I've played every edition of l5r to some extent over the years.

I like the changes that FFG have brought, but since my gaming group has fallen apart recently I can't comment on how clunky or intuitive the rules actually are.

I figure when the full book and some gm screens and a better trial adventure comes out I'll make .y final decision.

I'll probably just play it because it's the latest edition, and I'm fed up with too many elements of the old games.

The dice are better, lore skills don't exist, i like the new advantage/disadvantage, there are social mechanics to interest my dice minded players into trying courtiers. I think they have tweaked the fluff in ways that will make me interested in monks and Shugenja and possibly have my players like them too.

I'm optimistic, and trust that the beta will streamline things better. But if it sucks oh well I'll use Cortex Prime and just use the new timeline.

On 11/16/2017 at 11:12 PM, Kakita Onimaru said:

Are you currently enjoying this game?

We have enjoyed it immensely thus far.

Specifically, would you chose to play this game instead of another RP system? What RP system do you think this game is better than?

I suppose this is a matter of preference, but I usually choose a game system by how well I feel it gets across the feel of it's accompanying setting. We feel like this one does it's job.

The re are parts of this mish/mash of of 4th ed and Star Wars that I like but others I dont think go together at all and kinda think the game would be better leaning more in one of those 2 directions.

I agree here. It seems like they are trying to be both and the overall game is suffering for it.

I feel like the ability to augment actions as CORE to the ability to RP a character. RP happens when a player says "Hey, I want to do x, but I want it to happen like this..." This is the great failing of this game system. A player can't say what augments they want to have happen first. They roll first and then MIGHT get to augment their abilities. I feel this is reversed - rather than a player owning their character and directing their actions it feels like the player is supposed to roll, and then pick off a list of extra effects like a madlib rpg... Its backwards. The roll controls, and limits the player, it doesn't free them.

The next great failing of this system is that, while it tries to be oh-so-simple in giving 5 rings and a dozen skills you need 5 pages to list all of your techniques and opportunity cheat sheets. These are different for each player, and for each encounter type so a player has several pages to juggle around and track just to perform their character's actions properly. This is a detriment to role play as a player may know how they want their character to act from day 1, but may not be able to act that way until they've bought 3-6 techniques just to unlock the options...

I want it to be good, I hope it'll be good. Right now it isn't. Not because it's not 4.5, but because it tries to be 4.5.

Just cast everything away, and make it your own ffg. I'm annoyed to read folks complaining about the "old guard".

If the system was really new and redesigned from scratch there would be no "old guard". As long as they try to keep elements from previous eds, there will be an old guard.

You ain't happy because of us old guard, deal with it, we were there first.

Give us novelty, not half assed rehash.

I am genuinely confused... how can this edition be seen as remotely close to the 4th ? I have a pretty good idea of what a 4.5 would look like (basically my 4e with a healthy dose of house rules). This edition is not that. My very first impression upon reading the beta was “wow I don’t know if it’s going to be good, but at least they did break the old mold!”

YMMV i guess...

40 minutes ago, Nitenman said:

I want it to be good, I hope it'll be good. Right now it isn't. Not because it's not 4.5, but because it tries to be 4.5.

Just cast everything away, and make it your own ffg. I'm annoyed to read folks complaining about the "old guard".

If the system was really new and redesigned from scratch there would be no "old guard". As long as they try to keep elements from previous eds, there will be an old guard.

You ain't happy because of us old guard, deal with it, we were there first.

Give us novelty, not half assed rehash.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

If they had just gone with a star wars/Genesys game I would not play it, but I would have just walked away and not given it a second thought.

But instead they went with this hybrid thing trying to tell us this is what we want.

What we wanted (Old Guard) was 4.5th ed or 5th ed.

5 minutes ago, Franwax said:

I am genuinely confused... how can this edition be seen as remotely close to the 4th ? I have a pretty good idea of what a 4.5 would look like (basically my 4e with a healthy dose of house rules). This edition is not that. My very first impression upon reading the beta was “wow I don’t know if it’s going to be good, but at least they did break the old mold!”

YMMV i guess...

