Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BD Flory

Impact of FFG's Release Model (No holds barred!)

Recommended Posts

 

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

That you can tell them apart in conversation. "Iuchi Kalsang" doesn't tell you anything about the man except that he's an Iuchi, while descriptive names like Sower of Fear can remind players that, "Oh yeah, he's the guy with the Fear effect."

 

Do you do this in real life too?!

 

Sure everybody should change their name to what they do, otherwise I just cant tell any of my friends, colleagues or family apart, it's just so confusing. hmm who? Chris??hmm who are you again, how about I just call you brother 1 from now on! :P

 

In all seriousness though. You are still using a name that is unique to a card. The only difference is that you have decided they should no longer have a name but rather their job title. Which I kind of get. Personally I never had trouble remembering Kalsang has a fear equal to discarded cards focus value. Your brain just kind of associates these things naturally. Maybe some people need more spoonfeeding than me and I am just like the Rainman.

 

If you were to recall something Soshi Eiji did in the story, I think if he was called "Shadowed Tower Courtier", you wouldn't feel the same connection as you would knowing his name. "Remember that time "Shadowed Tower Courtier" fell in love with the kitsune spirit in the forest but then ended up losing it all betraying the clan. Doesn't feel right to me .:)

 

Not convinced it really adds anything to the game in way of mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

 

 

 

Several advantages have been discussed at length, but here's a new one, purely theme and story driven:

 

It marks significant characters (or potentially significant, given how many named characters there would be even without non-uniques) as significant at a glance. We know who to pay attention to, for the same reason we know to pay attention to the character the camera focuses on and ignore passersby, or that a character in a detective novel who gets a name might be returning, whereas the bellboy who never gets a name probably isn't important.

 

Even soap operas cap their main cast at around a dozen people. L5R doesn't need a hundred.

 

 

Ah ok i see. Well as long as you realise this removes player itneraction with the storyline, since design would have to tell the players who the main characters are going to be.

 

To run with your soap opera thing. The cast does not consist of "Esmereldas secret lover", his name would be Raul. :P

 

I get the feeling ye are going back to native american naming conventions.

 

Funny how peoples brains work (or dont as the case may be). I have never really met someone who has trouble associating names with cards or people to such a degree that they would want to not use a name and instead their occupation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the way I see things being released in terms of content would be the core set would include a basic set of cards that would be a smattering of cards meant for each win condition but could all work towards a military victory. The following expansions would then include more cards for each, as well as defining any themes they decide to put into the game. Legality-wise, the previously mentioned format is a good model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

 

 

 

Several advantages have been discussed at length, but here's a new one, purely theme and story driven:

 

It marks significant characters (or potentially significant, given how many named characters there would be even without non-uniques) as significant at a glance. We know who to pay attention to, for the same reason we know to pay attention to the character the camera focuses on and ignore passersby, or that a character in a detective novel who gets a name might be returning, whereas the bellboy who never gets a name probably isn't important.

 

Even soap operas cap their main cast at around a dozen people. L5R doesn't need a hundred.

 

 

Ah ok i see. Well as long as you realise this removes player itneraction with the storyline, since design would have to tell the players who the main characters are going to be.

 

To run with your soap opera thing. The cast does not consist of "Esmereldas secret lover", his name would be Raul. :P

 

I get the feeling ye are going back to native american naming conventions.

 

Funny how peoples brains work (or dont as the case may be). I have never really met someone who has trouble associating names with cards or people to such a degree that they would want to not use a name and instead their occupation.

 

 

I'm on record as saying I want less player interaction, but I don't see why players couldn't land on a piece of art they like, or flavor text they like, or some other aspect of a non-unique character and use that to decide whom they want to elevate to uniqueness. And maybe the tournament winner even gets to name the character!

 

Native American naming conventions? You mean like Smith, Wheeler, Fletcher, Chandler, Tanner and Mason? And those are just a few English occupational surnames.

 

"Raul" would be character 13, though, not character 99. I think there's a middle ground to be had, and I'm not saying L5R should have 1 named character per faction or anything like that. 60ish named characters, for example, seems like plenty of elbow room to have a rich and multi-faceted story. It's also roughly the number of unique characters in the AGoT 2.0 box. I don't think that's going to be necessarily predictive, though. Could be a few more for L5R, could be a few less. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the way I see things being released in terms of content would be the core set would include a basic set of cards that would be a smattering of cards meant for each win condition but could all work towards a military victory. The following expansions would then include more cards for each, as well as defining any themes they decide to put into the game. Legality-wise, the previously mentioned format is a good model.

Would be expecting something like this too.

 

Would personally like lots of unaligned guys to plug these holes. But depending on how much the game changes, could be implemented as army cards or something.

 

Regardless I am really looking forward to what FFG do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What advantage does this naming convention give you? They would all still need a shugenja keyword. What does it achive?

