This thread was intended for suggesting a different role selection system. After better understanding the role systems compromise, and balance between game mechanic and flavour, my suggestion has lost a large part of it’s merit.

I will leave the original post below for the context of this threads discussion, should it be of interest to anyone.

———————————————

Dear FFG.

I thought the clan role system was genius as intended.

Now I am saddened that the flavour aspect of keeper and seeker roles will become spoiled because of players being sad about being denied play with a few newly printed cards (especially the element locked cards).

A flavour fail in the sense that several clans (as I understand it) can be the keeper of the same element. Flavour wise, sharing seeker roles feels fine to me, but sharing custody of an element just seems wrong to me.

So for the sake of flavour. Dear FFG. Please consider the following suggestion for:

A MORE FLAVOURFUL SYSTEM.

1 - When new roles are to be selected. Each clan chooses a seeker role of their choice for the next period (exception 1c).

 1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.

 1b - Keepers cannot become seekers of their current held element.

1c - Keepers can abstain from choosing a seeker role. 

1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.

2 - At the end of a period, for each element, the seeking clan that has a higher win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2a - Amongst multiple clans seeking the same element. The seeking clan with the highest win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2b - A clan can only be the keeper of one element and must relinquish their previous keeper role when obtaining a new one.

In short. Each clan can freely choose an element type 3 times a year, but has to battle for the role of keeper during the period, adding a layer of clan rivalry to sanctioned play.

Is this a better role system than the one planed? yes/no and how so. Please leave a comment.

I'm not sure why you think this has better flavour, or any at all, but I'm 100% in support of anything that allows my Clan to keep a Seeker Role time after time, as they are in general better than Keeper Roles.

21 minutes ago, Evilgm said:

I'm  not           sure w  hy you think this has better flavou  r,  o  r  an   y at   a  l   l    

The term Keeper implies having something, while Seeker implies wanting something one doesn’t have. Thus the free seeker roles and the fight for the role of keeper.

I mean, it's not a literal item they are keeping. It's more like 'Steward of X,' and multiple clans could theoretically be tasked with that responsibility.

2 hours ago, Froysadal said:

Dear FFG.

I thought the clan role system was genius as intended.

Now I am saddened that the flavour aspect of keeper and seeker roles will become spoiled because of players whining about being denied play with a few newly printed cards (especially the element locked cards).

A flavour fail in the sense that several clans (as I understand it) can be the keeper of the same element. Flavour wise, sharing seeker roles feels fine to me, but sharing custody of an element just seems wrong to me.

So for the sake of flavour. Dear FFG. Please consider the following suggestion for:

A MORE FLAVOURFUL SYSTEM.

1 - When new roles are to be selected. Each clan chooses a seeker role of their choice for the next period (exception 1c).

1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.

1b - Keepers cannot become seekers of their current held element.

1c - Keepers can abstain from choosing a seeker role.

2 - At the end of a period, for each element, the seeking clan that has a higher win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2a - Amongst multiple clans seeking the same element. The seeking clan with the highest win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2b - A clan can only be the keeper of one element and must relinquish their previous keeper role when obtaining a new one.

In short. Each clan can freely choose an element type 3 times a year, but has to battle for the role of keeper during the period, adding a layer of clan rivalry to sanctioned play.

Is this a better role system than the one planed? yes/no and how so. Please leave a comment.

First of all - I think you are overly harsh to players who want to have roles freed. When people buy cards, they expect that all their cards to be allowed to be played and not be arbitrary told that: "No, you can't play it." (and I am specifically talking about tournament level play). Players understand that cards may eventually get rotated out and/or be errata'ed and even banned - but to be told that a card you paid for is illegal out of the box is bad businesses. For example, when O5R banned a couple of cards during their run they at least offered another rare card though their koku program. Please don't use the term "Whiner".

While I am of the opinion that the keeper/seeker elemental role should serve more of a soft restriction list rather than something that is forced on the playing population, there's one point that frankly angers me (and I'm sure a lot of people) more than anything else: Never, ever have anything that ties game effect to win rate - this was a valid critism of O5R, and should never ever be the case in any card game.

