16 hours ago, Reins Vengard said:

The only way i would recommend this game for a new player at this point is if I'm trying to sell my collection to him so he can have a bunch of cards he cant use due to arbitrary garbage rulings. And living in XYZ isnt the problem I'm tired of people defending this crap rule because "it doesn't effect them" well it effects other players and we're tired of it. How many more of these "Get rid of the role lock" posts do we have to read before Brad Andres and FFG wake up and do something.

Well, it’s actually the other way around: We are tired of people like you attacking this rule just because you don’t like it.

There was a pool in the FB group, and the majority of players said that they were ok with Role locking. Same goes for the players I’ve talked about roles in person, in and out of my playgroup. So you’re the one stating an opinion that goes against most of the player base.

So how about you learn some manners and stop attacking people that just doesn’t think like you, because (oh, surprise) you don’t hold the absolute truth.

No

Hmmm for me to see scorpio playing keeper of water for a change would be just fine, so role locking indeed can change the meta. What is needed that the faction can not chose the same element or same keeper/seeker role that it did have previously and maybe not even the same combination that has been used in last x years. Then each year clan would Flip from keeper to Seeker and vise versa. Also They have to rotate the elements and that combination shift the meta together with card pool. Otherwice it is quite possible to see the same role confinations from the year to year.

but Lets see what happens. This game is still young again, so things can and will change.

2 hours ago, Reins Vengard said:

No

K.

10 hours ago, Tabris2k said:

There was a pool in the FB group, and the majority of players said that they were ok with Role locking. Same goes for the players I’ve talked about roles in person, in and out of my playgroup. So you’re the one stating an opinion that goes against most of the player base.

I know there were a couple polls that went up, with one of them before or in the early days of the elemental cycle. That one did show a high percentage of players in favor of keeping locked roles. The later one however was a bit more confusing, because the "locked roles" option also included keeping locked roles, but doing it differently (such as each clan having 2 roles, 1 keeper/1 seeker). I don't recall seeing the follow up poll to determine the breakdown of "single locked role per clan" vs. "multiple locked roles per clan" but there's definitely strong support in favor of *changing* the way roles work, at least. We'll see how FFG responds though, from their last live stream i seemed like they're at least considering some changes, such as how long the roles are locked in for. Time will tell.

Polls only reflect the population's opinion if they use a representative sample. So the polls we have prove nothing, one way or another.

However, I still think role locking is bad for the game, because it restricts deckbuilding and makes the meta stale without solving problems with too powerful role-locked cards.

While I like role locked cards, I really don't like balancing decisions that the designer can neither influence nor plan for. This leads to clans like Phoenix that would be nearer T1 if they could chose their roles freely. The role restriction also funnels the clans in fewer builds, because important support cards are role restricted (Dragon/Unicorn, X/Crab before RL etc.), which makes the meta staler. And until now it prevented broken cards like FoF to be banned/restricted.

I would like to point out, that 5 pages later, the OP has not said a peep.

Well I guess that's my cue to jump back in, thanks Mirith! Rest assured, I've been following the discussion closely. I said quite a lot to start, so I wanted to see where things would go.

If I may summarize, it seems like the sentiments of this (non-representative) sample has broken down into five categories:

1. Agree with me that the current locking system is very bad, and advocate significant or total unlocking. I haven't counted, but this seems like a minority of posters.
2. Agree that the system is not ideal, but favor a small change. From what I've seen the favored changes are either one additional role for each clan, probably so each clan would have a keeper and a seeker, or speeding up the frequency of changing locked roles. Or a combination of these two.
3. Agree that the system is not ideal, but favor a "wait and see" or "trust the designers" approach.
4. Agree that role locking is bad, but their playgroup just allows people to play whatever they want.
5. Like the current system.

I'll address each of these in turn, starting with the last.

I have to admit, I'm perplexed by the position of favoring role locking. I just don't see any way it makes the game better, and haven't seen any argument for it other than "there was a poll on facebook and the majority liked it." That's all well and good but as others have noted a voluntary online poll on facebook is in no way controlled or representative. That's not to say it's wrong, but we just have no way of knowing. Beyond that, I just genuinely didn't see any argument for locking other than "trust the designers, the game is still new." As I said in my original post, there are obvious dangers of a complete free-for-all, but there are many options short of free for all. If there's anyone out there who really favors year-long single-role locking, I'd love to hear why it's necessary.

