I think it's achievable to design a set of cards where no card is clearly better than any other card in all situations, even choosing between cards with similar effects.

I guess we can kind of summarize this discussion as:

- monoclan results in fewer decks with more distinctiveness

- multiclan results in more decks with less distinctiveness

To put it another way, I get that multiclan design results in more combo potential. Are there any other advantages? Can you point out anything else (and no you can't talk about "more options")?

Those are loaded questions of course, kind of like the one you pose in your OP. Can't blame folks for objecting.

Of course the question is loaded. As stated, it's framed to produce a specific result, which is that I hope people will bring to the thread theories as to how monoclan decks improve the game, so they can be discussed without the baggage of, "Doesn't matter! Story is the reason!"

That was literally the point of the thread, so I really can blame folks for objecting. Just as I would expect you to blame me if you were to post a thread about who our favorite characters in the fiction are without regard to their cards, and I said, "You can't talk about the fiction without considering who has the best card!" Yes, I think in anyone who plays the game, a character card's utility and power is going to influence peoples' opinions of that character above and beyond that which is presented in the fiction. But in a thread someone started with the explicit request not to bring up the cards? If I jump in and bring up the cards, I would expect I would be asked to stop, and rightly so.

Discussing mechanics without reference to story and theme is very different from discussing game mechanics without reference to...game mechanics, which is what you propose in your comparison. Which is what options in deckbuilding are -- game mechanics.

If you don't like the premise of the thread, you don't *have* to post. If you post explicitly to undermine the premise of the thread, for whatever reason, it's reasonable to expect that the person who posted that thread would object.

I think it's achievable to design a set of cards where no card is clearly better than any other card in all situations, even choosing between cards with similar effects.

We'll tackle this one after world peace.

So you're saying we can't balance cards. Note that I'm not saying this is an illegitimate argument, I don't think. But if it is a problem, I do think it's a problem that applies whether we go mono-clan or multi-clan, and manifests in different ways. "Every clan will play XX card" is the multi-clan problem. "Only one clan can play XX card," is the monoclan problem. This kind of seems like a wash, and which one winds up being a bigger problem depends a lot how design deals with it.

As to redundancy, why is having many similar cards spread across factions a good thing? That's what seems wasteful to me. Especially in an LCG, those slots come at a premium. The idea of "hiding good cards" seems silly on its face. If the designers are capable of knowing which cards are good enough to require they be "hidden," then presumably they are good enough to be able to tweak them such that they're on more level footing with "lesser" cards.

(And honestly, I think Nate French's assertion, put forth -- I believe -- in a Thrones article, that he "hid" sleeper cards that no one would know are good and also seeded trap cards that seem good but aren't is pretty laughable. Yes, people misjudge cards, but if you're trying to walk a fine line like that, it's a coin flip. I think it's a lot more likely they designed a bunch of cards that might be good, depending on synergies, and they either worked or didn't, which made them good or bad. Not that they were intended to look bad but be good or vice versa.)

In a game that is defined by factions, catering to the concept of "monoclan" is what actually creates a diverse deck-environment. Sure, even L5R has had its periods of specific decks flooding the tournament-scene, but from what I've seen of L5R in my years in comparison to say Magic, it is that L5R has always had a more diverse environment in terms of deckbuilding. Magic has more often than not been dominated by a select few number of deck-types on the tournament scene and leaves little room for creativity, as Magic design is more open to running all sorts of colors in their decks (as long as they got enough Mana covered to bring them out, or Mana-tricks), but thus limiting the number of competitive decks due to it all becoming incredibly focused on only the best cards.

L5R on the other hand have had a much bigger element of many options working within the different factions, to the point that even if you were sitting down opposite of a Dragon player with Mountain Summit Temple during Samurai Edition, you had no idea if you were facing Military, Enlightenment or Honor. Or a combination of all three. Or to mention a Sleeper-card that became a lynchpin-card; Claiming the Throne. When it came at the start of Celestial, it was a coaster... no one could reliably pull it off as a Victory condition. Then near the end of Celestial, around the time of Forgotten Legacy, Claiming The Throne became a viable tactic for Dragon. And even those decks had differences in structure and playstyle. I know I played mine with a stronger Enlightenment-bend than some, and others played it with Military as a second goal to Claiming The Throne.

