Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About j-mart

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Might be able to drive over sometimes. Can you send me an invite? Jmart#6576 on discord
  2. Hey Wisconsin L5R players! I took a break from weekly play due to a new baby, and when I tried to come back recently the folks at I'm Board told me no one's been playing there for six months! Anyone in the area still wanting to play? I'd love to get a weekly night going again, either at I'm Board or elsewhere. Hit me up!
  3. Huh, that's a interesting idea. Did people rank a list 1-10, or just a single vote?
  4. OP here. I think the new system described by FFG is ok. 2 roles is a lot better than 1, and changing every 4/8 months is interesting. Question for the group though, does anyone understand how this first new role is being chosen? I've heard various references to it somehow involving the kotei season, but no details on how the actual selection is occurring. Is it being voted on by hatamotos or champs? Just decided by FFG? Picked at GenCon?
  5. 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
  6. @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. 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
  7. 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: 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. 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. Agree that the system is not ideal, but favor a "wait and see" or "trust the designers" approach. Agree that role locking is bad, but their playgroup just allows people to play whatever they want. 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.
  8. Dear Design Team, I have no idea if anything posted here ever makes it your way, so maybe I'm spitting into the wind, but I feel I have to try. As the Elemental Cycle has been previewed, my concern about the current arrangement with roles has grown steadily. Every single L5R podcast I've listened to lately has included many minutes of complaining about the situation as well, so if that's any sort of representative sample, the concern is broadly based. For others reading this please do feel free to express your disagreement (or agreement). If I'm wrong and most people like the current arrangement, then so be it. I suspect, though, that the concern is pretty universal. So what is my concern? Put simply, I believe that in pursuit of two laudable goals, locking clans to a single role is strangling the growth and vibrancy of this game we all love so much. My understanding is that role locking was an experiment designed with two purposes in mind. One, it would restrict the card pool available to any given deck and thereby put guardrails around the power creep that is an inevitable part of this sort of game. Two, it would provide a highly attractive prize for success in certain organized play events. So far that was just Worlds last year, but I understand there will be others coming soon. Both are good goals, and both have been successful so far. For example, Feast or Famine is a brutally overpowered card that I don't think would have been printed at all without a role restriction, but it could be printed with "Fire Role only" without breaking the environment (it's degenerate alongside Restoration of Balance, while alone in Lion it's difficult but manageable). And if role locking remains in place, choosing roles will be a highly charged decision at Worlds this year. Fair enough. These goals, however, ought to be secondary to the vibrancy of the actual play environment. Vibrancy depends on the collective enthusiasm of the player base, and that enthusiasm has many different factors that can fuel it's ebb and flow. There's lots of enthusiasm about L5R, of course, but I believe that role locking is acting as a "drag" on it in several key ways. In any card game, enthusiasm is dependent on some combination of product, competition, variety, and culture. Role locking is interacting negatively with each of these factors. You guys have designed a fantastic game, and each pack that comes out continues to offer a variety of cool new designs to get excited about. However, many of the "oohs" and "aahs" are immediately dampened on the element-restricted cards by the realization by most players that they can't play it now, and may never get to play it at all. For example, Jurojin's Curse is a super cool card from the most recent pack which, without role locking, I'd already be thinking about how to build a deck around. Instead I read it once, got annoyed at the role restriction, and won't think about it again. My clan isn't void now and I have no way of knowing if it ever will. Maybe I'll get void based on some random vote, or a random hatamoto's choice at Worlds, but I have no part in those decisions and can't plan ahead for it, so it might as well be never. So a card like Jurojin's Curse could easily have been a "+1" in my L5R enthusiasm meter, but instead was transformed not just to neutral, but actually to a "-1" due to being "deprived" of it. I know I shouldn't feel deprived, and I have no "right" to any particular card, but this is basic human psychology at work. Judging by the reactions of my fellow local players as well as all those podcasts, this reaction has been pretty consistent across the community. That's many thousands of "+1" opportunities turning into "-1s," and that all adds up to a big drag on our collective enthusiasm. Competition is also harmed by role locking. Most players want to at least feel like they have a fair shot from a competitive standpoint. Of course there are going to be times when some clans are stronger and weaker, but the full card pool gives people plenty of outlets to tinker and at least feel like they have some control. The full array of cards and interactions for each clan means there is no one thing to point to as cause for an uneven playing field. Locked roles change that. The economic benefit of Seeker roles is undeniable, and Seeker of Void is particularly strong due to the excellent provinces in Void. Of the Keeper roles, I would argue that Earth is the strongest since that ring effect is always useful, so you're never having to decide whether to pursue a low (or no) value ring in order to trigger Keeper Initiates. And of course Seeker of Fire is a huge boon for Dragon right now. Scorpion, Crab, and Dragon would definitely be good even without their locked in roles, for a variety of reasons. Maybe they would even have won all the Koteis anyway. The problem is, with locked roles there's no way to know. No one can test the competitive impact for their clan of choice. Unicorn and Lion are clearly struggling right now, but what if they could play Seeker of Void? Phoenix has been very middle of the road lately, but would they take a leap if they could run both Shameful Display and Senpuku Seido with Seeker of Fire? We'll never know, since the card pool will change significantly by the time any of those clans have a different role. Again, there's basic psychology at work