That's the point. This "basic knowledge" only covers the stuff any samurai should know. If you want to be able to know more, you have to invest in the skill itself.

That's the point. This "basic knowledge" only covers the stuff any samurai should know. If you want to be able to know more, you have to invest in the skill itself.

TheHobgoblyn was talking about Skills having slightly less return than raw Traits. Say, an untrained guy with high Intelligence can technically out-roll a guy with average Intelligence but high Lore Skill Rank (a supposed expert of the topic). Of course, this isn't exactly true because pumping up Intelligence is actually more expensive than pumping up a Lore Skill, and as such the gap quickly closes then starts favoring the Skill, but this isn't something a starting character would consider (obviously).

It's true in some way, but false in another.

Let's check the false side of "Skills is less significative to traits":

Two characters the starting the same way: Int 3 and Lore 1, one spend 16 XP for Int 4 and the other 14 for Lore 5 and bought an emphases with the 2 extra xp:
The first will roll 5k4 for an average roll of 28.3 and a standard deviation of 9.1.

The second will roll 8k3 for an average roll of 30.7 and a standard deviation of 8.8.

Based on that perspective, it's false to say that skills is less significative to traits.However, every other skills for the first character will be improved, while the second will not. Which ends up into the true state.

What I think that may be a good chance and forcing a few "Pump up trait" mentality is the "How insight rank works" I think it may be changed with a few requirements, for example: To be rank 2, all school skills shall be at least at rank 2 with at least 3 non-school skills at rank 1 and at least two Rings at rank 3. Then, at rank 3: All school skills shall be at least at rank 3, with at least 5 non-school at rank 1 and at least 2 more at rank 2 and One ring at least at rank 4.

That's only a raw example of my idea and it will feels a little more like how a Samurai will live, which is as cultured as possible. What do you think about this idea? Too harsh? Restrictive? Of course, it would requires to calculate the Insight value and reproduct the table to have the requirement level that fit with the new table, so the character progression will stay basically the same.

It's true in some way, but false in another.

Let's check the false side of "Skills is less significative to traits":

Two characters the starting the same way: Int 3 and Lore 1, one spend 16 XP for Int 4 and the other 14 for Lore 5 and bought an emphases with the 2 extra xp:

The first will roll 5k4 for an average roll of 28.3 and a standard deviation of 9.1.

The second will roll 8k3 for an average roll of 30.7 and a standard deviation of 8.8.

Based on that perspective, it's false to say that skills is less significative to traits.However, every other skills for the first character will be improved, while the second will not. Which ends up into the true state.

What I think that may be a good chance and forcing a few "Pump up trait" mentality is the "How insight rank works" I think it may be changed with a few requirements, for example: To be rank 2, all school skills shall be at least at rank 2 with at least 3 non-school skills at rank 1 and at least two Rings at rank 3. Then, at rank 3: All school skills shall be at least at rank 3, with at least 5 non-school at rank 1 and at least 2 more at rank 2 and One ring at least at rank 4.

That's only a raw example of my idea and it will feels a little more like how a Samurai will live, which is as cultured as possible. What do you think about this idea? Too harsh? Restrictive? Of course, it would requires to calculate the Insight value and reproduct the table to have the requirement level that fit with the new table, so the character progression will stay basically the same.

Notice that they come out about even on a single lore skill.... of which there are a dozen you are expected to purchase for the same cost. The person with a skill level of 5 being able to, on average, maybe win by a point or two hardly makes them the ultra specialized expert they claim to be....

And then consider what happens when these two try to compete on literally any of the other dozen lore skills?

You have to dump a crazy ton of experience and max out a skill in order to just barely be slightly better at that one particular skill than the person who bought the attribute... and the person who bought that one point of attribute is so vastly superior at literally every other skill attached to that attribute as a result that the person who purchased the skill clearly just wasted their XP.

Now, maybe this could be solved if the skill list was majorly reduced to something far more reasonable and manageable, but... as things stand, the fact that you barely come ahead 2-3 points on a single skill by investing one's entire self in the skill and having taken the applicable emphasis before the situation even arises compared to the person who just simply bought the attribute point?

Surely you cannot think that seems like a reasonable trade-off.

It's true in some way, but false in another.

Let's check the false side of "Skills is less significative to traits":

Two characters the starting the same way: Int 3 and Lore 1, one spend 16 XP for Int 4 and the other 14 for Lore 5 and bought an emphases with the 2 extra xp:

The first will roll 5k4 for an average roll of 28.3 and a standard deviation of 9.1.

