48 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

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.

Let's take your Bushi example. Pretty much every Great Clan schools should have equal power, or at least equally relevant specializations. If one or two Great Clans have schools that are clearly superior to the others and making anything else is clearly disadvantageous, it's bad design.

On the other hand, let's say you create a few additional schools that are clearly inferior (or quirky alternate Paths which are fun to have, but are less powerful), there's nothing wrong with it because every clan has other alternatives and it boils down to player's preferences.

19 minutes ago, Tetsuhiko said:

On the other hand, let's say you create a few additional schools that are clearly inferior (or quirky alternate Paths which are fun to have, but are less powerful), there's nothing wrong with it because every clan has other alternatives and it boils down to player's preferences.

I think in this particular case, the alternate paths should give you a bonus to something else, at the cost of being a better bushi. Perhaps it makes you a better duelist, or a better courtier, or a better merchant. I think these trade offs should be valid and interesting, at the cost of being worse at a particular thing.

16 hours ago, Coyote Walks said:

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.....

Typical Mantis bluster. I suppose I should be thankful for it, without it the Tortoise wouldn't exist. Thankfully Agasha Kasuga was present to clean up after the mess that the Mantis left at the Battle of White Stag.

as EXTREMELY HYPED as i am for this, i'm kind of annoyed they didn't just say what the butts it is now, rather than making us endure an entire week of R&K vs Genesys wanking. for all i care, the dice mechanics could be replaced with slapping the GM in the face, as long as i never have to hear anyone tell me why R&K is superior or why narrative dice are good or garbage again.

3 hours ago, Radon Antila said:

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.

How sub-optimal it is is arguable. Selling 7+ individual clan dice sets might seem like a sure fire way to make money, but it is just as likely to unnecessarily increase costs/overstock and a fair number of players are likely to have either the Star Wars or Genesys dice sets already.

3 hours ago, Radon Antila said:

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.

If it was Genesys based they would also want to know who was already familiar with one of the previous games with the system because that would also be pertinent information when looking at playtesters for a Genesys based system.

They checked for familiarity with the 6 previous L5R games but not familiarity with the 2 previous Genesys games.

35 minutes ago, cielago said:

as EXTREMELY HYPED as i am for this, i'm kind of annoyed they didn't just say what the butts it is now, rather than making us endure an entire week of R&K vs Genesys wanking. for all i care, the dice mechanics could be replaced with slapping the GM in the face, as long as i never have to hear anyone tell me why R&K is superior or why narrative dice are good or garbage again.

If the system is indeed Genesys-derived, then you won't stop hearing about it. No one in my playgroups enjoys the read the bones style of Genesys and have all firmly placed themselves in the R&K camp. I'm a bit more open minded myself, but if "5e" isn't an outright upgrade from 4e, you should expect a lot of people to stick to 4e.

I enjoy internet masturbatory navel gazing, so I will continue!

That is the case with every RPG ever in my experience. There are always hold outs for the older version, and I think that's perfectly fine. All systems have strengths and weaknesses.

7 minutes ago, player2636234 said:

If the system is indeed Genesys-derived, then you won't stop hearing about it. No one in my playgroups enjoys the read the bones style of Genesys and have all firmly placed themselves in the R&K camp. I'm a bit more open minded myself, but if "5e" isn't an outright upgrade from 4e, you should expect a lot of people to stick to 4e.

thats fine, but its not like they're gonna take your books and melt down every d10 in your dice bag. i just hope that people won't feel obligated to fill every single thread about the beta with bitter ranting about R&K.

its a very faint, sad hope. i know R&K fans better than to hope too much.

Here's a friendly tip:

You, with your broad disparagement, aren't any less annoying.

2 hours ago, player2636234 said:

Here's a friendly tip:

You, with your broad disparagement, aren't any less annoying.

Well, that sounded less friendly and more hostile. But then again, I like both systems just fine and would like people to stop putting down one system in favor of another one, even in passive aggressive terms while pretending to be open minded.

5 hours ago, TroutNinja said:

Typical Mantis bluster.

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 7:02 PM, Suzume Tomonori said:

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.

I'm mixed on that. In theory, it sounds easy to make a system where every choice is beneficial but I haven't system be able to achieve that. When I think of why certain abilities or options occur, I usually turn to this article. Sure, it's about cards, but the idea is still valid. I will say that a good GM can, and should, work around characters so everyone is having fun.

