuruchi archers but that are better than a Bushi with a few points in Kyujutsu.

On several of the points

Setting : I think that FFG should really focus on the current/LCG setting so that it can really establish and promote its take on the setting rather than generic L5R.

Timeline Neutrality : As above, I'd rather FFG focus on its take and the present day aspect of L5R rather than doing something neutral. Later on, it can publish material to cover the past arcs.

Courtiers, Bushi, and Shugenja : Samurai should definitely be at the center of the game, with Bushi being the most common of the three. However, each needs to have some use in different areas of the game (combat, courts, and the supernatural).

Five Rings : I'd actually rather see the rings or elements independant of the stats used. Why? Well, after reading the various "Book of <Element>", each element should be present in any portion of the game. A courtier should be able to use water, wind, fire, earth, or void to do their job rather than have to focus on a ring from previous editions. If you focused on an element, you would just do that job or task quite differently than someone who uses a different element. In addition, the clan, school, and/or background would also mean that if you used an element and another player used the same element as courtiers, both players wouldn't just seem the same.

Schools and Techniques : This one can be tough to deal with but I'd like the schools to be really focused like they were in 4th but have a little room for some customization. If you haven't taken a look at Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms rpg (the current one, not the d20 one) I love how they did character design. In it, you have to choose two careers to form a character and it can really make for some interesting combinations. FFG could do something similar that involves three: the clan, what type of samurai, and then the family focus.

Mass Battles : I think mass battles should be pretty rare. The issue has to deal with the fact that the players are likely to be different clans so the reasons for them coming together to do a large battle has to be something very important to overcome clan differences.

Courtly Intrigue : I do think that the courts should play more of a role in the game, but I'd also leave it open to the DM or GM to decide. However, I'd like to add the option to split intrigue between high society and low society. High society would be the courts, magistrates, and the intrigue between clans. Low society intrigue would likely involve ashigaru, merchants, gaijin, and so on.

Pillars : The idea of action, intrigue, and the supernatural is a good start even if the most common pillar is action. You could also build the game around the pillars of honor, the samurai, and the clans.

The abuse can go both ways, with players arguing they do not have to know how to swing à sword to be a good bushi, therefore they shouldn't be forced to be a good rhetorician to be a good courtier and using their 10k6 roll to push any npcs to ally with him.

But toxic Players and GMs will always exist and while rules could be designed to reduce abuse from rule lawyers, they shouldn't be the only reason. I will voice my support for à system which punishes characters who doesn't want to be swayed by the winner's argument through losses of honor, glory, void points or something similar, making it a choice the players or GM makes, not the dice.

The solution is to not allow PCs to use flat un-RPed social rolls as "mind control" against NPCs -- rather than to allow NPCs to dominate PCs with those rolls.

The solution to the differences between combat rolls and social rolls is actually to encourage players (including the GM) to give their combat moves some life and description and even narrative, not just treat it like dicing for results on a board game... and to encourage them to treat social rolls the same way.

I'm not suggesting that they be required to act out combat scenes in detail, or be required to act out courtly persuation... rather, I'm suggesting that they describe what they're doing in more detail and in less board-gamey terms than "I'm rolling XkZ to make him like me, what's my target number".

The abuse can go both ways, with players arguing they do not have to know how to swing à sword to be a good bushi, therefore they shouldn't be forced to be a good rhetorician to be a good courtier and using their 10k6 roll to push any npcs to ally with him.

But toxic Players and GMs will always exist and while rules could be designed to reduce abuse from rule lawyers, they shouldn't be the only reason. I will voice my support for à system which punishes characters who doesn't want to be swayed by the winner's argument through losses of honor, glory, void points or something similar, making it a choice the players or GM makes, not the dice.

The solution is to not allow PCs to use flat un-RPed social rolls as "mind control" against NPCs -- rather than to allow NPCs to dominate PCs with those rolls.

The solution to the differences between combat rolls and social rolls is actually to encourage players (including the GM) to give their combat moves some life and description and even narrative, not just treat it like dicing for results on a board game... and to encourage them to treat social rolls the same way.

I'm not suggesting that they be required to act out combat scenes in detail, or be required to act out courtly persuation... rather, I'm suggesting that they describe what they're doing in more detail and in less board-gamey terms than "I'm rolling XkZ to make him like me, what's my target number".

