Not quite sure what you are trying to say here? What does androgyny have to do with this? Do you mean androgyny as in intersex? 
Well, I can make assumptions by you putting transsexual between scare quotes, but lets not for now. Anyway, if you are referring to Shandra, I believe she was always meant to be transgender.
That said, FFG has been doing well with lbgt+ representation. They don't make a big deal about it, these are just characters that exist in the world and it is just one of their traits. Much better than introducing npc's as an afterthought, whose whole purpose is checking off the representation box and have no other role to play. But hey, even that is better than nothing, alt-right complaints of virtue signaling notwithstanding. 

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here? What does androgyny have to do with this? Do you mean androgyny as in intersex? 
Well, I can make assumptions by you putting transsexual between scare quotes, but lets not for now. Anyway, if you are referring to Shandra, I believe she was always meant to be transgender.
That said, FFG has been doing well with lbgt+ representation. They don't make a big deal about it, these are just characters that exist in the world and it is just one of their traits. Much better than introducing npc's as an afterthought, whose whole purpose is checking off the representation box and have no other role to play. But hey, even that is better than nothing, alt-right complaints of virtue signaling notwithstanding. 

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here? What does androgyny have to do with this? Do you mean androgyny as in intersex? 
Well, I can make assumptions by you putting transsexual between scare quotes, but lets not for now. Anyway, if you are referring to Shandra, I believe she was always meant to be transgender.
That said, FFG has been doing well with lbgt+ representation. They don't make a big deal about it, these are just characters that exist in the world and it is just one of their traits. Much better than introducing npc's as an afterthought, whose whole purpose is checking off the representation box and have no other role to play. But hey, even that is better than nothing, alt-right complaints of virtue signaling notwithstanding. 

I believe you are and heartily recommend reading the fictions of the LCG! They are definitely putting more focus on the samurai drama part and less on the magical apocalyptic threats. 

This.
It's not "I assist them" because the response is "by doing what, exactly?" and if the GM doesn't think that's going to help enough to qualify as assistance, it doesn't.

Only if you actually stop reading there. But yes, I should have used another term than 'core rules'. The basic rules? The core of the system?
Still, if I may be honest? If you missed what I meant when you read the sentence just after what you quoted and bolded, namely 'There are issues though.', followed by listing them, it is blindingly obvious that I did not give any false impressions that nothing is wrong, and to say I pulled a bait and switch is downright silly.
This would hardly be the only rpg I enjoy, and whose game engine works wonderfully well, and still has issues. In fact, L5R 4e is a good example. We (as in the fandom) have filled more than one forum with what we think does not work well and our fixes for them. So, lighten up and don't assume everyone is posting in bad faith. This place is overly negative as is.
 

I believe I indicated which parts are not working for me, so why the snark? The fact I also include which direction I'm looking to fix them for my table seems relevant as well. In fact, seems to fulfil your stated objective for this beta perfectly.
Yes, I said I'm enjoying what's there. Yes, I believe their core rules, meaning the dice mechanic, stats and task resolution work. No, I most certainly did not state that everything works in my opinion and if my use of the words 'core rules' made you think that I meant every and all systems included in the beta, well, I do not. 
I find it hard to believe that the context of my post did not make that abundantly clear, but hey, I admit it was written in haste.
 

I am enjoying playing 5e. The core rules work wonderfully well.
There are issues though. The most glaring ones are in writing clearly, organization, examples and explaining RAI.
Approaches don't pose a problem, but I have found we are going more and more for the 7th Sea way of doing it. A good description trumps everything, so mostly fiction first and gm decides based on that, mostly following the player.
There were no real issues with character generation. We did move the heritage table to one of the first steps though, just after Clan & Family. Overall, with some starting xp doesn't seem more restrictive then 4e to me.
Turning strife into roleplay obviously requires buy-in from the players, as does any mechanic. My players have experience with taking cues from the more abstract, meta-mechanics and translating them into rp and using them to drive narrative, but I have some struggle more with this as others, stating it interferes with staying in character. I am playing with making giri/ninjo conflicts and disadvantages coming into play impact strife generation the most.
Makes it matter, and more dangerous when it's appropriate and turns it more concrete at the same time, as well as make it a non-issue when it does not.
It don't like the movement rules, so, they got replaced by a zone system. 
Void generation has been divorced from disadvantages and returned to the 'old' system. Sleep refills the pool and meditation and tea ceremony downtime actions restore 1. Don't mind the mechanic per se, but everyone at my table agreed it just didn't feel like void anymore and that that matters.
Duels don't really work for us. It's easy for them to drag and they are rarely exciting. They need some sort of clock, like every round lowers TN/increases DV/Lethality.
Katana breaking has been given the boot by overwhelming demand. Razor-sharp is just lost and that's it.
Spell casting mishaps are not working as intended.
Of course there are imbalances with techniques/kata's/... but that's expected.
Anyway, overall we definitely are having fun with this game :-)

I believe I indicated which parts are not working for me, so why the snark? The fact I also include which direction I'm looking to fix them for my table seems relevant as well. In fact, seems to fulfil your stated objective for this beta perfectly.
Yes, I said I'm enjoying what's there. Yes, I believe their core rules, meaning the dice mechanic, stats and task resolution work. No, I most certainly did not state that everything works in my opinion and if my use of the words 'core rules' made you think that I meant every and all systems included in the beta, well, I do not. 
I find it hard to believe that the context of my post did not make that abundantly clear, but hey, I admit it was written in haste.
 