Also, it has at some points been a viable tactic to run out-of-clan Personalities, or Unaligneds, such as when United-decks were popping up in every faction, but all with different builds and structures. What they had in common was that they would usually stock in cheap ronin to qualify easily for the requirements of United.

(Sorry for so much Dragon Clan there, but since that's the faction I've played the most in tournaments, gotta stick with what I know best).

My 2 zeni. It will be interesting to see how FFG handles this. I've enjoyed how they've handled GoT for their LCG and the faction-mechanics there (pure Lannister all the way, roar!), and judging by that, I think FFG might look at something similar.

Mantis Stronghold

7PS 4GP 2SFH

Limited Action , 3GC: Draw a card.

Clan Pride - As long as your recruited personalities are only of the Mantis Clan or Neutral, your Ranged Attacks get +1 Strength.

I really dig the Clan Pride idea...

All in all I have to say I think this is the way to go. Reward player for playing in clan, don't punish them for taking in OoC personalities.

In a game that is defined by factions, catering to the concept of "monoclan" is what actually creates a diverse deck-environment. Sure, even L5R has had its periods of specific decks flooding the tournament-scene, but from what I've seen of L5R in my years in comparison to say Magic, it is that L5R has always had a more diverse environment in terms of deckbuilding. Magic has more often than not been dominated by a select few number of deck-types on the tournament scene and leaves little room for creativity, as Magic design is more open to running all sorts of colors in their decks (as long as they got enough Mana covered to bring them out, or Mana-tricks), but thus limiting the number of competitive decks due to it all becoming incredibly focused on only the best cards.

Thanks for posting!

I'm really interested in this idea, because there may be some meat here, but I wonder if there's ever been a monofaction game that's been as *big* as magic, with as much at stake in terms of monetary value of prizing? If there weren't money on the line, you might see a lot of players stick to favorite colors more, though in magic that more likely means colors that tend to have mechanics that are comfortable for a particular player.

I can't say you're wrong about any of what you say, but even in L5R, with money on the line and many more players at work trying to "solve" the meta each set, that difference in diversity might disappear. As a side note, this is why I tend to stay away from games like this that *do* routinely put money on the line. I think the whole L5R scene would be entirely different, but that's a deep, deep rabbit hole.

I think you have to compare something like L5R to games with similar player bases and prizing structures. I wish I knew more about FFG tournaments across their various games, but strictly at a local level, I feel like I see a lot of diverse decks in the games I've played. This is sometimes warped if a new deluxe box has just hit and people are playing with the toys of the featured faction or factions, but generally speaking.

I think *actual* deck diversity thing is one of those things that has to go down to, "Maybe, maybe not," but we'll probably never know. But *potential* deck diversity definitely seems higher in games where you can mix and match, and with successful design, *actual* diversity would seem to follow.

My 2 zeni. It will be interesting to see how FFG handles this. I've enjoyed how they've handled GoT for their LCG and the faction-mechanics there (pure Lannister all the way, roar!), and judging by that, I think FFG might look at something similar.

At least so far, GoT 2 really hits the sweet spot for me. I have pure faction and alliance decks, depending on what's right for the specific deck. And there are still many decks I've yet to try, both in terms of house combinations (or pure) and different decks within each house.

Thing is, there really isn't really anything to compare L5R to, because there are too many differences in the card-game world. L5R is one that has been very unique in its strong reliance on factions and player-loyalty to that faction... kinda what has set it apart from all the other CCGs that arrived after Magic and made it last 20 years.

Magic vs. L5R = Magic is the biggest thing around and is one of the very very few CCGs with money-prizes.
GoT vs L5R = Similar ideas of factions, but when comparing before FFG launches their version of L5R, one is LCG and one is CCG.
Netrunner vs L5R = again similar ideas of factions, but both games operate on completely different levels.
Weiß Schwarz vs L5R = CCGs, but Weiß Schwarz only have "two factions", so to speak; Black and White.

Never touched Vanguard or Pokemon cards, so can't comment on that.

L5R has had a history of having mechanics to bring in Personalities from outside your clan, such as the Alliance event, dual-aligned Personalities, Personalities with reduced costs for factions outside their own, or things like making all Personalities with the Monk keyword a part of your faction. Or cards that just outright ignore restrictions, like Hantei and Hantei Genji.