The second will roll 8k3 for an average roll of 30.7 and a standard deviation of 8.8.

Based on that perspective, it's false to say that skills is less significative to traits.However, every other skills for the first character will be improved, while the second will not. Which ends up into the true state.

What I think that may be a good chance and forcing a few "Pump up trait" mentality is the "How insight rank works" I think it may be changed with a few requirements, for example: To be rank 2, all school skills shall be at least at rank 2 with at least 3 non-school skills at rank 1 and at least two Rings at rank 3. Then, at rank 3: All school skills shall be at least at rank 3, with at least 5 non-school at rank 1 and at least 2 more at rank 2 and One ring at least at rank 4.

That's only a raw example of my idea and it will feels a little more like how a Samurai will live, which is as cultured as possible. What do you think about this idea? Too harsh? Restrictive? Of course, it would requires to calculate the Insight value and reproduct the table to have the requirement level that fit with the new table, so the character progression will stay basically the same.

Notice that they come out about even on a single lore skill.... of which there are a dozen you are expected to purchase for the same cost. The person with a skill level of 5 being able to, on average, maybe win by a point or two hardly makes them the ultra specialized expert they claim to be....

And then consider what happens when these two try to compete on literally any of the other dozen lore skills?

You have to dump a crazy ton of experience and max out a skill in order to just barely be slightly better at that one particular skill than the person who bought the attribute... and the person who bought that one point of attribute is so vastly superior at literally every other skill attached to that attribute as a result that the person who purchased the skill clearly just wasted their XP.

Now, maybe this could be solved if the skill list was majorly reduced to something far more reasonable and manageable, but... as things stand, the fact that you barely come ahead 2-3 points on a single skill by investing one's entire self in the skill and having taken the applicable emphasis before the situation even arises compared to the person who just simply bought the attribute point?

Surely you cannot think that seems like a reasonable trade-off.

simple fix to show specialization: Never allow the kept number of dice to exceed skill rank. Problem solved

It's true in some way, but false in another.

Let's check the false side of "Skills is less significative to traits":

Two characters the starting the same way: Int 3 and Lore 1, one spend 16 XP for Int 4 and the other 14 for Lore 5 and bought an emphases with the 2 extra xp:

The first will roll 5k4 for an average roll of 28.3 and a standard deviation of 9.1.

The second will roll 8k3 for an average roll of 30.7 and a standard deviation of 8.8.

Based on that perspective, it's false to say that skills is less significative to traits.However, every other skills for the first character will be improved, while the second will not. Which ends up into the true state.

What I think that may be a good chance and forcing a few "Pump up trait" mentality is the "How insight rank works" I think it may be changed with a few requirements, for example: To be rank 2, all school skills shall be at least at rank 2 with at least 3 non-school skills at rank 1 and at least two Rings at rank 3. Then, at rank 3: All school skills shall be at least at rank 3, with at least 5 non-school at rank 1 and at least 2 more at rank 2 and One ring at least at rank 4.

That's only a raw example of my idea and it will feels a little more like how a Samurai will live, which is as cultured as possible. What do you think about this idea? Too harsh? Restrictive? Of course, it would requires to calculate the Insight value and reproduct the table to have the requirement level that fit with the new table, so the character progression will stay basically the same.

Notice that they come out about even on a single lore skill.... of which there are a dozen you are expected to purchase for the same cost. The person with a skill level of 5 being able to, on average, maybe win by a point or two hardly makes them the ultra specialized expert they claim to be....

And then consider what happens when these two try to compete on literally any of the other dozen lore skills?

You have to dump a crazy ton of experience and max out a skill in order to just barely be slightly better at that one particular skill than the person who bought the attribute... and the person who bought that one point of attribute is so vastly superior at literally every other skill attached to that attribute as a result that the person who purchased the skill clearly just wasted their XP.

Now, maybe this could be solved if the skill list was majorly reduced to something far more reasonable and manageable, but... as things stand, the fact that you barely come ahead 2-3 points on a single skill by investing one's entire self in the skill and having taken the applicable emphasis before the situation even arises compared to the person who just simply bought the attribute point?

Surely you cannot think that seems like a reasonable trade-off.

I believe the Mastery abilities are supposed to close the trait/skill benefit gap, but so many "fluff" skills lack them.

Consider what happens when we change Crawd's example to a skill with 3/5/7 masteries like Courtier.

The first will still roll 5k4 for an average roll of 28.3 and a standard deviation of 9.1.

