Personally, I consider Schools to be an artifact of "classes" and Rank an artifact of "levels", and that's part of my skepticism about both features of L5R. I know this is one of those places where I get a lot of disagreement -- but at this point, I pretty much flatly refuse to play any system that outright has classes and levels, as both concepts are utter nonsense, anachronistic tripe from about 50 years ago that should have died long ago.

Looks like the overall trend in RPGs (computer and tabletop) disagrees with your assessment that level-based systems are anachronistic. You're free to not like them, of course, but there's nothing any more wrong with classes and levels than there is anything right with pont-buy or "classless" systems. Each is useful for a diferent type of gaming experience, and the fact that they've been the majority of RPG sales to this day (between D&D in all its forms, the Clans and their Powers in Vampire and all the other varients in all the Worlds of Darkness) shows that not everyone wants or needs a classless system.

Even those of us who can use one perfectly fine often prefer to just use a class-based system, because it saves mental energy having to worry about your build that you can use to just have fun playing the character.

Myself, I still prefer random stats and random class rolling, but my players hate it, so I tend not to use it in my games (but allow the option). Give me a completely open-ended character system like HERO or GURPS and I'll most likely just stare at the sheet and doodle a bit, because being able to buy everything doesn't help me narrow down a concept, and many times I don't arrive at the table with a nice character concept. Sometimes I do -- like a Lion Clan Paris HIlton, which worked great -- but usually I'll just roll some dice and see what comes up, because the freedom to buy anything means you have to consider everything if there's nothing particular you feel drawn to. Like has been said many times, restrictions breed creativity, and the hooks from class-and-level are more useful for some players to get a concept going.

It's not anachronistic just because you don't like it. It's just something you don't like. Which is fine, you should play the games you like.

Random stats and random class ?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there are people who love the systems with random character backstory / history ...

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Uh, I can't agree with that. (And I make my living off creative work.) I have often come up with better plot ideas precisely because something prevented me from doing the first thing I thought of. And there's a whole world of poetic forms (haiku, sonnet, etc) whose beauty comes from the necessity of fitting your idea into the constraints of the form.

Yes in the old days you rolled stats first, and your stats detrmined which class(es) you were eligable to consider. Then there was other games like Space Opera, and Runequest were everything was rolled randomly. Even original Marvel Heroes had random generation. That is how a friend of mine ended up with an Asgardian that had class 1,000 strength, and natural claws that had only 300 strength. He had to pull his unarmed attacks or break his claws.

Random stats and random class ?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there are people who love the systems with random character backstory / history ...

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Well, given the stats you roll, some classes may not be the first choice. I once played with a D&D-Group where we had the debate rolling stats vs. buying stats. I wanted to play a Cleric, I rolled stats 3 times and still didn't get reasonable numbers to play a useful Cleric, so I could convince the other players to let me buy the stats.

But some games are built around being random. For example MAID RPG.

And if you have restrictions it may inspire you to find a way to work around the rule without breaking it, but still being able to do what you wanted to do.

The thought of being handed a completely random character makes me want to quit the hypothetical game already. <lol> I like some constraints, but I don't want to have to turn a pile of stats into a person. I'd rather think of a person, and then stat them.

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Uh, I can't agree with that. (And I make my living off creative work.) I have often come up with better plot ideas precisely because something prevented me from doing the first thing I thought of. And there's a whole world of poetic forms (haiku, sonnet, etc) whose beauty comes from the necessity of fitting your idea into the constraints of the form.

To me, any setting that's not my own already comes with so many restrictions that I don't need things like character classes and randomized backstory to serve as creative guidelines.

The thought of being handed a completely random character makes me want to quit the hypothetical game already. <lol> I like some constraints, but I don't want to have to turn a pile of stats into a person. I'd rather think of a person, and then stat them.

Exactly that.

This goes back to my earlier statement that the rules are the map, and the fictional reality is the territory that they map.

I'm looking to stat out the character I have in my head, not character out the random stats I end up with.

Yes in the old days you rolled stats first, and your stats detrmined which class(es) you were eligable to consider. Then there was other games like Space Opera, and Runequest were everything was rolled randomly. Even original Marvel Heroes had random generation. That is how a friend of mine ended up with an Asgardian that had class 1,000 strength, and natural claws that had only 300 strength. He had to pull his unarmed attacks or break his claws.

