I understand your points I think, but is using L5R decks really the best way to handle this sort of experience? Wouldn't it be better to play something like GoT the board game, or if FFG put out an L5R board game where people vie for control of the empire? War of Honor only was fun if you didn't mess with the original decks, since it was too easy to break the game otherwise. The game isn't really balanced around this sort of thing, which I personally don't find fun, since usually that removes any interesting use of skill (to me) and leaves it up to either chance or forgone conclusion.

That being said, I hope they are working on a military strategy style board game.

1 minute ago, Mirith said:

I understand your points I think, but is using L5R decks really the best way to handle this sort of experience? Wouldn't it be better to play something like GoT the board game, or if FFG put out an L5R board game where people vie for control of the empire? War of Honor only was fun if you didn't mess with the original decks, since it was too easy to break the game otherwise. The game isn't really balanced around this sort of thing, which I personally don't find fun, since usually that removes any interesting use of skill (to me) and leaves it up to either chance or forgone conclusion.

That being said, I hope they are working on a military strategy style board game.

Ikusa on a map of Rokugan?

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Ikusa on a map of Rokugan?

Sure (I've never played Ikusa but have heard good things), or something similar as the GoT board game (Which I feel is an excellent game, and honestly it wouldn't be hard to just reskin it to L5R). I would hope for something different since I personally would rather a new game than a reskin.

Just play Rising Sun when it comes out for a board game alternative! I can't imagine FFG would spend time making a board game with Rising Sun coming out (I could most certainly be wrong though).

I was looking forward to a reasonable multiplayer option since AGoT melee is one of my favorite games to play, but I don't see that happening. I agree with Sparks and think L5R multiplayer was terrible. People gang up on you, you're out and you watch for the next 2 hours . . . I'd rather just play 1v1 and rotate.

20 hours ago, Mirith said:

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

That's the only way I ever played much. Two player games were a sort of weird thing that the tournament folks did. When we got together to play we did it in groups.

34 minutes ago, The Laughing Monk said:

Just play Rising Sun when it comes out for a board game alternative! I can't imagine FFG would spend time making a board game with Rising Sun coming out (I could most certainly be wrong though).

I was looking forward to a reasonable multiplayer option since AGoT melee is one of my favorite games to play, but I don't see that happening. I agree with Sparks and think L5R multiplayer was terrible. People gang up on you, you're out and you watch for the next 2 hours . . . I'd rather just play 1v1 and rotate.

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.

I'm hoping that FFG decides to leverage L5R for a miniatures boardgame for more multiplayer fun.

5 minutes ago, Tyrrell said:

That's the only way I ever played much. Two player games were a sort of weird thing that the tournament folks did. When we got together to play we did it in groups.

I mainly played for the tournaments. I think the L5R tourney players are the right collection of competitive and courteous and helpful to make it fun and interesting, unlike other games where you played against some really impolite people at the higher ends of competition.

28 minutes ago, 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.

That sounds like it at least warrants a homebrew test.

Actually the only thing which needs to be handled is the card draw mechanic with the honor dial.

My suggestion is that each player compares with the next person in turn order.

Apart from that I don'T think any more specific multiplayer rules are needed.

My suggestion for the honor dial draw in MP would be slightly different, but still simple. It would work like in single player, except instead of paying honor to the other players, it's paid into/from the pool. So, say player A bids the highest, at 5, player B goes for 3, and player C for 2. Player A loses 3 honor to the pool (his 5 - the lowest bid, 2, from player C). Player B takes 2 from the pool, and player C takes 3 - in both cases, the difference between their bid and the high bid. The numbers work out exactly the same for the high and low bid, with the intermediate bids getting some, but not all, of the benefit of being beneath the highest bid.

That could work.

Alternatively you could copy directly from aGoT: have 6 role cards (Imperial advisor, shogun, etc) each one determines the number of cards your draw and the amount of honour you gain/loss, and in turn order you choose the role you want.

9 minutes ago, Dahawi said:

That could work.

Alternatively you could copy directly from aGoT: have 6 role cards (Imperial advisor, shogun, etc) each one determines the number of cards your draw and the amount of honour you gain/loss, and in turn order you choose the role you want.

