That's very true of the setting.

The system of magic, however, doesn't really have much synergy with the setting material. For the most part, the system of magic in L5R 4e could easily be used for any magic in any setting with just a new paint job and almost no modification under the hood. There's nothing really there to distinguish Rokugani "magic as an extension of a kami-based religion" from POWS (plain olde wizzard spells) magic. Flinging spells as a Shugenja in the L5R RPG doesn't really feel that much different from a spell-caster in any other system/setting combo.

Oh come on... Then a Lion Deathseeker is an awesome berserker that every Lion wants to be because of their power on the battlefield? Nope, because it's a dishonored Lion wanting to regain his honor or dying doing so...

Also, you say there's nothing that shows system-wise the fact that they are based on kami? How about the universal spells that you have even before selecting your spells? Commune, Sense and Summon. These three spells are directly in this direction. Also, the fact that you have to roll a Ring instead of a trait shows that have to work with your spiritual connectivity with kamis of this elements.

Are you suggesting that they should remove "Spellcasting Skill" and use "Theology skill" instead? Will that make a difference? A priest doesn't mean it should be a frail healer, heck look at the Kuni Shugenja, they are far from being a frail healer and they aren't afrain to throw everything they have, even themselves, against an Oni. I really wonder what is your definition of "Priest" because if your definition is really "A frail healer praying to god" then change it, because that's not the definition of a Shugenja...

No, stop Shugenja gameplay from being "My turn? Ok, I cast fireball", and give it a Priest spin. Because in how the game plays, unless your GM goes out of his way and finds methods to make shugenja priestly _that_are_not_in_the_corerulebook_, Shugenja gameplay really is "I cast Magic Missile", "I cast Sense Traps", "I cast Lightning Bolt".

1) I didn't say "nothing", I said "almost nothing" -- those three spells (Commune, Sense and Summon) are part of the very little that's there mechanically.

2) I never said anything about Shugenja needing to be anything, "frail healer" or otherwise. I was specifically talking about the system and setting having very little synergy when it comes to the magic in L5R. You're either assuming I'm making a case that's never been made in my posts, or just putting up a strawman.

3) The rolling of Rings doesn't really change much mechanically, other than to keep the dice pools smaller, and we could easily come up with "roll your Ring" based on other reasons that have nothing to do with the kami, etc.

If anything, rolling Rings means some people are invited to think that every dedicated healer in game is a musclebound musclemaster, due to Water Ring requiring Strength. No, really, this apparently was such a problem that there was a whole sidebar dedicated to explaining that Strength isn't necessarily muscles, but general art of controlling and directing physical forces.

Strength Trait description in core rulebook is very at fault there, because it's pretty much "yeah, strength is RAW MUSCLES!" instead of "Strength as directing flow of power"; which is, uh, why strength is water .

edit

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120704065919/fma/images/7/7e/Vlcsnap-2012-07-04-02h50m15s84.png

healing spell in progress!

For anyone interested about this sidebar I mentioned, it's titled "Physical Strength Versus the Strength of Water, OR, HOW CAN THAT DIMINUTIVE PRIEST BE AS STRONG AS HIDA KISADA?" and is located on page 68 of Book Of Water (the supplement, not Core Rulebook Book of Water)

But they are already more a "priest" than a "wizard". Just take a look at their kit, they all have "Theology" as school skills. Also, if you read even more on the Shugenja and the way that they cast their spells, they actually create powerful spells by offering prayers to the elemental kami, they do not control the kami. Then comes their duty, which are performing rites of birth and death, giving blessings, purifying places from evil spirits, building shrines (small or big) for kami or fortune and so much. They also mostly lives in temple and shrines but once they are establish inside a village, they are in charge of teaching tao and fortunes. Unless someone only look at their technique and spells, I don't see why people think they are wizards...

It's the duties and responsibilities to the kami that I want to see more detail on, though. Also, I believe you've overlapped into monks with some of the latter stuff.

This is part of the reason I feel that Mastery Levels played into the idea of traditional wizards a little too much.

