Was thinking about how well multiplayer will fit in with the known mechanics of the game and I do admit that it has a lot of potential. Furthermore, some Clans might have a definitive advantage than others in this department, which will tweak the hierarchy of Clan 'strengths and abilities.'
What are your thoughts regarding multiplayer games?
Well, one way to do it is as follows:
- You compare your bid for card draw with the player of your choice, before revealing obviously.
- For attacking there are multiple avenues to explore. You can only attack the player to the right to prevent pile-ups, or, alternatively, as Right Hand of the Emperor is military those conflicts can only go to the right, Left Hand of the Emperor is political, so that's the direction for that type.
The two biggest problems with multiplayer L5R LCG are:
The first and obvious solution is to do something like magic's '2-headed' format, where you have players working in 2 teams. Each 'alliance' has 1 honour pool and bidding at the start of the turn. The players either split the card draw, or both draw the same number of cards (I find the first more amusing). Both sides stay in play until one or both Strongholds are broken (depending on whether you want a longer or shorter game).
What would I do about them in a more general multiplayer free-for-all? To prevent elimination, I'd probably do something to 'dishonour' and 'military' victory conditions, so that there is a winning effect but no losing effect. So, something like if you cause an honour loss to someone with 1 Honour, instead gain that much Honour and if you break a stronghold province, don't eliminate the other person from play, but gain 5 honour.
I'd probably also institute something like Jyhad's predator-prey thing - only attack to the left, or possibly just your neighbours. Alternatively, get some sort of system like GoT2 where your 'enemies' change from round to round.
The card draw has had many bits spent on discussion already. My suspicion is that you need to do something clever with who you do comparisons with. If you'r already setting up limited targets for attacks, make the honour comparison with them.
Well, that was a bunch of thoughts!
12 minutes ago, Doji Namika said:Well, one way to do it is as follows:
- You compare your bid for card draw with the player of your choice, before revealing obviously.
- For attacking there are multiple avenues to explore. You can only attack the player to the right to prevent pile-ups, or, alternatively, as Right Hand of the Emperor is military those conflicts can only go to the right, Left Hand of the Emperor is political, so that's the direction for that type.
I like that idea about military -> right and political -> left 
3 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:I like that idea about military -> right and political -> left
Just pray you aren't sat with a lion on your left and a crane on your right!
Seems like claiming Rings will be tricky in multiplayer. Currently 2 players each get a shot at two rings. In multiplayer you'll run out of rings to claim befor you run out of conflicts.
12 minutes ago, Fumo said:Just pray you aren't sat with a lion on your left and a crane on your right!
Seems like claiming Rings will be tricky in multiplayer. Currently 2 players each get a shot at two rings. In multiplayer you'll run out of rings to claim befor you run out of conflicts.
That's where limiting who you can attack comes in. That way you don't come across the situation of running out. Of course the Rings are a limit in and of themselves. What if you can only declare a conflict against a player for a ring that both Attacker and Defender still have unclaimed, and you can only claim a given ring only once?
That should spread the attacks and rings out over all the players, no?
Edited by Doji Namika
As much as I did enjoy the old huge multiplayer games they did take a while so I really wouldn't be terribly upset if this ends up not having it. Besides after you've played a full clan table and a Scorpion player plays 3-4 Breachs on turn 1, you just aren't the same anymore.
4 minutes ago, Kakita Katai said:As much as I did enjoy the old huge multiplayer games they did take a while so I really wouldn't be terribly upset if this ends up not having it. Besides after you've played a full clan table and a Scorpion player plays 3-4 Breachs on turn 1, you just aren't the same anymore.
If a Scorpion player plays 4 Breaches on turn 1, I'd quite happily call for him to be disqualified with an invalid deck!!
I would make a over powerful bad guy faction and have the other players fight him. The bad guy gets more fate per turn, more provinces, more conflicts to declare, etc.
3 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:If a Scorpion player plays 4 Breaches on turn 1, I'd quite happily call for him to be disqualified with an invalid deck!!
Hey it has been a while. I remember he drew them all. And I quit in Gold so my memory of deck construction is hazy.
On 7/3/2017 at 2:48 PM, LordBlunt said:Was thinking about how well multiplayer will fit in with the known mechanics of the game and I do admit that it has a lot of potential.
this is like, the opposite of what i think the general opinion is right now. the honor dial all but has "two player only" engraved on the bottom. the only way i can see multiplayer coming back is via special modes of play like siege for old5r. which is fine by me. the old style "everyone in" multiplayer was extremely slow, and it only took one cranky player at the table for things to go sideways.
Perhaps they can make how many cards each clan can draw static. List it to a multiplayer stronghold. Clans like Lion draw less while Scorpion can draw more.
Lower clan starting honor and the amount of honor needed for a honor win.
2 hours ago, cielago said:this is like, the opposite of what i think the general opinion is right now. the honor dial all but has "two player only" engraved on the bottom. the only way i can see multiplayer coming back is via special modes of play like siege for old5r. which is fine by me. the old style "everyone in" multiplayer was extremely slow, and it only took one cranky player at the table for things to go sideways.
I was basing my thoughts on the matter of multi-player mostly on the few cards that have hinted multiplayer capabilities. I think Perfect Gift was one of them.
55 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:I was basing my thoughts on the matter of multi-player mostly on the few cards that have hinted multiplayer capabilities. I think Perfect Gift was one of them.
i don't think ambiguous wording (using "each" instead of "both" which is whats going on in Perfect Gift) trumps the actual fact that the honor dial system doesn't work with more than 2 players.