I believe I indicated which parts are not working for me, so why the snark? The fact I also include which direction I'm looking to fix them for my table seems relevant as well. In fact, seems to fulfil your stated objective for this beta perfectly.
Yes, I said I'm enjoying what's there. Yes, I believe their core rules, meaning the dice mechanic, stats and task resolution work. No, I most certainly did not state that everything works in my opinion and if my use of the words 'core rules' made you think that I meant every and all systems included in the beta, well, I do not. 
I find it hard to believe that the context of my post did not make that abundantly clear, but hey, I admit it was written in haste.
 

I am enjoying playing 5e. The core rules work wonderfully well.
There are issues though. The most glaring ones are in writing clearly, organization, examples and explaining RAI.
Approaches don't pose a problem, but I have found we are going more and more for the 7th Sea way of doing it. A good description trumps everything, so mostly fiction first and gm decides based on that, mostly following the player.
There were no real issues with character generation. We did move the heritage table to one of the first steps though, just after Clan & Family. Overall, with some starting xp doesn't seem more restrictive then 4e to me.
Turning strife into roleplay obviously requires buy-in from the players, as does any mechanic. My players have experience with taking cues from the more abstract, meta-mechanics and translating them into rp and using them to drive narrative, but I have some struggle more with this as others, stating it interferes with staying in character. I am playing with making giri/ninjo conflicts and disadvantages coming into play impact strife generation the most.
Makes it matter, and more dangerous when it's appropriate and turns it more concrete at the same time, as well as make it a non-issue when it does not.
It don't like the movement rules, so, they got replaced by a zone system. 
Void generation has been divorced from disadvantages and returned to the 'old' system. Sleep refills the pool and meditation and tea ceremony downtime actions restore 1. Don't mind the mechanic per se, but everyone at my table agreed it just didn't feel like void anymore and that that matters.
Duels don't really work for us. It's easy for them to drag and they are rarely exciting. They need some sort of clock, like every round lowers TN/increases DV/Lethality.
Katana breaking has been given the boot by overwhelming demand. Razor-sharp is just lost and that's it.
Spell casting mishaps are not working as intended.
Of course there are imbalances with techniques/kata's/... but that's expected.
Anyway, overall we definitely are having fun with this game :-)

I have no words for how hard I want this one to be fixed. As well as assisting Invocations. I have received some pretty darn terrible experiences in my last session about these two. 

I am enjoying playing 5e. The core rules work wonderfully well.
There are issues though. The most glaring ones are in writing clearly, organization, examples and explaining RAI.
Approaches don't pose a problem, but I have found we are going more and more for the 7th Sea way of doing it. A good description trumps everything, so mostly fiction first and gm decides based on that, mostly following the player.
There were no real issues with character generation. We did move the heritage table to one of the first steps though, just after Clan & Family. Overall, with some starting xp doesn't seem more restrictive then 4e to me.
Turning strife into roleplay obviously requires buy-in from the players, as does any mechanic. My players have experience with taking cues from the more abstract, meta-mechanics and translating them into rp and using them to drive narrative, but I have some struggle more with this as others, stating it interferes with staying in character. I am playing with making giri/ninjo conflicts and disadvantages coming into play impact strife generation the most.
Makes it matter, and more dangerous when it's appropriate and turns it more concrete at the same time, as well as make it a non-issue when it does not.
It don't like the movement rules, so, they got replaced by a zone system. 
Void generation has been divorced from disadvantages and returned to the 'old' system. Sleep refills the pool and meditation and tea ceremony downtime actions restore 1. Don't mind the mechanic per se, but everyone at my table agreed it just didn't feel like void anymore and that that matters.
Duels don't really work for us. It's easy for them to drag and they are rarely exciting. They need some sort of clock, like every round lowers TN/increases DV/Lethality.
Katana breaking has been given the boot by overwhelming demand. Razor-sharp is just lost and that's it.
Spell casting mishaps are not working as intended.
Of course there are imbalances with techniques/kata's/... but that's expected.
Anyway, overall we definitely are having fun with this game :-)

Errr, no? You are being rude. They're really not what you make them out to be in my opinion. You are making a caricature of them and there really are much more 'lighter' ones such as being a flirt, a glory hound or simply being impatient. You don't like 'em, fine, make your own, but let's not be overly melodramatic.