Mantis Stronghold

7PS 4GP 2SFH

Limited Action , 3GC: Draw a card.

Clan Pride - As long as your recruited personalities are only of the Mantis Clan or Neutral, your Ranged Attacks get +1 Strength.

I really dig the Clan Pride idea...

All in all I have to say I think this is the way to go. Reward player for playing in clan, don't punish them for taking in OoC personalities.

Yeah, i agree.

I feel this is maybe a *little* too restrictive, and a version that gives bonuses to your clan personalities all the time, but no one else, would be a bit less crippling for alliance decks. Maybe even "your clan all the time, ronin get the bonus when you have no non-clan?" Seems like a playtesting and tuning question though. Good idea!

Thing is, there really isn't really anything to compare L5R to, because there are too many differences in the card-game world.

I don't just mean comparing to L5R. Another way to do it would be to look at another strongly factioned game (that isn't L5R) and not-strongly factioned competitor and see what the results are there.

Doomtown is, mechanically speaking, *very* strongly factioned, like L5R, but is more comparable to an FFG game in terms of release model. It relies far less on a number of things that people feel make L5R unique, like interactivity (very little), faction loyalty (far less than L5R) and story. Not sure how player popularity compares, though.

Anyway, not being able to compare L5R to anything is kind of my point. It means we can't reasonably figure out *why* some things happen in L5R, but not elsewhere. It could be a number of factors that we have no way of controlling for because of a lack of data on comparable games (on many axes).

I'd also be curious to know (and really, this is an honest question), but how many of those diverse decks tend to filter in the swiss rounds because they aren't competitive, and how much does that matter? (Same question should be posed to games that offer multifactioning, of course.)

I think you have to compare something like L5R to games with similar player bases and prizing structures. I wish I knew more about FFG tournaments across their various games, but strictly at a local level, I feel like I see a lot of diverse decks in the games I've played. This is sometimes warped if a new deluxe box has just hit and people are playing with the toys of the featured faction or factions, but generally speaking.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/21/compete-for-glory-and-riches/

Browse the prizes. It does give you an idea of what they do. This is Worlds, so this tends to be the most of what they do. No money. No exclusive things that would affect a game. I don't foresee this ever changing. And the lack of high money prizes has had a tendency to create better atmospheres in tournaments.

Looking at all this clan loyalty stuff actually makes me a bit nervous.

I think there will be benefits from running a mono-clan deck, but I would bet almost anything that FFG will not make that benefits so great that being able to draw from other clans is a completely inferior deck.

Mechanically speaking I think card from the same clan will interact an the more important cards from each clan will either only work if you are playing that clan. There were numerous examples in AGoT 1.0 of card of this ilk.

I could also see something like Netrunner where card have a influence value each clan having a certain influence allotment. In clan cards would not cost influence to use, but out of clan cards would. Ideally the powerful neutral cards will also cost influence to make you choose between using great neutral cards. This also determines how much or how little you can splash in. You want 3 copies of a certain dude from another clan? Ok, but you're going to be spending a large portion of your influence on it.

It think we will likely see some combination or permutation of these mechanics. As I stated in a previous thread, just because you can play multiple clans, does not mean you will need to or will necessarily want to. But it likely will be an option.

I think you have to compare something like L5R to games with similar player bases and prizing structures. I wish I knew more about FFG tournaments across their various games, but strictly at a local level, I feel like I see a lot of diverse decks in the games I've played. This is sometimes warped if a new deluxe box has just hit and people are playing with the toys of the featured faction or factions, but generally speaking.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/21/compete-for-glory-and-riches/

Browse the prizes. It does give you an idea of what they do. This is Worlds, so this tends to be the most of what they do. No money. No exclusive things that would affect a game. I don't foresee this ever changing. And the lack of high money prizes has had a tendency to create better atmospheres in tournaments.

Thanks! I had a pretty good idea about prizing from the games I have played, but I meant more what breakdowns looked like as far as factions played and deck diversity.

I agree that I hope FFG doesn't cave to money prizing or anything like that, but there's no evidence to suggest they will. They've never done it and L5R's never done it, so no reason to think their L5R will do it.

