Generally speaking, I'd really like FFG to take a kind of timeless approach to the setting. The Empire really does exist forever, functionally. A particular storyline (contained within a cycle, deluxe+cycles, a single chapter pack in an "anthology" cycle, whatever) can take place before, after, or during other storylines, and the passage of time tends to drift the setting back to a default setup of X great clans vying for honor, glory, and power.

If desired, FFG can do a mix of original storylines and "greatest hits" from the AEG days under this model, and continuity isn't really an issue. Or they can do all originals. Or they can do greatest hits (revised as they wish, and in any order they wish) until they run out of material they care to revisit, then take off in new directions.

This also gives FFG a lot of freedom when it comes to non-LCG games, particularly things like the RPG. Setting elements can be introduced as actual legends -- maybe they're true, maybe they're not. Maybe they happened at the same time, maybe not. It's up to the needs of your campaign. Board games can be set during particularly popular cycles/storylines, or tell stories unique to the board game. Same with novels.

I think there is a chance they'll take this approach, but I rather doubt they'll go as far as I would like in an ideal world.

i like the timeless approach in theory, but theres two problems with it. FFG is actively experimenting with ongoing storylines in their other games like netrunner, so clearly its something they are into, and its also kind of anti-l5r. and by kind of i mean more or less completely, as far as the game is concerned. rpg, thats another matter, but for the ccg the storyline and the ability to influence was at the very center of what l5r was. throwing away not just storyline interactivity but the whole notion of storyline? they'll NEVER do it. nothing close.

i like the timeless approach in theory, but theres two problems with it. FFG is actively experimenting with ongoing storylines in their other games like netrunner, so clearly its something they are into, and its also kind of anti-l5r. and by kind of i mean more or less completely, as far as the game is concerned. rpg, thats another matter, but for the ccg the storyline and the ability to influence was at the very center of what l5r was. throwing away not just storyline interactivity but the whole notion of storyline? they'll NEVER do it. nothing close.

I don't think their other games necessarily lend themselves to the approach the way L5R does, in terms of their settings. Like, timeless Netrunner? More than a little odd, because that's not something cyberpunk settings really do, even though they leave the specific year is vague sometimes ("20 minutes into the future..."). They are a specific future. SImilarly, I would expect AGoT to take place within the times addressed by the books, though they could do historical sets based on stuff described therein, too.

I haven't really kept up, but as a contrary example, LotR's cycle stories seem pretty independent of each other (even though they're chronologically within a specific span of time, I believe). Same with Call of Cthulhu, and I assume with Arkham Horror coming up. They'll develop a specific story about a specific character or place in a cycle of packs, then go off and do something entirely different in the next cycle, because in horror stories, protagonists often die.

For this purpose, I don't think doing an independent story in the same overall setting but in a different location is all that different from an independent story in the same overall setting but a different time.

For Legend of the Five Rings particularly? "Legend" is actually in the title. And Legends tend to be pretty non-specific about chronology. I don't think the idea is as foreign to the game as you suggest, though what I discuss above is certainly a more extreme version than anything AEG's done.

Still, AEG flirted with the idea when they advanced the timeline (although a quick google tells me the whole 20 years of story takes place in a single century?! Is that right? Seems is a bit ridiculous for all the upheaval.). They've also done prequels (Scorpion Clan Coup), alternate timelines (Thousand Years of Darkness), and the distant past (Heroes of Rokugan). How many elements carry over from one story to the next is a matter of degree to me - how much continuity - rather than a matter of kind - continuity Y/N?

And sure, some of those are direct to player sets. But in a way, even just advancing the timeline between editions is a version of this.

Like I said, I don't think FFG will go as far as I suggest, or hope, but I don't think it's really a question of "this or that," so much as landing somewhere on a spectrum between a hard continuity and something timeless.

I do think it's really likely that it's more timeless -- and as a side note, less interactive, with the caveat that "interactive" and "timeless" are not mutually exclusive -- than it was under AEG. But we shall see! It's not really a dealbreaker for me either way, (as with so many things I hope for the reboot), just blue-skying.

And this--

...throwing away not just storyline interactivity but the whole notion of storyline? they'll NEVER do it. nothing close.

...is the kind of mischaracterization I've pretty much gotten used to when anything even a little bit different from AEG's approach is suggested, even just more of one thing or less of another. Nowhere did I say they shouldn't do story. I wouldn't want them to not do story. I discussed, specifically, ways they could do story under this model (and they could do interactive, as well, though I think that's more how you do story than whether you do story).

But the fact is, FFG is going to do some things differently than AEG did. I think the vast majority of changes that they make will be a matter of degree rather than kind, but I'm sure some will also interpret those changes as of greater degree, or even as matters of kind. Which wouldn't necessarily be wrong, because it's partly a matter of perspective and priorities. But changes are definitely coming.