 

 

 

Several advantages have been discussed at length, but here's a new one, purely theme and story driven:

 

It marks significant characters (or potentially significant, given how many named characters there would be even without non-uniques) as significant at a glance. We know who to pay attention to, for the same reason we know to pay attention to the character the camera focuses on and ignore passersby, or that a character in a detective novel who gets a name might be returning, whereas the bellboy who never gets a name probably isn't important.

 

Even soap operas cap their main cast at around a dozen people. L5R doesn't need a hundred.

 

 

Ah ok i see. Well as long as you realise this removes player itneraction with the storyline, since design would have to tell the players who the main characters are going to be.

 

To run with your soap opera thing. The cast does not consist of "Esmereldas secret lover", his name would be Raul. :P

 

I get the feeling ye are going back to native american naming conventions.

 

Funny how peoples brains work (or dont as the case may be). I have never really met someone who has trouble associating names with cards or people to such a degree that they would want to not use a name and instead their occupation.

 

 

Native American naming conventions? You mean like Smith, Wheeler, Fletcher, Chandler, Tanner and Mason? And those are just a few English occupational surnames.

 

And it is so utterly confusing when these people have jobs that have nothing to do with their name right? Goddamit cooper, why are you serving me food, don't you have barrels to make?

 

What I am really referring to is the notion of such a painfully laborious naming convention that aims to describe what the card does, that is what card text is for.

 

Have a little bit of subtlety lads. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is so utterly confusing when these people have jobs that have nothing to do with their name right? Goddamit cooper, why are you serving me food, don't you have barrels to make?

 

 

What I am really referring to is the notion of such a painfully laborious naming convention that aims to describe what the card does, that is what card text is for.

 

Have a little bit of subtlety lads. :lol:

 

 

Cooper can serve me food without me knowing or remembering his name, or turning him sideways or putting a token on him (well, the tip, I guess!). I also don't need to remember to stop him from serving my opponent food, or take him to a side room and read his job description when I enter the restaurant.

 

The "real people have names" argument is...uh...a bit strange when applied to a card game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little thought.
What if instead of generic ''Family name/occupation'' like ''Bayushi Ninja'' for non-unique character, you simply treat them as unaligned characters.
Give them only a single name like the ronin personalities and voila. In It also means you can use him with all the clans if you want, and if the character draws enough attention, he can get an experienced version with a family name and clan.

 

In essence, the generic unaligned card named Bob represents your everyday samurai/shugenja/courtier you find in every single clan. His experienced version, Bayushi Bob, however, has a more detailed backstory and abilities that synergize better with other Scorpion cards.

 

It does raise the possibility of also having Kakita Bob, Matsu Bob and Daigotsu Bob, but I'm not sure if it's a bad thing or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And it is so utterly confusing when these people have jobs that have nothing to do with their name right? Goddamit cooper, why are you serving me food, don't you have barrels to make?

 

 

What I am really referring to is the notion of such a painfully laborious naming convention that aims to describe what the card does, that is what card text is for.

 

Have a little bit of subtlety lads. :lol:

 

 

Cooper can serve me food without me knowing or remembering his name, or turning him sideways or putting a token on him (well, the tip, I guess!). I also don't need to remember to stop him from serving my opponent food, or take him to a side room and read his job description when I enter the restaurant.

 

The "real people have names" argument is...uh...a bit strange when applied to a card game.

It's also a fallacy to assume that every server in a given restaurant is named Cooper, which is the main issue I have with the non-uniques having proper names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it's harder to get attached to a character named Matsu Berserker and buy cards, participate in events and contribute in the respective clan forums in the hope of seeing that particular character appear in the story more.

 

Giving names to even the non-uniques is a simple and effective way to promote loyalty and attachment to the game and its characters.

 

In MTG, i love my goblin raiders, but not as much as I like Gutobo, Pokku and Gakku in L5R. And the fact they have names and personalities are a big factor.

Edited by Tetsuhiko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And it is so utterly confusing when these people have jobs that have nothing to do with their name right? Goddamit cooper, why are you serving me food, don't you have barrels to make?

 

 

What I am really referring to is the notion of such a painfully laborious naming convention that aims to describe what the card does, that is what card text is for.

 

Have a little bit of subtlety lads. :lol:

 

 

Cooper can serve me food without me knowing or remembering his name, or turning him sideways or putting a token on him (well, the tip, I guess!). I also don't need to remember to stop him from serving my opponent food, or take him to a side room and read his job description when I enter the restaurant.

 

The "real people have names" argument is...uh...a bit strange when applied to a card game.

It's also a fallacy to assume that every server in a given restaurant is named Cooper, which is the main issue I have with the non-uniques having proper names.

 

Maybe it's a family restaurant :P

 

Nobody assumed his name. It doesnt matter what his name is. You know what he does. Whether his name is President Obama or Bastian Schweinsteiger (Pigfarmer in german), he can serve you regardless.