The second will roll 8k3 for an average roll of 30.7 and a standard deviation of 8.8, has 3 additional insight and will roll 9k3 for an average roll of 32 and a standard deviation of 9 when contested.

So there was some discussion (here or elsewhere) of the way in which the Bushi "attack as simple action" techniques, exclusive to those schools, were, like the way many RPGs handle extra attacks, quite an edge -- get this technique, double your number of attacks.

I saw something in another system that I thought might be a possible alternative. What if anyone can take additional actions, but at an increasing penalty, up to a number of actions determined by X (trait, ring, formula-derived, whatever) -- but Bushi were to get a reduction to that penalty from a technique, making it easier to succeed on those extra attacks.

Just wild brainstorming.

That.... already exists. The existing "Extra Attack" Maneuver, at a 5 raises cost. The bushi's "Attack as Simple Action" could be rewritten as a "you can make an extra attack maneuver for 0 raises", with no mechanical difference (that I can spot anyway).

I was thinking of a little bit more drastic a rework than that...

(I've never really been satisfied with the whole "raises" mechanic.)

My personal experience is that allowing multiple attacks for everyone results in a considerable power spike that makes the gap between Bushi and the other classes remarkably smaller as far as combat efficiency goes. If you can explode in a whirlwind of steel any time you want, then even Artisans are tempted to learn how to cut up some cheese. Depending on how much you support this mechanic with special abilities (reworked School Techniques, Katas, etc.), things can get out of control pretty darn quickly and the next thing you know is that the specced Mirumoto Bushi only needs to have 35+ on his Initiative roll in order to kill everyone and everything with his 13 attacks per turn (true story... and he was my character ).

My personal experience is that allowing multiple attacks for everyone results in a considerable power spike that makes the gap between Bushi and the other classes remarkably smaller as far as combat efficiency goes. If you can explode in a whirlwind of steel any time you want, then even Artisans are tempted to learn how to cut up some cheese. Depending on how much you support this mechanic with special abilities (reworked School Techniques, Katas, etc.), things can get out of control pretty darn quickly and the next thing you know is that the specced Mirumoto Bushi only needs to have 35+ on his Initiative roll in order to kill everyone and everything with his 13 attacks per turn (true story... and he was my character ).

Yep, I agree with that. It's the equivalent to a wild arms race.

And, let's be honest here - if you're playing in a game where everything important that happens is combat (aka, a dungeon-crawler type of game), and still you choose a non-combat character, then you should expect and agree to be sidelined when said combat situations happen - for the benefit of being the only one able to do Thing X when it becomes required.

On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the GM to make sure all characters have an equal chance to shine and be relevant - in a number of characters become constantly sidelined in a game campaign, and consequently the players get bored, that is not the game mechanics fault - it is the GM's.

The concern had been, as stated by several people in the old forums and here, that the instant 100% increase in number of attacks, confined to one type of character, was excessive.

The concern had been, as stated by several people in the old forums and here, that the instant 100% increase in number of attacks, confined to one type of character, was excessive.

I don't think it's really that excessive, in fact, I feel like it balance the strength of the Shugenja. Many people are more concerned about the strength of the Shugenja compared to the strength of the Bushi. In my opinion, it's really great as it is, because it helps a lot of Bushi to do more than simply attack. It gives more tactical maneuvers. Attack as simple action doesn't only mean to have 2 attacks, it means a lot more than this.

Let's say a bushi is fighting a rebel courtier that wants to kill someone, but the bushi wants to protect the target and not kill the courtier. Because the bushi has the attack as simple action, he may attempt several moves in addition to attacking. For example, he'll be able to perform the guard maneuver on the target and perform a disarm attack, in order to remove the weapon of the courtier. If successful, the courtier will have to use a simple action to pick up the weapon and will be unable to attack. However, if the courtier tried to be sneaky by disarming the bushi and succeed, the bushi can still pick up his weapon and answer back with another disarm, in the same turn.

It's a small example, but can be applied to every simple action with an attack, giving some great tactical advantage in combat. Small list of simple actions: Activating a kata, drawing a weapon (medium or large), using a skill (other than weapon skill), dismounting a horse, speaking (more than 5 words), standing up (from Prone), moving (10ft x Water). By removing the "Attack as simple action", as it is, this advantage is simply gone.