Most of the mechanics are a hybrid of 4th mixed with custom dice, and some left-overs from Dark Heresy and the strife system added for extra annoyance.

The use of the R&k system is were most of the connection is made.

Well we roll a bunch of dice and keep some of them... but that’s where the resemblance stops. This is still the largest departure from any other edition’s sacred cows ever (no, Rokugan D20 does not count;) ).

For what it’s worth, the r&k system was one of the best ideas AEG ever had. Those density curves of possible statistical outcomes are just beautiful. Much more satisfying than any linear system (D20, D100... all have the same problem). So that was a good move to keep that bit. But no more D10, completely different approach to Rings and skills, schools that build up on a menu system where you can custom fit what techniques you want, Strife and RP guidelines straight out of an improv theater handbook... not saying I like all of it, but this gets points for innovation.

Even gave me some ideas: now I want to try and run a 4e game where Traits give D8’s instead of D10’s so that only the dice from your skills can explode...

1 minute ago, tenchi2a said:

Most of the mechanics are a hybrid of 4th mixed with custom dice, and some left-overs from Dark Heresy and the strife system added for extra annoyance.

The use of the R&k system is were most of the connection is made.

But other than that there is rolling and keeping, the new system barely resembles R&K. And skills are different. And schools are different. And advancement is different. And Traits are gone. Combat in general and duels in particular are different.

Previous editions were largely simulationist. Things like honor and glory could be used as narrative elements, but didn’t really push any specific kind of narrative. This edition ostensibly attempts to be narrative. It fails in that regard IMO (which is why I don’t like it as it stands), but that it fails doesn’t change what it attempts to do.

For me this beta is more fundamentally different from its predecessors than say, D&D 5th ed (or even 4th ed, probably a better example) is from any other D&D edition period. Not because of how it does what it does, but because of what it is meant to do compared to what previous editions were meant to do.

9 hours ago, Kakita Onimaru said:

Yeah. I am wondering how much dislike for the system is due to it not being the familiar 4thed or is genuine dislike for this particualr system.

My group's issues are with the system itself. There are some cool ideas, but they are either poorly executed or not at all thought through and FFG doesn't seem willing or able to fix the root problems in the system. Some of their fixes need fixes while other parts of the rules are just missing. We want the game to succeed. We want to give FFG money in exchange for a game we will enjoy.

I'm worried they are going to overlook/write-off a lot of valid criticism as people clinging to 4e instead of really examining problems with the system and being open to making real changes.

I'm also concerned given the things that have slipped through to the public beta that were not caught by the 100 or so credited playtesters and dozen developers. Having done my fair share of betas, I'm left wondering if the closed beta was that bad and/or the people involved were not really doing that great of a job.

The way the materials provided are written and the information conveyed in the emails it makes me think there are a lot of discussions happening behind the scenes about how and why things are the way they are, but that info isn't making its way into the book. I also get the impression some of those conversations are really about justifying choices already made instead of critically examining those choices.

Now that mini-rant out of the way, every beta I've participated in you have some people who will hate anything you do, some that will love anything you do, a few that will give valid criticism and insights, and some that will give no real feedback at all. The key is in properly recognizing and weighing that feedback.

Business wise you also have to find the point of diminishing returns on time and money spent developing the system vs sales. Sometimes it makes more business sense to release a crap product than to invest the time and money to get a better product. That said, you still need to make sure the system can support years of splat books and other supplemental materials. In the case of L5R previous editions relied heavily on the living campaign as a marketing tool as saw a good number of players entering via organized play. If FFG wants to capitalize on such a marketing tool, it needs to ensure the system is friendly for such types of play in addition to home games.

50 minutes ago, jmoschner said:

I'm also concerned given the things that have slipped through to the public beta that were not caught by the 100 or so credited playtesters and dozen developers. Having done my fair share of betas, I'm left wondering if the closed beta was that bad and/or the people involved were not really doing that great of a job.

Having been in some of the playtests for SW supplements...

