Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
j-mart

Dear Design Team, let's talk about roles...

Recommended Posts

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. 

Edited by j-mart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh... I like role-locked cards. Everybody in my group loves role-locked cards. 

That being said, we play mostly casual, and had this dumb idea of choosing whatever role we feel like and build a deck with it. We even took this idea further and actually played with said decks! Crazy, I know. There’s no single card we haven’t used (well, except for Wandering Ronin, but I think that goes without saying.)

But we only play for fun, so what do we know, uh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever it's worth, a recent poll on the Facebook group resulted in a large percentage of the voting population was still in support of the existing system. With that said, the elemental cycle was barely begun when that poll was put up, and there was also a large percentage who supported the concept of each clan having 1 keeper and 1 seeker role each. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people agree that role locked cards are fine.  It is an interesting deck building choice, since you only get access to particular cards (Example choice of Keeper Initiate over Pathfinder's blade for crab).  However, then restricting roles for competitive play based on something basically arbitrary is where a lot of people getting held up.  The discord server has a strong "#FreeTheRoles" movement going on.

As pointed out, it doesn't matter for casual play and only really is a restriction based on your local TO, or if you want to go to a Kotei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Coyote Walks said:

Can we have a Shadowlands Role card?

That would make alot of people I know happy.  A disturbing number of them Phoenix.... 

HEY! ?

 

 

There's not enough Maho for that yet.

Edited by Vashyron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, j-mart said:

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.

Clearly you don't play Crane or Lion (Unicorn did get quite some exciting stuff in this cycle).

Anyway I agree with you. Between weak cards and role locked cards these packs don't offer much to play with. If I end up buying them it will be just to have a complete collection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mind role locking. But I know its an issue for many. In pursuit of making the game as enjoyable for as many people as possible, I think a middle ground between those of us who are fine with the system/dont care and those who want a change should be met. The solution the op makes is a good solution to me. It allows all cards to be played with a nice system. I dont think it would be feasible to see any change soon. It would require playtesting and possibly new cards, so id guess (without much research and only with a quick thought) at least a year while changes are prepared.

Another good solution would be that you have access to the role youe hatamoto chooses normally, but can otherwise change keeper/seeker or element (only one of those two) at a cost. Maybe influence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GWItheUltimate said:

I disagree.  I like the actual Role system.  It helps the meta to change periodically and forces players to find new strategies.

But geez.  ANOTHER post avec Role really ?!?

On the contrary, it prevents people from being able to try different strategies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had proposed on one of the many Facebook threads that crop up about this topic adding an additional influence cost to role locked cards (say +1 for each aspect you don't match) so that players could experiment with adding them as part of their splash.  It would allow for the option to include cards you may not want to experiment with while still giving the competitive players something to strive for in getting the ideal element role to allow you to splash said cards easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly this comes down a choice between savory or sweet rolls.

If it's a savory roll I guess a good old dinner roll works for me, as long as it's lightly toasted and drenched in butter.  I prefer wheat to give me the illusion that it's somehow healthier than a white roll

When it comes to a sweet roll, it's cinnamon or bust for me.  There are no exceptions.

I don't mind being locked into roll choices as long as they taste good..............

Also, once we have all the clan packs, the "support of" roles are probably going to provide us enough of  variety that we don't feel role locked.

 

Edited by Ishi Tonu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also ensure a good spread of Role around the meta.  If everyone could pick Keeper of Earth for exemple, then you might see more than half of the roles (or more) not used at all.

Plus it helps the dev controling the power creep.  While not only know that card A can't be used with card B, they know that CLAN X can't use card A, or at least that not ALL THE CLAN are going to use card A etc...

Finaly, 

1 hour ago, j-mart said:

 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. 

is pretty acurate and true.  Mentioned by the OP himself before moving to intangible arguments about the system being "bad" to the feeling of the community (which isn't proved, or even proved wrong with pools on FB and stuff like that). 

 

My 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think two elemental roles per faction would be a great start on a way to widen the meta, one chosen by the worlds event victors, another role by vote per tourney season conclusion (like we are currently doing, but as a short duration email list poll after role locked cards are revealed and points tallied) that sticks for the following season. 