They've also done prequels (Scorpion Clan Coup), alternate timelines (Thousand Years of Darkness), and the distant past (Heroes of Rokugan).

And the distant future.

And the distant future.

Rokugan 2000 FTW!

They've also done prequels (Scorpion Clan Coup), alternate timelines (Thousand Years of Darkness), and the distant past (Heroes of Rokugan).

And the distant future.

I'd buy an L5R game set in the near future.

I think you are confusing reboot with rewind. A reboot does not mean we are going to do it again. A rewind does.

Just about everyone here has been using "reboot" to mean what you use "rewind" for.

What else is one to think when every second "reboot" post is "let's go back to the Clan War."

I could go for a soft reboot in the form of a time jump. Like 3–400 years. It would also allow for playing with the status quo in ways shorter time jumps would not, for example introducing technological advances similar to what the real-life Japan got its hands on through trade with Europeans.

I just… I want tanegashima in L5R. I can't help it.

For Legend of the Five Rings particularly? "Legend" is actually in the title. And Legends tend to be pretty non-specific about chronology. I don't think the idea is as foreign to the game as you suggest, though what I discuss above is certainly a more extreme version than anything AEG's done.

Still, AEG flirted with the idea when they advanced the timeline (although a quick google tells me the whole 20 years of story takes place in a single century?! Is that right? Seems is a bit ridiculous for all the upheaval.). They've also done prequels (Scorpion Clan Coup), alternate timelines (Thousand Years of Darkness), and the distant past (Heroes of Rokugan). How many elements carry over from one story to the next is a matter of degree to me - how much continuity - rather than a matter of kind - continuity Y/N?

you seem very interested in the things L5R has sometimes done, or the things its name implies, but are dismissive when i emphasize what it was at its heart, what its most basic, common, essential nature was, as if thats the least valuable part, and suggest that FFG is as likely to value the word "legend" as it is the spirit of the game, the thing that made it valuable enough to buy. again, if they wanted a generic magical samurai game they didn't need to buy l5r. they bought this game for a reason. l5r has some very specific features and hoping that those features will be erased just seems kind of madness to me. Its also worth noting that the people at FFG who are working on this are l5r fans, not just rando game developers.

I just… I want tanegashima in L5R. I can't help it.

I think - realistically speaking - it wouldn't be such a big thing as IRL, unless one makes guns a plot device (see: Iron Rokugan).

l5r has some very specific features and hoping that those features will be erased...

Again: "Less," does not mean, "none." "More," does not mean, "only."

There will be less of some things, more of others. That doesn't mean any of those things will be erased, nor am I wishing for that.

As for:

you seem very interested in the things L5R has sometimes done, or the things its name implies, but are dismissive when i emphasize what it was at its heart, what its most basic, common, essential nature was

Its most common, essential nature actually is that it's a magical samurai setting. And a pretty specific one, with clear iconography, an approachable core setting (X great clans vie for power and the favor of the emperor, but honor is a force stronger than steel!), and a memorable name. That's what FFG bought.

It's been a card game. It's been an RPG. It's been a board game. It's been a minis game. A disk game. Love Letter (another card game, story and interaction free!). Novels. Fiction.

It's been interactive, and not.

It's had a strong ongoing story, and not. Sometimes skipping swathes of time, or going back in time. Or pretty much ignoring story altogether, for some products.

But you know what it was in all of those things? The one thing that is essential to L5R, common across all its incarnations?

It's a specific magical samurai setting.

You might like the interactivity, or the story, or whatever. The majority of fans might. The vast majority of fans might. But it isn't the common thread that unites the brand. Not even AEG thought so, no matter what they said. Just look at what they did.

But again, I'm not saying, at all, that FFG should just eliminate the story or the interactivity.

I think you are confusing reboot with rewind. A reboot does not mean we are going to do it again. A rewind does.

Just about everyone here has been using "reboot" to mean what you use "rewind" for.

What else is one to think when every second "reboot" post is "let's go back to the Clan War."

I could go for a soft reboot in the form of a time jump. Like 3–400 years. It would also allow for playing with the status quo in ways shorter time jumps would not, for example introducing technological advances similar to what the real-life Japan got its hands on through trade with Europeans.

I just… I want tanegashima in L5R. I can't help it.

Technology is a tricky subject. Too much and you can 'muddy' the waters, potentially turning away some players. It might actually destroy some of the mystic of the setting. I just remember that movie scene where firearms just chew through samurai. Heaven and Earth? it's been quite a number of years since I've seen it and I'm not just thinking of The Last Samurai.