It could have a "Bushi Rule" which grants them an additional simple action with the "you can make an extra attack maneuver for 0 raises" however, by doing so, we have to keep in mind that combat maneuver requires a successful roll in order to work. Unless, you add up that the Bushi may fail the roll, but it's basically doing the same thing as the actual rule, which complex the actual rules for nothing.

In my opinion, it's fine. In my game, it's rare that I have an "Itchy and Scratchy fight", it's usually more mobile and every simple action counts.

At the risk of being contrary, a partial or full reboot isn't the worst idea. A great deal of AEG's story decisions had been, to put it politely, contentious, even before we got to the build up to Onyx. Skipping ahead or doing a mulligan on some of the more outlandish details isn't necessarily a bad idea, so long as it's clear why and what's changed. For instance, do we really need the Mantis to fall apart and get rebuilt again?

At the risk of being contrary, a partial or full reboot isn't the worst idea. A great deal of AEG's story decisions had been, to put it politely, contentious, even before we got to the build up to Onyx. Skipping ahead or doing a mulligan on some of the more outlandish details isn't necessarily a bad idea, so long as it's clear why and what's changed. For instance, do we really need the Mantis to fall apart and get rebuilt again?

Did we even actually see them fall apart in the first place? Should we count story fluff that was announced but never made it into the fiction as being part of the established continuity?

At the risk of being contrary, a partial or full reboot isn't the worst idea. A great deal of AEG's story decisions had been, to put it politely, contentious, even before we got to the build up to Onyx. Skipping ahead or doing a mulligan on some of the more outlandish details isn't necessarily a bad idea, so long as it's clear why and what's changed. For instance, do we really need the Mantis to fall apart and get rebuilt again?

Did we even actually see them fall apart in the first place? Should we count story fluff that was announced but never made it into the fiction as being part of the established continuity?

That's the thing, though -- we know it was coming. Their pre-Onyx story decision was all about this. Presumably, some of the art FFG has involves this. I gave the example because it was in stone over at AEG, when virtually none of the playerbase really liked the idea. With so little done toward it, and it being one of the more unpopular developments in the last year AEG had the game, I think it likely a goodly number of players (and possibly new devs) would be willing to drop this particular subplot.

When we establish that, we establish that some other plots might be worth negating, too. We could discuss some of the simpler ones that were also unpopular (e.g. the Kotei season), to more complex ones (the war to put an Iweko heir on the throne getting sidelined by Kanpeki), to truly earthshattering ones like Spider getting canonized as a clan.

Everyone's going to have a different point in the story where they feel some retcon is justified, even the story teams of old (i.e. Yokuni being a separate entity from Togashi). I think it's worth considering that it's not entirely a bad idea.

Just gonna say that the playerbase has traditionally been resistant of anything that changes the status quo. Ironic that these same people (or perhaps the RPG players specifically) wanted desperately to have a sci-fi version of Rokugan as a setting in the Imperial Histories sourcebook for 4E.

L5R: 40k is still my favorite campaign I've ever run. Glory to the Emperor.

Hello, world. This is my first post on these forums though I've been an l5R fan since I first picked up the game CCG back in 2000 - I've been playing the RPG (semi) consistently since then as well.

Generally, I think that FFG has a big hill to climb with the L5R franchise in general. The L5R fan-base is niche but rabidly loyal. However, they're dealing with a property that since its inception has changed fundamentally several times and has been subject to wildly inconsistent approaches taken by whoever held the property at that time. At various times L5R has been a game that I recognized, and a game that has been so fundamentally changed that the basic precepts of what makes the clans the clans or the world the world that it has been practically unrecognizable. AEG took the approach that the game "is" whatever you want it to be because you can put it in any historical setting - this made a game that is all at once steeped in lore but at the same time deeply ambivalent about canon or keeping the themes of the clans and even the world consistent.

On the one hand - you have Togashi who in the first edition "classic" L5R refused to participate in the tournament of the children of heaven - and then years later you have the clan of Togashi on the throne of Rokugan. Sure, there is a complex litany of events both concrete and not so concrete that lead to this. But this is a tremendous shift in the theme of that clan that makes the world hard to recognize for all but the hardcore fans of editions beyond the "classic" era who can cite these events. Without that frame of reference - a ton of the lore developed for first edition etc. doesn't make sense. Are the ninja agents of the nameless shadow? Are they a Scorpion clan ruse? Or are they actually a thing that the Scorpion clan trains and uses in the traditional sense of the ninja? Are duels only fought with katana, or can you choose other weapons? Do the Crane still even matter at all politically?