This is obviously not working. The problem with the missing mechnics this that ever play can resort to the, nope I will not believe you comment and than you get a problem either between player and Gm or between player and player cause the big problme here is no mechnics also means no obligation to bear the concequences of the failed roll.

Yes I know what was intend and no it does not work cause no player is giving a **** about the consequences when making a contested social roll.

In addtion to that the roll is not used as a subition of the argument but as a final addtion to it. That means you first go and make you argument and than roll to look how compelling it was. This is how the rolls work in most systems and also in combat. You first describe and than roll to look if it actually worked out and social skills should be no difference here. So if you go for a social roll you make your argument and than roll xkz and look how good you char was.

Also please understand there is no mindcontrol in this game. The social skills are representing your chars abilities to comunicate your ideas to the setting. If your char has a high skill and trait to do this he is not mindcontroling but very convincing and people tend to believe what he says. That is the underlying of these skills and it far often gets ignored only cause people don´t like to give in to other players arguments and just deal with consequences.

So if we concider this I don´t have to prohibit players to mindcontrol Npc or Pc cause there is no mind control in this game just actions and reactions and therefore you should also deal with them in the social part

of the game and not mistread them as mindcontrol.

Referencing Courtiers-

Since the "issues" with them come up a lot, I just gotta say that I think the way they were handled in 4e is just about as good as you can get. Is it perfect? No. But courtier techniques that force certain actions/opinions insure that players cannot just worm their way around the social abilities. It's not mind control; it's social manipulation. As for how NPCs vs. PCs act, roleplaying vs roll playing, whether or not players enjoy interactions as or against courtiers, that comes down to individual tables. You're never going to please everyone.

Social interaction, especially in a setting like L5R is always going to require a certain amount of GM arbitration and should have instances wherein the courtiers can cause people to act/think a certain way. That's their entire purpose. Do people like it? Not necessarily. Who likes being told what to do? Who likes feeling like they're losing even in a minor social conflict? Nobody. But it's still a major element of the setting/an essential part of the mechanics.

Since the "issues" with them come up a lot, I just gotta say that I think the way they were handled in 4e is just about as good as you can get.

I think you are wrong here. The reason is that you allways can get better than something that is non existant. Look in 4th edition there are no rules for social interaction. There is no mechnic which tells me how social interaction is handled and how do I defend myself/ interact with Npcs/ other PCs. All you get is the skills and some vague discribtion what they do. The system is actually not telling you what you really can do with courtier and alos provides no help when you ask yourself which consequneces the rolls have.

Therefore it is not as good as you can get it is actually as bad as you can get cause there are no mechanics for social siuations.

That becomes clear when we look at the combat situations where we have all kinds of rules and variations according to the differences in the circumstances of the situation. This we also need for sooal siuations. We need clear rules and guidelines for them and some way to explain why your action x as the consequence y and not z.

Also please concider that most people don´t complain when I kill them in a duel according to the rules or kill an npc but are going to complain when the same is applied to social rolls. You are responsible for your rolls they are nothing abitary but the display of the abilities of your character and therefore social rolls should have the sma conequence as combat rolls as long as this is not the case the system is not as good as it can get.

Re: Social Interaction Systems

I would like to see something more concrete in the Social Interaction System, not entirely unlike the idea of a Social combat system. Take the Storytelling System of nWoD 2.0 (seen in: God-Machine Chronicle, Vampire: the Requiem 2nd Edition). Social interaction and rolls can cause the infliction of keyworded traits called Tilts. Tilts then impact that character in a positive or negative way, until they are resolved.

It would be easy for L5R RPG to introduce a system similar to this, and tie it to Courtier techniques. This would help reinforce the Three Pillar Approach. In combat, anyone can swing a sword, but it takes a Bushi to do something special with it. In supernatural occurrences, any character can interact with the ghosts and spirits, but only a shugenja can do something with them. In social conflict, any character can speak well, but it takes a Courtier to actually manipulate their rivals and opponents into particular activities.

Create a Social Interaction System which rewards participation and allows Courtier characters to shine as much as Action-Combat Interaction allow a Bushi to shine.

The system doesn't present answers to these questions because, where lethal combat is generally rather black and white, social interactions have a multitude of outcomes. Where physical combat has a rather limited and obvious list of factors that are going to modify it, 100 different NPCs can have 100 different opinions that, to some degree or another, impact how a social situation is going to play out.