Playgroups that allow folks to play whatever role they want sounds great, but that seems unusual to me. I do not play in a particularly competitive group, but even the most guys who are most in the "just having fun" camp wouldn't dream of pulling out a deck with an alternate role. Even if people are not preparing for a kotei, most of us want to mirror the "true" environment, and most are also playing on Jigoku, so we try to keep our decks in sync with the community, which is completely role-locked as far as I've ever seen. Maybe one option to all this would be to just start a role-unlocked channel on discord, or even a parallel league. I'm not involved enough in the organizing to do that on my own, but if one of the community leaders like Reiga or MD wanted to get that rolling it would be awesome. I'd definitely play either or both!

I'd be happy to "wait and see" if we got any public communication at all from FFG. I wrote the original letter because I don't know whether the design team has any clue about this big concern in the community. Maybe they know, and they have some big plan in mind. That would be great. In that case, I'd love a simple post on the website or even on twitter. "We know this is a concern and some people are frustrated, we've got a plan" would be fantastic. Instead all we have is a few people who talked to Brad directly, and some vague "we're working on it" comments with no timeline. We know there's some plan for a secondary role, possibly based on tournament results or maybe voting, but no details about how or when are out there, as far as I know. One rumor I've heard is that the secondary roll will only be temporary (like September-November), and then we're back to single roles. That seems really stupid to me, but it's all I've heard, so it's hard to know what's happening. Some basic detail would go a long way towards calming this frustration, at least for me.

Frequent changes could be cool, but I fear that might be too disruptive. Every three months would be so often the meta would never have a moment to settle. I think that would do more harm than good by blowing up decks too often. Every six months could work, but it would still be very frustrating for the segment of players who like to really focus on a build and hone it to perfection. I'm more of a tinkerer personally, but I know some people are the opposite, and a full role-lock that changes every six months could be pretty harsh for them. Having two roles at a time is a little better, but the seeker vs. keeper divide is not what motivated my original post. It would be great if everyone had access to Pathfinder's Blade (if they wanted), but at least now half of the clans can get it. The main issue is the element restrictions that have come out this cycle. Sabotage is Exhibit A here, but there are others. If only two clans can play a card, it's either irrelevant or highly distorting.

Finally, for those who agree with me, I'd love help either getting this to FFG, or setting up an "unlocked" league or channel, or both.

I agree. I just don't see the argument for it.

I also think another reason for playgroups, is that they are actually effective at increasing the immersion. People play the official role because that is what the clan is doing. It is part of the clan loyalty thing.

If there is an imbalance for the roles if they are all unlocked with one clearly better than the others, that is bad design. Just like how we got a Restricted List so early.if your only way to keep the game environment from being degenerate it to limit it to 1 faction that is a major failure on your part.

Oh good, you aren't a troll.

I think the argument for role locking is, to summarize, It is an artificial rotation/card pool change imposed on the card pool to make it more dynamic, as it can change reasonably quickly (Once a year, or more often). It is still basically a way of saying "Clan X will Lose A, B and C cards, but gain D, E, and F". Additionally, since players get to make the decision, there is the aspect of player's directly impacting the game.

I do not support this argument, mainly as there is a "feels bad" aspect of seeing the cards you don't get to play. If we did not know what they were, it would be more okay (But a logistical nightmare for FFG). See Pathfinder's blade, which crab will basically never play, because Iron Mine is a stronger card (Restricted list), and crab hasn't had a seeker role.

Additionally, since the decision is player based, there is still the 'feels bad' of some person somewhere else who made the decision, and perhaps you don't agree, so you fee like there is a lack of control. I think some part of the population against it might be significantly more okay with it if it wasn't a player choice, but a Dev choice. Mainly as the Devs should have a better idea of the balance and future, where I know that the player choices change significantly as cards come out. There were rumors of what Fight On! was going to be for crab, and that it was water only. People who believed the rumors were all for Keeper of Water as the new crab role via the vote. Other than that, there were strong arguments for keeper of fire.

Additionally, since its limited to 1 Clan each currently, you also get bad blood of "Well since Scorpion got Seeker of Void, Crane Couldn't!" or some such. There is a significant enough penalty to not doing well, that then makes it feel like "winners win more". Perhaps if it was a reverse draft (Might be the wrong term, but like what sports teams do, worst team picks first) , that would help.

I think also we should try to convince our local TOs to have unlocked tournaments. If the role locked environment exists only at the Kotei level maybe FFG will get the message.

1 hour ago, j-mart said:

I have to admit, I'm perplexed by the position of favoring role locking. I just don't see any way it makes the game better, and haven't seen any argument for it other than "there was a poll on facebook and the majority liked it."