Yeah, exactly the sort of thing that makes me cringe at random character generation.

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Uh, I can't agree with that. (And I make my living off creative work.) I have often come up with better plot ideas precisely because something prevented me from doing the first thing I thought of. And there's a whole world of poetic forms (haiku, sonnet, etc) whose beauty comes from the necessity of fitting your idea into the constraints of the form.

To me, any setting that's not my own already comes with so many restrictions that I don't need things like character classes and randomized backstory to serve as creative guidelines.

Okay -- but that isn't actually what you said. :-) It sounds like you just don't want too many restrictions, which I can agree with.

I find class-based systems useful in a couple of situations. Either if you have inexperienced players (because a class helps them understand their role in the party) or if you have a lot of players (because it can be hard to differentiate 6 characters into unique roles using skills alone).

It may be fun to play a random character for a oneshot, I don't think it is fun to play a campaign with a random character.

I too like systems like FAE, with less rules and more possibilities. But the complexity of GURPS scares me. And the straightforwardness of D&D bores me. Still I play in the "Princess of Apocalypse"-Campaign and have fun.

If I had to choose a D20-System I'd prefer 13th Age though...

And L5R gives me the freedom to play Kuni "Klimt" Ichigo, the cold-hearted Witchunter who is a great painter. Or Shosuro "Hepburn" Juliette, the Ninja who strives for being the best Actress in whole Rokugan and loves a Crane (I actually play her and her name is Shosuro Sasori).

Still I have the "restriction" of School-Skills I must take, because they are part of my characters education. And I can live with that. Because I can still choose to be bad at some of those skills.

For example I love the Shosuro Actor School, so I built an Actress. Her main motivation is to make sure that the Shosuro and the Scorpion as a whole are always led by capable leaders. She is loyal to her clan. But her personal goal or dream is to go down in the history of Rokugan as the best Actress and Singer there is and sew a Kimono for the Empress. And she loves a Crane-Samurai.
So she is an artisan at heart and was also educated to be one, but the mainpurpose of her education is infiltration, spying, gathering information, place wrong information, blackmailing, manipulating and assasination.

She now reached Rank 3 and her Knive-Skill is still at 3. Her highest skill is Acting, followed closely by Perform:Song(took this a 7th school-skill) and although I chose to give her the Sensation-Advantage, I also chose to still invest XP on Perform: Biwa, Shamisen and Dance (therefore actually wasted 3XP). She also can write poems and make Origami, is able to cook and sew (after all she wants to sew a Kimono for the Empress) and can perform a Tea Ceremony. I chose to put an emphasis on her artisan-heart. I chose for her to be able to do all the Nin...erm...Scorpion-stuff, but there are better people for sneaking into a building.

Still she protected the live of the heir to the Shosuro-Family, she even sacrificed her love for the Crane to be able to do so. Or at least she thinks that he will now never accept or even return her feeling for him. (She was blessed/cursed with the ability to cough fox fire and her beloved is afraid of fire)

So I have all the freedom I need to create an interesting character and some guidlines/restriction for a base to build on.

I find class-based systems useful in a couple of situations. Either if you have inexperienced players (because a class helps them understand their role in the party) or if you have a lot of players (because it can be hard to differentiate 6 characters into unique roles using skills alone).

I'm not too concerned with "roles" in that sense.

(I also loath the "tank-DPS-healer trinity" in video game design...)

Random stats and random class ?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there are people who love the systems with random character backstory / history ...

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Is it really a restriction to like those systems? I will say that my group really like the heritage table, which is a system of "Random Character Backstory", but is it really a restriction? In my opinion, it's not a restriction for creativity, I feel like it creates even more creativity because the player will have to build around it. I also think that using these request for more creativity, specially since these tables are written in a generic way that you can create a lot around them.

From my very own experiences, I've read better background story with one or two randomly generated background plots, than fully created background story. It helps those with little knowledge to the setting and help them to get some idea around their characters and it's a fun factor for those with a better understanding to add more spice on their characters.

You might not like these, but some does. One thing that I really but really disagree is the fact that you said: "Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it." If you think that restriction doesn't breed creativity, I will say that it didn't stop a lot of great inventors to fill up their dreams. Just an example based on "restriction breeds creativity", the gravity was a restriction to everyone that wanted to fly in the air, yet it didn't stop the Wright brothers to create the airplane.