The advantage of designing for monoclan as opposed to multiclan from where I sit is to avoid spreadsheet deck building and to allow each clan to speak to a playstyle or decktype, and will allow synergies and mechanical themes to shine through in each clan. While some hybridization is healthy (I think 2 is a good number to allow, but right now let's not argue the number), allowing full freedom in deck building might result in a case where only a small percentage of the card pool is played.

In a perfect world the Clans would be strong against part of the field and weak against others without being lopsided.

The clans have often typified specific playstyles, sometimes corresponding to the typical CCG decktypes, sometimes not. In some arcs, the Crab often show up as big unit midgame, the Lion aggro, the Scorpion control, and the Dragon as combo (enlightenment). Several clans have had hybrids of two playstyles as their schtick (including those I just listed). This could easy be streamlined and focused in the new design.

If FFG can get the balance of monoclan correct, then all major playstyles will be represented, and building dual/multi clan decks will be mostly something that's there to keep deckbuilding interesting, or to game the meta at events where certain styles are expected to be strong.

[. . .] from what I've seen of L5R in my years in comparison to say Magic, it is that L5R has always had a more diverse environment in terms of deckbuilding. Magic has more often than not been dominated by a select few number of deck-types on the tournament scene and leaves little room for creativity, as Magic design is more open to running all sorts of colors in their decks (as long as they got enough Mana covered to bring them out, or Mana-tricks), but thus limiting the number of competitive decks due to it all becoming incredibly focused on only the best cards.

Exactly! This is what I was trying to get at in this post

I guess we can kind of summarize this discussion as:

- monoclan results in fewer decks with more distinctiveness

- multiclan results in more decks with less distinctiveness

as well as this post

In other words, while one concern is that a single card should be usable in multiple ways, there is also the countervailing concern that a single card should first of all be playable. A card that could be used in many ways but sees little to no play is not as worthwhile as a card that always sees play even if it is always played in the same way.

What does it matter how many cards there are or how many decks they combine into if a few powerful combinations are all that washes out in competitive play?

OP may dismiss it as "theme" or "story" but the concept of faction is a mechanic. The design purpose of this mechanic is summed up nicely by the Dragon Clan poster as "diversity" -- which is to say, that the various decks available to players are actually distinctive rather than simply numerous.

I think you have to compare something like L5R to games with similar player bases and prizing structures. I wish I knew more about FFG tournaments across their various games, but strictly at a local level, I feel like I see a lot of diverse decks in the games I've played. This is sometimes warped if a new deluxe box has just hit and people are playing with the toys of the featured faction or factions, but generally speaking.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/21/compete-for-glory-and-riches/

Browse the prizes. It does give you an idea of what they do. This is Worlds, so this tends to be the most of what they do. No money. No exclusive things that would affect a game. I don't foresee this ever changing. And the lack of high money prizes has had a tendency to create better atmospheres in tournaments.

Thanks! I had a pretty good idea about prizing from the games I have played, but I meant more what breakdowns looked like as far as factions played and deck diversity.

I agree that I hope FFG doesn't cave to money prizing or anything like that, but there's no evidence to suggest they will. They've never done it and L5R's never done it, so no reason to think their L5R will do it.

Well, the answer would be not every faction gets a prize with each kit. Generally, it tends to be two different alt art cards, a playmat, and card box.

A few advantages I could see for a "Monoclan" deck are:

• Better natural synergy between clan aligned cards.
• More effective use of cards that give benefits for having shared clan alignments.
• Less effected by cards that penalize having personalities different clan alignments.

The big thing is that each of these advantages require cards that do these things.

(Perhaps a small penalty like not being able to proclaim them?)

Please, no to this. That penalty only hurt decks that cared about honor. Any other deck would just ignore the "penalty" a play the personality if it was good enough.

OP may dismiss it as "theme" or "story" but the concept of faction is a mechanic. The design purpose of this mechanic is summed up nicely by the Dragon Clan poster as "diversity" -- which is to say, that the various decks available to players are actually distinctive rather than simply numerous.