Maybe the voted role could be a lesser role, say one that lacks the economy boosts of a world champs picked role. Just spitballing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Role locked cards are not the issue. If in a free environment only a handful of roles would be used, it means the roles are not balanced and I might as well not bother playing any Clan that doesn't have one of the strong roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HamHamJ2 said:

Role locked cards are not the issue. If in a free environment only a handful of roles would be used, it means the roles are not balanced and I might as well not bother playing any Clan that doesn't have one of the strong roles.

Fair, but ideally that problem would be solved as the card pool increases and all roles are roughly equally good, even if they are different and support different deck types and counters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Edweird said:

I think two elemental roles per faction would be a great start on a way to widen the meta, one chosen by the worlds event victors, another role by vote per tourney season conclusion (like we are currently doing, but as a short duration email list poll after role locked cards are revealed and points tallied) that sticks for the following season. 

Maybe the voted role could be a lesser role, say one that lacks the economy boosts of a world champs picked role. Just spitballing here.

It would be easy enough to do by re-instituting an Imperial Assembly type membership program.  Have players register for a clan when they sign up and then allow for shifting during the year however set a condition that when they announce a vote on x date all players registered at that time are locked to their current clan until the voting period ends.  You can include a yearly promo with membership (full arts always seem to appeal) and we could see a return to faction specific letters that serve to advance story or set up conditions for voting.  It would be a good way to foster a sense of involvement for those who aren't able to attend (sure would be nice they were holding a single Kotei anywhere in Canada) or be competitive at the major events.  You can still hold the main prize for Worlds as being lock one role, but could for example offer a spring vote where players are voting (say in a ranked ballot) for secondary roles with priority say based on overall faction performance at events (and I would actually base that on reverse representation so the least represented clans in the top tables get their preference first and so on).

Edited by Schmoozies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saibot said:

Fair, but ideally that problem would be solved as the card pool increases and all roles are roughly equally good, even if they are different and support different deck types and counters.

That is just more of a reason to not assign roles. That way people can actually play the decks they are interested in playing, not whatever type of deck they are forced to because of the role they have been assigned.

Edited by HamHamJ2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roles also provide ongoing interest and anticipation for the future. Players can look forward to tournament results because they will impact them directly, and if they can't build the deck they want to play, they can look forward to a future role choice that will let them play those cards. And it gives them a reason to get involved with the community to campaign for particular roles with the players that eventually may get to make that choice, if they aren't in a position to compete themselves.

So far I'm very much in favor of the system, and I think we'll see more positive impacts from it closer to the tournaments that can decide roles. The shifting meta should prove invigorating at least to some extent, and I think it will justify the system.

I also think that if players are unhappy being role-locked all the time, stores should probably run events where they are not role-locked. I intend on running the season 2 conflict events at our store as open roles, just for the variety and to see what people think. It should be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Edweird said:

I think two elemental roles per faction would be a great start on a way to widen the meta...

Maybe allowing the bottom two clans pick 2 different roles would be doable?  Or starting picks with the lowest place clan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue can be solved if everyone has a vote on the matter, instead of just one random person at an event (an event not everyone can attend). If the role was picked by general vote, things would be different. It wouldnt be hard to make an online voting system where everyone can vote for their clan's role. World's results could have the effect of the order in which the clans vote, but everyone would have a say in the matter. That way people wouldnt feel "left out" of the matter, and be forced to play with something they dont like. The voting could also throw two possible results.

For example, if the crane community votes for seeker of void, then you take the highest keeper role voted (chosen randomly if tied) and that becomes the second role. In the same manner, if the role picked is keeper of fire, then the highest seeker role voted for becomes the secondary role.  

Another option is to keep letting the winners of worlds pick the clan role, and having the community pick, again by general vote, a secondary role. And letting them pay X influence to change the element of the main role only (the one chosen at worlds).

I think if people have more agency on the choice of role, it would go a long way to combat the feeling of not having control on their deck building options.

I still like the solution I proposed in an earlier post better, though.

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...