1 hour ago, Sparks Duh said:

Honestly, I can't believe this has been an argument that has gone on for five fckn pages!

I can't believe that someone won't buy the game because of generically named characters either. What an idiotic reason to not play a game, really.

Personally, I love the generic named characters if only for the fact that I don't have multiple characters on the table with the same name. You don't see in movies that every stormtrooper is named Fred Cannotaim. No, they are fckn stormtroopers. Not every ewok is named. Only a few, the rest are just fckn ewoks!

Why the hell is this even an argument??

You see, when two or more people have differing opinions on a topic, something beautiful happens. A stork brings them an argument. What's idiotic about something being a deal breaker for someone? It's pretty obvious FFG made the change for accessibility purposes. There's a richness to the lore of having every character feel unique, even if mechanically they aren't. I can see how this, along with the host of other changes made to the game might be a tipping point for players with a lot of time spent on the CCG. Comparing movie characters without names to characters who until now always had a name doesn't really work. Star Wars also has sort of a reverse naming convention happen, with characters being named for no reason or being named after the fact to sell merchandise.

18 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Well, in Decipher's CCG, we had Stormtrooper, Green Squadron Pilot, Rodian, Vine Snake, etc.

The CCG also went and named everyone they could either make up or find some EU/merch name for. Which came first, Lt. Chicken or Imperial Officer number whatever?

3 minutes ago, qwertyuiop said:

The CCG also went and named everyone they could either make up or find some EU/merch name for. Which came first, Lt. Chicken or Imperial Officer number whatever?

For the unique characters, sure. For non-unique characters? They kept the generic name. Sometimes they named someone in the flavor text as being representative of that generic title, but the card itself remained generically named.

1 hour ago, YasukiKaito said:

Because we are all so desperate to have the game in our hands that we need to turn that L5R energy somewhere!!

This ^ Most of this board is just passing time and checking back in anticipation of the next fiction / card spoiler and awaiting the eventual release... Once the game is out, these boards will be a completely different world.

I think some people are a little confused, and seem to think that the purpose of generic names is just to be lazy and not need to come up with names for the characters. However, that's not the purpose at all! The real purpose is to further differentiate between unique and non-unique characters. We want some cards that we can have multiple copies out at the same time, but it doesn't make sense to have multiple copies of a single person out (most of the time). The solution, then, is to make named characters unique, and give non-unique characters generic names.

Multiple people have brought up Star Wars and other fandoms with names for pretty much every character who has appeared on screen for any amount of time (I'm quite certain that somewhere out there is even a name for the Stormtrooper who hit his head on the door in the Death Star), but such comparisons, I argue, are meaningless. The fact that a generic character exists in no way prevents the specific character pictured from having a named, unique version at some point. It just means that we want a generic character, and the pictured character happens to be a good representative of that character type.

17 minutes ago, qwertyuiop said:

You see, when two or more people have differing opinions on a topic, something beautiful happens. A stork brings them an argument. What's idiotic about something being a deal breaker for someone? It's pretty obvious FFG made the change for accessibility purposes. There's a richness to the lore of having every character feel unique, even if mechanically they aren't. I can see how this, along with the host of other changes made to the game might be a tipping point for players with a lot of time spent on the CCG. Comparing movie characters without names to characters who until now always had a name doesn't really work. Star Wars also has sort of a reverse naming convention happen, with characters being named for no reason or being named after the fact to sell merchandise.

Well, it's not like these nameless characters were named and then had their name's revoked by FFG.

And I disagree with an idea that a name is what makes them unique, (And we can go down the rabbit hole of what is a name at a later date). It's about the emotional investment you put into it. You can look into some threads already where people have given personality and identity to these non-unique cards, all without having a name on the cardboard. You can still create backstory, make them unique to you (since even with a name they'd still only be unique to you). Also as far as movies and other forms of fiction it's been done successfully where the main character has a fully fleshed out personality and identity, just without a name given to them, so I'm unsure why the sudden removal of a name makes it difficult for some people to still come up with an idea of who these people are.

I'm also unsure if three Akodo [random name here] on the board is really unique anyway. I honestly don't see why this would be such a breaking point for anyone.

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

But the story. Can't make story about people without names. Can't ever have a story about a wandering ronin or a yojimbo if they aren't named!

Never happens. EVER.

just sayin

2 minutes ago, JRosen9 said:

just sayin

Well played, sir. Well played.