Part of the advantage of a bidding system is that card draw/honor change is relative. If two decks both want to draw a lot of cards, neither will lose much honor. With the system proposed, presumably higher card draw would equate to honor loss, regardless of what your opponents pick.

Additionally, the honor change is zero-sum in 2 player. That would probably want to be maintained in multiplayer (although balance concerns may trump this).

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

Actually the only thing which needs to be handled is the card draw mechanic with the honor dial.

My suggestion is that each player compares with the next person in turn order.

Apart from that I don'T think any more specific multiplayer rules are needed.

I don't think this would work. Here is an example of why...

Player A picks 0 cards. Player B picks 5 cards. Player C picks 0 cards. They compare in order.

Player A compares to player B and gets 5 honor and 0 cards.

Player B compares to player C and loses 5 honor but draws 5 cards.

Player C compares to player A and gains no honor or cards.

This would leave player C at a major disadvantage for that round.

44 minutes ago, TechnoGolem said:

I don't think this would work. Here is an example of why...

Player A picks 0 cards. Player B picks 5 cards. Player C picks 0 cards. They compare in order.

Player A compares to player B and gets 5 honor and 0 cards.

Player B compares to player C and loses 5 honor but draws 5 cards.

Player C compares to player A and gains no honor or cards.

This would leave player C at a major disadvantage for that round.

Well technically you can't pick 0. 1 is the minimum.

Second, you exchange honor. Player B looses 4 honor twice and player A and C will gain 4 honor.

Assuming A and C picked 1 and B picked 5.

Edit: However... I realize that would double the honor movement you receive. So probably the honor scale would need to be doubled.

15 hours ago, Yandia said:

Well technically you can't pick 0. 1 is the minimum.

Second, you exchange honor. Player B looses 4 honor twice and player A and C will gain 4 honor.

Assuming A and C picked 1 and B picked 5.

Edit: However... I realize that would double the honor movement you receive. So probably the honor scale would need to be doubled.

Okay now it sounds like you are comparing everyone to each other instead comparing them to the person next to you in a clockwise fashion. That would really slow down the game and just make it clunky.

6 hours ago, TechnoGolem said:

Okay now it sounds like you are comparing everyone to each other instead comparing them to the person next to you in a clockwise fashion. That would really slow down the game and just make it clunky.

Well, the example has only three parties, so of course everybody compares there with everyone, since your two eighbours at the table are all the players there are around. if the group gets larger you still would only compare to the ones to your side and thus it would no longer be everybody. But yes, I adgree the approach seems somewhat flawed.

On 4/21/2017 at 10:34 AM, Tyrrell said:

That's the only way I ever played much. Two player games were a sort of weird thing that the tournament folks did. When we got together to play we did it in groups.

I think it's funny how you describe a 2 player game as being weird to play as a 2 player game.

I think a more viable alternative to multiplayer would be team play. 2v2 or 3v3 etc. This way you would be able to pool your teams honor bids.

Wouldn't it just be easier to switch the the Bid mechanic in multi player to a flat draw , perhaps in a scaling fashion so 1 card/0 honor on turn 1 5/4 on turn 5,( to a set total 5/5?) this would start multiplayer off slow and escalate it so that you wont ever really end up in that deadlock where the game never ends. Just not sure how dishonoring out your opponent would work so that may mess it up.

Alternatively you can just scale the draw, and introduce another way to get honor, like sending supporting cards to an ally

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!

2 minutes 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!

Another reason why I think it's just plain better to play 1v1 with each person coming over for games. Everyone is playing and having a good time.

I completely agree. I was just hoping for a multiplayer option to alternate games with my AGoT group!! We play melee once a month. I must find a way to bring them in . . .

To be honest I have total confidence that Nate French can give us an interesting multiplayer variant if he sets his mind to it...

On 4/20/2017 at 2:30 PM, Wintersong said:

Reading all the articles, so far only the drawing-honor mechanic seems a bit against multiplayer. Everything else seems fine to me. Maybe eventually they will develop/publish some multiplayer rules. Other players will certainly offer their own options long before that happens.

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?