I do like the idea of a shugenja basically being limited to a few scrolls. Yes, you might have a small personal library of scrolls, but how many are you going to have on hand in a given moment? What weapons do you come to battle with? Do you spend the XP or whatever to master a spell so you do not need the scroll anymore to cast it? Incorporate into the spells a degree of needing to appease the kami, either to make the magic more powerful or just as a baseline. Give certain schools (Iuchi and Isawa, especially) the ability to ignore appeasing the kami in favor of just commanding them.

Add to that the idea that the shugenja interact with the supernatural parts of the world automatically. They do not need scrolls for Sense, Summon, and Commune, nor do those consume Spell Slots (or what have you). All shugenja can simply do that innately.

So, right now, I think the general consensus is that Bushi are being done alright to good in 4E, but Courtiers need better techniques and more room to shine, and Shugenja need to be re-imagined from the ground up to align their mechanics (Wizards with spell slots per day and spell lists) and their fluff (priests who commune with a living universe around them and pray for assistance).

When it comes to Courtier Techniques (like Artisan Techniques if you're going to have Artisan schools), the game needs more of a baseline for the Courtier Techniques to be based on / work from.

I'm not saying that the game needs a "social combat system", that leads to the mistake of viewing social interaction as just another form of fighting, always about one party dominating another and forcing their will upon them in conflict -- I'm saying that for a game in which social interplay and contest is so central and common, there needs to be more of a framework/baseline than "roll skill X when you want to do X".

Physical combat has a lot more of a framwork than "if you want to hit someone with your katana, roll skill Z", and we're told that social interplay is at least as important as getting into fights in Rokugan/L5R RPG, right?

I think I agree with the idea that Techniques are supposed to make a character better at something, give them a flair or twist on something already in the game, etc. I get that feeling from most of the Bushi Techniques... but sometimes I wonder what the Courtier Techniques are expanding on.

I'm going to focus on the OP here and beg your pardon for skipping another conversation about how to make social mechanics work in a game. My failure to mention something in the OP is neither an endorsement nor a disavowal of the topic I failed to mention.

Timeline Neutrality: I am, to some extent, not even sure what timeline neutrality means. Even in the "timeline neutral" 4E (and I think any presentation) you are going to have a default way of things - there's no way to do something like present Rokugan with full, unique coverage of every possible era of significance. It's always going to be "here is the default, and this is how this other era is different. So the question, to my mind, is basically whether you should present information on anything other than the current state of things (answer: of course you should) and what the default should be (answer: how things are now).

Honor/Glory/Status/Infamy: Honor needs to be an element of the game, as it is a central thematic concept of the setting. Something like status is probably helpful because it emphasizes the hierarchical nature of Rokugani society, and helps players more easily understand how their characters are "supposed" to be interacting with NPCs. But Glory and Infamy? I would not consider those necessary components of the RPG. It is possible in most RPGs for the characters to become persons of note, on a scale appropriate to the campaign and their actions. But I do not think it has the same sort of integral role as honor, and is not something that must be baked in as a core mechanical concept. This is especially true, in my mind, of infamy.

Schools & Techniques: I agree with the very general notion that different types of characters should having something different about them. Two characters of different clans/families should not be the same simply because they share the same profession. But the particular school/technique system was quite restrictive, and (IMHO) made too much of the differences. You can, for example, give certain schools a leg up in dueling without making them an order of magnitude better at it than anyone else of comparable experience. At the same time, they could make characters too much the same, as so much of the mechanical power was located in that handful of techniques, or other crunchy bits that you were required to buy to use the technique effectively.

Lethality: This can, and should, go away (at least as much as it did already). You do not need combat that is resolved in two rounds in order to make the threat of death part of a narrative. Plus, in my experience, most people don't actually want a narrative where the typical threat of death comes from a random sword swing by Hida Bob, rather than some sort of cool climax or other plot point.

High Lethality I think, in general, belongs to games where death is only an annoyance; historically, in classical DND, dying only meant three things:

1. Cash penalty; Raise Dead was available at temples, and it was "gimme cash, no questions asked" deal usually

2. XP penalty, in certain cases; not always

3. Tempo penalty - character death was supposed to pose a question of "do you think you can handle this location more, or maybe you should go back and regroup?".