Random stats and random class ?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there are people who love the systems with random character backstory / history ...

Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it.

Is it really a restriction to like those systems? I will say that my group really like the heritage table, which is a system of "Random Character Backstory", but is it really a restriction? In my opinion, it's not a restriction for creativity, I feel like it creates even more creativity because the player will have to build around it. I also think that using these request for more creativity, specially since these tables are written in a generic way that you can create a lot around them.

From my very own experiences, I've read better background story with one or two randomly generated background plots, than fully created background story. It helps those with little knowledge to the setting and help them to get some idea around their characters and it's a fun factor for those with a better understanding to add more spice on their characters.

You might not like these, but some does. One thing that I really but really disagree is the fact that you said: "Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it." If you think that restriction doesn't breed creativity, I will say that it didn't stop a lot of great inventors to fill up their dreams. Just an example based on "restriction breeds creativity", the gravity was a restriction to everyone that wanted to fly in the air, yet it didn't stop the Wright brothers to create the airplane.

And if there weren't gravity, anyone could have built any sort of machine they could imagine -- I guess it depends on what you mean by "creativity." But that's really off the topic at hand. The statement was made in the context of "the limits imposed by a random character creation system spur creativity", and in that context, I could hardly disagree more.

It comes down to whether one is looking to stat out a character, or mold a character around some stats. I'm always going to be going for the former.

Is it really a restriction to like those systems? I will say that my group really like the heritage table, which is a system of "Random Character Backstory", but is it really a restriction? In my opinion, it's not a restriction for creativity, I feel like it creates even more creativity because the player will have to build around it. I also think that using these request for more creativity, specially since these tables are written in a generic way that you can create a lot around them.

From my very own experiences, I've read better background story with one or two randomly generated background plots, than fully created background story. It helps those with little knowledge to the setting and help them to get some idea around their characters and it's a fun factor for those with a better understanding to add more spice on their characters.

You might not like these, but some does. One thing that I really but really disagree is the fact that you said: "Restrictions do not breed creativity, they only restrict it." If you think that restriction doesn't breed creativity, I will say that it didn't stop a lot of great inventors to fill up their dreams. Just an example based on "restriction breeds creativity", the gravity was a restriction to everyone that wanted to fly in the air, yet it didn't stop the Wright brothers to create the airplane.

And if there weren't gravity, anyone could have built any sort of machine they could imagine -- I guess it depends on what you mean by "creativity." But that's really off the topic at hand. The statement was made in the context of "the limits imposed by a random character creation system spur creativity", and in that context, I could hardly disagree more.

It comes down to whether one is looking to stat out a character, or mold a character around some stats. I'm always going to be going for the former.

For me, I often have a thousand ideas for characters. Additional restrictions help me to narrow down my ideas further than the GM's basic concept.

Relevant to several of the various discussions we've been having around here:

http://mythcreants.com/blog/seven-design-mistakes-roleplaying-games-keep-making/

I find class-based systems useful in a couple of situations. Either if you have inexperienced players (because a class helps them understand their role in the party) or if you have a lot of players (because it can be hard to differentiate 6 characters into unique roles using skills alone).

I'm not too concerned with "roles" in that sense.

(I also loath the "tank-DPS-healer trinity" in video game design...)

But a class is simply a role built straight into the game mechanics.

I find class-based systems useful in a couple of situations. Either if you have inexperienced players (because a class helps them understand their role in the party) or if you have a lot of players (because it can be hard to differentiate 6 characters into unique roles using skills alone).

I'm not too concerned with "roles" in that sense.

(I also loath the "tank-DPS-healer trinity" in video game design...)

But a class is simply a role built straight into the game mechanics.

And it's those baked-in pre-defined roles that I dislike so very much.

Relevant to several of the various discussions we've been having around here:

http://mythcreants.com/blog/seven-design-mistakes-roleplaying-games-keep-making/

I do not believe I have ever read a non-political piece with more fallacious arguements and strawmen than that article. I almost reads like the author heard the term for these problems without actually knowing the actual definitions.

In the first mistake's section, the author starts off with a short loose description of "ability taxes." He then goes on to complain about having to spend resources in point by systems to go above a baseline that he does not believe should be the baseline before complaining about poorly designed prerequisites. He fails to write about actual ability taxes: Things that must be purchased or the game's math does not function properly. Things like the weapon focus feat in 4th edition D&D. If a character fails to take it, the character's attack bonus will be 2 points at level 11 to 20 and 3 points at level 21 to 30 off the expected values that the games monsters are designed around.