They ask very directed questions based upon the in-house alpha. And they did take and use feedback not covered by their questions, too. Some got serious overhauls. Some got minor changes. Now, there was no public beta, but in one of the tests, I'm fairly certain there was a beta run after - all of us in the alpha listed our groups where we could see each others, and about twice as many names appeared in the book. And more changes, based upon our suggestions, seem to have been adopted after playtest close.

Unlike several other companies I've dealt with, FFG doesn't treat Public Beta merely as a marketing tool.

11 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

I'd attribute it more to "I wanted 4R, d***it, and so I won't give it a fair shake"...

and a few who keep hoping that if they B***h loud enough, might get 5E to be 4.1...or even 3.1.

My issues are mostly with the duel system and with goal setting. The core emchanic isn't bad at all. But it is a bit slower.

So, for you, anyone who enjoyed previous editions have no right to express their point of view and can't give fair critiscism ? It's pretty black and white. I've been trying to give helpful answers to FFG since it started, even if I playtested 3rd and 4th and played and GM the 5 previous editions... but I guess that just lies for you.

10 hours ago, Franwax said:

I am genuinely confused... how can this edition be seen as remotely close to the 4th?

It is very much like 4th Edition but with special dice and some homebrew rules slapped onto it. Note that both changes touch things that were heavily discussed in 4th Edition, like more sensible Raises (Opportunity), better Skills (doh), social combat, School advancement changes (a little lopsided, because the common idea was making every School 5-Ranks, but hey...), better Kata/Kiho integration, "Social Kata", etc. Even the Strife/Unmasking system feels like a typical doughnut steel homebrew unique rule while the rest (Giri/Ninjo, I'm looking at you) might as well not exist.

So it is very much like 4th, except for everything that is not

Funny that we can have such different feelings about it... I, like Okuma, was part of the playtest for 4th ed so I think in know it inside-out, and this one looks nothing like it to me. 1st, 3rd and 4th could be seen as broadly similar, like related canine species are. 2nd tried to depart and, imho, failed. It would be a cat in this metaphor - still a mammal, but not that close. This edition belongs to an entirely different clade in my view; like some kind of wombat or lemur. Sure, it has fur, but that's where the comparison stops.

11 minutes ago, Franwax said:

So it is very much like 4th, except for everything that is not

What is not is stuff that has been worked on by the homebrew community probably since 4th Edition came out. Heck, I bet there is a homebrew 4.5 somewhere out there that uses special dice or has some sort of Strife/Unmasking mechanics.

5R5 feels more like a typical case of reinventing the wheel rather than having different kinds of animals. It is just a sort of a reimagination, rather than a reconstruction.

2 hours ago, AtoMaki said:

What is not is stuff that has been worked on by the homebrew community probably since 4th Edition came out. Heck, I bet there is a homebrew 4.5 somewhere out there that uses special dice or has some sort of Strife/Unmasking mechanics.

Thing is. I wouldn’t consider such a homebrew a 4.x. For me that’s be too much if a departure from the core ruleset of 4E not to consider it a new edition period.

11 hours ago, okuma said:

So, for you, anyone who enjoyed previous editions have no right to express their point of view and can't give fair critiscism ? It's pretty black and white. I've been trying to give helpful answers to FFG since it started, even if I playtested 3rd and 4th and played and GM the 5 previous editions... but I guess that just lies for you.

I didn't say that. Nice strawman, by the way.

I am saying, however, those who wanted 4R probably need to rethink participation. If they're willing to look at it as a new game for an old setting, great. If not, walk.

I, for the record, like 3E. But I had no expectation of a 4R.

33 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

I didn't say that. Nice strawman, by the way.

I am saying, however, those who wanted 4R probably need to rethink participation. If they're willing to look at it as a new game for an old setting, great. If not, walk.

I, for the record, like 3E. But I had no expectation of a 4R.

I would say the issues is more the way they seem to be marketing it.

They are trying to appeal to both new and old fans with this Beta.And acting like its what we want.

The problem stems from the fact that they are acting like they want our input.

But are ignoring or control what that input is.

All you have to due is read the surveys to see that they have no interest in what we want.

Now that not saying that there are not people that this game may appeal to.