My point is that the franchise in its current state is just not marketable to enough new players. The ancient, clunky, roll & keep system is also something that gets in the way.

So with that in mind, here is the response of an L5R "traditionalist":

• The lore of the game needs a total reboot. I don't care if this is a back to first edition or if it's a Battlestar Galactica Style reimagining - FFG should take this opportunity to redefine the game and the "givens" of the universe such that it can clearly be communicated to new players. This clan values art and has a stranglehold on politics. That clan is the undisputed masters of magic etc. My experience is that L5R is a world that people become more interested in over time. My opinion is that there have to be quick and easy hooks to get people to a place where they can develop that appreciation for the richness of the world - because if I sit down and try to explain that: well that clan used to be X but the Y happened so now they're still elements of X but also Y and then of course context Z happened which caused this little change - no one is going to care unless they already do.
• Roll and keep needs streamlining - It's all well and good if you're rolling four dice. It's another thing entirely once you start rolling upwards of 6 - and all of them have the chance to explode. The reason this is a problem is just the time to recognize success or failure. Some systems have you roll a handful of dice and if they come up X or more that's a success. Others have you roll one die, add a number, and compare it to a TN/DC. Roll and keep kind of has you doing both. You have to a) scan the dice to find your highest numbers, then b) add them together and c) compare the result to the TN + any raises you called. I'm sure some of you are really good at mental math and can do this in your sleep. I am not and I know there are others like me. I think FFG needs to tweak the system in some way as to make determining success quick so that we can stay in the action
• I agree we need better court rules - RPGs have traditionally been bad at courtly intrigue - but that's okay because the roots of RPGs are in slaying monsters. In as much as L5R can be about slaying monsters, the world tells you that it's as much about intrigue and courtly goings on as it is about monsters and magic. FFG needs to develop a system for tracking influence and favors or reputation or courtly prestige etc. In my mind a session at court should be just as exciting as an iaijutsu duel from a mechanical perspective. The right group can make any scene exciting without mechanics. I get that. Sometimes social rules can get in the way. I get that too. But, intrigue is a core part of the L5R experience. Courtiers are a classic archetype of the setting. Give them some way to play the game aspects of the game like bushi and shugenja get to. Making one roll to see if I convince the dude or not doesn't count. Your house rule doesn't either. Leaving a system like this out would be design laziness
• Reduce the number of skills and write them in plain English. I get that this is a game heavily influenced by Japanese culture - but there are also elements of Chinese culture, Indian culture, Mongol culture, and Korean culture. I've always been a big fan of the "Rokugan, not Japan" thing for this very reason. Why we have some skills in Japanese and some skills in English has always been a mystery to me. In my opinion it alienates new players and also takes time to explain. Also - way too many skills, many of which are poorly defined as to when they apply and the mastery abilities are also complex.
• I agree that FFG should reduce the number of "elements" to the game. Techniques, Kata, Kiho, Spells, Mastery Abilities, honor, glory, status, rings, traits, equipment. It's a ton of stuff to keep track of. Each has its own rules of acquisition, its own subsystems, its own modifiers etc. Again, it makes the game just kind of fatty for no reason.
• Speaking of which: Make honor meaningful. The tagline for the game has been at various points something to the effect of "welcome to a world where honor is more powerful than steel." In 4th edition, honor is not more powerful than steel. Steel wins every time. Other than being L5R's version of the ole' alignment bat and maybe having fluff effects - honor does nothing mechanically. Unless you play with the honor roll rule in which case you're penalizing the clans that start with low honor to begin with.

As time has gone by (and the wound of the sale and silence to follow has been allowed to heal), I have come around more to the idea of the reboot back to a more iconic state. Personally, I believe that this can still be better accomplished with less heart ache and fan anger by moving the storyline forward in the CCG (a soft reset) than back to the Clan War (a hard reset). And I would still prefer the BSG Reboot to the Hard Reset, honestly. And in greater thought, a BSG Reboot of the L5R setting has enough merit to it that I might just do a separate post for it.

Tackling your other points:

1) Roll and Keep Streamlining - An overhaul of the central engine could do a lot to improve the playability of the game. I, honestly, have never seen my RPG players happier than with my recent houserule of "Explode or Free Raise" on rolling a 10. It has served to make the game much more dynamic. Adding to that, I made the default TN 15. Unless it is an opposed roll, or a significantly harder challenge, everything is a TN 15. Except Combat, which is its own beast, and probably needs a separate streamlining.