2 minutes ago, JRosen9 said:

just sayin

I can't believe I didn't think of this comic! Very applicable to the discussion! XD

20 minutes ago, qwertyuiop said:

You see, when two or more people have differing opinions on a topic, something beautiful happens. A stork brings them an argument.

A stork? Or a crane!? Crane conspiracy confirmed?

In all seriousness [and just to be extra super clear, those previous comments were a joke] I will always love my Asp Skirmishers[Old5R], my Skeletal Vampire [MtG], my Crisis Battle Suit [WH40K Conquest]. Yes, names have a power to them, but only so much. Just having a name isn't enough to make me care for a character, and I have had very many characters that I have had a deep connection to with these kinds of generic names.

2 minutes ago, fyrm said:

A stork? Or a crane!? Crane conspiracy confirmed?

In all seriousness [and just to be extra super clear, those previous comments were a joke] I will always love my Asp Skirmishers[Old5R], my Skeletal Vampire [MtG], my Crisis Battle Suit [WH40K Conquest]. Yes, names have a power to them, but only so much. Just having a name isn't enough to make me care for a character, and I have had very many characters that I have had a deep connection to with these kinds of generic names.

After fully realizing that the vengeful berserker looks like a pig oni not wearing pants, he is one of my favorite characters so far. Long live porky.

I'm not joking as much as it may seem, btw. I like him a lot. Along with Lion's Pride Brawler, I have a character in my head for that card. Honored General too. Older battle worn general, but still charges into the fight head on with a rallying cry that revives his troops. But afterwards mourns the fallen in silence his tent.

56 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

After fully realizing that the vengeful berserker looks like a pig oni not wearing pants, he is one of my favorite characters so far. Long live porky.

I'm not joking as much as it may seem, btw. I like him a lot. Along with Lion's Pride Brawler, I have a character in my head for that card. Honored General too. Older battle worn general, but still charges into the fight head on with a rallying cry that revives his troops. But afterwards mourns the fallen in silence his tent.

Best part, he's evergreen. Porky McMusclestein will NEVER die

4 hours ago, YasukiKaito said:

As others have said, I just can't get too invested into Eager Scout - that name doesn't have anything to draw me in, either as a new or returning player.

That's interesting to me, because for me it is reversed. A name, on its own, tells me little to nothing about a character. The generic names tell me what those characters do. And when you get down to it, characters are judged based on what they do or don't do, not by their names.

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

Well, it's not like these nameless characters were named and then had their name's revoked by FFG.

And I disagree with an idea that a name is what makes them unique, (And we can go down the rabbit hole of what is a name at a later date). It's about the emotional investment you put into it. You can look into some threads already where people have given personality and identity to these non-unique cards, all without having a name on the cardboard. You can still create backstory, make them unique to you (since even with a name they'd still only be unique to you). Also as far as movies and other forms of fiction it's been done successfully where the main character has a fully fleshed out personality and identity, just without a name given to them, so I'm unsure why the sudden removal of a name makes it difficult for some people to still come up with an idea of who these people are.

I'm also unsure if three Akodo [random name here] on the board is really unique anyway. I honestly don't see why this would be such a breaking point for anyone.

The name doesn't make them unique, but having a name associated with the character can provide an additional connection. In movies and other fiction, while the character may not have a name, it's what the character does or experiences that helps the audience form the connection. A name isn't an end all be all, but it often helps. People giving personality to generic characters are using the generic name, art(probably this) or stats to help flesh out an identity. In fiction, nameless characters are more often the outliers than not. These nameless characters are also given titles, which function as a name (which is as far down that rabbit hole as I'm going). I'm not going to draw any real world parallels about the removal of names and identity, either because this is a fantasy game. Names are important. For the purpose of the game, they're more important to some than others. It doesn't really matter whether or not anyone can see why this is a deal breaker (not assuming you think it does). People are free to embrace or reject the change. There are certain aspects of the game which will probably see me jump clans, but generic names aren't one of them. I'm on board with it, though I do wish that the generic characters had some more character specific flavor text as a "lore-aid".

1 hour ago, qwertyuiop said:

I'm on board with it, though I do wish that the generic characters had some more character specific flavor text as a "lore-aid".

I've already said I'm happy with the change, but one thing I loved about the CCG was how they would always fill empty space with flavor text. Nothing tortures my inner Vorthos like seeing a card with half the textbox blank (or worse, a vanilla), where there could've easily been a quote or something without disrupting the visual appeal.

On the subject of naming people, the above comic reminds me of this scene from the Venture Bros.