Feels like the idea would be very interesting for a cycle. Maybe the Mantis somehow gets a small shipment of primitive rifles and hilarity ensues? Of course, I do expect a card that references explosives.

@ the OP:

The Spider Clan is a lightning rod for controversy. That's because although other factions often contain villains, the Spider is the only playable faction that's entirely and explicitly villainous. Whether this is good or bad for the game is a sore point among pretty much everyone.

Like Chaos in Warhammer ?

It's fun playing those guys! Debuffing and messing with your enemy all the time

To put it in Warhammer Fantasy terms, imagine if the Empire of Man allowed a group of people who openly worshiped Chaos to join the empire as a new province. It's pretty similar to that, only probably even more controversial because of L5R's emphasis on honor.

Openly worshiped in the empire? Not really. Just more stereotypes.

Think more along the lines of Blackthrone from Shogun, with neigh sayers being the typical Spanish priesthood.

the Spider is the only playable faction that's entirely and explicitly villainous

Even though I disagree that the entire faction can be tarred with one brush, I'm hoping FFG refines their existence as a great clan into something that can be more easily justified as existing within Rokugan.

I've mastered quite a few campaigns, and what I liked doing in these campaign is to trick the players into thinking the Spider NPCs they encounter are the bad guys. Actually, some of them are bad, others are just not that bad but what life made of them, but eventhough they are the Spider, they are not the bad guys they were looking for. The Spider is so much more than just 'bad guys'.

But, for me, the Spider still should never be a Great Clan at all. That's a personal view that I'm ok if many Spider players don't share it. The Spider is good for me as a very secret group acting in the Empire from its borders. As a Great Clan, I find it both to be not fit for my Rokugan, and not to be as interesting and as effective story-wise than the Spider as a secret entity.

Actually, saying this make me think that the Spider kind of fills the spot the Kolat and the Gozoku left empty.

(edit for better english)

Anything is better than the Kolat.

Actually, saying this make me think that the Spider kind of fills the gap the Kolat and the Gozoku let empty.

You think the Kolat left a gap? Excellent.

Anything is better than the Kolat.

If by anything you mean nothing then I agree.

Anything is better than the Kolat.

If by anything you mean nothing then I agree.

If by nothing you mean Nothing then I agree...

But, for me, the Spider still should never be a Great Clan at all. That's a personal view that I'm ok if many Spider players don't share it.

What makes you think many spider don't share it?? I, and MANY other spider players thought it was a dumb idea in the first place. We never wanted it, but the only choice we had was 'become a great clan or cease to exist'. What would YOU have chosen if those were your choices for YOUR clan? Hmmmmm?

Exactly!!

How what you say contradicts what I said ? I said that in my opinion the Spider should never have been a Great Clan at all. Not that Spider players are the cause for it, or that they like it, or that they want it.

So I don't see where this agressivity comes from.

Plus, I've always said I wanted FFG to change the setting (in short : keep the best, make rid of the worst), and part of it was not to have the Spider as a Great Clan (and so not have it as a playable faction too by the way).

How what you say contradicts what I said ? I said that in my opinion the Spider should never have been a Great Clan at all. Not that Spider players are the cause for it, or that they like it, or that they want it.

So I don't see where this agressivity comes from.

Plus, I've always said I wanted FFG to change the setting (in short : keep the best, make rid of the worst), and part of it was not to have the Spider as a Great Clan (and so not have it as a playable faction too by the way).

maybe the "agressivity" comes from you wanting to get rid of our faction? Sparks is pointing out that great clan status wasn't the outcome a lot of us wanted, but thats mostly cause he doesn't realize your point was that you want the spider and shadowlands out of the game or unplayable, not declanned, which are two different things. his response would have been a lot more aggressive, i suspect, had that point been clearer. many of the modern spider fans would have been perfectly happy staying shadowlands, and would be perfectly happy going back to that state.

How what you say contradicts what I said ? I said that in my opinion the Spider should never have been a Great Clan at all. Not that Spider players are the cause for it, or that they like it, or that they want it.

So I don't see where this agressivity comes from.

I don't believe I was being aggressive at all. You stated that you don't think the spider should have ever been a great clan even tho many spider players disagree with you. I don't think many spider players disagree with that statement so I'm not sure where you're getting your info from. Most spider players I know didn't like the fact we were shoehorned in to being a great clan, but we did it, because it was really the 'only' option.

It's worth pointing out that part of the failure of the Destroyer War was the utter absence of the Destroyer Horde from the CCG.

Having the antagonists as a playable faction* is actually a GOOD thing, because it allows you to replicate that story in some fashion in actual gameplay.

* Or at least having them show up as personalities!