That said, there are rules for how to defend in social situations. Each of the social skills lists the skills with which it is opposed. Each of the social techniques that can modify opinion/behavior state what roll you contest them with and what happens in the case of failure. There are also rules for how one interacts with NPCs. If you're worried about giving offense, there's a roll for that. If you want to appear like you believe what you're saying, there's a roll for that. If you want to lie, bribe, intimidate, etc. there are rolls for that. How things play out beyond those rolls are impacted by factors that are unique to a given social situation.

Are the mechanics, in some instances, open/deliberately vague? Yes. They have to be so that they can apply to the incalcuable number of social situations characters could find themselves in. Sometimes, what's left out of mechanics/not quantified can be just as important as what is put in. Take the gossip system. I've seen dozens of GMs attempt to modify it. They've sought to implement rules for stopping a given rumor, tracking a rumor when the source has been obscured w/ a raise, causing a rumor to spread faster, causing people to see certain rumors as facts/lies, etc. In literally every instance of this, adding in one or more such mechanics has resulted in a flawed, abusable gossip system that, in the case of the good GMs, was then rapidly changed back to the RAW version.

A game should have a simple rule for 'how do I put my sword in that guy?'. On the other hand, 'how do I get through this entire party, with its dozens of conversations, the presence of allies/enemies, various political stakes, etc. etc. etc.' is not the sort of thing that can, or should, be laid out in a hard/fast rule. While an etiquette roll should certainly allow for a certain amount of protection, the GM should arbitrate on a case by case basis, dependant on factors that a more structured system isn't going to be able to accomodate.

As for allowing courtiers to shine, I think the major problem in 4e is they really can't until about rank 3 (a couple schools being an exception). That said, I think this design decision was made in hopes that making access to the rank 3 techs difficult would discourage a bunch of the 'courtier is mind control' whining that leads to players complaining about death due to social faux pas. That said, another major issue here is simply adventure/campaign focus. Bushi shine on the battlefield, sure. But how about it court? You create a game focused on intrigue where the social stuff really matters and the stakes are high, and the courtiers already shine.

As for the whole 'players don't complain about dying due to dueling' vs. their complaining about social interactions, I think this boils down to people are fine with going 'fair enough' when they die to damage in a duel, skirmish, whatevs. But having their character offed because they said the wrong thing at the wrong time is much more frustrating. Also, it is generally seen as the GM choosing to kill the PC where, in a duel, the dice fall as they may. I've seen many players lose characters due to breaches of etiquette blowing up in their faces. Generally speaking, they've been no more or less inclined to complain about their characters death than those that got killed in a duel or eaten by a monster.

I agree some rules are needed to keep people from being abusive. Afterall you are most likely not going to get that prim and proper Crane Courtier to abandon all she has ever been taught to aide you in an underhanded shady political manuever to ruin another samurai's life, and cause his seppuku from just making one diplomacy role. Even if your roll was higher, it may only mean you have planted the seed of an idea in her head. Maybe it will only get her to say, "Allow me some time to consider your words." Only to have her go discuss the encounter to her sensei, and her sensei report you to the magistrates. There is more sublty and often more layers of defense, and attack and counter attack to consider in political warfare. This is just one example off the top of my head.

You should definately have clear cut rules for this sort of interaction, because frankly it has potential to create further reaching, and longer lasting ripples in your game than a death by combat, or duel.

Just a thought,

Shinjo Yosama

Ooof, talk about a thread I wish I'd caught when it started, so there wasn't so much to respond to . . . especially since I haaaaaaaaate this forum software and how difficult it makes it to arrange quotations in the way I want. ::sigh::

Hitting a couple of things in brief:

MaxKilljoy, you said "I will say that it was odd, reading about how the Taint had been made non-contagious, and then finding the rules in the base RPG seemingly written for contagious Taint." Flip side is, if I get a book that says "here's the Crab Clan! They've been fighting the Shadowlands for a thousand years because the Taint this awful, corrupting, insidious force!" and then right next to them is a clan that's Team Shadowlands and the Taint isn't contagious . . . I'm going to be hella confused. So put my vote in for timeline neutrality, all the way. It isn't so much about "I need official permission to run my game this way" as it is about making sure you present information to the reader in a way that is explicit about when XYZ applies and when it doesn't. Yes, the RPG lagged behind the CCG/fictions in presenting the current state of the Spider. But at least some of that was because the Spider situation was still so muddy, with so many contradictory elements and their future in the air, that giving a fully neutral version of them was difficult.