7 hours ago, RandomJC said:

Hm...yes. and I was being aloof in a reference to classic film Yojimbo by Akira Kurasawa, where the protagonist, played by Toshiro Mifune, literally has no name.

On a point of order, he does have a name, though it's likely something he made up as a pun on the spot and ultimately has no bearing on the story. Incidentally, the title of the next movie starting the same character is titled after his name.

42 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

On a point of order, he does have a name, though it's likely something he made up as a pun on the spot and ultimately has no bearing on the story. Incidentally, the title of the next movie starting the same character is titled after his name.

Point of order. It is something he made up on the spot. That isn't a name. That's something to call him. The name given is literally what he was looking at, and his age. Sanjuro is how old the character is.

You can look at the source material, where the character is also not given a real name. And the shameless ripoff, where the lead wasn't given a real name.

2 hours ago, RandomJC said:

Point of order. It is something he made up on the spot. That isn't a name. That's something to call him. The name given is literally what he was looking at, and his age. Sanjuro is how old the character is.

You can look at the source material, where the character is also not given a real name. And the shameless ripoff, where the lead wasn't given a real name.

Are you sure we can't do 'adaptation' instead of 'shameless rip-off'

I'd be willing to bet more people have seen Fistfull of Dollars than Yojimbo.

Now Last Man Standing, THAT was a rip-off.

2 hours ago, RandomJC said:

That isn't a name. That's something to call him.

There is a interesting philosophical debate to be had about this statement, but if we follow this logic then the former storm trooper character from The Force Awakens isn't actually named "Finn", that's just something to call him. I would say that then becomes a name for him, but your mileage may vary.

2 hours ago, RandomJC said:

The name given...

... is it a name or is it not?

I understand we don't learn the character's birth name or any official name at any point, and I understand the on the spot way he comes up with the Sanjuro name, but he is consistent in calling himself Sanjuro (and yes he's clearly being cheeky when he does so.) They even go so far as to call the follow up movie (Tsubaki) Sanjuro based on that name, where he again calls himself Sanjuro (though he changes his family name to be whatever plant enters his field of vision at the time he's asked for it.) I would say it's pretty clear that it is a name for the character in those movies, even if it's not the character's "real" name.

I understand that your point is that he didn't need a name to be a memorable character; that I won't disagree with you on. (I personally like the "Sanjuro/Shijuro" joke for a bit of a humor.) But he has a name, if not one really relevant to or used in the plot.

8 hours ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

Are you sure we can't do 'adaptation' instead of 'shameless rip-off'

I'd be willing to bet more people have seen Fistfull of Dollars than Yojimbo.

Now Last Man Standing, THAT was a rip-off.

No, Fistful of Dollars is a shameless rip-off. Just because more people have seen Fistfull of Dollars doesn't mean it isn't basically the same exact movie. Kurasawa knew it, and Leone knew it. And Leone was proud of it. In no way does that make Fistfull of Dollars a bad film, btw. But it is very much shameless in the fact that it literally stole another movie to make itself. and I'm not being facetious, It's a cribbed movie, that Leone brazenly took parts whole cloth from a different movie, without consent or attribution, painted into a western theme and put into theaters.

Like I said, I love Fistfull of Dollars, doesn't make it less of a shameless rip-off.

7 hours ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

There is a interesting philosophical debate to be had about this statement, but if we follow this logic then the former storm trooper character from The Force Awakens isn't actually named "Finn", that's just something to call him. I would say that then becomes a name for him, but your mileage may vary.

... is it a name or is it not?

I understand we don't learn the character's birth name or any official name at any point, and I understand the on the spot way he comes up with the Sanjuro name, but he is consistent in calling himself Sanjuro (and yes he's clearly being cheeky when he does so.) They even go so far as to call the follow up movie (Tsubaki) Sanjuro based on that name, where he again calls himself Sanjuro (though he changes his family name to be whatever plant enters his field of vision at the time he's asked for it.) I would say it's pretty clear that it is a name for the character in those movies, even if it's not the character's "real" name.

I understand that your point is that he didn't need a name to be a memorable character; that I won't disagree with you on. (I personally like the "Sanjuro/Shijuro" joke for a bit of a humor.) But he has a name, if not one really relevant to or used in the plot.

Finn isn't the same as Sanjuro. If we follow your logic "Akodo Gunso" is a name. (It's a long winding road of philosophical debate of what is or isn't a name, and what a name actually brings to an identity of a person.)

