8 minutes ago, Builder2 said:

From what we know so far, would it unbalance the game if each player compared his or her draw bid to that of the player clockwise from themselves, and gained or lost honor accordingly?

Yes, it could. I explained it in an earlier post.

Basically you could end up in a situation where one player draws a lot of cards while the other two draw the lowest possible. It creates a situation where one player gets lots of honor and a card, one player loses honor but gets five cards, and the final player just gets a card. In the end the second low bid player is put at a disadvantage for both cards and honor.

6 hours ago, The Laughing Monk said:

All this is very interesting, but my only problem with multiplayer L5R is that a player can be out of the game in a short amount of time and have to just sit there and watch! The card draw would need to be dealt with (I like agarrett's suggestion), but unless someone can find a way so that every player can play until the end of the game I will most likely not even consider playing multiplayer. But that's just my opinion. "Last man standing" multiplayer is just a cheap way to call a 2-player game multiplayer (like Mage Wars, Codex, Epic, Magic, etc.). When I get together to play games, I actually want to be playing games!

Can I point you to my earlier post?

On 21/04/2017 at 4:37 PM, Tonbo Karasu said:

What would you say if, like with the permanence of Provinces, having your stronghold broken just meant that you couldn't win anymore? Hitting 0 Honour would also break your Stronghold, not eliminate you. The winner then becomes the first to 25 Honour or the last with an Unbroken Stronghold.

Now, about that card draw bidding. The following proposal does change the dynamic slightly, but keeps the magnitude of honour changes about the same until you get to 6+ players.

Each player bids as normal, draws cards as normal, and gives 1 honour to every other player who bid a lower number than them.

6 hours ago, Builder2 said:

From what we know so far, would it unbalance the game if each player compared his or her draw bid to that of the player clockwise from themselves, and gained or lost honor accordingly?

This could swing quite strong since with the dial you can exchange at max 4 honor.

If everyone compares to the left you exchange honor twice. Once with the guy to the left and once with the guy to the right (since you are his person to the left).

This in essence doubles the amount of Honor Exchanges you are involved in increasing the variability (Doubling the maximum exchange from 4 to 8).

It could work this is definitely something you need to test out.

52 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Can I point you to my earlier post?

Now, about that card draw bidding. The following proposal does change the dynamic slightly, but keeps the magnitude of honour changes about the same until you get to 6+ players.

Each player bids as normal, draws cards as normal, and gives 1 honour to every other player who bid a lower number than them.

As I understand your suggestion, you can't be eliminated, but you also can't possibly win. I play for fun (as evidenced by my Kotei record!!), but I don't like the idea of not possibly winning. I really don't think L5R lends itself to more than 2 players without a significant change (like Star Wars lcg did, which I bought but never even played). I will be playing this game 1v1 and being as active as ever. However, a viable multiplayer variant would simply bring me added joy in that I could play with individuals that wouldn't normally play. There has to be a way to initiate and win military conflicts without breaking provinces yet providing some progress towards a win condition.

Hello, did you have rice today?

I found a piece of information that, if intrepreted correctly, shows without the shadow of a doubt the existence of a multiplayer option, probably to come further down the line.

I have taken the liberty to turn upside down this image taken from the excerpts FFG has provided for us. By taking a close look to the Steadfast Samurai you can see one word that changes everything. (emphasis mine)

Quote

Bushi

Forced Reaction. After the Fate phase begins, if you have at least 5 more Honor than an opponent - this character cannot be discarded or lose Fate this phase.

I believe that if L5R LCG was meant as a 2-player game they would have used the word "your", however they deliberately chose "an" and that tells me a lot.

It's also possible they just left the option available with that without having any actual plans for a multiplayer variant. "An opponent" is standard templating in many card games. I believe even MtG worded things like that long before they had any officially supported multiplayer formats (mostly to make it easier for players to play homebrew multiplayer formats). So it's not necessarily proof of anything.

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if they had at least rough plans for a multiplayer variant down in the line.

The product page says ' 2 players' which seems definitive to me...

Not that you cant make up your own multiple player rules though...

16 minutes ago, Matrim said:

The product page says ' 2 players' which seems definitive to me...

FFG avoiding this question during the AMA on r/boardgames seems a bit more definitive to me because FFG's communication teams have routinely had errors in other product announcements.

That being said, I wouldn't completely preclude it either because it exists in GoT 2.0 and Nate was the lead designer for that game.

To be honest, FFG appears to be outright neglecting the multiplayer format in AGoT. It has been relegated to side-events (in 1st edition, it was nearly as important as 1 on 1 in Regionals tournaments and up) and there are still no tournament rules for it.

1 hour ago, Matrim said:

The product page says ' 2 players' which seems definitive to me...

Not that you cant make up your own multiple player rules though...

My (perhaps foolishly) optimistic take on this is that a single core set can only play 2 players out of one box. This makes sense - perhaps there just aren't enough neutral cards for half a dozen decks straight away. But if each of your friends has their own core sets (or 2, or 3...), then you can play with many more players.

What if you compare with both the the highest and lowest player and only pay once?

Example:

Player A Bids 5

Player B Bids 4

Player C Bids 3

Player D Bids 2

Player E Bids 1

Player A compares to himself and Player E. He Gains 0 honor (5-5 = 0) and Loses 4 Honor (5-1 = 4) for a net of 4 honor loss

Player B compares to Player A and E. He gains 1 honor (5-4=1) and loses 3 honor (4-1=3) for a net of 2 honor loss.

Player C compares to Player A and E. He gains 2 honor (5-3=2) and loses 2 honor (3-1=2) for a net of 0 honor change

Player D compares to Player A and E. He gains 3 honor (5-2=3) and loses 1 honor (2-1=1) for a net of 2 honor gain

Player E compares to Player Player A and himself. He gains 4 honor (5-1=4) and loses 0 (1-1=0) for a net of 4 honor gain.

