The phrase "Custom dice mechanics enable players to contribute to the unfolding story and decide whether their character succeeds, by how much, and how much it will cost them." has a lot of different ways it can be interpreted.

A modification of the Roll & Keep system could fit just as much as the Genesys system.

22 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I wouldn't get your hopes up too far. I really can't imagine they would put this much effort into their generic system, then not use that system for a flagship IP they are releasing at the same time.

Lots of factors need to be considered. Genesys may not have needed as many dev resources considering it was a genericized version of an existing system and the new L5R rpg's release is a ways away.

2 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

The phrase "Custom dice mechanics enable players to contribute to the unfolding story and decide whether their character succeeds, by how much, and how much it will cost them." has a lot of different ways it can be interpreted.

A modification of the Roll & Keep system could fit just as much as the Genesys system.

Lots of factors need to be considered. Genesys may not have needed as many dev resources considering it was a genericized version of an existing system and the new L5R rpg's release is a ways away.

I agree that the statement has a number of interpretations. However, one is a form of GeneSys. And dont get me wrong, if they put out a system that does not have custom dice, I am 100% on board with it and will play it, where as the GeneSys dice turns my playgroup off. But if they release a new RPG Setting that does not resemble their new big RPG system, what does that say about the system? If it isn't good enough to handle new stuff, why should we buy it?

19 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I agree that the statement has a number of interpretations. However, one is a form of GeneSys. And dont get me wrong, if they put out a system that does not have custom dice, I am 100% on board with it and will play it, where as the GeneSys dice turns my playgroup off. But if they release a new RPG Setting that does not resemble their new big RPG system, what does that say about the system? If it isn't good enough to handle new stuff, why should we buy it?

I'm kinda torn on the dice think. On one hand I don't like the idea of needing specific dice for a game. On the other hand I have separate dice bags for L5R, DnD, 7th Sea, and a different set of D6s for every Warhammer/miniatures game army (to match the colors and aesthetics of that army), so it's not like buying dice exclusively for a game is anything new to me.

I guess it's the idea that I have to buy them, and I can't use them for anything else (even though I wouldn't anyways).

Just now, Mirith said:

I agree that the statement has a number of interpretations. However, one is a form of GeneSys. And dont get me wrong, if they put out a system that does not have custom dice, I am 100% on board with it and will play it, where as the GeneSys dice turns my playgroup off. But if they release a new RPG Setting that does not resemble their new big RPG system, what does that say about the system? If it isn't good enough to handle new stuff, why should we buy it?

That kinda what I mean by "lots of factors to be considered."

Unlike if they were to make a new rpg for Game of Thrones, Runebound or a completely new IP, a new L5R rpg will be looked at as a possible continuation of the old L5R rpgs. Going Genesys would be a "clean break" from the past while going with R&K would be new edition of a fan favorite game.

Genesys came into existence completely because FFG needed to completely break the Star Wars rpgs away from a different company's system (WoTC's d20 system). The L5R situation is different than that with FFG's ownership of the R&K system.

The Genesys branding may have even been launched in order to head off speculation that they were abandoning the system when they decided to go with an R&K system for L5R.

1 hour ago, Mirith said:

I wouldn't get your hopes up too far. I really can't imagine they would put this much effort into their generic system, then not use that system for a flagship IP they are releasing at the same time.

Define playable? As in Ronin character can be as strong as an in-clan? Do you consider 4e ronin playable?

Keep in mind they might only initially release info about only a few schools for each great clan.

And that's assuming that they even do schools!

Just now, Tonbo Karasu said:

And that's assuming that they even do schools!

I'm kinda assuming they do something that lets you associate with a clan something and just name it "School". Which is a combination of 'Techniques'. It might not progress the same.

Is there a decent free summary of the basic rules for the Star Wars RPG to give this some context?

I can't imagine they won't do schools. It was such a big part of the old RPG and the setting. Also it sounded like from the article that the broad strokes of character creation was mostly the same. A character is still composed of ring scores, skills, techniques, advantages and disadvantages. Though I cannot find confirmation that schools will be a decision in character creation. I didn't notice before, but the article does explicitly state that their will be custom dice. I had assumed that would be true, but I didn't realize it was stated in the article.

Not sure how much feedback from the beta will actually influence the final design. I didn't take part in the Star Wars RPG beta. I'd be interested to hear how different it's beta was from the final product. I do know D&D 5th changed quite a bit in each release of the beta rules and was very different from the first playtest pack to the released books.

I really hope they keep minor clans and ronin at a relatively lower power than great clans. It sucks when your character concept for a socially disadvantaged and opportunity disadvantaged character gets the most powerful school because of the quirk of balance.

1 hour ago, phillos said:

I can't imagine they won't do schools. It was such a big part of the old RPG and the setting.

Agreed with this. For all the changes the LCG made from the old CCG, it's still recognizable as l5r: two decks, keywords, dueling, attachments, provinces, strongholds, etc. How they fit together is altogether different but it still has all the major components (okay, not Chi). FFG wants this game to succeed and wants it to appeal to fans of the old games; it'll have the old pieces we like but probably substantially altered. And that's okay.