Character dying, if that character has no ways of returning, is rarely fun. Which is why I feel that RPG should be aware of that, and don't make combat systems like video games where eh, there is always a reload option .

(Still, I would be very excited to play some game where death/reload/rezz are acknowledged parts of the setting and are used to the full extent)

Talking about narratives - in a recent anime, World Trigger, there is a rather fun balance in terms of "lethality". Basically, characters - both protagonists and antagonists - have special "battle transformation"; "dying" in it means that they are recalled back to the base, and are unable to participate in further conflicts. Killing a person in their un-transformed form still kills them. This lead into interesting dynamic - while in most shonen stories, protagonists and major enemies remain undefeated (because defeat is often equal to death/permanent maiming), here, everyone can lose at any time - because while their defeat moves plot towards specific direction (Important Thing You Were Protecting is lost, for example), character being defeated doesn't mean that they are removed from the story. So while at first it looked like it may invite Meaningless Fights, in fact it does the opposite.

Regarding lethality, whatever system I'm running, my players know they'll never lose their PC to a bad roll. Why? Because we're playing for the story, and "whoops, you got whacked by this random no-name in a context of no significance whatsoever" is not a satisfying end for a protagonist. They can always choose to die, if it's a dramatically appropriate thing to do; otherwise, if they run through their Out rank, they'll acquire an appropriate disadvantage (probably physical or mental) to reflect the scars left on them by that close call.

Regarding Glory: the reason I want to see it kept is not that it's super-important to the game as it exists right now (it so very much isn't), but because it's a criminally underused opportunity to show how fame affects social interactions. Make Glory a thing with actual mechanical effect beyond recognition, and now being the flavor of the month at court becomes significant, and you have a new tool for building useful courtier techniques. I see that as a core part of the setting largely because that's a major component of how societies of this kind actually work .

Re: Lethality

One of the elements I do enjoy about L5R has been how dangerous combat is. I have played L5R in both the normal lethality setting, a HIGH lethality setting (Wounds equal to twice your Earth Ring, period; Katana dealt 2 Wounds, knives 1 Wound, heavy weapons 3 wounds, take Raises to deal additional wounds), and low lethality setting (once per session, spend a Void to get the benefits of Great Destiny). Out of the three of these, I found the high lethality to be the most tense, but the normal lethality to be the most fun. The low lethality setting just... fell flat. There was never a sense of danger. Most other players just camped their last Void Point "just in case". Which ultimately gave me an edge in many fights since I did not operate with the safety net, I just fought smart.

Part of the inspiration of L5R is the high action drama of the Jidaigeki genre. One of the staples of that genre is the lethality of its combat. Yes, main characters generally only die in dramatically appropriate moments ( 13 Assassins ), but when a person is hit by a sword, they usually die fairly quickly there after. Some of the most tense moments in such films are the moments before the fight, after swords have been drawn and the characters must decide whether they are truly committing to the act of killing each other. You only fight when it is absolutely necessary.

The argument that death ends the character / protagonists story, and is thus bad? I very, very strongly disagree with. Some of the best stories I have been part of in L5R on either side of the GM screen have been around whether or not a character is going to die in a particular moment, and the fact that dying well in L5R means a lot more than in a game where death is either reversible or very difficult to achieve.

Like Daramere, I am going to focus on the points argued by the OP and offer my perspectives on them (for whatever they are worth). Additionally, I am going to separate them into the two categories: setting and mechanics.

Setting

• Core Setting - While I would like to see the core setting relatively unchanged, I could go see some reorientation and revisions to the map and world without too much trouble. L5R does require a stable setting in order to function, but as long as it is not unrecognizable, I think that some changes will be fine.
• Timeline-Neutrality - No, the timeline does not need to be neutral for the core product. I understand what 4E was trying to accomplish, but for a relaunch, the setting needs a tightly-written history leading up to the new base point for the setting. Additionally, while some argue against any time hops, skips, or jumps, I feel that one such move is necessary to allow the space for FFG to create a strong background and context for the new game's action.

Mechanics

Rather than nitpick every little point, I am going to focus on some of the major changes I wish to see in the new edition.