Oh, forgot to mention that when engaged we have it it take a move to become disengaged, but you're still in the same zone. I believe that is about all. Keeps all the current rules intact, and adheres to the spirit of them, but is much less abstract and way easier to visualize. 

Zones are a concept from Fate actually. Ex3 is more like FFG's beta rules, though a bit better, as you don't get so much movement (unless you invest heavily in Athletics Charms). What makes them better and more dynamic is their system of engaging foes through opposed rush actions. You can actually avoid someone, which makes it feel more dynamic and less chess-like.
Anyway, what it shares is the difficulty of tracking distance between multiple combatants. In the end, you will always have to draw a map, as it's so much easier. You don't need hexes/grid and exact distances, just divvy you map up into zones and map the rangebands onto them. The way we are currently running L5R is as follows:
1 move lets you move into an adjacent zone. Some zones require more to cross, depending on difficulty or size of the terrain. Generally you are considered to be at range 3 for all other characters. You need an extra rangeband move to get into engagement range, which is determined by the reach of your weapon, or your opponent's, whichever is greater. If that is beyond your engagement range, you need to spend another move to close that distance. So, for example, you are in the main street, hearing you companion cry out for help in a nearby alley. The zones are adjacent, so if you move 1 range band you can enter that, but you need to move another to engage the thug attempting to rob your friend. If the thug is wielding a spear, engagement range is 2, so you need to move 3 range bands in one move to be able to strike with your katana or fist.
Seems to work for now.

Zones are a concept from Fate actually. Ex3 is more like FFG's beta rules, though a bit better, as you don't get so much movement (unless you invest heavily in Athletics Charms). What makes them better and more dynamic is their system of engaging foes through opposed rush actions. You can actually avoid someone, which makes it feel more dynamic and less chess-like.
Anyway, what it shares is the difficulty of tracking distance between multiple combatants. In the end, you will always have to draw a map, as it's so much easier. You don't need hexes/grid and exact distances, just divvy you map up into zones and map the rangebands onto them. The way we are currently running L5R is as follows:
1 move lets you move into an adjacent zone. Some zones require more to cross, depending on difficulty or size of the terrain. Generally you are considered to be at range 3 for all other characters. You need an extra rangeband move to get into engagement range, which is determined by the reach of your weapon, or your opponent's, whichever is greater. If that is beyond your engagement range, you need to spend another move to close that distance. So, for example, you are in the main street, hearing you companion cry out for help in a nearby alley. The zones are adjacent, so if you move 1 range band you can enter that, but you need to move another to engage the thug attempting to rob your friend. If the thug is wielding a spear, engagement range is 2, so you need to move 3 range bands in one move to be able to strike with your katana or fist.
Seems to work for now.

Zones are a concept from Fate actually. Ex3 is more like FFG's beta rules, though a bit better, as you don't get so much movement (unless you invest heavily in Athletics Charms). What makes them better and more dynamic is their system of engaging foes through opposed rush actions. You can actually avoid someone, which makes it feel more dynamic and less chess-like.
Anyway, what it shares is the difficulty of tracking distance between multiple combatants. In the end, you will always have to draw a map, as it's so much easier. You don't need hexes/grid and exact distances, just divvy you map up into zones and map the rangebands onto them. The way we are currently running L5R is as follows:
1 move lets you move into an adjacent zone. Some zones require more to cross, depending on difficulty or size of the terrain. Generally you are considered to be at range 3 for all other characters. You need an extra rangeband move to get into engagement range, which is determined by the reach of your weapon, or your opponent's, whichever is greater. If that is beyond your engagement range, you need to spend another move to close that distance. So, for example, you are in the main street, hearing you companion cry out for help in a nearby alley. The zones are adjacent, so if you move 1 range band you can enter that, but you need to move another to engage the thug attempting to rob your friend. If the thug is wielding a spear, engagement range is 2, so you need to move 3 range bands in one move to be able to strike with your katana or fist.
Seems to work for now.

Zones are a concept from Fate actually. Ex3 is more like FFG's beta rules, though a bit better, as you don't get so much movement (unless you invest heavily in Athletics Charms). What makes them better and more dynamic is their system of engaging foes through opposed rush actions. You can actually avoid someone, which makes it feel more dynamic and less chess-like.
Anyway, what it shares is the difficulty of tracking distance between multiple combatants. In the end, you will always have to draw a map, as it's so much easier. You don't need hexes/grid and exact distances, just divvy you map up into zones and map the rangebands onto them. The way we are currently running L5R is as follows:
1 move lets you move into an adjacent zone. Some zones require more to cross, depending on difficulty or size of the terrain. Generally you are considered to be at range 3 for all other characters. You need an extra rangeband move to get into engagement range, which is determined by the reach of your weapon, or your opponent's, whichever is greater. If that is beyond your engagement range, you need to spend another move to close that distance. So, for example, you are in the main street, hearing you companion cry out for help in a nearby alley. The zones are adjacent, so if you move 1 range band you can enter that, but you need to move another to engage the thug attempting to rob your friend. If the thug is wielding a spear, engagement range is 2, so you need to move 3 range bands in one move to be able to strike with your katana or fist.
Seems to work for now.