2) Courtly Intrigue - This is a generally accepted fact that I have seen around here. L5R needs better Social Interaction rules, as it is a central pillar to the game and is woefully under developed.

3) Skill Streamlining - I am also in favor of this. Why are Intimidation and Temptation separate Skills from Courtier? Why is Forgery a separate Skill from Calligraphy? I get the various different Weapon skills, especially when Mastery Levels are a thing. I do feel a more ruthless approach to Skill is necessary, though it might cause a need to rethink XP and Insight progression as well.

4) Element Glut - I kind of agree with the spirit here, but disagree with the implementation. I feel L5R RPG could strongly benefit from a serious application of Complexity Tiers. Your Tier 1 (Entry Level) is simply: 5 Rings based on 2 Attributes each (except Void), Family Bonus, School Bonus, School Techniques, and Skills. Make your game fun and playable at Tier 1, even if that means no Shugenja. Tier 2 would introduce more advanced mechanics, like Spell-Casting, Advantages / Disadvantages, and Equipment. Need a variety of Weapons? Not at Tier 1. At tier 1, big weapons are Strength + 3, Keep 3; medium weapons are Strength + 2, Keep 2; small weapons are Strength + 1, Keep 1. Armor is either Light (+5 Armor, 3 Reduction), Heavy (+10 Armor, 5 Reduction, but +5 TN to all physical Actions) or not there at Tier 1. Keep the varied weapons and armor to Tier 2. Tier 3 is when you start introduce Monks and Kiho, Kata, Minor Clans, Imperials, Mass Battle, Glory & Status, etc. Make the element glut scalable, as a means of better on-boarding players.

5) The Importance of Honor - This is really a double-edged sword. Any way you introduce Honor into the rules system to stress its importance, you reward the higher Honor PCs while punishing the lower Honor PCs. Honor truly needs to be a two-sided challenge in order to be fair at the gaming table. One thought I had was to make it work similarly to the Virtues in Exalted. Honor starts with a base value, which a PC can increase using RP and XP. It gives you a static bonus to resisting certain types of checks (seduction, fear, etc), but in order to take dishonorable actions, you have to FAIL an Honor roll with a particular TN. And you can always spend a Rank of Honor to automatically fail that check.

5) The Importance of Honor - This is really a double-edged sword. Any way you introduce Honor into the rules system to stress its importance, you reward the higher Honor PCs while punishing the lower Honor PCs. Honor truly needs to be a two-sided challenge in order to be fair at the gaming table. One thought I had was to make it work similarly to the Virtues in Exalted. Honor starts with a base value, which a PC can increase using RP and XP. It gives you a static bonus to resisting certain types of checks (seduction, fear, etc), but in order to take dishonorable actions, you have to FAIL an Honor roll with a particular TN. And you can always spend a Rank of Honor to automatically fail that check.

OTOH, it also makes Scorpion especially more powerful if they can turn honor against you, as they're supposed to do. The problem is more that each of the clans have their own spins on honor that other clans don't quite agree with, and the Spider is their own thing that should still be susceptible to the fallout of breaking it while not actually caring about it in-clan.

Bear in mind that seeking peace is completely within the code for Crane, Phoenix, and Unicorn, and pretty much anathema to Crab, Lion, and Mantis. What does a maximum honor-ranked Kitsuki magistrate do when the evidence they see shows a truth that would shame, for instance, a Shosuro ally who was operating in the best interests of the Empire? How do we handle a courtier who's above reproach in the eyes of court, but is secretly a Kolat operative? Is a duelist who's openly mocking someone he surrendered to of high honor because he can kill anyone who challenges him (and is correct in his commentary), or of low honor for turning his back on tradition?

And how do we do all of this and keep the rules manageable?

5) The Importance of Honor - This is really a double-edged sword. Any way you introduce Honor into the rules system to stress its importance, you reward the higher Honor PCs while punishing the lower Honor PCs. Honor truly needs to be a two-sided challenge in order to be fair at the gaming table. One thought I had was to make it work similarly to the Virtues in Exalted. Honor starts with a base value, which a PC can increase using RP and XP. It gives you a static bonus to resisting certain types of checks (seduction, fear, etc), but in order to take dishonorable actions, you have to FAIL an Honor roll with a particular TN. And you can always spend a Rank of Honor to automatically fail that check.

OTOH, it also makes Scorpion especially more powerful if they can turn honor against you, as they're supposed to do. The problem is more that each of the clans have their own spins on honor that other clans don't quite agree with, and the Spider is their own thing that should still be susceptible to the fallout of breaking it while not actually caring about it in-clan.