In the second mistake's section, the author starts with an ok explanation of the "mundane class=ok/supernatural class=awesome" problem, but then starts complaining that characters from a game about being a reality warper (Mage) are not balanced against characters in other games (Mortal, Vampire, Werewolf, etc.) that use the same base system (NWoD). He then goes off on a tangent about magical buff stacking, failing to consider that mundane buff stacking can be and is also a source of game imbalance, He fails completely to look at the "why"s that this happens and jumps straight to "how things should" be.

The third section supposedly talks about "gear grind," which is the game style where the only reason you play is to get better gear is so that you can do other stuff that allows you to get even better gear (repeat ad nauseam), but the author seems to conflate it with systems where a character's gear determines what a character can do more than the character's stats and abilities. The author doesn't even talk about this. He starts complaining about games where different pieces of gear have different effectiveness and that players seek to get the gear that can best help them solve problems. His solution to the mistake he doesn't even really talk about is to simply "Do not have a gear grind."

The fourth section is pretty much a rant about hit points, poor damage scaling and "fine or dead" systems without talking about their pros and cons, only complaining about their lack of verisimilitude.

The fifth section basically says rules that are basically a baseline to be expanded later or leave stuff to reader interpretation and intuition are bad.

The sixth section starts with a Reductio ad absurdum about two versions of a Driving subskill and then tries to imply that several other skill pairs that could be considered related are actually subskills of a more broad skill. This is followed by an actual example of what could be skill redundancy which is shortly followed by an example that seems more like operator (GM) error than an actual problem with the skill system. Even if the problem is real there is no examination of it's causes and effects.

The seventh and final section starts off with another Reductio ad absurdum and is shortly followed by complaints about "boring" combat without actual examining why combat tends to end up taking so much time and feels "boring." There is mention of false (where each option leads to the same end result) and only one real option (one option is so much better than the others that you can only really go with it) choices, but there is now examination on how those choices occur.

It is a tabletop clickbait article with very little substance.

OK.

Regarding the article I'm agreeing with Ultimatecalibur.

The writer complains about things without explaining how the things work in the RPGs and how he thinks they should work. So it is not helpful at all.

Regarding the "no one wants to play Monks"-part:

I don't think it is only about the not being as good in fighting as an armed Bushi, especially because in L5R fighting is something one should try to avoid. I think it is more about the "awkward" socialstanding of the Monks and maybe due to the complexity of Kiho.
In the socialsystem the Monks are lower than Samurai, still they are respected and some Samurai even turn to Monks in order to consult them about something that bothers them.

But why should a Monk leave his monastery? And Why should a Monk travel with Samurai (except for Kuni Witchhunters and Togashi Tattooed Monks)?

Maybe to guide them. But guiding other players is something hard to do, especially due to the point that most Monks wouldn't want to be the leader of a group of Samurai.

Also I think that having to pay 5 Points for my Monk to make more damage is not a bad trade.

It is ok if you don't like the whole having some sort of archetypes, you have the freedom to use FATE or FAE as rules for playing L5R or some other System with less "restrictions".

Still there are a lot of people who like playing archetypes.

I'm a player in a Mutants and Masterminds-Group and it took me longer to create my character because I had too many ideas and no real guidelines. Since in this group we already had two characters who were built around fighting I wanted to play a character with a focus on healing and supporting the others. And it wasn't an easy thing to do, because in M&Ms you don't have acrhetypes of any sort. Just some prebuilt heroes who remind you of some DC or Marvel Heroes and those didn't help me grasp the idea.
The same goes for my GURPS-Character, there it was even more problematic because I didn't even have ideas what I could want to play.

And the times I played FATE or FAE I encountered the same problems. Only now as a GM for my FAE X-Men Group I didn't have those problems for my NPCs, because I just had to create some of the known Mutants as NPCs.

So, although I like some of the more free and rules lighter systems I have trouble creating a character and if I create one I always end up with something similiar to my other characters.

I agree with Shosuro and Ultimatecalibur here. The article is not very well written. Yes some of its aspects as the lack of options in combat scenes or the fact that most of the systems I know fail to present a good crafting system are right but to be honest most of the things written down there a actually false. For example the HIde skill is not the same as the sneak skill. Reason for that is easy. You use hide when you actually want to hide from something and try to find a place where you best can do this.