Can this system work, yes it has the potential to be a if not great, an adequate system.

But the writers seem so invested in the system staying exactly the way it is that it will never fulfill its potential.

I gave up on the game when the character creation system that all my players hated was given a pass.

And after reading the next survey it was clear that this was their baby and no one not even their customer were going to tell them they where wrong.

Most of the hatred is directed at FFG, not the game in my view.

2 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

I would say the issues is more the way they seem to be marketing it.

They are trying to appeal to both new and old fans with this Beta.And acting like its what we want.

The problem stems from the fact that they are acting like they want our input.

But are ignoring or control what that input is.

All you have to due is read the surveys to see that they have no interest in what we want.

Now that not saying that there are not people that this game may appeal to.

Can this system work, yes it has the potential to be a if not great, an adequate system.

But the writers seem so invested in the system staying exactly the way it is that it will never fulfill its potential.

I gave up on the game when the character creation system that all my players hated was given a pass.

And after reading the next survey it was clear that this was their baby and no one not even their customer were going to tell them they where wrong.

Most of the hatred is directed at FFG, not the game in my view.

But what you want isn't what I want, which isn't what AK wants. Where does it stop? Reminds me of the creator of Pokemon saying how fans want such silly things, and if he gave in to all their ideas the game would be unplayable. Maybe it's unplayable for you. But it's not for plenty of other people. They're not just going to scrap months of work because some people rant on the forums. They're going to gauge the survey results and tune what they can. But no, they're not going to change every little thing people dislike. They're probably already in the early stages of writing source books. We can't see the full picture, it's unrealistic to hate a company when you're looking through a keyhole of their operation.

3 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

I am saying, however, those who wanted 4R probably need to rethink participation. If they're willing to look at it as a new game for an old setting, great. If not, walk.

What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say, as if championing a fundamentally flawed ruleset carried a level of nobility and legitimacy simply because that's the ruleset currently presented.

45 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

But what you want isn't what I want, which isn't what AK wants. Where does it stop? Reminds me of the creator of Pokemon saying how fans want such silly things, and if he gave in to all their ideas the game would be unplayable. Maybe it's unplayable for you. But it's not for plenty of other people. They're not just going to scrap months of work because some people rant on the forums. They're going to gauge the survey results and tune what they can. But no, they're not going to change every little thing people dislike. They're probably already in the early stages of writing source books. We can't see the full picture, it's unrealistic to hate a company when you're looking through a keyhole of their operation.

I see way more people having issues with the system then defending it.

And that's what I was saying.

I'm not sure which surveys you were getting, but mine were asking about unimportant thing like would it be better if we called it unmaked instead of outburst.

Hard to gauge a survey accurately when you have fixed it to get the results you want.

The point is to find issues with the game and fix them.

Where does it stop. When more then half the forum states there is an issues with something you fix it.

You don't create a survey that at most will lead to cosmetic changes to the issues and say look we fixed it.

And to the ranting on the forum, were else are we going to rant.

You sure can't on the surveys, they have even removed the write-in area on most of the questions.

23 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say, as if championing a fundamentally flawed ruleset carried a level of nobility and legitimacy simply because that's the ruleset currently presented.

I wouldn't say 4e L5R was fundamentally flawed. It had it's issues, but it was marked improvement over 3e by leaps and bounds, having ironed out a number of the quirky issues that system had from the days of its first edition. Not all of them, but then no RPG is completely perfect.

AK_Aramis' point, at least from the words you quoted, is that those individuals who simply wanted FFG throw this system out and instead do a retread of the 4e rules (or any prior edition) is that they're not going to get what they want no matter how much noise they make. Whether you opt to take that as a personal insult when such wasn't the intent is up to you.

For better or worse, FFG has committed to their own version of the L5R RPG, specialized dice and all. If they hadn't, there wouldn't be a beta, open or otherwise, and they'd still be in alpha testing or quite possibly in the process of doing the initial writing. Writers have been paid for their work, so as a for-profit company FFG isn't likely to just toss that all aside without some very compelling reasons, since drastic revisions are going to require time and more importantly additional money. They're not looking to hear from people to say that this version sucks and they should just sticking to reprinting 4e books because that's the "superior" version, so really the only thing those folks are doing is creating a bunch of noise which runs a likelihood of drowning out the viable feedback that could help address the issues this new system has.