Tetsuhiko, you said "Also, the feel of a setting doesn't necessarly need rules to back it." Actually, that's one of the things I like best about a good game system: not that the setting needs rules to back it, but that the rules integrate with the setting so that each reinforces the other. I would hate to see Honor go away as a stat, because then it would basically turn into D&D alignment: a largely meaningless concept that players can and probably will ignore. Having Honor as a stat means you can have clans who literally do draw strength from their Honor . It makes the metaphysics of the setting a real thing, rather than just a paint job over the players' default assumptions.

Regarding courtly stuff -- well, I said my piece on that when I wrote the Imperial Archives chapter. I personally do. not. want. to see an equivalent to the physical combat system, with Fully Suspicious Stance and Stubbornness Wounds and so forth, because that would kill flat dead any sense of flow or emotional realism. I'm in the camp that says this is always going to be a thing negotiated between GM and player, where you say "okay, this guy is very persuasive, but he's also been a complete jerkwad to your PC, so him asking for a favor is going to be harder than usual; on the other hand, he has a really good argument on his side, so." Teveshszat said "There is no mechnic which tells me how social interaction is handled and how do I defend myself/ interact with Npcs/ other PCs." -- but that isn't true; the basics are in there. They just aren't laid out in a coherent block the way combat rules are, and I will readily agree that's a flaw. When I thought 5e was going to be done by AEG, I was arguing heavily for addressing courtly matters in a more detailed fashion earlier in the edition; who knows what will happen now.

(I could keep going on about this, but a) a lot of it's in IA already and b) that isn't the point of this thread. We can start a new one if we want, though.)

Regarding the original topic:

I want to see the game keep clans, families, and schools in the sense of "you are trained in a specific tradition that is distinct from all the others out there." I want to keep honor, and fame (but do more with it), and status -- but I'd like to see status developed better, because right now it falls on its face for pretty much anything outside the military hierarchy. I want bushi, courtiers, and shugenja to remain the core of Rokugani society, and ninja and monks to be secondary flavors -- I like artisans, too, but they're a more complicated thing to treat distinctly.

Contra most people (I suspect), I would be okay with FFG going through and cleaning house on the setting and history, rebooting in a fashion that doesn't drag all the baggage of previous canon with it. Let's face it: the twelfth century was a cluster****. :-P And there are lots of things I think would make very interesting parts of the setting, if only there were room to put them in.

I personally like the mixture of point-buy and leveling, because it makes sense to me. You do stuff and therefore get more experienced, which means you know how to do more things: that's point-buy. But you have to prove to your sensei that you're worthy to learn the next secret of your school: that's leveling. It fits the setting; it just needs a bit more flexibility (so you don't run into the problem of "welp, you didn't get to your sensei in time, so now you have an empty rank"). I'd be fine with seeing the balance shifted, though, so that your techniques provide school-specific flavor, but you can also customize a lot through something like the kata/kiho/spells system, including options for courtiers.

I don't want to see Traits give way to Rings alone, because of my point above: I like it when mechanics interlock with setting. Having two Traits feed into one Ring reflects a cosmology where you must develop both mind and body to be truly strong, instead of the system assuming you've done that already.

I want to see shugenja be more priestly. Spells need to be designed from a spiritual perspective, not a combat one: they can be used to kill things, but that isn't their primary purpose.

I would like to see more done with the 4e approach of a core system and then optional add-ons, like Mass Battle. I had a proposal for Court Battle on the old boards; it wasn't the "public debate" version from Emerald Empire (which was more like a dueling equivalent), but rather a way to model large-scale political maneuvering. More things like that would be helpful.

Everything changed when forum software attacked, eating Kinzen's post.

For tilts - here is example.

When, let's say, your character fails to resist vampire's seduction, you get a condition called (i don't have book in front of me, so i'm just making stuff up following the proper pattern ) "swooning". Your character is suffering certain kind of penalties - in this case, it's going to be resisting taking chance to impress target of your affection, or their direct requests. It's a dice pool penalty. You might also get some kind of positive effect, for example bonus to your dice pool when carrying out stuff for that person.

Notice that there is nothing directly saying "but thou must" so far.

This condition lasts until resolved; resolution might mean giving into the seduction, or it might mean getting over it after a good talk with your friend and lots of alcohol.