2 hours ago, Kubernes said:

I'm mixed on that. In theory, it sounds easy to make a system where every choice is beneficial but I haven't system be able to achieve that. When I think of why certain abilities or options occur, I usually turn to this article. Sure, it's about cards, but the idea is still valid. I will say that a good GM can, and should, work around characters so everyone is having fun.

Eeeeh, I'm not sure that's the best idea, myself - that very article was applied in the design of a certain game, and it proved to be rather divisive. It seems like it'd be much easier to just design the game with balance in mind and let people who are very committed to minor clan / ronin inferiority just not spend half their eckspees.

Aside, while I know it's been fought out ten thousand times before, I still think it's really weird to insist on ronin being terrible compared to the great clans, considering what the game's named after...

13 hours ago, phillos said:

That is the case with every RPG ever in my experience. There are always hold outs for the older version, and I think that's perfectly fine. All systems have strengths and weaknesses.

This reminded me of this old Penny Arcade strip (which is as valid now as it was then)

20 hours ago, RandomJC said:

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.

The schools can all be balanced, and a weaker character can still be made by dint of choosing stats that are 'sub-optimal' - say, a bushi with really low physical traits - or taking crippling disadvantages. Schools are not the only balancing factor.

3 hours ago, Tabris2k said:

This reminded me of this old Penny Arcade strip (which is as valid now as it was then)

So very, very true.

14 hours ago, Lindhrive said:

Eeeeh, I'm not sure that's the best idea, myself - that very article was applied in the design of a certain game, and it proved to be rather divisive. It seems like it'd be much easier to just design the game with balance in mind and let people who are very committed to minor clan / ronin inferiority just not spend half their eckspees.

Aside, while I know it's been fought out ten thousand times before, I still think it's really weird to insist on ronin being terrible compared to the great clans, considering what the game's named after...

Well, the idea of balance is something rather subjective. So far people simply throw the word around and expect results from designers.

12 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Well, the idea of balance is something rather subjective. So far people simply throw the word around and expect results from designers.

BALANCE!!!!!!

Isn't the whole Overpowerd vs Underpowerd Schools the same thing they had with the SW and WH40k RPGs, where you could mix Jedi with Normies and Space Marines with Imperial Guardsmen?

i.e.: not really a problem if the players know in advance what they're getting into?

I see both arguments, my own personal opinion in gaming is that more Options are always better and that it's fine if some of those options are mechanically inferior if, and only if, they provide the player with good RP opportunities.

14 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Well, the idea of balance is something rather subjective. So far people simply throw the word around and expect results from designers.

On a slightly more serious comment, I think you can define balance for an RPG as being that players feel like they can contribute evenly to a campaign. This assumes a lot of stuff (IE the mythical 100% perfect GM, and a well thought out party), but I think if you can try to balance around having game mechanics that give each player the ability to do something useful in any situation, and be able to excel in certain situations.

I do think we can analyze "Balance" based on as written rules, and not house rules.

I would not call 4e L5R as balanced, as I feel like lot of the schools, especially the corner cases, are too specialized in something that isn't really useful. I was talking to people on Discord about Crane Archery, and the Asahina Archer Alternate Path gives you pretty good bonuses to "Called Shots". Then when I asked, the response was "They don't really do anything that the GM doesn't make up on the spot. If you want to do that, just play a Kakita Bushi with a bow." I feel like this is bad 'balance'. If I were to choose to go whole hog and work to take the Asahina Archer path, I shouldn't feel like I am shooting myself in my foot. If you are working towards this mess, you are actually just spending effort with no mechanical benefit, (You have given up a rank 4 technique for something where you can shoot ropes really well!). I should get something useful if I decide to take an interesting RP choice, given it is something printed in the books.

With that said, part of the situation are the players, including the referee. A good group can make any system fun. A good referee can create situations where all the players can contribute. The caveat are players noticing instances they can contribute and/or playing for the group experience.

Wait, I thought this was open today? Did I read something wrong? When will it come out? I want to see it!

*whining used to add emphasis, and not because I am sad*

2 minutes ago, Devin-the-Poet said:

Wait, I thought this was open today? Did I read something wrong? When will it come out? I want to see it!

*whining used to add emphasis, and not because I am sad*

We've still 6 days to go of "last week's 'next week'"...

Info is up. Further Discussion should probably be in the Beta forums.