And thanks for pointing out the limitations of the English language in a snarky way. (A lot of fun now to come up with synonyms that feel slightly unnatural to the context they are used in, now.) Name is a versatile word. Name is a label, end of the day it's a label in which we apply to things to have words to identify them from other things. The name of the object you are using to communicate on is a computer. (or laptop, or phone, or tv, or fridge, or whatever random device now that has access to the other named thing, the Internet.) but there I am referring the name as a label, and before I was referring to it in the proper noun, name.

It's a label for the audience to identify the character in the movies, yes. It's like Continental Ops. I don't agree with you that he has a name, he's a nameless Ronin, that's part of the point of the character is he is nameless, from what I take from the movie. I'm not going to move from the position because he gives out something to call him by. You can keep talking about the sequel, but the sequel doesn't change Yojimbo. In Yojimbo he is a nameless Ronin taking on something clearly BS so people can just refer to him as something. That is not a, proper noun, name.

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

If we follow your logic "Akodo Gunso" is a name.

I would like to point out that 1) that wasn't my logic and 2) that logic was about defining what is not a name, not what is a name.

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

(It's a long winding road of philosophical debate of what is or isn't a name, and what a name actually brings to an identity of a person.)

Let's not go down that road. If there is anything I hate, it's philosophy. Talking about philosophy on the internet: no thank you.

Quibbling about names on the internet, and what they do or don't add to a game: sign me right up!

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

You can keep talking about the sequel, but the sequel doesn't change Yojimbo.

I can respect that stance. After all, I personally only recognize five Star Wars movies. (Hint: I'm not a fan of Episodes 1-3.)

(EDIT: But if you haven't seen Sanjuro yet, it's really good and I highly recommend you do, though it has a different feel from Yojimbo.)

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

A lot of fun now to come up with synonyms that feel slightly unnatural to the context they are used in, now.

If there is anything I regret from this thread, it's that I haven't used the word "nomenclature" at any point so far.

1 minute ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

I would like to point out that 1) that wasn't my logic and 2) that logic was about defining what is not a name, not what is a name.

[cutting everything because I have nothing clever or importance to add]

By defining what is not a name, we also define the inverse, which is of course what is a name. (And yes, it isn't your logic. I'll admit, I was more heated in that paragraph, the rest of my comment went through several rewrites from hostile to more tongue in cheek to settle somewhere in impertinent, rude, and snarky)

And I got to use inverse, which makes me feel good.

Also, in fairness my argument would have worked better if I went with my original analogy of just using Fistful of Dollars, but the urge to use Wandering Ronin and Yojimbo in a thematic tie to generic names within the context of this game and discussion was to grand, and I may have entered into a place of no return in my rhetoric.

I apologize for being hostile, obviously the internet has a hold on my soul so at times I over react.

Quote

I can respect that stance. After all, I personally only recognize five Star Wars movies. (Hint: I'm not a fan of Episodes 1-3.)

[K, I lied earlier]

After much time I've actually gone back and watched Phantom and Attack of the clones, and I walked away with a greater appreciation of one, and a deep seething boredom of the other. (My opinions did flip on them from my original viewing.

20 hours ago, RandomJC said:

I'm also unsure if three Akodo [random name here] on the board is really unique anyway. I honestly don't see why this would be such a breaking point for anyone.

This here is honestly the only reason I have an opinion on the matter. For me it broke the immersion to have copies of the same dude in play. I can understand why there can be three Shinjo Windriders in play, but three Shinjo Byungs throws me off.

3 minutes ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

This here is honestly the only reason I have an opinion on the matter. For me it broke the immersion to have copies of the same dude in play. I can understand why there can be three Shinjo Windriders in play, but three Shinjo Byungs throws me off.

Well, to play devil's advocate, it's entirely possible that three people are called Shinjo Byungs. Looking similar in armor is also possible. and considering the limited nature of the caste system and large family, they may even serve very similar roles within the clan. (that is all of course very bad fiction writing, but that is neither here nor there.)

And to spiral into my own thoughts from that, at that point then the name isn't what makes the character interesting, it's the story and personality you provide for them. and as I've said here I've already done that for at least two generic named card characters, and strangely enough I feel closer to them as characters than any of the unique ones we've seen in a story.

14 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

I apologize for being hostile, obviously the internet has a hold on my soul so at times I over react.

No need to apologize, dude. Internet discussions often suffer from a lack if intonation/emotion/ability to see a person that lends to things sounding hostile when no one really intends to be so.

Good discussion, game on!

(Re: Episodes 1-3: Yeah, they collectively get a worse reputation than they may deserve, but now we're veering way off topic.)