No not that kind of threesome. Has anyone played with three or more players in a single Destiny game yet?

I've managed to stitch together three legal decks from my two starters and about 20 boosters, and was tempted to try a three-person game. I expect 'ganging up' might be a problem, but it could be fun. Anyone done it? Any obvious pitfalls? Are there any rules that make it difficult/impossible?

Three player games are quite fun and require a change in tact to win. You'll find that swinging hard with powerful characters is actually counterproductive as they attract attention and get focused by your opponents. Try to bide your time to be in the most powerful position whilst playing your opponents against each other. Control and mill decks are at a disadvantage as they simply can't handle split focus.

I play a 4 way game with my wife and kids. They are lots of fun.

Three player games are quite fun and require a change in tact to win. You'll find that swinging hard with powerful characters is actually counterproductive as they attract attention and get focused by your opponents. Try to bide your time to be in the most powerful position whilst playing your opponents against each other. Control and mill decks are at a disadvantage as they simply can't handle split focus.

I disagree that mill decks can't handle split focus. The thing to remember is that you don't need to split focus. You only need to focus on whichever deck is going to win out of the other two decks. That can be a little tough to judge initially, but should become clear as you make it part way into the game. I like to initially build up my dice pool and gain resources, gain shields and play upgrades and supports. If I roll a discard or disrupt facing, I'll use it. The only way I'll deal damage is if I have Launch Bay in play and can get off a 5 damage facing to help kill a character. If I get a Patience card, I'll hold onto it. The goal is to get a lot of dice, figure out who the real opponent is and then use Patience to force them to discard a good percentage of their remaining deck. The look on a player's face when they beat one opponent and then immediately have to discard more than half their remaining deck only to face a new opponent who is usually near full strength is priceless.

I find most aggro players will prioritize taking down what they perceive as the biggest threat. Who is the bigger threat? ...Grievous with two Lightsabers or Padme with Diplomatic Immunity? Grievous needs to be taken out NOW, so I'm left to operate freely in the first half of the game.

The one three-player game I've played, one player was eliminated about halfway through. The two remaining players each drew the last card from their deck on what became the final turn. So I think a mill deck could do just fine in a multiplayer match.

I have played multiple 4-player games, but I have to admit that I think 2v2 is going to be much stronger than the FFA that FFG suggests in the directions somewhere. I feel that FFA is just a little too "Chaotic focus on one person until they can't effectively play anymore" than the 2v2 would be. The multiplayer really needs the sharing of shields and slow down that an ally can provide.

Imagine that one person has a very attack based team, then they really need the defensive abilities that the ally can provide. I don't know how many abilities or core rules would have to change to be able to share defensive abilities (such as shields), but even if the ally has the ability to effect large damage dice, you are still in good shape to "defend" your ally.

I love the idea of an ally in 2v2 stepping in to throw some shields on one of their partner's characters, or redeploying a weapon from a fallen comrade to an ally instead. Or even a (One With The) Force ghost living on once one player has lost all of their characters to support what's left of the team. Very cinematic.

I think multi-player action like this would be best suited in a round-robin type format where you can only attack the person to your left (for example).