5 minutes ago, player2636234 said:

I really hope they keep minor clans and ronin at a relatively lower power than great clans. It sucks when your character concept for a socially disadvantaged and opportunity disadvantaged character gets the most powerful school because of the quirk of balance.

I'll be very interested to see what they do in this regards because so far the LCG has ignored the minor clans.

2 minutes ago, phillos said:

I'll be very interested to see what they do in this regards because so far the LCG has ignored the minor clans.

You could argue that the imperials are a "minor clan" But I also expect we will see more of them in packs, since the focus of the core was on the great clans.

2 hours ago, player2636234 said:

I really hope they keep minor clans and ronin at a relatively lower power than great clans. It sucks when your character concept for a socially disadvantaged and opportunity disadvantaged character gets the most powerful school because of the quirk of balance.

It also kind of sucks if your socially disadvantaged character that you want to play for RP / character concept reasons is objectively less powerful mechanics-wise than other characters just because of your RP choice. Ideally, any PC would be at about the same power level as any other.

Just now, Suzume Tomonori said:

It also kind of sucks if your socially disadvantaged character that you want to play for RP / character concept reasons is objectively less powerful mechanics-wise than other characters just because of your RP choice. Ideally, any PC would be at about the same power level as any other.

It can be extremely difficult to balance out everything. Having a character that isn't as powerful as others in the game can be quite rewarding for some players and frustrating for others. This isn't including people who view min/maxing as a power level above a character made to fit an ideal or theme.

2 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

It also kind of sucks if your socially disadvantaged character that you want to play for RP / character concept reasons is objectively less powerful mechanics-wise than other characters just because of your RP choice. Ideally, any PC would be at about the same power level as any other.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. What is the point of playing an underdog if you're not actually an underdog? The goal of a tabletop game, especially as one so traditionally entwined with its setting, is not balance. The goal is to replicate the setting. Akodo bushi and Hida bushi aren't supposed to be as strong as each other because it's fair, it's because those are arguably the two greatest bushi traditions in Rokugan. Minor clanners and Ronin (and ****, even techniqueless Ronin) being at a disadvantage opens up entirely different styles of games that fit the setting and feel satisfying to play. Taking those power tiers away detracts from the game not only because perhaps by chance Suzume bushi is just the strongest bushi school when it's intended to be merely on par with Akodo bushi, but also because you're no longer allowed to tell the story from any angle but "The PCs are basically the best".

23 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

It can be extremely difficult to balance out everything.

Indeed, and I would never expect any RPG to actually be perfectly balanced. However, I feel that intentionally designing a system where the PCs are at different power levels based on their RP choices is worse for a game, and will cause players to favor certain factions/classes/roles based on what is "good."

It depends on play style, I suppose, but I would rather players going through character creation trying to fit their character concept first, and not have to worry about if that character concept has made them mechanically useless. Specialization (good at combat or good at social situations, etc.) is fine, but if your character is just plain worse than other PCs that can make the game less fun for you, and it can discourage players from going through with cool character concepts because mechanically they will suffer in game.

29 minutes ago, player2636234 said:

The goal of a tabletop game, especially as one so traditionally entwined with its setting, is not balance.

This may be a play style difference, but as far as PC power levels / strengths go, I whole-heartedly disagree.

30 minutes ago, player2636234 said:

Taking those power tiers away detracts from the game not only because perhaps by chance Suzume bushi is just the strongest bushi school when it's intended to be merely on par with Akodo bushi, but also because you're no longer allowed to tell the story from any angle but "The PCs are basically the best".

Could you elaborate on this point? I understand the desire to not have imbalance between schools (which, though unintended, often ends up happening anyway.) But what do you mean by this leading to "The PCs are basically the best" ? (You should, in any system, in theory be able to design NPCs more powerful than the PCs quite easily.)

7 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

The Minor Clan Alliance is not the Mantis.

Well, the Minor Clan were originally represented by Yoritomo's Alliance.

The Alliance became the Mantis Clan.

And the Mantis Clan remained the largest, playable collection of Minor Clans until the end of the CCG.

But Coyote, the timeline got reset and changed. None of that happened yet in the FFG story.

True, but that make your assertion that the Minor Clan Alliance isn't the Mantis equally invalid. We simple don't know yet.

In fact, the only thing we do know is that Yoritomo exist. Haven't heard if the Dragonfly made it into the new game yet.....

45 minutes ago, player2636234 said:

The goal of a tabletop game, especially as one so traditionally entwined with its setting, is not balance.

Ah, I see you have played in Winter Court!

5 hours ago, phillos said:

I didn't notice before, but the article does explicitly state that their will be custom dice.

No, it doesn't. The only mention of custom dice is the following:

Quote

Custom dice mechanics enable players to contribute to the unfolding story and decide whether their character succeeds, by how much, and how much it will cost them.

The phrase "custom dice mechanics" can be parsed multiple ways in this sentence. (Custom dice) (mechanics) and (Custom) (dice mechanics) are both valid interpretations.

Edit:

The beta sign up also has no references to the Star Wars RPG nor Genesys in the survey.