Bear in mind that seeking peace is completely within the code for Crane, Phoenix, and Unicorn, and pretty much anathema to Crab, Lion, and Mantis. What does a maximum honor-ranked Kitsuki magistrate do when the evidence they see shows a truth that would shame, for instance, a Shosuro ally who was operating in the best interests of the Empire? How do we handle a courtier who's above reproach in the eyes of court, but is secretly a Kolat operative? Is a duelist who's openly mocking someone he surrendered to of high honor because he can kill anyone who challenges him (and is correct in his commentary), or of low honor for turning his back on tradition?

And how do we do all of this and keep the rules manageable?

At some point, the GM has to step in make actual decisions and judgement calls -- there's no way to make all of that into a set of conditionals and formulas and rules that won't turn every instance of honor in the game into an hour-long mess.

5) The Importance of Honor - This is really a double-edged sword. Any way you introduce Honor into the rules system to stress its importance, you reward the higher Honor PCs while punishing the lower Honor PCs. Honor truly needs to be a two-sided challenge in order to be fair at the gaming table. One thought I had was to make it work similarly to the Virtues in Exalted. Honor starts with a base value, which a PC can increase using RP and XP. It gives you a static bonus to resisting certain types of checks (seduction, fear, etc), but in order to take dishonorable actions, you have to FAIL an Honor roll with a particular TN. And you can always spend a Rank of Honor to automatically fail that check.

OTOH, it also makes Scorpion especially more powerful if they can turn honor against you, as they're supposed to do. The problem is more that each of the clans have their own spins on honor that other clans don't quite agree with, and the Spider is their own thing that should still be susceptible to the fallout of breaking it while not actually caring about it in-clan.

Bear in mind that seeking peace is completely within the code for Crane, Phoenix, and Unicorn, and pretty much anathema to Crab, Lion, and Mantis. What does a maximum honor-ranked Kitsuki magistrate do when the evidence they see shows a truth that would shame, for instance, a Shosuro ally who was operating in the best interests of the Empire? How do we handle a courtier who's above reproach in the eyes of court, but is secretly a Kolat operative? Is a duelist who's openly mocking someone he surrendered to of high honor because he can kill anyone who challenges him (and is correct in his commentary), or of low honor for turning his back on tradition?

And how do we do all of this and keep the rules manageable?

5) The Importance of Honor - This is really a double-edged sword. Any way you introduce Honor into the rules system to stress its importance, you reward the higher Honor PCs while punishing the lower Honor PCs. Honor truly needs to be a two-sided challenge in order to be fair at the gaming table. One thought I had was to make it work similarly to the Virtues in Exalted. Honor starts with a base value, which a PC can increase using RP and XP. It gives you a static bonus to resisting certain types of checks (seduction, fear, etc), but in order to take dishonorable actions, you have to FAIL an Honor roll with a particular TN. And you can always spend a Rank of Honor to automatically fail that check.

OTOH, it also makes Scorpion especially more powerful if they can turn honor against you, as they're supposed to do. The problem is more that each of the clans have their own spins on honor that other clans don't quite agree with, and the Spider is their own thing that should still be susceptible to the fallout of breaking it while not actually caring about it in-clan.

Bear in mind that seeking peace is completely within the code for Crane, Phoenix, and Unicorn, and pretty much anathema to Crab, Lion, and Mantis. What does a maximum honor-ranked Kitsuki magistrate do when the evidence they see shows a truth that would shame, for instance, a Shosuro ally who was operating in the best interests of the Empire? How do we handle a courtier who's above reproach in the eyes of court, but is secretly a Kolat operative? Is a duelist who's openly mocking someone he surrendered to of high honor because he can kill anyone who challenges him (and is correct in his commentary), or of low honor for turning his back on tradition?

And how do we do all of this and keep the rules manageable?

At some point, the GM has to step in make actual decisions and judgement calls -- there's no way to make all of that into a set of conditionals and formulas and rules that won't turn every instance of honor in the game into an hour-long mess.

So this is really the problem. In the lore, Akodo was most directly responsible for the creation of Bushido - Bushido is the basis for honor - therefore it might make some sense to use that as the basis for honor. The problem is though, as you both have highlighted, the clans and families have all put their own spin on "honor." The Scorpion, Crab, Wasp, and Spider all have their own "codes" more or less that varying degrees of different from "traditional" bushido.