Sneaking on the otherhand is the skill you use when you want to pass by unoticed. That means HIdeing is a skill you use when people are allready searching for you while sneaking is something you do to prevent people from noticing you in the first place.

So I don´t think generalising the skils to like for example swords for all subcategories of the sword class ( Rapier, Longswords, Bastardswords etc) is a good Idea cause it would take away the individual feel of you techniques and skils you get when chosing the skills of you character.
So in the end I think what L5r is needing is not found in this article.

Relevant to several of the various discussions we've been having around here:

http://mythcreants.com/blog/seven-design-mistakes-roleplaying-games-keep-making/

I'll go through the 7 aspects of the article by looking only at L5R and giving my opinion about these, I won't take anything from the text since there's almost nothing to talk about besides complains without explaination.

1- Ability Tax: First of all, my definition of an ability tax is the need to buy something to be able to unlock another one, best example of this: Skill Trees. That's not in L5R. As for the monk idea, it's not because someone plays a monk that he has to fight with fist, there's a lot of monk fighting with staves, the addition of the advantages like Hand of Stones allows players to be able to fight with their fist and able to catch up, if he's doing this way. Let's not forget that a weapon is always better than a barehand, that's reality. Is it a bad design? Nope, it's giving the player a choice which is good in my opinion.

2- The Wizard King: We talked a lot about that in the Shugenja's topic and we all agreed that in high ranked games, the Shugenja are stronger indeed. However, are they overpowered? I don't feel like it because their power can be fixed through small tweeks. Also, as a storyteller, I'm not afraid of selfish Shugenja, I'm more afraid of Shugenja that uses their power on their allies, because they can create monsters that way.

3- Grind gear: Humm... What grind? If one of my character really needs something, I'll request it to my superior and he'll give it to me based on the goal. That's how the game works, there's no grind here, none at all. Unless it's specific artifact to be able to slay a specific enemy, then that's a quest goal, nothing like D&D magic items.

4- Hitpoint Mountain: L5R is one of the most deadliest RPG I've ever played. One round, you're fine, the other can be deadly. I'll admit that Crab tends to be huge tanks, but this doesn't mean they cannot fall. However, the system has a high damage potential which results that combat rarely last for a while, unless the skirmish is designed that way, but that's not the game design, it's the scenario.

5- Incomplete Rule: I've yet never seen a RPG with complete rules, that's just impossible. There's always a need for supplements to be able to release something. It's not a bad design, it's marketing design. Sure, they could release everything in a single book, but I look at my bookself and I wonder how they could release all these books as a single one. Nobody would buy such a huge monster and it would cost way too much. It's living in a dream to have every single rules into a single rulebook. Now, if we go through the "This rules seems to lack something" or "This needs an errata" part of the incomplete rule part, well, as I've said, I've never seen a RPG with complete rules. That's why developers release errata. They are humans like all of us, they can miss something. If they wouldn't release any errata, then yes, I would say there's a problem, but that's not the case. There might have some bad decisions about what rules go in what books, yes, but if I look at the whole system, it's rare there's a real bad design.

6- Repetitive Skills: Not sure if this is a game design problem. I feel this is more a storyteller problem. If a skill is used more than the others, this means the storyteller needs to vary his game a little bit. I don't really feel this is really a problem with L5R, there's a lot of skills, yes but most of the "Specific skills" are done through emphasis, which is a great design in my opinion.

7- Repetitive Combat: How is this a game design at all? If skirmishes ends up as: "You hit, he hits, you hit, he hits, you hit, he hits, etc until someone dies" it's not at all a game design, it's how the storyteller fails to bring tactics in his combats! If your skirmishes looks like an Itchy and Scratchy hammer fight, I'm sorry for that but it's not at all the game design... If game designers need a section about: "How to create a combat" section, I would feel insulted as a Storyteller... I honestly don't need the game to hold my hand and tell me: "Ok, once the bait NPC has the attention, makes him run back, until he's behind the wall and once one or two of the players reach the bait, reveals the two NPC hidden behind the wall as an ambush." or "once this NPC is in close-combat, he will perform a disarm attack, then if he succeed, the second NPC will run to that weapon and gets it before the player gets it back!" or "If the NPC in charge of the group feels like he's losing his fight, he'll call for mercy and once he's close to a player, he'll grab his weapon and stabs him!". I would really be insulted if I would have a chapter like that...