• The Engine (aka Roll & Keep) - This part of the system needs to go. Roll & Keep is a rather finicky, unreliable system for resolving conflicts, as results tend to be far too unpredictable throughout the five-rank spread. Keeping it largely out of consistency with the previous system is not a strong move when there is a grand opportunity to rethink and reshape the system. Naturally, this would necessitate changes to every other aspect of the system, but again, I think the time is perfect for such a change, particularly since tabletop design is moving further away from the paradigms seen in L5R.
• Honor-Style Traits - These traits need to be overhauled to mean something more than a number and more than a bonus. While Status has additional benefits of responsibility within the Empire, the others, more often than not, simply factor into other rolls as bonuses. I would like to see more complex, themed mechanics that played off the notion of honor and glory within the system.
• Void Points - Chalk this position to personal perspective, but I absolutely despise Void Points. I understand mechanics for surviving death and excessive luck, but it slowly became a resource to power elements throughout the system. Additionally, being able to completely negate damage and hits (in previous editions of the game) artificially lengthened combats to a point where a deathblow could be easily shrugged off. I wouldn't mind seeing the return of Void Points, but I would also hope that they are narrowed and less broadly applicable.
• Schools - Given current design choices in tabletop games, schools should be a little less linear and restrictive. I know that part of the reason is that schools are a huge part of the aesthetic, but most modern tabletop games do push for more customization and widgets within classes.
• Court Actions - With so much emphasis place on court and political actions, the system is devoid of any unique resolution mechanics for big dramatic court scenes, which are often resolved in a similar fashion to regular combats. If it is truly important to setting and game, it should be given similar attention to the rules governing dueling, though I would personally enjoy the dueling rules being overhauled as well.
• Lethality - This point is a sticky wicket across this thread, and my response to L5R's default lethality is more balance. If we are supposed to be immersing ourselves in a world of human samurai drama, the constant threat of imminent death, while very faithful to the source material, does not make for enduring stories. Thus, my argument is that the characters should have some leverage to avoid absolute death while still allowing for a more dangerous world.

Regarding lethality, whatever system I'm running, my players know they'll never lose their PC to a bad roll. Why? Because we're playing for the story, and "whoops, you got whacked by this random no-name in a context of no significance whatsoever" is not a satisfying end for a protagonist. They can always choose to die, if it's a dramatically appropriate thing to do; otherwise, if they run through their Out rank, they'll acquire an appropriate disadvantage (probably physical or mental) to reflect the scars left on them by that close call.

Regarding Glory: the reason I want to see it kept is not that it's super-important to the game as it exists right now (it so very much isn't), but because it's a criminally underused opportunity to show how fame affects social interactions. Make Glory a thing with actual mechanical effect beyond recognition, and now being the flavor of the month at court becomes significant, and you have a new tool for building useful courtier techniques. I see that as a core part of the setting largely because that's a major component of how societies of this kind actually work .

The "FOTM" reference makes me wonder if there wouldn't be some benefit in having a system where there's "current" Glory and "long term" Glory, so that you can go up or down in Glory over the short term, but the permanent change is less dramatic. That is, if you present a masterful poem at Winter Court, your Glory is significantly higher in the short term as the buzz is all about you -- but over time, someone else becomes "the buzz", and your long-term gain is only part of that initial spike.

Still, the problem I've always run into when trying to work out Fame/Glory/Renown/Reputation/whatever systems is that what a character is well-known FOR should matter, and what makes you famous within one place or group, can just as easily make you infamous in another place or group.

( Which also makes me think of a line from a Don Henley song... "This year notoriety... got all confused with fame..." )

Timeline-Neutrality - No, the timeline does not need to be neutral for the core product. I understand what 4E was trying to accomplish, but for a relaunch, the setting needs a tightly-written history leading up to the new base point for the setting.

I'm seriously confused why so many people keep saying "get rid of timeline neutrality!" . . . and then pretty much describe what 4e's timeline neutrality looked like.

We had a tightly-written history leading up to the new base point for the setting. Pages 13-23 in the core book, right up front. As I understand it, that account ends right at the last major event before the book was completed: the Destroyer War and the Age of Exploration aren't in there only because they hadn't happened yet. But those got added in due course.

