12 hours ago, Kitsu Seinosuke said:

Most importantly, there cannot be a coherent description of Rokugan because there is no Rokugan. It is not fiction about a place - it's just fiction.

Well, this is true for most of the worlds in literature/screenwriting, and this is why usually a "bible" is created beforehand to describe all major characters, places, events, technology, etc. to guide the different writers that will explore the setting.

I seriously hope that FFG took the chance with the reboot to prepare something like that to avoid long-term issues, errata and retcons.

4 minutes ago, franzvong said:

Well, this is true for most of the worlds in literature/screenwriting, and this is why usually a "bible" is created beforehand to describe all major characters, places, events, technology, etc. to guide the different writers that will esplore the setting.

I seriously hope that FFG took the chance with the reboot to prepare something like that to avoid long-term issues, errata and retcons.

I hope so as well

4 minutes ago, franzvong said:

Well, this is true for most of the worlds in literature/screenwriting, and this is why usually a "bible" is created beforehand to describe all major characters, places, events, technology, etc. to guide the different writers that will esplore the setting.

I seriously hope that FFG took the chance with the reboot to prepare something like that to avoid long-term issues, errata and retcons.

...unless the retcons are woven into the story well. Of course, when that happens you often don't even realize that it was retcon...

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

...unless the retcons are woven into the story well. Of course, when that happens you often don't even realize that it was retcon...

considering past history, I hope we can avoid any more retcons in L5R

38 minutes ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

considering past history, I hope we can avoid any more retcons in L5R

Do you not like the idea of selling your name to Oni? It's not something I'd encourage, but as a flavour piece it's great. And it's a retcon to cover up a misprint.

2 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Do you not like the idea of selling your name to Oni? It's not something I'd encourage, but as a flavour piece it's great. And it's a retcon to cover up a misprint.

Oooh! Refresh me on this please.

Just now, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

Oooh! Refresh me on this please.

When they first printed the Crab Clan Oni, they accidentally put Hida Yakamo in as its name, rather than what was intended (I believe Yakamo was the next card over). So, they made up the story of Kuni Yori selling Hida Yakamo's name to an oni in Jigoku to summon it and give Yakamo a new hand(claw). There was nothing like that in the lore to begin with.

1 minute ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

When they first printed the Crab Clan Oni, they accidentally put Hida Yakamo in as its name, rather than what was intended (I believe Yakamo was the next card over). So, they made up the story of Kuni Yori selling Hida Yakamo's name to an oni in Jigoku to summon it and give Yakamo a new hand(claw). There was nothing like that in the lore to begin with.

HAH!!

I did not know that.

10 minutes ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

HAH!!

I did not know that.

Here they are, from Obsidian edition:

On 5/1/2017 at 4:19 PM, WHW said:

Interestingly enough, majority of RPG players I've met who didn't participate in CCG (so their exposure to Rokugan was primarly through 1st ED books) didn't want large scale Clan conflicts.

This makes perfect sense because of the vastly different natures of CCGs and tabletop RPGs.

RPGs require a cooperative goal between players, but it's VERY hard to find 4-5 people who all want to play just one clan. You're going to have someone who just demands to play Crab or Dragon, no matter how much you say the story was written for a party of Cranes. So unless your playgroup is okay with the idea of all being from the same clan, you need wiggle room to get multiple clan members together to do an adventure.

6 hours ago, Teslacrashed said:

This makes perfect sense because of the vastly different natures of CCGs and tabletop RPGs.

RPGs require a cooperative goal between players, but it's VERY hard to find 4-5 people who all want to play just one clan. You're going to have someone who just demands to play Crab or Dragon, no matter how much you say the story was written for a party of Cranes. So unless your playgroup is okay with the idea of all being from the same clan, you need wiggle room to get multiple clan members together to do an adventure.

Yeah, a party of one clan feels so limiting. There are a few ways around it like temporary allies, hostage fealty. But then again large scale war between your clans would be no fun.