No one in my -admittedly limited- group has any issue with this. Cards that are locked out are just not counted and thats that. Role locking is just another rule of the game. We see it as the same of being limited to max 45 cards per deck, or only splashing one clan. To us the logic of asking free roles makes as much sense as asking to be able to splash as many clans as you want. Its simply against the rules.

And if you cant play everything... well, you cant do everything in life. So just accept it and use it. For us, its another deckbuilding variable to have. Or a challenge if you will.

As for making the game better or worse, that depends on your definition of better or worse. It makes it better in the sense that not all roles are balanced, and some would dominate if the choice is free. Also, asking for role locked cards to all be balanced would probably be too mich to ask right now.

On the other hand, its worse because a part of the population of the game (big or small doesnt matter, its significant and thats what matters) isnt satisfied with it. The theoretical solution of playstyles (comp vs casual) doesnt work since virtually everyone either plays competitively or at elast takes their vues from that.

What im trying to say is there IS a valid train of thought behind those who favor role locking. And it is a false statement that its universally wrong and unhealthy. Just like freeing all roles, it has its advantages and disadvantages. Thats why my first post in this thread advocated for a middle ground to be reached between the two postures.

Another solution could be for ffg (or the community if it organizes itself) to make official role locked events and official role free events.

54 minutes ago, j-mart said:

I have to admit, I'm perplexed by the position of favoring role locking. I just don't see any way it makes the game better, and haven't seen any argument for it other than "there was a poll on facebook and the majority liked it." That's all well and good but as others have noted a voluntary online poll on facebook is in no way controlled or representative. That's not to say it's wrong, but we just have no way of knowing. Beyond that, I just genuinely didn't see any argument for locking other than "trust the designers, the game is still new." As I said in my original post, there are obvious dangers of a complete free-for-all, but there are many options short of free for all. If there's anyone out there who really favors year-long single-role locking, I'd love to hear why it's necessary.

I'd be happy to "wait and see" if we got any public communication at all from FFG. I wrote the original letter because I don't know whether the design team has any clue about this big concern in the community. Maybe they know, and they have some big plan in mind. That would be great. In that case, I'd love a simple post on the website or even on twitter. "We know this is a concern and some people are frustrated, we've got a plan" would be fantastic. Instead all we have is a few people who talked to Brad directly, and some vague "we're working on it" comments with no timeline. We know there's some plan for a secondary role, possibly based on tournament results or maybe voting, but no details about how or when are out there, as far as I know. One rumor I've heard is that the secondary roll will only be temporary (like September-November), and then we're back to single roles. That seems really stupid to me, but it's all I've heard, so it's hard to know what's happening. Some basic detail would go a long way towards calming this frustration, at least for me.

On these two points.

For the poll, it is as valid as the discussion on this forum or any other as you are getting a sampling of interested parties and are seeing their opinion on the subject, however that is no different from the comments in support of freeing the roles in this thread and it is just a small sampling of the most vocal. You are right that it is not a scientific sampling however as we don't have the capability of setting up a proper scientific sampling all we are left with is a hunch based on our opinion and the imperfect sampling we have to work from.

We know that route that FFG plans to take as they have stated that the culmination of the current Kotei season will result in a second role being available for Worlds this year and that was the stated intent from the start of the season. I would have been more disappointed if they had stated that they were abandoning that plan mid season as it throws the efforts of those players who have been attending events with their favorite faction likely knowing that they won't win it outright but can influence the direction for their clan in the future. What would be a better approach, and which so far they appear to be doing, is to run the current Kotei season as announced and hopefully make adjustments based on feedback for the next season.

At this point we have no details about prizes for Worlds or what story choices and Hatamoto choices may be coming down the pipeline. For all we know we may see a choice in line with the Gencon vote with the Top of Clans indicating the preference for their clans for something like, just of the top of my head, the Naga have awoken how should the empire react. They are a threat and we should be eradicated or we should attempt to find common ground with them and take a wait and see approach. I would not read anything however into that their has been no announcement from FFG as to the plans going forward as they will likely be saving that as the big announcement to entice attendance at Worlds and so it will be part of the build up to that event (along with resolving the Toshi Ranbo ownership).

@Mirith and @RafaelNN, I appreciate the detailed responses in attempting to answer the question from my last post. However, both are still just arguments against my position, not providing any proactive justification for role locking.

@Mirith, you're right that a bunch of this is a "feels bad" problem. I'll cop to that partly (although I don't think that's the whole of it). That still doesn't tell me why, in a vacuum, role locking is good or necessary. If a bunch of people feel bad about a system or rule, and there's no independent reason for that system or rule, then I would say "feels bad" is a very good reason to get rid of it (in the context of a game intended for fun).