And there are folks that have posted in this thread and elsewhere that they do enjoy this new version, with some of them being "old guard" veterans of the AEG editions, and aren't asking FFG to simply do a remake the old d10 RnK version. So maybe for them, FFG's new system isn't "fundamentally flawed." I've seen folks refer to the much-lauded WEG d6 Star Wars as a steaming pile, only grudgingly acknowledging that without said RPG there probably wouldn't be the Star Wars revival the fandom has been enjoying these past couple decades. So "fundamentally flawed" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

Now, it's entirely possible that the sticking points in the current beta version of these rules will be reviewed and addressed once the beta is closed and they're able to fully review and analyze the feedback, and some significant changes are made and new round of closed playtesting occurs. It's the process that FFG took with each of their Star Wars games, having the Beta books in people's hands for that year's GenCon and the final product coming out about a year later. Of course, with the Star Wars line many of the major quirks had been worked out during the Edge of the Empire Beta, so there was less revision needed for Age of Rebellion or Force and Destiny. I suspect that they're looking to have an L5R RPG core rulebook for sale at GenCon 2018, but that itself depends on how much further revision/changes they feel is needed to get the game into a ready-to-be-published version.

2 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

is that those individuals who simply wanted FFG throw this system out and instead do a retread of the 4e rules (or any prior edition) is that they're not going to get what they want no matter how much noise they make.

Somebody wasn't around for the Dark Heresy 2 Beta, lol. They scrapped the entire system due to Beta backlash and went back to the drawing board. Then they failed that second-try and the DH2 product line died out in a little over a year. FFG has seen the price of error and hubris.

Writers have been paid for their work,

Ahh yes, the classic sunk-cost fallacy. Something every good for-profit company lets itself get stuck in.

1 hour ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Somebody wasn't around for the Dark Heresy 2 Beta, lol. They scrapped the entire system due to Beta backlash and went back to the drawing board. Then they failed that second-try and the DH2 product line died out in a little over a year. FFG has seen the price of error and hubris.

Funny, I know a lot of college kids who LOVE Dark Heresy 2...

The lines got ended because GW and FFG didn;t come to an agreement over extending it.

And the shops I've been to (5 shops, 2 states) all have no DH2 materials on the shelves. Sold out. Same can't be said for 4th ed L5R - 3 of the 5 still have L5R4 stuff sitting on shelves.

1 hour ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Ahh yes, the classic sunk-cost fallacy. Something every good for-profit company lets itself get stuck in.

The sunk cost fallacy is not a true fallacy.

Not in the same sense that a strawman argument is.

Sunk cost can be a real consideration. If the corporate budget was set for X amount as risk capital, and the sunk costs have risen to that point, the question is not whether or not to continue, it is whether continuing will allow recuperation of those sunk costs.

Redevelopment adds to those sunk costs. If redevelopment plus prior sunk costs exceed the budget, there's no point in redeveloping unless the redevelopment can produce more back than is lost on abanding the current.

I kept hearing about the Dark Hersey 2.0 Beta and thanks to AtoMaki quick explanation on another topic and link, I read more into it.

AtoMaki

Quote

FFG proposed a very original and intuitive new system for the WH40KRPG line. It had Talent Trees, Action Points, lots-and-lots-and-lots of really awesome and interesting stuff. Effectively everything other than the dice resolution system was new or changed (and even dice resolution was slightly revised). It was also rather flawed, obviously, and it was up to the fans to evaluate and fix it. They did this so hard that FFG eventually danced back completely, scrapped the changes, and went back to the old and well-tested system rather than make the new one workable.

It was pretty much like this 5R5 Beta, I even had a Beta Test Game topic there too . 40k Was all the jazz back then. Good ol' times.

Yeah, that Beta was received very poorly from what I read. Given that, I don't think its safe to say that the currant L5R RPG Beta system is set in stone IMHO.