What lack of timeline neutrality would mean is: the books would not tell you how to do anything not at the current base point. No original Chuda Shugenja school, because they're all gone. No Boar Clan either, because they're gone. No exploration of what the Shadowlands were like before Daigotsu started organizing things. No substantial discussion of how to manage things pre-Return of the Unicorn, or information on what the Hantei family bonus is. Data on NPCs would be focused on currently living people; no stats for important figures of the past, because you're expected to play in the present day and deal with the present situation.

Why should we throw out an approach that gives you a broad array of tools for one that gives you a much more limited set? Especially when the setting's history is sufficiently rich that many, many campaigns are set in periods other than the current year?

The "FOTM" reference makes me wonder if there wouldn't be some benefit in having a system where there's "current" Glory and "long term" Glory, so that you can go up or down in Glory over the short term, but the permanent change is less dramatic. That is, if you present a masterful poem at Winter Court, your Glory is significantly higher in the short term as the buzz is all about you -- but over time, someone else becomes "the buzz", and your long-term gain is only part of that initial spike.

I follow my old GM in handling that by having there be a "floor" beyond which your Glory can't decay, equal to your Insight Rank (plus Fame or the Glory boost I house-ruled into Prodigy, if applicable).

Still, the problem I've always run into when trying to work out Fame/Glory/Renown/Reputation/whatever systems is that what a character is well-known FOR should matter, and what makes you famous within one place or group, can just as easily make you infamous in another place or group.

I have Lore: Heraldry give more than just your name; depending on how much they beat the TN by, they may also know your deeds, your lineage, etc. The famous/infamous distinction is sometimes problematic, it's true -- but I'm okay with limiting infamy to acts that entailed substantial Honor loss, rather than making it situational in the vein of "you're famous among the Lion for having defeated the Crane but infamous among the Crane for that same act."

Re: Lethality

One of the elements I do enjoy about L5R has been how dangerous combat is. I have played L5R in both the normal lethality setting, a HIGH lethality setting (Wounds equal to twice your Earth Ring, period; Katana dealt 2 Wounds, knives 1 Wound, heavy weapons 3 wounds, take Raises to deal additional wounds), and low lethality setting (once per session, spend a Void to get the benefits of Great Destiny). Out of the three of these, I found the high lethality to be the most tense, but the normal lethality to be the most fun. The low lethality setting just... fell flat. There was never a sense of danger. Most other players just camped their last Void Point "just in case". Which ultimately gave me an edge in many fights since I did not operate with the safety net, I just fought smart.

Part of the inspiration of L5R is the high action drama of the Jidaigeki genre. One of the staples of that genre is the lethality of its combat. Yes, main characters generally only die in dramatically appropriate moments ( 13 Assassins ), but when a person is hit by a sword, they usually die fairly quickly there after. Some of the most tense moments in such films are the moments before the fight, after swords have been drawn and the characters must decide whether they are truly committing to the act of killing each other. You only fight when it is absolutely necessary.

Lethality of combat is an absolute staple, yes, which is why the combat system shouldn't be built as though it can work with attrition-based trading blows. That tension before swords are drawn is part of the thrill of the fight, so make it part of the fight mechanics -- it's a mistake to say that because the fight was decided by a single sword strike, one combat roll should be able to deal enough swording damage to decide a fight.

I follow my old GM in handling that by having there be a "floor" beyond which your Glory can't decay, equal to your Insight Rank (plus Fame or the Glory boost I house-ruled into Prodigy, if applicable).

This is probably rooted in the fact that each "Insight Up" gives you free Glory Rank. So simply by Leveling Up and not doing anything, IR3 character has Glory 3.

Re: Lethality

One of the elements I do enjoy about L5R has been how dangerous combat is. I have played L5R in both the normal lethality setting, a HIGH lethality setting (Wounds equal to twice your Earth Ring, period; Katana dealt 2 Wounds, knives 1 Wound, heavy weapons 3 wounds, take Raises to deal additional wounds), and low lethality setting (once per session, spend a Void to get the benefits of Great Destiny). Out of the three of these, I found the high lethality to be the most tense, but the normal lethality to be the most fun. The low lethality setting just... fell flat. There was never a sense of danger. Most other players just camped their last Void Point "just in case". Which ultimately gave me an edge in many fights since I did not operate with the safety net, I just fought smart.