Which brings me to @RafaelNN, and the argument based on rules. I think your position just amounts to a psychological difference between us. I totally appreciate that you just live with it as part of the rules and feel totally ok with that. I'm just not built that way. To me, L5R is a fantastic, absolutely top-tier mechanical system with overall pretty great card design which is being hampered (and potentially threatened in terms of long term health) by an unnecessary late-add deckbuilding restriction system. I'm the sort of person who will always pick apart the situation to fix the parts that I don't like, and it sounds like you're someone who prefers a more global "take the whole or leave the whole" approach. Totally valid, but the whole point of the original post was "here's a part of the rules I'd like to see changed," so just appealing to the rules isn't really an answer.

1 hour ago, RafaelNN said:

As for making the game better or worse, that depends on your definition of better or worse. It makes it better in the sense that not all roles are balanced, and some would dominate if the choice is free. Also, asking for role locked cards to all be balanced would probably be too mich to ask right now.

Ok here's the first attempt I've seen at a proactive argument for role locking from basic principles. I agree that this would be a negative consequence of totally open roles, and don't advocate for that as an immediate solution. My original post included a system that allowed each clan to have access to 6 of the 10 roles. On that approach, only 4 of the 7 clans would have access to Seeker of Void and Seeker of Fire (SC, CN, and DG, plus UN for Void and LN for Fire). In this scenario I think many Unicorn and Crane players would switch to Seeker of Void, but we've already seen cards that might give them pause. If roles were unlocked everyone would be tempted by Earth to get Sabotage now, and some Unicorn players would at least try Keeper of Earth rather than Seeker of Void. And because of Soul Beyond Reproach, many Crane players would be tempted to stick with Air. On the Keeper side of the house I don't see much clustering. Some might even go Keeper of Water (the second worst role after Seeker of Water) to get Fight On! So in return for some extra clustering into Seeker of Void, we get a whole bunch of other interesting choices people could make all over the board. To me it seems obvious that this is well worth the "price" of some CN and UN players joining SC on Seeker of Void. Also the prize choice at World's would get some extra strategy. For example even if Phoenix were locked out of top choices, they could pick Keeper of Fire as primary just to get access to the corresponding Seeker role. @RafaelNN or @Mirith Do you disagree? I'd love to hear why you think the whole scenario is so bad.

@Schmoozies I agree that FFG should not change the role system based on counting the comments for and against in this thread any more than they should use the facebook poll. My whole point here was to lay out one player's perspective for them. I hope my argument is persuasive, but some may disagree. Regardless, it provides a window into how players are feeling, which I have no idea whether they have a clue about or not. All of this would be much easier if I knew that they were in regular communication with active players. In O5R, the AEG team talked regularly to the top level players. That had consequences both positive and negative, but everyone knew it so we always felt like the drivers knew what was going on in the back of the bus, and had a plan (even if it was a bad plan). With FFG, I have no idea. There are lots of very active (some very high level) players on podcasts and discord, and not one of them has ever mentioned communicating with FFG (other than casually at a tournament). All of which is to say, maybe they understand the situation and either are choosing not to make changes, or have changes planned. My post was motivated by the possibility that they actually have no idea what the "on the ground" consequences are

2 minutes ago, j-mart said:

@Schmoozies I agree that FFG should not change the role system based on counting the comments for and against in this thread any more than they should use the facebook poll. My whole point here was to lay out one player's perspective for them. I hope my argument is persuasive, but some may disagree. Regardless, it provides a window into how players are feeling, which I have no idea whether they have a clue about or not. All of this would be much easier if I knew that they were in regular communication with active players. In O5R, the AEG team talked regularly to the top level players. That had consequences both positive and negative, but everyone knew it so we always felt like the drivers knew what was going on in the back of the bus, and had a plan (even if it was a bad plan). With FFG, I have no idea. There are lots of very active (some very high level) players on podcasts and discord, and not one of them has ever mentioned communicating with FFG (other than casually at a tournament). All of which is to say, maybe they understand the situation and either are choosing not to make changes, or have changes planned. My post was motivated by the possibility that they actually have no idea what the "on the ground" consequences are

The designers crop up enough on twitter and in various other locals that I wouldn't worry about them being tone deaf to the feelings of the players. I put it down more to they have a better corporate structure than AEG and an understanding that you can't just make offhand comments without it first being run through the whole business machine to make sure it gels with the overall plans for the entire product range and associated ranges. I actually prefer that there is a bit of a buffer between the design/story and players since as you mentioned under AEG there were several occasions where a very vocal minority with close ties to the company seemed able to drive story and design choices that appeared counter to the general player bases wishes or interests. Based on how they handle the X-Wing and other communities I would not worry that they are letting the meta develop in a bubble and that they are paying attention to what the players are saying, as well as how the overall play meta from tournament results is shaping up.