8 hours ago, AradonTemplar said:

I mean, it's not a literal item they are keeping. It's more like 'Steward of X,' and multiple clans could theoretically be tasked with that responsibility.

True. But consider the following example. The Phoenix clan is “the keepers of the Tao of Shinsei and caretakers of the Empire’s soul.” (FFG 2017. Legend of the Five Rings - learn to play, p.26). I doubt the Phoenix clan would want to share this honourable obligation with another clan. But of course, they could.

8 hours ago, K.Rc. said:

Players  understan   d that cards may eventually  g  et ro  t  a  ted  o  u  t         

Well, cards may eventually rotate in. Don’t players understand this, or is it the need for instant gratification?

@K.Rc. I gather you dislike the current rotatation system. So do you think my suggestion is, if not your desired solution, at least an improvement?

I mean, the clans would only have to compete for elemental roles within their own clan. Not with any other clan. Any clan can be a seeker. That leaves only the keeper role and cards to vied over.

You to @AradonTemplar . What do you think of my suggested system?

13 hours ago, Froysadal said:

Dear FFG.

I thought the clan role system was genius as intended.

Now I am saddened that the flavour aspect of keeper and seeker roles will become spoiled because of players being sad about being denied play with a few newly printed cards (especially the element locked cards).

A flavour fail in the sense that several clans (as I understand it) can be the keeper of the same element. Flavour wise, sharing seeker roles feels fine to me, but sharing custody of an element just seems wrong to me.

So for the sake of flavour. Dear FFG. Please consider the following suggestion for:

A MORE FLAVOURFUL SYSTEM.

1 - When new roles are to be selected. Each clan chooses a seeker role of their choice for the next period (exception 1c).

1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.

1b - Keepers cannot become seekers of their current held element.

1c - Keepers can abstain from choosing a seeker role.

2 - At the end of a period, for each element, the seeking clan that has a higher win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2a - Amongst multiple clans seeking the same element. The seeking clan with the highest win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2b - A clan can only be the keeper of one element and must relinquish their previous keeper role when obtaining a new one.

In short. Each clan can freely choose an element type 3 times a year, but has to battle for the role of keeper during the period, adding a layer of clan rivalry to sanctioned play.

Is this a better role system than the one planed? yes/no and how so. Please leave a comment.

I, for one, like the suggested system better than the planned one. It involves some book-keeping, but as mentioned, that should be handled by the tournament organizing software, which isn't really a problem to implement. It could easily be incorporated into lotus pavillion, I think.

14 hours ago, Froysadal said:

A MORE FLAVOURFUL SYSTEM.

Far too complicated. The new multi-role plan FFG's going with is simple, while allowing for greater variety than the single-role system.

14 hours ago, Froysadal said:

Dear FFG.

I thought the clan role system was genius as intended.

Now I am saddened that the flavour aspect of keeper and seeker roles will become spoiled because of players being sad about being denied play with a few newly printed cards (especially the element locked cards).

A flavour fail in the sense that several clans (as I understand it) can be the keeper of the same element. Flavour wise, sharing seeker roles feels fine to me, but sharing custody of an element just seems wrong to me.

So for the sake of flavour. Dear FFG. Please consider the following suggestion for:

A MORE FLAVOURFUL SYSTEM.

1 - When new roles are to be selected. Each clan chooses a seeker role of their choice for the next period (exception 1c).

1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.

1b - Keepers cannot become seekers of their current held element.

1c - Keepers can abstain from choosing a seeker role.

2 - At the end of a period, for each element, the seeking clan that has a higher win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2a - Amongst multiple clans seeking the same element. The seeking clan with the highest win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper.

2b - A clan can only be the keeper of one element and must relinquish their previous keeper role when obtaining a new one.

In short. Each clan can freely choose an element type 3 times a year, but has to battle for the role of keeper during the period, adding a layer of clan rivalry to sanctioned play.

Is this a better role system than the one planed? yes/no and how so. Please leave a comment.