Part of the inspiration of L5R is the high action drama of the Jidaigeki genre. One of the staples of that genre is the lethality of its combat. Yes, main characters generally only die in dramatically appropriate moments ( 13 Assassins ), but when a person is hit by a sword, they usually die fairly quickly there after. Some of the most tense moments in such films are the moments before the fight, after swords have been drawn and the characters must decide whether they are truly committing to the act of killing each other. You only fight when it is absolutely necessary.

Lethality of combat is an absolute staple, yes, which is why the combat system shouldn't be built as though it can work with attrition-based trading blows. That tension before swords are drawn is part of the thrill of the fight, so make it part of the fight mechanics -- it's a mistake to say that because the fight was decided by a single sword strike, one combat roll should be able to deal enough swording damage to decide a fight.

Lethality of combat can come in two types: lethality in combat and lethality after combat. I've play numerous systems that tried to be very realistic with combat and the result was that more players died after combat from stuff like infections rather than the combat itself. I think I'd rather have a mix of lethality and player ease, where the players can afford to perhaps make a mistake or two before losing utterly.

Continuing with combat itself, you could come down to four major types. The first is simply the mook fight, where the player simply cleave throw easy prey. 4E had the option for it and it's fine to leave something like that in the next game. The second is the duel, which requires more tension before the sword strike than the combat itself. Duel at Ganryu Island is the prime example of it, even if the fight itself is also great. The third are the mass battles, but people have covered that.

The fourth, and most used, is the player group fight that involves usually all the players. These fights almost always last several rounds and the most time because of the players involved and the number of enemies. These combats should really be the focus of the combat system, simply to provide ease of use, game flow, and relative balance for most character types.

In many ways, any scenario, whether combat or non-combat, should try to allow the possible utilization of every player.

Timeline-Neutrality - No, the timeline does not need to be neutral for the core product. I understand what 4E was trying to accomplish, but for a relaunch, the setting needs a tightly-written history leading up to the new base point for the setting.

I'm seriously confused why so many people keep saying "get rid of timeline neutrality!" . . . and then pretty much describe what 4e's timeline neutrality looked like.

We had a tightly-written history leading up to the new base point for the setting. Pages 13-23 in the core book, right up front. As I understand it, that account ends right at the last major event before the book was completed: the Destroyer War and the Age of Exploration aren't in there only because they hadn't happened yet. But those got added in due course.

What lack of timeline neutrality would mean is: the books would not tell you how to do anything not at the current base point. No original Chuda Shugenja school, because they're all gone. No Boar Clan either, because they're gone. No exploration of what the Shadowlands were like before Daigotsu started organizing things. No substantial discussion of how to manage things pre-Return of the Unicorn, or information on what the Hantei family bonus is. Data on NPCs would be focused on currently living people; no stats for important figures of the past, because you're expected to play in the present day and deal with the present situation.

Why should we throw out an approach that gives you a broad array of tools for one that gives you a much more limited set? Especially when the setting's history is sufficiently rich that many, many campaigns are set in periods other than the current year?

Well, most of us are looking at a product with which we have sufficient familiarity and knowledge to understand and appreciate the scope of the history. Thus, the options that 4E presents are neither overwhelming nor decipherable to us. However, given that FFG is going to be attempting to capture old, but more importantly, new players, presenting newcomers with a timeline-agnostic game with options for creating games throughout the history of L5R, of which we do not know how much will be ported over, could represent a problematic room. Since FFG will likely be counting on the LCG bring players into the RPG, it makes more marketing sense to tie the RPG more heavily to the storyline and current timeframe of the LCG to help players make that transition.

I can easily see FFG putting out more supplements that expand the options for running the game throughout the entire "canon" of L5R, but at launch, I am not sure that leading with such a buffet of setting options will lead to a strong, cohesive core product, particularly due to the relative unfamiliarity that the new RPG writers would have with the setting and the mechanics. Again, my reasoning focuses more on making the game more salient to new players rather than keeping the system and setting flush with previous iterations of the RPG.