In the end, the article doesn't seem really relevent to L5R in my opinion...

And it's those baked-in pre-defined roles that I dislike so very much.

Fair enough. Not much point in arguing about matters of opinion, I suppose.

6- Repetitive Skills: Not sure if this is a game design problem. I feel this is more a storyteller problem. If a skill is used more than the others, this means the storyteller needs to vary his game a little bit. I don't really feel this is really a problem with L5R, there's a lot of skills, yes but most of the "Specific skills" are done through emphasis, which is a great design in my opinion.

7- Repetitive Combat: How is this a game design at all? If skirmishes ends up as: "You hit, he hits, you hit, he hits, you hit, he hits, etc until someone dies" it's not at all a game design, it's how the storyteller fails to bring tactics in his combats! If your skirmishes looks like an Itchy and Scratchy hammer fight, I'm sorry for that but it's not at all the game design... If game designers need a section about: "How to create a combat" section, I would feel insulted as a Storyteller... I honestly don't need the game to hold my hand and tell me: "Ok, once the bait NPC has the attention, makes him run back, until he's behind the wall and once one or two of the players reach the bait, reveals the two NPC hidden behind the wall as an ambush." or "once this NPC is in close-combat, he will perform a disarm attack, then if he succeed, the second NPC will run to that weapon and gets it before the player gets it back!" or "If the NPC in charge of the group feels like he's losing his fight, he'll call for mercy and once he's close to a player, he'll grab his weapon and stabs him!". I would really be insulted if I would have a chapter like that...

Regarding #6, I feel you're speaking too generally here. Repetitive skills can absolutely be a result of poor design. To take an extreme example, let's say you have separate skills for Physiology, Molecular Biology, Anatomy, Biochemistry, and Genetics. Unless the system is designed to enable a campaign based on medical research, most of those skills will be entirely pointless. They should be compressed into a single skill, even though that's unrealistic. Heck, if science isn't expected to be a major part of the campaign they could even be merged with Chemistry and Physics, even though that's super-duper unrealistic.

Regarding #7, well that's true, a good GM can make even poorly-designed combat interesting. But most GM's are average, not good. Also, no GM starts out good, it takes practice.

If your system demands a good GM to make it interesting, that's simply bad design, because a good enough GM can make anything interesting. A good system is one that makes an interesting campaign easy .

Finally, some players want tactical options. No amount of good storytelling will give that to them, it needs to come from the rules.

I've been looking into the other FFG RPGs, especially Star Wars, and the frankly dice system that they use.

The more I dig, the goofier their dice system is, and I have to say that one thing that is absolutely necessary for any sort of 5th Ed L5R RPG is the retention of the Roll-and-Keep system rather than the FFG... thing.

My other worry is that FFG appears to have a very abstracted approach that's more concerned with "recreating the feel", rather than actually "mapping the territory" as I've put it. For example, in their Star Wars RPG, putting a "named character" into a starfighter makes that starfighter far harder to kill -- it's exactly the same starfighter, but instead of being destroyed by most damage, it is now "disabled", simply because a PC or "important" NPC is in it.

My other worry is that FFG appears to have a very abstracted approach that's more concerned with "recreating the feel", rather than actually "mapping the territory" as I've put it. For example, in their Star Wars RPG, putting a "named character" into a starfighter makes that starfighter far harder to kill -- it's exactly the same starfighter, but instead of being destroyed by most damage, it is now "disabled", simply because a PC or "important" NPC is in it.

I'll admit I find that interesting, because I approach games more as a way of telling stories than as a game-type challenge. So to my eye, that's a clever little mechanic that helps model the kind of stories we associate with Star Wars: of course Luke doesn't get blown out of the sky by a random shot, and neither does Darth Vader.

The whole "mapping the territory" thing only becomes an issue for me when I feel like there's a major disjunct between territory and map. If L5R made a big deal out of the idea that all samurai live three feet from death, but the damage ratings on weapons meant the only way to kill somebody was for the whole party to spend ten rounds chipping away at them, that would be a problem. But nothing in Star Wars says "this is a lethal world where even heroes can die at any time, senselessly, for no better reason than because they happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time." So long as FFG's odd little rules are geared toward creating the feel described in the text, I'm okay with it.