Zones are a concept from Fate actually. Ex3 is more like FFG's beta rules, though a bit better, as you don't get so much movement (unless you invest heavily in Athletics Charms). What makes them better and more dynamic is their system of engaging foes through opposed rush actions. You can actually avoid someone, which makes it feel more dynamic and less chess-like.
Anyway, what it shares is the difficulty of tracking distance between multiple combatants. In the end, you will always have to draw a map, as it's so much easier. You don't need hexes/grid and exact distances, just divvy you map up into zones and map the rangebands onto them. The way we are currently running L5R is as follows:
1 move lets you move into an adjacent zone. Some zones require more to cross, depending on difficulty or size of the terrain. Generally you are considered to be at range 3 for all other characters. You need an extra rangeband move to get into engagement range, which is determined by the reach of your weapon, or your opponent's, whichever is greater. If that is beyond your engagement range, you need to spend another move to close that distance. So, for example, you are in the main street, hearing you companion cry out for help in a nearby alley. The zones are adjacent, so if you move 1 range band you can enter that, but you need to move another to engage the thug attempting to rob your friend. If the thug is wielding a spear, engagement range is 2, so you need to move 3 range bands in one move to be able to strike with your katana or fist.
Seems to work for now.

Well, let's just agree to disagree as we approach this from entirely different angles. Decoupling pc's and npc's opens up very interesting design space and gameplay opportunities on both sides of that divide and I personally do not mind sacrificing simulationism to get there. 
I don't care that the human npc has two or three times the fatigue that the pc's could possibly have, an extra action and the ability to shed the first three conditions inflicted upon it and some gruesome custom techniques if it would provide an exciting and nail-biting set-piece encounter (yes, d&d 4e is my favorite d&d, sue me). Granted, haven't really given human opponents the d&d 4e solo/elite treatment yet, but I wouldn't shy away from that.
In my experience going the other route, where both use the same mechanics, such encounters become very built-focused and thus binary, a sort of rock-paper-scissors game, which I personally find rather dull, and likely makes the bigger fights very, very complex as everything is running on pc-level complexity. 
Different strokes and all!
 

Nothing stops you from making your npc's like pc's I guess?
Though calling it lazy game design I can not agree with. PC's and NPC's not mirroring each other is just a decision. Take for example D&D 4e where no NPC ever uses pc mechanics. That edition has been accused of all the sins under the sun, but not lazy game design at least.

Well, let's just agree to disagree as we approach this from entirely different angles. Decoupling pc's and npc's opens up very interesting design space and gameplay opportunities on both sides of that divide and I personally do not mind sacrificing simulationism to get there. 
I don't care that the human npc has two or three times the fatigue that the pc's could possibly have, an extra action and the ability to shed the first three conditions inflicted upon it and some gruesome custom techniques if it would provide an exciting and nail-biting set-piece encounter (yes, d&d 4e is my favorite d&d, sue me). Granted, haven't really given human opponents the d&d 4e solo/elite treatment yet, but I wouldn't shy away from that.
In my experience going the other route, where both use the same mechanics, such encounters become very built-focused and thus binary, a sort of rock-paper-scissors game, which I personally find rather dull, and likely makes the bigger fights very, very complex as everything is running on pc-level complexity. 
Different strokes and all!
 

Well, let's just agree to disagree as we approach this from entirely different angles. Decoupling pc's and npc's opens up very interesting design space and gameplay opportunities on both sides of that divide and I personally do not mind sacrificing simulationism to get there. 
I don't care that the human npc has two or three times the fatigue that the pc's could possibly have, an extra action and the ability to shed the first three conditions inflicted upon it and some gruesome custom techniques if it would provide an exciting and nail-biting set-piece encounter (yes, d&d 4e is my favorite d&d, sue me). Granted, haven't really given human opponents the d&d 4e solo/elite treatment yet, but I wouldn't shy away from that.
In my experience going the other route, where both use the same mechanics, such encounters become very built-focused and thus binary, a sort of rock-paper-scissors game, which I personally find rather dull, and likely makes the bigger fights very, very complex as everything is running on pc-level complexity. 
Different strokes and all!
 

Eh, npc's have to conform to only one thing: will they be interesting, either as allies or antagonists and whatever scores or powers they need to achieve that are fair game.
The same restrictions as for pc's are utterly unnecessary for that.