While condition lasts, every time you decide to voluntary be at disadvantage due to condition (for example, to agree with that person even if they are obviously taking advantage of you), you are rewarded a beat; beats are fractions of Experience Point. Which means that by agreeing to follow your failed roll, you are giving yourself more XP.However, if you REALLY don't want to play according to your tilt, you may still choose to oppose it and gulp the consequences down your throat, finding another appropiate way to resolve it. You probably can award beats in this way too; you could get a beat for allowing that person to "borrow money" from you and never pay it back, or you could get a beat for being super frustrated about having hots for this guy and yelling at your friend for no reason.

Everything changed when forum software attacked, eating Kinzen's post.

Heh. While trying to hit ctrl-V, I accidentally posted; the whole thing is there now.

The issue of "timeline neutrality" isn't ripe because we don't know if FFG is importing the existing timeline or rebooting the L5R IP. If the latter, then the RPG line would likely work with the LCG timeline. The obvious example is, RPG players might not initially have (official) Spider Clan character options.

I dare say it that FFG rebooting L5R's setting would make as much sense (and likely get a similar reaction) as Disney rebooting Star Wars.

Actually, that's one of the things I like best about a good game system: not that the setting needs rules to back it, but that the rules integrate with the setting so that each reinforces the other.

Yes, this is such an important point. I think we all agree with this on a certain level (e.g. if the techniques of a Matsu Bushi gave you bonuses to your spell casting rolls, it would really cause people to shake their heads). But the more closely the setting (and mood and themes) and the rules can be meshed together, the more it will facilitate roleplay. Part of this circles back to the lethality question - if the setting is one where combat is lethal, then the rules should reflect this, or else you end up with fiction where people fight to the death, but gameplay that doesn't match - note I'm not making any normative judgment as to what the setting should be, just that the rules and the fiction should match.

I dare say it that FFG rebooting L5R's setting would make as much sense (and likely get a similar reaction) as Disney rebooting Star Wars.

I must agree with this. A reboot isn't a really good idea because if they didn't meet the expectation, people will say: "I prefer the old timeline..." or "It's not the same." or even "What the ... The [CLAN_NAME_HERE] would never do this?" Why would it have this kind of reaction? Because people will have the old timeline in mind. Look at the reaction of every movie remake, most of the time it's a reaction like that and I'm talking about a movie, which is a story of about 2 hours. If we take the whole timeline as a movie, it would be a huge movie set.

It would make much sense to simply have a step forward in time. I will admit that the way that the current timeline is has a lot of potential for the current situation with the IP. However, we have to agree on one thing, whatever happens to the timeline, in the RPG level, a storyteller have to take some part of the timeline but also leave some part. Therefore, I don't think that this "Timeline neutrality" is really needed for the RPG. What I mean is, if a storyteller starts a game story at the very end of the available timeline given by the book, he will have to move the whole world too, which branches the timeline with the current one to a certain point where it's not possible to go back in the main timeline. For this reason, I don't think that forcing a "Timeline neutrality" for the RPG is needed. I would prefer to have alternate scenario, just like in the Imperial Histories where you have some alternate scenario. This is interesting to have.

For timeline neutrality, in this case I'm actually against it. If they make a reboot, in any form (be it total rewrite, or "200 years later", or whatever) you want to have a RPG setting which is attractive to new people who got hooked by new card game, and can feel at home in their starting timeline. Veterans will buy it *anyway*, and they have enough experience at different timelines to just run it like they always did; new players don't have this luxury, and first rpg corebook should be as newbie friendly as possible, and probably be used to flesh out "new vision" of Rokugan too. Remember - lots of people who may try it out *won't* have legacy books at their shelves, *won't* have setting mastery accumulated over the years, and *won't* know how to run Rokugan Game. Deciding on a certain timeline point helps estabilish sense of familarity, and it also helps "hand out" a complete world to the people, who might be like...uh...this is a storyline neutral game...so...where do I even start filling the blanks...?

Not being storyline neutral also allows to publish adventure paths that don't require much tinkering with base setting, and adventures are one of few ways to make RPG line actually profitable and worth publishing.

I dare say it that FFG rebooting L5R's setting would make as much sense (and likely get a similar reaction) as Disney rebooting Star Wars.

So, a good idea that many people will be excited about?