Many combinations play quite distinctively from each other in multifaction games. Would Scorp/crane probably play similarly to Crane/scorp? Sure. But both are going to be different from Scrop/uni, Scorp/mant, Scorp/spider, Scrop/lion, Scorp/crab, whatever. And all of those will play differently from pure Scorp. I also find it very unlikely that simply because factions can be combined that they'll receive only a single mechanical theme. This hasn't been the case in any long-running factioned game ever. So now there's faction combinations (or not) on top of clan combinations. There's no reason to think this won't produce plenty of distinctive decks, unless the qualifier for distinctive is "monoclan compared to a different monoclan."

The decks brought up also has as much to do with multiple victory conditions, which is an entirely separate question.

At any rate, as discussed, it's all speculation unless we can compare something concrete across the monofaction/multifaction axis while controlling for other variables. I rather suspect that the greater diversity is simply because there are fewer players and less at stake than in something like magic, where there's not only a huge amount of people boiling down the meta into its very strongest components, but there's significant financial incentive for only playing with those components (inclusive of all the R/P/S decks in whatever the meta is).

Absent those two factors, there's no reason to believe L5R is going to suddenly become full of the same few decks because it's been opened up to multifactioning.

Distinctiveness can still be achieved through a variety of means, including loyal cards and specific card mechanics that create synergy. A designer who says I can only achieve distinctive decks through strong factioning is a lazy designer.

A few advantages I could see for a "Monoclan" deck are:

• Better natural synergy between clan aligned cards.
• More effective use of cards that give benefits for having shared clan alignments.
• Less effected by cards that penalize having personalities different clan alignments.

The big thing is that each of these advantages require cards that do these things.

Right, but that's stuff that would be designed into the card pool, and could exist in both kinds of games: those oriented toward monoclan only, and those oriented toward allowing multiclan as well as monoclan. Existence of these kinds of cards is actually important to balance out the advantages of going multiclan, and is what keeps monoclan decks viable and unique. The first two definitely exist in FFG multifaction games right now. Actually, all three do, now that I think about it.

If FFG can get the balance of monoclan correct, then all major playstyles will be represented, and building dual/multi clan decks will be mostly something that's there to keep deckbuilding interesting, or to game the meta at events where certain styles are expected to be strong.

There's nothing wrong with this, but I suspect if it's intended to keep deckbuilding interesting and keep the meta gameable, it's not going to be a sideline. It'll be a big part of the game. Otherwise it won't do either, it'll just exist on the fringes.

It's not just about playstyles being internal to itself in a faction, it's about what's produced when you mix and match play styles and if it's something other than the sum of its parts (hopefully not *greater* as that would indicate a balance problem, but different).

Would a designer who says he can only achieve options through multiclan decks also be a lazy designer?

Would a designer who says he can only achieve options through multiclan decks also be a lazy designer?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but he would be mathematically wrong. Strong factioning mutually excludes many cards, which decreases the number of available combinations.

Would a designer who says he can only achieve options through multiclan decks also be a lazy designer?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but he would be mathematically wrong. Strong factioning mutually excludes many cards, which decreases the number of available combinations.

See, I've always felt the exact opposite. Not giving any incentive to monoclan and not giving any deck building restrictions for multiclan leads to boring homogeneous decks. It's usually possible to take two cards or sets of cards in a vacuum and come up with one that's objectively superior. Then there's rock-paper-scissors with the primary deck types, and that's your environment.

See, I've always felt the exact opposite. Not giving any incentive to monoclan and not giving any deck building restrictions for multiclan leads to boring homogeneous decks. It's usually possible to take two cards or sets of cards in a vacuum and come up with one that's objectively superior. Then there's rock-paper-scissors with the primary deck types, and that's your environment.

Sure, but how many man hours does that take? How much time til the next set or pack shakes things up?

There's also no reason why a strongly factioned game would be different. It's just figuring out the best deck for each faction (which is a less complex problem than figuring out the best deck in an unrestricted card pool). Boil either one down, and you ultimately wind up (probably) with 3 or 4 decks that are the top of the top tier, which R/P/S each other under either model.

I actually think something Ayame said a page back was an interesting point to consider, which is the influence of multiple victory conditions on this. How much of the diversity of L5R is due to that? If L5R had 8 clans, but there was only one victory condition, how fast does that boil down the options to one "best" for each clan? And how many of those actually turn out to be top tier? I would wager that in a game with a similar size card pool, once you control for those variables and all the other variables, deck diversity is going to be wider, for a longer period of time (the time it takes to solve the meta).