11 minutes ago, cielago said:i don't think ambiguous wording (using "each" instead of "both" which is whats going on in Perfect Gift) trumps the actual fact that the honor dial system doesn't work with more than 2 players.
Oh, I am not saying that any wording on any given card trumps the honor dial. There are a few cards that do however hint at multiplayer or more than 1 v 1 player games, given that the effects/actions on those given cards indicate that all players (plural) are effected by means of said action/effect.
13 hours ago, cielago said:this is like, the opposite of what i think the general opinion is right now. the honor dial all but has "two player only" engraved on the bottom. the only way i can see multiplayer coming back is via special modes of play like siege for old5r. which is fine by me. the old style "everyone in" multiplayer was extremely slow, and it only took one cranky player at the table for things to go sideways.
I'm not seeing why the honor dial makes this a two-player game. It just means you can only compare with one other player.
In a multiplayer game you could even create more depth by having each player pick the person they wish to compare with after setting the dial but before revealing.
2 minutes ago, Doji Namika said:In a multiplayer game you could even create more depth by having each player pick the person they wish to compare with after setting the dial but before revealing.
How would you do if there are five players?
21 minutes ago, Ser Nakata said:How would you do if there are five players?
Well, one way of doing it is without restrictions, everyone picks somebody, so one player can compare with multiple other players. Net all the gains/losses, redistribute honor.
Can get extreme if you bid 5 and the four other players pick you while bidding 1. I have no problem with that. If you were that obvious that everyone else saw that coming you deserve what you get ;-)
Alternatively, player who had the first player token picks someone first, go round the table and players can only pick a player if they haven't been picked yet and their choice must be another unpicked player, unless everyone has already been picked, of course. In such a case, the player who has been picked twice compares with two players and as before, net honor gains/losses and redistribute.
For example, player bids 3, compares to a 5 and 1. His honor is unchanged as he gains 2 from the player who bid 5 and pays it to the player who bids 1.
Edited by Doji NamikaThe biggest problem I have ever run into in Multiplayer is someone trying to use their tuned one-v-one deck. Multiplayer is a different game, and requires its own deck build.
As for card draw, here are a couple of options:
A - Player 1 declares attack against Player 3 - Only they are involved in Card Draw (and honor bidding), but can both ask for Allies in the conflict.
B - Player 1 declares attack against Player 3 & both ask for allies. Player 2 joins player 1 & Players 4 & 5 join Player 3. Total the Honor bids from 1 + 2 against 3 + 4 + 5 - With the honor cost split between the Allies (with any odd counts going to the initial combatants)
Example:
Player 1 bids 1 & Player 2 bids 2 = 3 TOTAL
Player 3 bids 3 & Player 4 bids 4 & Player 5 bids 5 = 12 TOTAL
12 - 3 = 9 / 3 = 3 {} Cost 3 Honor Each for Players 3, 4, + 5 While Player 1 gets 5 Honor & Player 2 gets 4 Honor
Or:
Player 1 bids 5 & Player 2 bids 4 = 9 TOTAL
Player 3 bids 3 & Player 4 bids 2 & Player 5 bids 1 = 6 TOTAL
9-6 = 3 / 2 {} Cost Player 1 2-Honor & Player 2 1-Honor While Players 3,4,+5 each get 1 Honor
3 hours ago, Doji Namika said:
I'm not seeing why the honor dial makes this a two-player game. It just means you can only compare with one other player.
In a multiplayer game you could even create more depth by having each player pick the person they wish to compare with after setting the dial but before revealing.
this is an insane stretch of the mechanic, and clearly not how it was designed. it would create a host of lopsided situations. not that NPEs ever prevented traditional multiplayer from being beloved, but in this case the intent behind the dial is clearly head to head. stuffing extra bodies into it makes no more sense than trying to hodgepodge an extra player into a duel.
there are legitimate ways to make multiplayer work, but just jamming more people into a 2 player setup isn't a sensible way to do it.
9 hours ago, cielago said:there are legitimate ways to make multiplayer work, but just jamming more people into a 2 player setup isn't a sensible way to do it.
How would you do it?
If the bidding system were to work for 3+, I could only see it as the highest bid pays honor to the lowest bid, and the mid-bid basically gets a freebie draw. This keeps some of the tension of bidding as thinking someone may bid high may tempt you to bid a bit higher to steal free cards, but then again everyone may bid 1 thinking "If anyone is getting free honor, it's me" If 2 people bid just 1 split the honor between them, and give the extra honor to whichever of them is more honorable at that moment (or some turn order mechanic)
I'm not sure how well the bidding system would work straight across or if any changes would need to be made - but it is a point of interest that must be visited in looking to multiplayer games.
The biggest issue is having a more unified win condition that isn't player removal. Honor kind of does this, but not every clan is going to want to bid low to maintain honor just to win a multiplayer game. Nor is every clan going to do their best to save honor... I wonder if some other points system may be put in place which isn't difficult to track or retrace but lets the game end when 1 player is eliminated through any means with a clear winner rather than letting the game drag on.
Edited by shosukoIF I were to play multilayer, I'd ignore the bid system for card draw and just have each player draw 3 cards each turn OR each player draws 1 card each turn and pays 1 honor per additional card to the honor pool.
22 hours ago, Ide Yoshiya said:How would you do it?
my guess is they do something like Siege, many vs shadowlands. the individual players bid the same, and only the shadowlands player has a unique mechanic. restricts the amount of new mechanics they have to introduce.
18 hours ago, HirumaShigure said:IF I were to play multilayer, I'd ignore the bid system for card draw and just have each player draw 3 cards each turn OR each player draws 1 card each turn and pays 1 honor per additional card to the honor pool.
Now that is along the lines of functional. Great suggestion.