I have a buddy trying to plan a campaign where it's courtiers generally trying to help eachother, and some allied through betrothal and such. But our job is to forge alliances while we look at a map with chess pieces as armies. With our clans, friends, and enemies at risk of dying.

All while trying to make ourselves look better. It will probably be interesting.

Also I am so glad this is topic is back. I love everything written here and run out of my 50 likes SO FAST.

The bigger problem for one clan games for us is that nobody likes "doubling" schools, and unless you are willing to Different School, there is tons of overlap due to very limited choice. That, and the fact that schools often shoehorned you into an archetype someone wasn't interested in exploring (heavy weapons and hida bushi, for example).

That's one of the biggest reasons why we ended up ditching school system and instead went for buying tons of smaller individual techniques which you equip and de-equip during training sessions due to not having a limit of how many you know, but having one towards how many you can have going on at once.

On 4/29/2017 at 6:34 AM, Doji Tori said:

I thought the lore implied that the Clans were significantly stronger than the imperial families. That's why the role of the Otomo family and the Scorpion Clan was in part to favor petty infighting between the Clans. This was done to avoid them uniting or overthrowing the Emperor. So allowing the wars to go on unless they got really out of hand was in the Empire's benefit

I don't know whether that is even remotely realistic, but i recall that being the explanation.

Yeah, I don't remember a time when we had a Strong Centralized Emperor. in the card game time frame anyway

On 7/18/2017 at 7:47 PM, Devin-the-Poet said:

You bring up some really good points and lots of people have expanded on these better than I could. But I can share some personal hopes.

1- Conflict works best with heroes and villains. I have shared my opinion on other threads about Hitomi and Yakumo. When I first started playing Dragon, I did not know much, but I did know that the Crab were bad guys. I played for months before I learned that Yakumo became a great hero. Let each clan have heroes and villains and we will gladly fight each other.

2- Unwavering Loyalty is nice in children and bodyguards. But villains need not be loyal and a good story needs villains. Loyalty can also breed zealots which also make good villains.

But I think more fun could be played with the Shogun idea. What if the Emporer were to be attacked and killed? What if he had three children each taken by a different clan. Each power fighting to be Shogun. Allies giving support for one heir then trying to steal them away with force or gifts. A divided empire with different Emporers.

3- Victories should be fleeting and losses should be carried in scars, and occasionally burning craters where homes once stood.

1. I find conflict works best with characters who blur the line between hero and villain. Moto Chagatai, for instance, was pretty clearly both. The problem is it's difficult to set that up well -- they tried it with Togashi, for instance, which I don't know that anyone bought for a moment.

2. I'd like to see more zealots (looking at you, Tsuko, you beautiful monster) than outright traitors. Traitor characters long overstay their welcome (like Akodo Kage), usurp storylines (Yokatsu), or just kind of wander off as aferthoughts (Junnosuke). For the first decade or so of the game, the Scorpion Clan's storyline was dominated by traitors, making it ridiculous that they were supposedly clan that valued loyalty and strictly punished betrayal.

3. Some victories should be decisive -- I don't know about you, but I got tired of how often the Yasuki were up for grabs -- but otherwise in agreement. That said, no storyline win should be throwaway. There's a reason people were upset at the Seiken vs. Shibatsu arc ending with Kanpeki's auto-win, above and beyond the proposed storyline that was to follow. What was a novel concept (clans fighting in the names of two brothers who didn't want the clans fighting over them) got tossed aside.

16 hours ago, Teslacrashed said:

This makes perfect sense because of the vastly different natures of CCGs and tabletop RPGs.

RPGs require a cooperative goal between players, but it's VERY hard to find 4-5 people who all want to play just one clan. You're going to have someone who just demands to play Crab or Dragon, no matter how much you say the story was written for a party of Cranes. So unless your playgroup is okay with the idea of all being from the same clan, you need wiggle room to get multiple clan members together to do an adventure.