I see no reason why this shouldn't work

24 minutes ago, JRosen9 said:

What if you compare with both the the highest and lowest player and only pay once?

I see no reason why this shouldn't work

Same reason why some other suggestions here wouldn't work. It's not zero-sum in all cases. This may or may not matter for game balance, but in a 1v1 game, honor gains/losses in duels and drawing are necessarily zero-sum. It would make sense if multiplayer worked similiarly (somehow).

But why does zero sum matter? From what we know so far, I don't see why card draw honor gains need to some to zero. What I suggested above Allows for your honor change with respect to everyone else be weighted correctly without being double penalized. Your net change in honor compared to all of your opponents is in sync with the cards you drew. If in a 3 player game 2 players bid 1 way and the 3rd bid another, the 2 that bid the same the will both have their honor change the same amount and draw the same amount of cards.

It doesn't need to be zero-sum, but I am of the belief that multiplayer should change the fewest rules possible to work. Making the fate draw a miniature math equation doesn't really do this.

In addition, your method allows for your honor change with respect to the highest and lowest bidder be weighted correctly. In your example, players B, C and D don't factor into anyone's honor change except their own. I can't immediately envisage if this method falls apart in a situation, but it seems a bit complicated for my taste.

My best guess is that it will be something like Star wars LCG and it will be 2v2 max for supported rules. Each player will play against the person across from them but be able to assist their partner in some way. Probably have some sort of combined honor and the dial/draw will be altered to effect both players.

But /shrugs who knows!

I am thinking that the off the cuff thought earlier on might work quite well - give 1 Honour to each player who bid less than you.

On 4/24/2017 at 4:07 PM, Tonbo Karasu said:

I am thinking that the off the cuff thought earlier on might work quite well - give 1 Honour to each player who bid less than you.

When I read this I pictured a large group game with 7 players. One for each clan. The Scorpion player bid 5 and has to pay out 6 honor. He looks at his stronghold and sees his starting hamily honor is only 5. Ooops

of course this vision takes some speculation into account. Mainly that any family that starts with a family honor lower than 7 could quite possibly lose on the first turn if they are not careful with their bidding.

Minus their co-ops it seems FFG wants no multiplayer card games

5 minutes ago, CEOWolf said:

Minus their co-ops it seems FFG wants no multiplayer card games

Thrones 2E would beg to differ there.

Multiplayer made the best L5R games. They can't remove this, they will lose customers.

What sleepless nights, playing up to 10 players! (it was too much okay lol, the best was 5/7 players)

I'm currently in the position of having to introduce this to a group of players which usually has at least three people, so I really need this to have free-for-all multiplayer. I'll definitely homebrew a mode like this if it doesn't come with one, but that would be frustrating. I got into Star Wars Destiny a while back and that came with included multiplayer rules. I don't see why they would leave them out of this game...

6 hours ago, Mandalore525 said:

I'm currently in the position of having to introduce this to a group of players which usually has at least three people, so I really need this to have free-for-all multiplayer. I'll definitely homebrew a mode like this if it doesn't come with one, but that would be frustrating. I got into Star Wars Destiny a while back and that came with included multiplayer rules. I don't see why they would leave them out of this game...

Especially since one can count the number of three-way combats in the films on one finger: that montage in Revenge of the Sith where the clones everywhere suddenly turned on their Jedi generals mid-battle.

On 4/20/2017 at 2:31 PM, Mirith said:

I mean no offense to people, but why is this such a big deal?

For me, if there isn't a multiplayer option I typically don't play the game. If you don't understand it, you probably won't... it isn't for everyone.

Multiplayer is fun. Kinda like having a multi ball option for pinball. Playing multiplayer against folks that have skill enough to decimate you & and two other players is a challange. It is a game of wits and politics as much as it is power of cards & skill. Free for all. Typically, this is the format that allows you to play your big creatures and spells. Go big or go home. This is a format that allows for late game shenanigans. Most importantly, it isn't a format that you derive pleasure from winning as much as it is being spiteful & greifing your friends.

On 4/24/2017 at 3:20 PM, JRosen9 said:

What if you compare with both the the highest and lowest player and only pay once?

Example:

Player A Bids 5

Player B Bids 4

Player C Bids 3

Player D Bids 2

Player E Bids 1

Player A compares to himself and Player E. He Gains 0 honor (5-5 = 0) and Loses 4 Honor (5-1 = 4) for a net of 4 honor loss

Player B compares to Player A and E. He gains 1 honor (5-4=1) and loses 3 honor (4-1=3) for a net of 2 honor loss.

Player C compares to Player A and E. He gains 2 honor (5-3=2) and loses 2 honor (3-1=2) for a net of 0 honor change

Player D compares to Player A and E. He gains 3 honor (5-2=3) and loses 1 honor (2-1=1) for a net of 2 honor gain

Player E compares to Player Player A and himself. He gains 4 honor (5-1=4) and loses 0 (1-1=0) for a net of 4 honor gain.

I see no reason why this shouldn't work

Or... it could be settled with a 6 sided dice!

The winner. Gains honor and draws a card the losers draw that many cards and lose honor. Viceaversa...

27 minutes ago, SavageTofu said:

For me, if there isn't a multiplayer option I typically don't play the game. If you don't understand it, you probably won't...

I feel much the same way, but I'll always have a certain affection for the setting and story itself. If there was one thing I loved about the CCG era (and Magic in its current form), it was that I could follow along with the story even when I wasn't able to play enough to justify buying packs. Much of the story under FFG will appear in fiction inserts included with product, but hopefully there will be some stories that appear on this site, even if they're more standalones or smaller vignettes.