I personally generally agree with your sentiments, I was just trying to argue the possible merits of the system, since you had asked. I think the primary "merit" in terms of the problem it solves is it allows for FFG to, to some extent, create a changing meta that doesn't involve removing cards from the pool permanently, instead letting them shift around as to who has access to them. Whether or not this does a good job of that, I can't say. As pointed out, some people like it, some don't.

I know Brad Andres has expressed his full support of this system.

29 minutes ago, j-mart said:

@RafaelNN or @Mirith Do you disagree? I'd love to hear why you think the whole scenario is so bad.

I dont think the scenario is bad. In fact in my post on the first page of the thread i say that i like the ops proposed solution.

To me the problem is not wether there is freedom or not i deckbuilding. If that were the case, there would be threads asking for a change so they can splash multiple clans (****, why limit it to one, right?). I believe the problem is more about player agency on choice. Thats why I think a middle ground between those who want total freedom of choice and those who want structure/limits is needed (for whatever reason to both parties). Any solution that inherently tries to separate both (ie casual "anything goes" vs comp rules) wont work due to the lcg model thats been discussed at length. So, a solution that gives some freedom, or that lets you play anything if you "pay the price" works. Thats what your proposal does, as well as the ones I gave.

A lot of the proposed systems people are coming up with in this thread are far too complicated. The more rules you have that are not printed on the cards, and the more arcane they become, the more people will show up to tournaments with illegal decks and the more time consuming deck checks will become. A set of acceptable roles and a restricted list are basically the ceiling of complexity that won't cause more problems than it solves. Modifying influence costs and stuff are just impractical.

The only realistic alternatives to the current system are:

Free roles.

Having a couple roles per clan.

Changing roles more often.

18 minutes ago, HamHamJ2 said:

Having a couple roles per clan.

Changing roles more often.

Ding ding ding ding ding! This is all we need. I think this will solve most of the "feels bad" problems, and open up more deckbuilding options, while still making role choices relevant.

Open up the three unselected Roles to everyone. Keep the rule that no more than four of Keeper or Seeker can be selected at Worlds. This gives every Clan at least five options right now (counting Support of the Phoenix) including a guaranteed Keeper and Seeker Role while also maintaining the prestige and ceremony of the Top of Clan selections at Worlds.

18 minutes ago, Hinomura said:

Open up the three unselected Roles to everyone. Keep the rule that no more than four of Keeper or Seeker can be selected at Worlds. This gives every Clan at least five options right now (counting Support of the Phoenix) including a guaranteed Keeper and Seeker Role while also maintaining the prestige and ceremony of the Top of Clan selections at Worlds.

I like this idea.

Me too

I also really like this idea! Upvote x10 No one would use Seeker of Water right now, but I could see spots for both Seeker of Earth (Sabotage, Upholding Authority, and Public Forum) and Keeper of Air! What a great idea @Hinomura

22 minutes ago, Hinomura said:

Open up the three unselected Roles to everyone. Keep the rule that no more than four of Keeper or Seeker can be selected at Worlds. This gives every Clan at least five options right now (counting Support of the Phoenix) including a guaranteed Keeper and Seeker Role while also maintaining the prestige and ceremony of the Top of Clan selections at Worlds.

59 minutes ago, Hinomura said:

Open up the three unselected Roles to everyone. Keep the rule that no more than four of Keeper or Seeker can be selected at Worlds. This gives every Clan at least five options right now (counting Support of the Phoenix) including a guaranteed Keeper and Seeker Role while also maintaining the prestige and ceremony of the Top of Clan selections at Worlds.

I swear I'm either having dejavu or this was that same thing that was purposed by someone the last time this topic came up.

I know I mentioned "snake drafting" the roles the last time this topic came up.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 6, 5

This way the top 4 performing clans have presumably the best picks, while the bottom 3 clans get to have two roles a piece

I think it's cleaner and less confusing to just have the roles that are not selected be open to all clans.

I wouldn't mind either of these options.

I also like the idea of pre-set alternate roles for each event that carry some sort of bonus to story prizes would be neat too. Each kotei could have different alternate role lists that if the player chooses to play Scorpion with a Keeper of Water role for that event they get some sort of bonus points for a storyline decision. Then at the next event the alternate preset role for Scorpion is Seeker of Earth and that could get them some extra points.............of course they could choose to forgo the extra story points and just play their normal Seeker of Void role at each event.