So not to sound too harsh but this is way worse than the current system. What you have here is a recipe for worse stagnation and minimal meta shakeup which is what the roles are designed to do. As is is now Clans that have a strong inclination to a particular element would now be able to stick to that role without penalty if its seeker, and for a Clan like Crab that does very well on the tournament scene and will likely want to stay Keeper for a while, they can basically find an element they like and squat on it until maybe the Scorpion and Dragon decide yeah we for some reason want to give up the Seeker Economy to go Keeper. Your system being win percentage based will only serve to reward the stronger clans by letting them dictate the role they want and punish the clans that struggle since they are always going to be banging their head against a wall that they can't get over if they want to get a Keeper role.

I think that's it's needlessly complicated. It's cool to be thematic, but not at the cost of clarity. I also don't see why a clan would choose not to take a seeker role too? I think most importantly, two clans aren't going to have keeper roles, and that's going to feel more insulting than what we currently have.

49 minutes ago, AradonTemplar said:

I also    do  n't see why a clan would choose not to take a seeker ro  l  e  to  o?

If, for example crab want to have the specific combination keeper of earth, they would risk losing that role when winning their new keeper role. Hence the option of abstaining.

1 hour ago, twinstarbmc said:

Far too complicated    .     

My suggestion seems quite straight forward to me. How do you find it complicated?

I also find it too complicated, and, to tell the truth, not flavorful at all.

I don't find it that complicated, but the problem for me is that it doesn't fix what peoples' biggest issue with the current role system, that role locking to 1 role removes a lot of individual choice in deckbuilding. This is actually a significant step backwards with respect to the current FFG system since you've halved the number of choices each clan has. With the current FFG system if your clan wants a keeper role you're almost guaranteed to get one (even if it's a poor element), and with the new FFG system I suspect most clans are going to float a seeker and a keeper role most of the time. With this system if your clan doesn't perform well under a seeker role, or you specifically want to play keeper out of your clan you could very well never see a keeper role. Ever.

1 hour ago, Schmoozies said:

As   is is now Clans that have a strong inclination       to a particular element would now b  e ab   l  e t    o  s  tick to that role without penalty if it  s s  e   e  ke   r     ,   

Yes. This is part of the intention of letting each clan pick their element freely. To accommodate this every clan may be seeker.

1 hour ago, Schmoozies said:

a Clan like Crab  that doe  s very well on t  he  tournament sce  ne and will likely want    to stay Keeper for a while, they can basically f  i  nd an element they like and  squ   at   o  n     i    t    

Well crab can forgo the seeker role in an attempt to hold on to keeper of earth, but that doesn’t deny other clans the chance of an earth role.

It doesn’t necessarily deny a keeper role either, in that any clan may target the weakest keeper or the most undesirable element so as to easier become keeper. There are 5 keeper roles after all.

Once keeper the clan may then select their desired element for next period.

Only the specific elemental keeper roles will be hard to obtain, if held by a tier 1 strategy.

50 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:

I also find it too complicated, and, to tell the truth, not flavorful at all.

How so. Could you elaborate?

32 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

With this system if your clan doesn't perform well under a seeker role, or you specifically want  to play keeper out of your clan you could very well never see a keeper role. Ever.  

Well, there are 5 keeper roles in all. If a clan so desperately wants a keeper role, all they need to do is pick the keeper they have the strongest matchup against. They might even splash a little clan hate in their deck (extra let go vs. Dragon).

12 minutes ago, Froysadal said:

Yes. This is part of the intention of letting each clan pick their element freely. To accommodate this every clan may be seeker.

Well crab can forgo the seeker role in an attempt to hold on to keeper of earth, but that doesn’t deny other clans the chance of an earth role.

It doesn’t necessarily deny a keeper role either, in that any clan may target the weakest keeper or the most undesirable element so as to easier become keeper. There are 5 keeper roles after all.

Once keeper the clan may then select their desired element for next period.

Only the specific elemental keeper roles will be hard to obtain, if held by a tier 1 strategy.

The issue is that you are foregoing one of the chief intents with the Roles as a regular meta shake up that isn't tied to a new card release and giving clans the ability to essentially say nope we ain't shifting off the cards that we currently really like.

2 minutes ago, Froysadal said:

Well, there are 5 keeper roles in all. If a clan so desperately wants a keeper role, all they need to do is pick the keeper they have the strongest matchup against. They might even splash a little clan hate in their deck (extra let go vs. Dragon).