Compare L5R to magic, for example. Practically speaking, each color in magic can be paired (effectively) with one other color. I suppose we'll include "pure" color decks. So that's 10 possible 2-color combinations and 5 pure color decks. One victory condition, for which, in theory, there are 15 "best" decks, one for each color set. Some of those will be better than others, so a few will settle as top tier and R/P/S each other (although there's no guarantee the top 2 decks from the same combination won't be the 2 best decks, but the same is true with L5R clans).

In L5R, let's say you have 8 clans. We'll say each clan can achieve 2 victory conditions. That's probably stingy, and obviously varies by actual set, but for the sake of argument, that produces 16 "best decks." And that's completely discounting half of the available victory conditions. And the fact that there are actually 9 clans. Likewise, these will settle into a few tip top tier decks that will R/P/S each other. Now a *huge* point to consider is that my impression of L5R is that playing the board well is much more important than magic, so this opens things up a little. Sometimes tier 2 decks with tier 1 pilots will sneak through and perform. This may be due to clan loyalty; it may also be due to a particular play style appealing to the pilot.

But regardless, you come out with 16 "best of kind" decks in L5R, 15 in magic. Account for the increased importance of pilot skill and you open L5R's competitive deck diversity even more. Now consider that magic has many more players, some of whom literally do it for a living, figuring out those best decks. L5R, meanwhile, has many fewer players, and many of those don't even look outside their clan to figure out a best deck and play it.

I think netdecking is also easier in a game with more deck play and less board play so that inflects the results as well. If L5R does have more board play, netdecking is somewhat less effective. You might be better off going for something that suits your play style more than the "best" deck.

Clan loyalty figures in to what people play as well, but that's a case of people playing suboptimal decks out of loyalty, which creates more apparent diversity without actually creating competitive diversity. Availability of multifaction doesn't necessarily diminish clan loyalty, though I feel it probably will in the long term. Still, it does give clan loyal players a lot more options in finding a competitive deck by recruiting an alliance, if their favorite faction is struggling.

I think the idea that open multifactioning promotes similar decks is an illusion, created by comparing games without controlling for a wide variety of variables. Which, practically speaking, we can't. Which is why I think it's a bit of an unresolvable problem. Neither can be really proven. All the factors I suggested above could be meaningless. Likewise, the fact that it's a monofaction game could be meaningless. We just don't know.

And remember, multifactioning doesn't necessarily mean "without restriction." Restricting certain cards to faction only, placing requirements on cross factioning, etc. all influence things. A scorp deck that runs 5x3 loyal cards and allies with crane is likely to be very different from a crane deck that runs 5x3 loyal crane cards. Loyal cards tend to be the most distinctive effects for a faction, at least under FFG's designs.

But more options does mean more complexity, so the problem of solving for the best decks is orders of magnitude more complex in a multifaction game. I think that's a good thing. It keeps more decks in the mix in the near time horizon, beyond which new cards (new variables) are released, necessitating a new solution. In the long time horizon, strongly factioned games might settle out to have more diversity, but as long as a game is producing meaningful cards, that doesn't become an issue -- the long time horizon never comes.

Obviously, bad design makes finding the solutions easier, but again, that's something that's true in both models.

My google fu is failing me. I'm definitely curious to know what deck diversity looked like when CoC was healthy. It bridges a couple of comparison gaps between L5R and magic, in terms of the number of factions/colors (8 in cthulhu, I believe), and the fact that "factions" essentially function *as* colors with a very open deckbuilding structure.

It's still not "good data" by any means, but it'd be interesting to look at.

Hmm... a glance at this page:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/callofcthulhu/call-of-cthulhu-decks/_/call-of-cthulhu-decks/?sort_col=record_updated&sort_order=desc&per_page=25&filters[415][Tournament%20Quality]=1

Shows a pretty good mix of self-described "tournament quality" decks over the last year (many note their tournament performance). Seems like a lot of factions are represented, including some solo factions, despite magic style multifactioning (plus loyalty, I believe).

As I said above, it's entirely possible this is because it's a small group of players compared to magic.