Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
39 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Variants

Subject: Multiplayer rules? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As someone who missed out on the original, I've definitely wanted to get into this new iteration of the game, and watching all the footage from GenCon (including the tense Icebreaker tournament finale) has nearly sealed the deal for me.

Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group. I am aware of the Big Sellout variant (which sounds interesting, IMHO); how well does it translate to the new version of A:NR? Are any tweaks needed to make it serviceable?

What about a team game like Yu-Gi-Oh 1-vs-team formats? For example, if there were one Corp vs. 2 or more Runners - the Corp goes, then Runner 1, then the Corp, then Runner 2, then the Corp, etc.? Could this work (perhaps allowing Corp draw actions to net 1 card per runner, and letting it reshuffle the discard pile into its deck once per extra Runner)? Or are there just too many problems that would arise from this style of play?

Lastly, more a question for anyone in the know - has anyone heard of any plans to release official multiplayer variants?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Engel

Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
galathonredd wrote:
As someone who missed out on the original, I've definitely wanted to get into this new iteration of the game, and watching all the footage from GenCon (including the tense Icebreaker tournament finale) has nearly sealed the deal for me.

Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group. I am aware of the Big Sellout variant (which sounds interesting, IMHO); how well does it translate to the new version of A:NR? Are any tweaks needed to make it serviceable?

What about a team game like Yu-Gi-Oh 1-vs-team formats? For example, if there were one Corp vs. 2 or more Runners - the Corp goes, then Runner 1, then the Corp, then Runner 2, then the Corp, etc.? Could this work (perhaps allowing Corp draw actions to net 1 card per runner, and letting it reshuffle the discard pile into its deck once per extra Runner)? Or are there just too many problems that would arise from this style of play?

Lastly, more a question for anyone in the know - has anyone heard of any plans to release official multiplayer variants?


I was actually wondering about this too... one nice thing about MTG is how you can scale it fairly easily for multiple players. Netrunner seems like it would be a bit more difficult, though I could definitely see maybe a team-play option ala two-headed giant working fairly well. Multiple runners versus a powered-up corp seems like it could work too, but I'm not sure exactly how powered up. I've never played any incarnation of Netrunner, so I'm not sure what people have done in the past. =)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Meijer
Netherlands
The Hague
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
I haven't actually played it yet, (my copy should arrive in a week) but having read the rules, I feel that a multiple runners vs single corp should work.
I would love it if more experienced players could work out a balanced 3 or 4 player version.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Boeren
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
galathonredd wrote:
Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group.


I don't see what one has to do with the other. Are you saying that your group refuses to play any games unless EVERYONE can be in it at the same time?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Owens
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
dboeren wrote:
galathonredd wrote:
Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group.


I don't see what one has to do with the other. Are you saying that your group refuses to play any games unless EVERYONE can be in it at the same time?


I see what it has to do with the other. Every gaming group I have ever played in has this issue. If there is 4 people, most people don't want to do two 2player games. If there is 6, people either want a 6 or two 3s. It's the reason I barely get Summoner Wars played and I still haven't played some good 1v1 games that I'd like to try.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Big Head Zach
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
...and yet, every time a new multiplayer game comes out, there is the inevitable "I only play games with my spouse, why can't more games be 2-player" complaint.

Shit's confusing, yo.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
Every group is different.

A game being only 2 player, or only coop, or only 17 player, for that matter, limits who can enjoy it. Its not exactly silly to think that, if someone has 4 people over for a board game night, they want to play a 4 player game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
dboeren wrote:
galathonredd wrote:
Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group.


I don't see what one has to do with the other. Are you saying that your group refuses to play any games unless EVERYONE can be in it at the same time?


Bingo. I try, but if there's six of them, they refuse to break off. Occasionally, we'll get one or two to sit out, but separate groups for games seems like taboo to them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
galathonredd wrote:
Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group.


I have big game groups to. I would have to have a 50 person game be the only game we play in one meeting.