I dare say it that FFG rebooting L5R's setting would make as much sense (and likely get a similar reaction) as Disney rebooting Star Wars.

So, a good idea that many people will be excited about?

I would point out that Disney isn't rebooting Star Wars. They are removing the Expanded Universe. Rebooting Star Wars would be going back to A New Hope, and doing those three movies over again, differently. See: the Star Trek reboot. But this is all beside the point of this thread.

Regarding Timeline Neutrality, I feel one of the weaknesses of 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition L5R were the attempts to keep up to date with the radical changes present in 12th Century (which should be just renamed The Troubles for all the Samurai Shodown references we could make). However, not acknowledging this change in the setting would be selling those changes short.

As such, I would argue for a default approach of Timeline Agnostic (a term someone used on the old forum and always stuck with me). It acknowledges that the timeline may, or may not, be there, but focuses instead on the more important parts of making an awesome game of magical samurai drama. You present each Great Clan in its iconic state, and a section on the History of Rokugan, with helpful sidebars for running during the five "most playable" eras (Pre-Scorpion Clan Coup, Age of Exploration, whatever the LCG starting point is, Dawn of the Empire / Shining Prince, and the 8th Century Crises, as just examples). The Unicorn, Mantis, and Spider Clans should each have a sidebar for their history in the setting, and how to adapt their rules / themes for each of the Five Playable Eras. Finally, put a sidebar page in the GMing section about interesting twists of the Timeline, such as the Togashi Dynasty, 1000 Years of Darkness, or a Yodotai occupied Rokugan.

Make the timeline a sandbox for GMs to build THEIR Rokugan in. You want to run a version of the Heresy of the Five Rings focused around Naisho Province? Go for it. You want to run a pre-Clan Coup game involving the machinations of the Scorpion Clan? Go for it. You want to run Rokugan 2000 in a post-Onyx Empire? Have fun.

I think he meant many people are excited about the possibility of à L5R reboot

You can put the "Customize your Rokugan to different timelines!" in Imperial Histories or something. Lack of clear image and coherency in the corebook of new RPG line, especially one as unintuitive as Rokugan, will make it extremely unfriendly for first-timers. I know that for hardcore fans and veterans it's easy to assume that people will just make up their stuff as they want and create their own Rokugans, but try to look at it with eyes of the beginner - someone who doesn't know how to make their own Rokugan and it's their first contact with L5R RPG, without having any previous experiences with the setting.

Making it easy for new blood to start their adventures without putting tremendous work into "creating the setting from the basics" is a very good move for revitalized franchise. Veterans will buy it *anyway*, and they have enough experience under their belt to run their games in their "favorite era" anyway; new people don't have that luxury.

I mean, would it somehow make your gaming harder if new Corebook was set up for "Year 1400 of the LCG Era", and fleshed out that new world in ways Cards Flavor wont? Most of long running player groups have their "own Rokugans" anyway, so as long as mechanics aren't drastically rooted in the period (I don't know, setting asumes that every Bushi is a Magical Girl and maho shoujo transformations are vital parts of character creation), what would exactly interfere with you playing in your fan made favorite spin on the setting?

@WHW

So, provided that the new LCG setting presents the 8 Great Clans as iconic, with an updated setting to whenever the story of the LCG starts, would be your ideal? I would be cool with that, so long as in the GMing section there was a discussion of different "Eras of Play", along with information on how the Unicorn and Mantis change over time. Also, I would like for the Spider Clan to presented in that chapter as well, in an iconic state with a similar discussion of how they change over time.

As for what groups should be where in terms of play:

• Tier 1: the Core 8 Great Clans (Crab, Crane, Dragon, Lion, Mantis, Phoenix, Scorpion, Unicorn)
• Tier 2: Spider Clan, Imperial Families, Ronin, Minor Clans
• Tier 3: Bloodspeakers, Naga, Ratlings, Gaijin
• Tier 4: other non-humans (Tsuno, Kenku, Hengeyokai, Ogres)

This is basically the set up in the 4th Edition L5R. Tier 1 & 2 playable from the main book, and I see no reason to change that, but I can accept a main book with just Tier 1 with plans for a secondary book covering Tier 2. Might make more money that way, honestly.

Also, new item for discussion:

• Heritage Tables - Bring these back, but make it a universal, optional Heritage Table. Do not split it out by Clan. Give them a minor mechanical interaction, but make them more roleplaying guidelines.