This is an even worse suggestion as the only tracking for this would be at organized events and you are essentially teching your deck for the hope that you get matched up against your chosen role with no control over when it happens.

All I'm seeing from your suggestion is extra complication as there is no real way to guarantee that you will get the match ups to further your clans elemental agenda and basing the results on win rates only encourages the strong clans to play their best combo to keep the role they want while making it harder for the Weaker clans to move towards the roles that may improve their odds.

27 minutes ago, Froysadal said:

How so. Could you elaborate?

If you need to start including letters as well as numbers to explain your sequence, it is too complicated.

It places a strange focus on one side of the Roles (Keeper) for no apparent benefit, based on a belief you have that the flavour of Keeper means they should be more important and unique.

Part of it relies on win rates during events, despite the fact that pairings in events are random and thus win rates are completely out of players' hands- a single player may be able to win an event and thus get the right to choose, but his Clan might have a half dozen people learning the game that tank his options based on their results in the event, not his.

Most importantly, it provides no tangible benefit over "Top of Clan at each event votes, with the winning role for each Clan going to that Clan.", which is succinct and easy to both explain and comprehend.

First of all, there’s nowhere in the lore or in the fiction where this “seeker” or “keeper” roles are mentioned. That means that its meaning is up to the interpretation of each one of us.

You have chosen to think that “keeper of x” means “custody of x”, as in something that has been given to them and they must guard it. That’s your interpretation. But it doesn’t mean is the right one.

My interpretation, for example, is that nobody gives the “keeper” of “seeker” titles. It’s not an obligation, or a task given by, let’s say, the Emperor.

It’s more of a chosen path. Each clan embraces an element, and a way to approach that element, and try to merge it with its techniques, its philosophy, and its art. Keepers look to establish that element with the already known ways (the conservative approach), while seekers look to improve the old ways through innovation (the progressive approach). It’s why you can only use, for example, Northern Wall Sensei with a Keeper role. She’s a sensei in a school devoted to refine the traditional fighting style of the Dragon, and those schools are on the rise because the whole Dragon clan is looking to strengthen that approach.

That means some clans can have a similar approach with the same element, or that a clan can have two schools of thought (hence the two roles) regarding the way the clan should follow.

As I said, this is my interpretation, that differs a lot from yours, but it does not mean is the right one.

And your suggested system does not reflect my interpretation at all.

So what you’re trying to do is force your views and interpretation about the keeper/ seeker of elements in the rest of the players.

I don’t like that.

@Tabris2k Thank you for a proper answer to this exchange of viewpoints. Giving me food for thought. I like that.

@Tabris2k . After reading: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/op/l5r-lcg/roles/ I realise that in fact my system is also a flavour fail.

I think my flavour confusion stems from the fact that the roles have a dual purpose.

On one hand they represent the clans approach to life, the universe and everything. Flavour.

On the other hand they exist as a game mechanic to shake up the meta.

My misinterpretation of the clan roles as a title to keep or seek, rose from the competing nature of role selection. The FFG system is a compromise between mechanic and flavour. I don’t know what to make of it really.

Thanks to everyone for a civil discussion.

7 hours ago, Froysadal said:

Well, cards may eventually rotate in. Don’t players understand this, or is it the need for instant gratification?

@K.Rc. I gather you dislike the current rotatation system. So do you think my suggestion is, if not your desired solution, at least an improvement?

I mean, the clans would only have to compete for elemental roles within their own clan. Not with any other clan. Any clan can be a seeker. That leaves only the keeper role and cards to vied over.

You to @AradonTemplar . What do you think of my suggested system?

You're partially correct - By itself, I am okay with role locking cards - more accurately "cards that cause deck restrictions" (eg - by choosing a Crane/Scorpion splash deck, I can't include Crab cards) if not done excessively.

My concerns are the following:

When you design cards that cause another restriction, you are basically causing dead space in design, the LCG format mitigates in that you get all the cards in one somewhat, but then presents a problem where someone buys a set of cards and doesn't use subsets of cards. (lets use our crab example: say I'm a Crab loyalist, and I will only play Crab - what will I do with all the Crane dynasty cards in the rest of the set?). At least in that defense, I can say, I bought in knowing that I'm going to play Crab, either) "maybe I can split a set with the loyal Crane player", have by buying a set, know they are going to eat the cost of having some unusable cards.