here. Locking certain clans into specific (strong) roles, with no way to test out the alternative, creates an easy sense of "unfair" competition. No one is deciding to quit L5R over this one thing, and many players may not care at all. But again, judging by discussions in my play group and conversations on podcasts, this factor is creating a lot of "-1" feelings in the collective enthusiasm meter. Variety is a pretty straightforward one. Most L5R players I know stick to a single clan. Role locking intentionally creates deck construction limitations. This would be fine if it were just that the cards themselves were locked, so I had to pick from different parallel pools. But since we're all mostly clan loyal, and roles are locked for many months at a time, there are a bunch of deck design strategies that I just can't pursue. Not everyone likes deck design and theory as much as I do, so maybe this doesn't create as many "-1s" as the previous two factors. But I do think the whole community benefits when people can try out as many designs as possible, and right now that's severely handicapped. Finally, culture is a big thing in L5R, specifically clan loyalty. All three of the above factors interact with clan loyalty negatively because of role locking. Product design becomes a source of frustration when a cool in-clan card comes out that a player won't be able to use for the foreseeable future. Pathfinder's Blade is the best example of this. It was really frustrating for many Crab players when it was released, and remains a source of annoyance even now. This creates a tension between cool product design and clan loyalty, which is a very poor outcome. Same thing for competition. If a player wants to try out one of those "better" roles, they have to play a different clan. Of course this is always true when different factions are weaker or stronger, but the long term locking of supposedly "neutral" roles creates a perception of tension between competitiveness and clan loyalty. Finally, we've all been playing with the same role for 9 months. I think I speak for many in wanting to just try something else out (even if it's not the top tier roles!), but again in creates a tension between that desire and my clan loyalty. So far the clan loyalty has won out, but at a cost of minor annoyance at the game. Before I move on to my proposed solution, there are two major counter-arguments that I want to address preemptively. First, FFG has repeatedly emphasized that role locking is only for competitive play, and players are encouraged to try whatever they want casually. I want to make sure you guys on the design team understand that very few people or playgroups do this. Theoretically these type of deck construction rules are "optional" in every card game for casual play, but everyone follows the tournament rules in every game I've ever played. It's never going to work otherwise, so pretending otherwise doesn't get us anywhere. Second, the risk of unlocking roles is that everyone will "cluster" in the few strongest roles and thus actually harm variety. I agree that this is a legitimate concern, but I'd argue that this puts the onus on you guys in the design team to make sure the "power" cards are evenly distributed across roles. Right now Seeker of Void and Keeper or Seeker of Fire would probably be the popular choices, but the recently released card Sabotage is exactly the sort of card that would combat clustering. Many people would play an earth role just for access to that card. A few more cards like that scattered across the roles would easily eliminate any serious clustering. I realize that designing and releasing enough role-restricted power cards will take time, so my proposed interim solution would maintain some restrictions but allow plenty of variety and address the competitive and product concerns above. I propose that at Worlds (or wherever else roles are chosen), a single role is selected as primary. However, instead of a hard lock to that single role, it creates a soft lock to one or the other aspect, but not both. Thus if Keeper of Void is selected for my clan, thereafter I could use any of the seven Keeper roles (matching on the "Keeper" aspect), as well as Seeker of Void (matching the "Void" aspect). Or if Seeker of Air is selected, I can use any Seeker role, plus Keeper of Air. I believe that this approach would effectively prevent clustering around just a couple of roles, while also allowing lots of variety and competitive adjustments. It also addresses the two original goals of the role locking system. Everyone, no matter what clan, would have access to every card in the entire pool depending on what role they use, but due to role restricted cards any particular deck could not just play all of the most powerful. And the decisions as "prizes" would still be significant since certain roles will be necessary for specific cards or decks (e.g. Dragon would still want Seeker of Fire very badly). As I said at the beginning, I don't know if anything posted here ever makes it to you all at FFG. If it does, I hope you will consider my reasoning and proposal. You have designed a truly great game, and I think this single change would do more than anything else to take it to another level. I know it's hard to see beyond decisions and plans that you've already thought long and hard about. I would encourage you to step back for a moment and consider this proposal as though you had no stake in the existing plans. I think you'll see that it would dramatically improve the game you've poured your blood sweat and tears into, while still maintaining the original goals of the role system. Thanks, Joel P.S. Just to be super clear, I am not objecting to role restricting particular cards. Just the locking of each clan to one role (or even two, which would still be bad). P.P.S. If any players know how to get something like this in front of the design team, I would be much obliged if you could pass it along.
  9. Just wanted to throw out that the OCTGN mod for L5R is up and running, and is a much better building and playing experience than TTS. Any chance you could add it as an allowed format? http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36942-octgn/
  10. Has anyone seen results (hatamotos and other top performers) and/or statistics (clan breakdown,etc) posted anywhere from Thursday and Friday?
  11. Just talked to I'm Board, they expect to receive product 10/5, including the full Organized Play set of events/support.
  12. I'm Board in Middleton is the place to go in the Madison area. They have big showings for GoT, Netrunner, and even Star Wars. I'm sure they'll be doing full support for L5R. Monday night is usually LCG night. I was planning to call tomorrow and ask about the OP events. Will post details here.
  13. Hey y'all, It seems like the place to play online is Tabletop Simulator these days. I've seen some twitch videos, but can anyone point me to instructions on how to get it all set up, build decks, etc? Thanks, Joel
  • Create New...