This is why I was so interested in the Crab's Levy card. Depending on what they're levying, it potentially provides another excuse to get a multi-clan party together, which is always welcome.

25 minutes ago, SirEuain said:

2. I'd like to see more zealots (looking at you, Tsuko, you beautiful monster) than outright traitors. Traitor characters long overstay their welcome (like Akodo Kage), usurp storylines (Yokatsu), or just kind of wander off as aferthoughts (Junnosuke). For the first decade or so of the game, the Scorpion Clan's storyline was dominated by traitors, making it ridiculous that they were supposedly clan that valued loyalty and strictly punished betrayal.

Outright traitors should probably stay rare, and be more spread out among the clans than they were in the past.

But there should be more selfish jerks pursuing their own agenda. That kind of thing is all over the place in real life, so it would help the setting feel more believable. It can also provide excuses for both inter-clan and intra-clan conflict. I don't think players would mind having a few petty jackasses in their clan, so long as that was a thing that every clan had to deal with equally.

37 minutes ago, Fumi said:

-

But there should be more selfish jerks pursuing their own agenda. That kind of thing is all over the place in real life, so it would help the setting feel more believable. It can also provide excuses for both inter-clan and intra-clan conflict. I don't think players would mind having a few petty jackasses in their clan, so long as that was a thing that every clan had to deal with equally.

Yeah, selfish jerks are usually the ones starting fights to begin with. Get a greedy general who wants a castle or a plantation. In the grand scheme of things he is doing nothing truly evil but his neighbors are going to start getting really sick of it.

I know the Dragonfly clan had two big battles start up because of a scorned lover. That's even better because it implies two clans having a small Alliance while another clan gets its feelings hurt.

20 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Here they are, from Obsidian edition:

But... they had time to add the flavour text about the name being stolen before printing it, so they surely had time to correct the card title if it was truly a mistake?

As far as I understand, it was the other way around. The flavor text was for "generic" Crab Clan Oni (note that nothing in the flavor text specifies who is it talking about), and Yakamos story got this incorporated because well, bug turned into a feature.

But Yakamo's card says Crab Hero is considered a distinct card from Crab Oni for Uniqueness. This only matters if they have the same name...

Was there originally a Yakamo card that didn't have this? Or was Yakamo released after Crab Clan Oni?

Or maybe they caught the misprint before running the press and decided to embrace it as fate rather than correct it, and added adjustments?

3 hours ago, Akodo_Metuki said:

Yeah, I don't remember a time when we had a Strong Centralized Emperor. in the card game time frame anyway

The closest in the CCG timeline was probably Iweko at the beginning of Celestial.

1 hour ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

The closest in the CCG timeline was probably Iweko at the beginning of Celestial.

I'm not sure the Emperor who had to allow the Corrupt Spider to become a Great clan counts as a strong Emperor

26 minutes ago, Akodo_Metuki said:

I'm not sure the Emperor who had to allow the Corrupt Spider to become a Great clan counts as a strong Emperor

Which is why I said Celestial not Emperor, the Spider are't a GC until the end of/after Celestial.

Unless I've gotten Celestial and Emperor switched

35 minutes ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

Which is why I said Celestial not Emperor, the Spider are't a GC until the end of/after Celestial.

Unless I've gotten Celestial and Emperor switched

Correct. Iweko, circa War of Dark Fire, was very much a respected central power all of the Clans treated with great deference. She basically stayed that way until declaring the Spider a Great Clan, at which poiint a bunch of Lion committed kanshi- including Ikoma Otemi being given the Clan Champion's wakizashi to use for his.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

But Yakamo's card says Crab Hero is considered a distinct card from Crab Oni for Uniqueness. This only matters if they have the same name...

Was there originally a Yakamo card that didn't have this? Or was Yakamo released after Crab Clan Oni?

Or maybe they caught the misprint before running the press and decided to embrace it as fate rather than correct it, and added adjustments?

The art on both cards also has a number of similar features that would suggest it was intentional and not a misprint/retcon.