So the question really comes down to a matter of balance - either you say there is "one" code of honor and the further you deviate from it, the worse off you are - or you allow multiple "codes" in which case PCs will all mostly have high honor so long as they each live up to their own codes. Then you also get into "personal" spins on the code of Bushido. Do you lend credence to a PC's personal code?

On a related point, honor in some way is supposed to influence how people view your character in the world - so then is honor assessed from the point of view of the extrinsic beholder, or the intrinsic "possessor" of the honor score? Tough stuff.

Regardless though - I don't know that it's up to the GM to make this call. I think that to the extent that you're going to make this a game about "honor" you need to have some sort of objective standard against which it is judged, even if you use multiple standards - you also need to tie this into how the world views your character, or decide that it doesn't.

Personally, something I've always enjoyed about L5R is that it is played in a world where humans are forced up against a code that demands them to be MORE THAN human. Fall in love with a girl? Doesn't matter - you marry who your lord tells you to. Are you afraid of that demon? Doesn't matter - you are expected to charge it head on. Thus, I've always been comfortable "punishing" low honor PCs because I think it's an impossible code to live up to perfectly - the path of Bushido is striving for perfection while kind of knowing that you'll never reach it, in my own opinion. But doesn't the striving for perfection make your soul stronger still?

Thus, I've always wanted there to be a tangible benefit to honor - the honor roll mechanic doesn't really do it justice in my opinion - also the code is only fleshed out in the "fluffy" bits of the book, though they are present in the form of paragon advantages I guess - the individual duties are not present on the character sheet, they're all rolled into one. In some of my games, I've tried to split Bushido out into its constitutions virtues and let the players argue when their high rank in one should justify a tangible benefit - again this has been somewhat more satisfying but I'd like there to be some firm design decisions made on this.

Regarding the mechanics issue:

I personally would not mind at all if the mechanical aspect of the game mirrored Edge of the Empire. Roll & Keep could be salvaged in my opinion, but I don't know exactly how I'd do it. Whereas, I think It might be easier to design a some generic archetypes and skill trees that would then be modified based on clan/family relations. Plus, it keeps a consistent feel in FFG's products which helps to broaden the player base. Maybe I'll end up doing my own mock-up of a conversion just for fun. I'll have to see what life looks like after next week.

On rebooting the lore of L5R, I feel that the most important part is making sure that it is internally consistent. For instance, some stories I have read seem to indicate that Rokugan is very large, while others (such as many of the stories of courtly intrigue) only make sense to me if Rokugan is small. Making it clear that Rokugan is the size it needs to be for any particular story might work, but some people might find that annoying. I don't have much history with the game, so I don't have any desire to reboot to the Clan Wars.

I would approve of a person's honour being controlled by the people around them, but this would be overly complicated if each player had to record how the clans see them. Perhaps the PCs could have a shared honour score that shows how the groups they have come into contact with view them, which would mostly be whether they like or dislike the PCs.

Although reducing the number of elements in the mechanics might be good, I would hope that shugenja and spiritual plots exist in the simple part of the game, and that spiritual interaction were handled through skills rather than spells.

Bear in mind that seeking peace is completely within the code for Crane, Phoenix, and Unicorn, and pretty much anathema to Crab, Lion, and Mantis. What does a maximum honor-ranked Kitsuki magistrate do when the evidence they see shows a truth that would shame, for instance, a Shosuro ally who was operating in the best interests of the Empire? How do we handle a courtier who's above reproach in the eyes of court, but is secretly a Kolat operative? Is a duelist who's openly mocking someone he surrendered to of high honor because he can kill anyone who challenges him (and is correct in his commentary), or of low honor for turning his back on tradition?

Meh, these are easy.

Peace is favorable but war is inevitable, it is straight-out written in Leadership. Si vis pacem, para bellum, so to speak.

The max honored magistrate will of course reveal the truth without giving it a second thought, and tell his ally to learn his lessons. Nobody cares who are you or why you did what you did - you did it, and the responsibility is yours to bear.

The Kolat is not something a truly honorable person would consider a problem. They do have a point. A rather bizarre point, but so what? The courtier should be judged according to his/her honor and not what freaky cult he/she is part of.

The duelist is probably zeroing Honor-wise. Mocking others is not dishonorable, especially if they deserve it, but it isn't honorable either. Depending on the actual content, the duelist can be high Honor (if he cuts deep with his words where he needs to and actually gives a harsh lesson) or low Honor (if he is just BMing)... or anything in between (like pulling a Kakita, as giving a lesson in a somewhat childish manner).