(EDIT: Sorry, I read over that and that was some real horrible english - what I meant on the above paragraph is if there's is say a Crab loyalist is looking over the LCG, if that person decides to buy in, then at least they know, there will be say Crane Cards that will not interest that Crab player - and they can either split the cards with a Crane player, or accept the fact that they bought a collection and there are simply cards while legal, won't be played by said Crab planer)

Second lets take "cards that causes deck restriction" to an excessive level - lets say there's a card that design published that goes: "To include this card in your deck, you can not include cards that are in X% of the set" - the matter of what that threshold can be debated, but I you can see where it is going right, IMO, clan locking cards by itself is fine, role locking cards by itself is fine, element locking cards by itself is fine, but when you start combining these factors then that X% starts rising very quickly. While this is not strictly a "flavor fail" this is a "design fail" and without good design, you won't have a card game, much less "good flavor"

You can't separate card flavor from design, people might be drawn into a ccg/lcg for flavor, but players stay for design.

And that's just the issues that I see if a player is allowed to choose their roles - you take that choice away, and you will alienate more of your crowd.

Ultimately, What I don't agree with a forced keeper/seeker system for this simple reason: What if I change the word "element", "keeper" or "seeker" with "clan"? If FFG introduced that, people would rightly leave in droves.

Finally, I would not sign off anything that ties wins or clan win rate to an explicit game mechanic - that's a specific deal breaker for me, and I suspect for a significant population as well.

But if you are dead set for it then here's my observation:
If you want to have a tier system with keeper/seeker - so you want to have competition for keeper roles, how do you make keeper better than seeker so that people want to be keeper? (Do you make keeper cards strictly better than seeker cards? - if they are the same, or similar, why would clans chase to be keeper?)
Then there's currently 5 elements, and 7 clans - which means that at minimum 2 clans will not be keeper, so how do you compensate the 2 clans at the moment that lose out (do they get 2 seeker roles or cash, or storyline considerations?)?

Now if the system has 7* (*the number of clans, so if you introduce more factions, you need to introduce more roles) elements/things to vie for, then it's a bit easier - every clan has access to 1 keeper/1 seeker role, but then how do you resolve out conflicts? (say 2 clans want the same seeker role) - you could go clan wide vote (which is the most fair), but does ffg have the infrastructure to do this? You could go top finisher or a clan vote at a specific tourney - but that basically goes back to choice being associated by performance, or choice forced upon you by outside influence.

19 hours ago, K.Rc. said:

how do you make keeper better than seeker so that people want to be keeper? (Do you make keeper cards strictly better than seeker cards? - if they are the same, or similar, why would clans chase to be keeper?)    

The keeper role doesn’t need to be better than seeker. The incentive for wanting to be keeper is for having different roles to chose from when deckbuilding.

19 hours ago, K.Rc. said:

Then  there's currently 5 elements, a  nd 7 clans - which  means that at min  im       u  m 2 clans will not be keeper, so how do y  o  u     compensate the 2 cl  ans  at  t  he m  oment that lose out (do they get 2 see  k  er   ro   les or cash, or storyline considerations?)?     

My thought was that they will be at a role disadvantage until next opportunity. Maybe a bit harsh, but would drive competition.

20 hours ago, K.Rc. said:

h  ow    do you resolve out confli  cts?  (sa  y  2 clans want the sam  e seeker role   )           

On 7/25/2018 at 1:28 AM, Froysadal said:

1a  -   Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.   

Anyway.

20 hours ago, Froysadal said:

@Tabris2k . After reading: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/op/l5r-lcg/roles/ I realise that in fact my system is also a flavour fail.

I think my flavour confusion stems from the fact that the roles have a dual purpose.

On one hand they represent the clans approach to life, the universe and everything. Flavour.

On the other hand they exist as a game mechanic to shake up the meta.

My misinterpretation of the clan roles as a title to keep or seek, rose from the competing nature of role selection. The FFG system is a compromise between mechanic and flavour. I don’t know what to make of it really.

Thanks to everyone for a civil discussion.