 

The point is. Names are associative. It is kinda bizarre to suggest that people are so lacking in memory that they can't remember what personalities do by their name, and that it should be some sort of verb instead of someone's name.

 

What it ACTUALLY comes down to is whether or not you feel like personalities should be characters, have stories and erm..personalities. If you don't believe that then yeh, name them whatever, it doesn't matter. But if you still want L5R to tell a dynamic and interactive story, I think keeping names is kind of important. Otherwise the designers just decide who is going to be the main character, heror or villians, which ofc can work. But I think people stuck around with L5R, despite its failing mechanics because they loved the story and the theme so much. I doubt FFG bought L5R IP for its game mechanics, but for all the lore and history behind it, and the story telling potential above all else has always been L5Rs unique selling point.

 

Im just glad junzo opened the scrolls instead of Shugenja B :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Im just glad junzo opened the scrolls instead of Shugenja B :P

 

 

I think you know Yogo Junzo wouldn't be Shugenja B. He's far too important.

 

Obviously, he would be Shugenja A.

 

Haha indeed. But I think we all know Bantaro was Shoju's real homie :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who can forget the legendary seven thunders, "Isawa Shugenja C", "Battle Maiden A" and "Mirumoto Bushi B"?

 

The fact that we could watch these personalities (or "Shiba Samurai-Ko", "Akodo Sensei", "Wasp Master Bowman", "Daidoji Defender", "Master of Void", "Mirumoto Bushi A", "Peasant Samurai", "Vengeful Ronin" and "White Pajama Ninja", "Tatooed Man" "Angry Lion" and "Lion Cavalry" and so forth) grow from humble cards into more and more vital personalities was also a great thing about L5R. They were personalities that had been with us from the start and stayed with us as they became more and more important. 

 

(For those keeping track at home, in order, that's Tsukune, Kage, Tsuruchi, Uji, Kaede, Daini, Toku, Ginawa, Hiroru, Mitsu, Gohei and Agetoki - and THAT is just the imperial edition batch. Later on you'd add "Daidoji Cavalry Archer", "Doji Storyteller", "Descendent of the Yasuki", "Sons of O-Ushi A" and "Sons of O-Ushi B", "Novice of Fire", "Mirumoto Bushi F", "Moto Bushi", and dozens of others.

 

(Rekai, Nagori, Hachi, Kuon, Kuroda, Hochiu, Kei, Chagatai...)

Edited by Himoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it's harder to get attached to a character named Matsu Berserker and buy cards, participate in events and contribute in the respective clan forums in the hope of seeing that particular character appear in the story more.

 

Giving names to even the non-uniques is a simple and effective way to promote loyalty and attachment to the game and its characters.

 

In MTG, i love my goblin raiders, but not as much as I like Gutobo, Pokku and Gakku in L5R. And the fact they have names and personalities are a big factor.

 

We drove cross country for Koteis one year, and my wife took her Wutho (her favorite goblin at the time) around like a garden gnome.  We've got a picture of Wutho at Graceland somewhere.  I doubt she would have taken her picture with Goblin Scout.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with nameless personalities is that they are extremely boring. It's hard to get attached to one, while you can hear tales of all sorts of various non-unique characters doing their part. The big draw of named non-unique personalities is that you can get attached to them and even the very real possibly of seeing them grow (or fail) spectacularly.

Edited by Kubernes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with nameless personalities is that they are extremely boring. It's hard to get attached to one, while you can hear tales of all sorts of various non-unique characters doing their part. The big draw of named non-unique personalities is that you can get attached to them and even the very real possibly of seeing them grow (or fail) spectacularly.

I dunno; I've gotten pretty **** attached to my Archangel of Tithes...but it could be just that she kicks ass, not that I necessarily care if/when she does something interesting in the story. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The big problem with nameless personalities is that they are extremely boring. It's hard to get attached to one, while you can hear tales of all sorts of various non-unique characters doing their part. The big draw of named non-unique personalities is that you can get attached to them and even the very real possibly of seeing them grow (or fail) spectacularly.

I dunno; I've gotten pretty **** attached to my Archangel of Tithes...but it could be just that she kicks ass, not that I necessarily care if/when she does something interesting in the story. :P

 

Is it more because of her abilities and aggressive cost or her story? She might have some place in the novellas they make, if they still make them. I still own the Arena one and its still entertaining for a book that only isn't featured in sets. Instead, it just features some classic monsters like the Pit Fiend that eats his summoner.

 

Can't remember the last decent story in MtG since maybe Tempest, although the whole brother's war series of comics were very interesting from its aesthetics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't remember the last decent story in MtG since maybe Tempest, although the whole brother's war series of comics were very interesting from its aesthetics. 

The story is now fully digital, in the form of weekly fictions similar to how L5R is EDIT: was handled, and I think it's been awesome ever since I started back in 2012. That said, I just found out that the character featured on the card I mentioned is depicted about to be eaten on a different card. I...guess I hope that she survives? :P

Edited by MarthWMaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...