2 hours ago, player2636234 said:

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. What is the point of playing an underdog if you're not actually an underdog? The goal of a tabletop game, especially as one so traditionally entwined with its setting, is not balance. The goal is to replicate the setting. Akodo bushi and Hida bushi aren't supposed to be as strong as each other because it's fair, it's because those are arguably the two greatest bushi traditions in Rokugan. Minor clanners and Ronin (and ****, even techniqueless Ronin) being at a disadvantage opens up entirely different styles of games that fit the setting and feel satisfying to play. Taking those power tiers away detracts from the game not only because perhaps by chance Suzume bushi is just the strongest bushi school when it's intended to be merely on par with Akodo bushi, but also because you're no longer allowed to tell the story from any angle but "The PCs are basically the best".

I think the importance is not really balance as it is choice.

As long as players actively choose to play a weaker character, then everything is fine. If the game mechanically enforce differences in power (whether because part of the character creation is random or because a handful of schools are just better than others), then we have a problem.

16 hours ago, phillos said:

Not sure how much feedback from the beta will actually influence the final design. I didn't take part in the Star Wars RPG beta. I'd be interested to hear how different it's beta was from the final product. I do know D&D 5th changed quite a bit in each release of the beta rules and was very different from the first playtest pack to the released books.

The Star Wars RPG beta didn't change much; the Dark Heresy 2nd edition beta was met with universal disdain, and the system was radically changed to result in what was printed. And the Star Wars LCG was changed just on the reaction to the announcement from co-operative to competitive. FFG does listen.

Ultimatecalibur I guess we'll find out shortly, but I think that's a pretty definitive statement. I wouldn't use the term custom dice in the way you suggest if I was writing the article. That would be misleading.

12 hours ago, Tetsuhiko said:

I think the importance is not really balance as it is choice.

As long as players actively choose to play a weaker character, then everything is fine. If the game mechanically enforce differences in power (whether because part of the character creation is random or because a handful of schools are just better than others), then we have a problem.

Not sure I understand this though. How can you choose a weaker character if the game didn't have a handful of schools that are just better? If they aren't better, I can't choose the weaker? And I'm also not expecting my Unicorn Bushi to be better than a Crab or Lion Bushi, but that doesn't make it a problem.

I still think it would be a monumental mistake on FFG's part to not leverage the GeneSys system in some way. Being able to say to someone "Hey, you play Star Wars! Do you want to try this new RPG with magical samurai? It uses basically the same system." is huge for them from a sales standpoint. At this point I think it won't be GeneSys core, but will be a modified/tweaked version (Example, Use Rings as traits/attributes/stats, rather than the 6 they have), and it might not end up being directly compatible, but it should have the same core system and mechanics.

As for the whole balance issue, I don't have a major issue with people actively choosing to play a weaker character, but if the different schools (lets call them that!) are not at least roughly balanced, then it becomes a lot harder to build encounters, since the math becomes more complicated. I think the whole "Challenge Rating" System from D&D is a good idea, at least in theory (I have not done much with it in practice), but the idea that "Well if I throw X of these Y CR creatures, that is a decent challenge for a party the size of Z at level W" to me is a good one for helping your GMs be able to be more quickly flexible in building interesting encounters. It is not really fun (to me at least) to be constantly fighting either super easy stuff intermittently spaced with something that is super hard and kills half your party. However, given what I have heard about Star Wars, this can extend further into dividing it up between various types of encounters, whether it is social, Combat, or something else.

Ronin shouldn't just be lesser samurai, otherwise there is no appeal to play them. When looking at schools in 4e, I both look for an interesting theme and the level of effectiveness. Some schools are just more effective than others. Most of the ronin schools aren't all that effective, and when compared against actual clan schools, they are basically trash (At least to me). I think this discourages people from playing ronin, and anything to discourage a player from picking a character choice beyond "I don't think that fits my character" is bad game design, because why did you even include this in the book as a player option? You should be able to make "Suboptimal" choices without significant impact on your character. The difference between an "optimal" and "Suboptimal" choice should more be the difference between an Olympic gold medalist and someone who competes in the Olympics and gets the middle of the pack (meaning both are excellent at what they do), not an Olympic Gold Medalist and Average Joe trying to compete, at least in whatever sort of focus the character has. Ronin could easily be competent bushi, have social penalties due to their status when dealing with other Samurai, and maybe social bonuses with Peasants due to their social status, and still be balanced. Maybe they should be slightly weaker overall, to reflect that you don't really want to be a Ronin, but they shouldn't feel unplayable or like you are intentionally handicapping yourself for the story.

14 hours ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

The phrase "custom dice mechanics" can be parsed multiple ways in this sentence. (Custom dice) (mechanics) and (Custom) (dice mechanics) are both valid interpretations.

Sure, but as I've said before - it would be a financially suboptimal decision for FFG to release a system that doesn't sell custom dice, since everyone already has a set (or two) of standard dice.

As for the survey questions: it just means they're looking to determine a tester's RPG and L5R background, likely to ensure they have a good distribution of testers between veterans who have an excellent grasp of the setting, and newbies who know nothing of Rokugan.