Regarding lethality: as a GM, I HATE killing PCs (much more so than when I'm playing and my character is killed) and will almost never do it as the result of a dice roll. It will almost always be a clearly defined choice, "You can do X, but you are going to die if you do." Now this may come after a failed dice roll, but I will still present that choice. But that is my GMing style , I still want a system that reflects the fiction of the world, whether it be lethal or non-lethal. The system guides the players to realistically portray their characters within the setting (a lethal systems will discourage players from attacking a superior force with the expectation that they will win and not be injured), while the style of the table ensures that the type of story we are trying to tell can be told (the players choose to attack a superior force knowing it will likely lead to their deaths, because that is the type of story they want to play).

Well, most of us are looking at a product with which we have sufficient familiarity and knowledge to understand and appreciate the scope of the history. Thus, the options that 4E presents are neither overwhelming nor decipherable to us. However, given that FFG is going to be attempting to capture old, but more importantly, new players, presenting newcomers with a timeline-agnostic game with options for creating games throughout the history of L5R, of which we do not know how much will be ported over, could represent a problematic room. Since FFG will likely be counting on the LCG bring players into the RPG, it makes more marketing sense to tie the RPG more heavily to the storyline and current timeframe of the LCG to help players make that transition.

I can easily see FFG putting out more supplements that expand the options for running the game throughout the entire "canon" of L5R, but at launch, I am not sure that leading with such a buffet of setting options will lead to a strong, cohesive core product, particularly due to the relative unfamiliarity that the new RPG writers would have with the setting and the mechanics. Again, my reasoning focuses more on making the game more salient to new players rather than keeping the system and setting flush with previous iterations of the RPG.

I was 100% new to L5R when I picked up the 4e core book -- literally all I knew about it was "fantasy Japan and there's a card game." I didn't find the timeline neutrality approach confusing in the least. In fact, it was much easier to orient myself in the setting because I didn't feel like I had to memorize all the details of a specific moment; instead I picked up the general vibe of the world, and an awareness that it had a dynamic history which I could dig into at my leisure.

A lot of people seem to think the RPG's future depends on making the LCG players want to pick it up. Me, I think FFG needs to make sure that LCG familiarity isn't a prereq for understanding the game, so that the general RPG consumer may have an interest -- and that's best done by not gluing them together at the hip.

And in general, fiction of the genre portrays unnamed characters as katana fodder, while named characters are often notoriously hard to kill or have tendency to escape death - be it movies, L5R fictions, animes, or video games. I think that, for example, emulating this scene -

Kinzen - please, look at it with eyes of beginners. Become a child once more as a novelist and RPG veteran in general, your perspective is kinda biased and I think that you may have certain experience with world building and invoking universal motifs .

Regarding lethality: as a GM, I HATE killing PCs (much more so than when I'm playing and my character is killed) and will almost never do it as the result of a dice roll. It will almost always be a clearly defined choice, "You can do X, but you are going to die if you do." Now this may come after a failed dice roll, but I will still present that choice. But that is my GMing style , I still want a system that reflects the fiction of the world, whether it be lethal or non-lethal. The system guides the players to realistically portray their characters within the setting (a lethal systems will discourage players from attacking a superior force with the expectation that they will win and not be injured), while the style of the table ensures that the type of story we are trying to tell can be told (the players choose to attack a superior force knowing it will likely lead to their deaths, because that is the type of story they want to play).

Isn't the only difference between your approach and the lethal one me and others were arguing for, the fact that:

A) We consider all fights lethal - so we force people to think twice before going all swords-blazing at the minimum oportunity (I call this the "D&D Complex: If you see a problem, hit it with a sword")

B) We don't say players -will- die if they do X... we say they -may- die. That way, we safeguard our position as GMs, as it is not the GM (as in, the individual) that kills the character (which can turn ugly with some players), but rather a mix of bad luck and player choices.

Put me in the "yay, lethality" crowd.

This is a setting where a poor choice of words can lead to your character being ordered to carve their guts out,and refusal to get on with said gut-carving is regarded as worse than death. A sword fight should be a dangerous affair, where death or maiming are very real possibilities.

Everyone in Rokugan is walking on eggshells, whatever bluster they may make about not fearing death. And that's something I like about it.