What is stopping you from playing someone else in the group before/after or when folks are doing other things?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
galathonredd wrote:
dboeren wrote:
galathonredd wrote:
Problem is, I won't get many opportunities to play the game as the intended 2-player experience - too big a game group.


I don't see what one has to do with the other. Are you saying that your group refuses to play any games unless EVERYONE can be in it at the same time?


Bingo. I try, but if there's six of them, they refuse to break off. Occasionally, we'll get one or two to sit out, but separate groups for games seems like taboo to them.


For some (myself included, at times), playing board games is simply an awesome excuse to spend time with friends, drink beer, and shoot the shit. Bigger groups engaged in the same activity are generally better at this than segmenting the groups.

This game is awesome - ive probably played 15 or so matches of it so far.
Will I play it 2 player when I can? Absolutely.
Would I love a multiplayer set of rules that lets me play it even more? Absolutely.

EDIT: Anyways, trying to get this thread back on track: I love the idea of a many runners against 1 corp sort of setup.

How would you do it? it couldnt be as simple as giving the Corp extra clicks/money. As a matter of fact, extra clicks would allow the corp to blaze through some agendas in 1 turn without it ever being vulnerable, and it doesnt matter if 1000 runners are going after it.

So maybe just extra money and cards each turn?

EDIT 2:

How about a rotating turn order like this(3 player as an example):

Corp > Runner 1 > Corp > Runner 2 > Corp > Runner 1 etc...

And cut down on everyones actions in one turn so that it moves faster. Say the corp gets 2 clicks a turn and +1 card for each runner beyond the first, and each runner gets 3 clicks a turn.

Thoughts?
2 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
reed makamson
United States
Vallejo
California
flag msg tools
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
This may be worth a look, but it's multiple corps versus multiple runners, with the odd one typically a corp(though not necessarily).

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/838165/multiplayer-n1-co...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
byronczimmer wrote:

What is stopping you from playing someone else in the group before/after or when folks are doing other things?


Carpool. Most of the time, they all arrive together. Very rarely do I get early arrivals - maybe once or twice a month - and even then it's usually two guys.

Guys - I appreciate the advice on how to get 2-player games played, but that wasn't the question. If it simply cannot work as a multi-player game, even with some creative tweaking, I'd be more interested than hearing that, and/or why, than suggestions I've already planned to try out to squeeze in 2-player games.

Still, thanks for all the speedy replies and opinions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
Saan wrote:

How about a rotating turn order like this(3 player as an example):

Corp > Runner 1 > Corp > Runner 2 > Corp > Runner 1 etc...

And cut down on everyones actions in one turn so that it moves faster. Say the corp gets 2 clicks a turn and +1 card for each runner beyond the first, and each runner gets 3 clicks a turn.

Thoughts?


THIS. I asked about something like this in the OP. Maybe this thread could turn into creative thoughts as to making it work, or reasons it wouldn't?

I thought giving the Corp in this scenario 1 card per runner with each draw action (and trash-pile reshuffles once per extra runner) could balance out the card advantage (if the Corp gets a turn every Runner turn, money wouldn't be such a problem, but I could be wrong). Is less clicks per turn per player feasible or necessary, though? Seems like, though turns would go faster, the whole game would go longer, as less gets done per turn.

Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Owens
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Official Multiplayer rules?
Sorry for swaying off topic, galathonredd. I think the getting 2 player games played in a group setting is a problem for some, not for other. My Wednesday game group usually has between 6 and 15 people at any given time, but in between games when everyone is lingering trying to decide what to play, throwing out the bait of a 2 player game rarely gets a fish in my experience.

But back on topic. It was suggested higher in the thread, but as Saan put it...

Saan wrote:
How about a rotating turn order like this(3 player as an example):

Corp > Runner 1 > Corp > Runner 2 > Corp > Runner 1 etc...


I've played classic and as of last night I've played the new version. Unfortunately due to the asymmetric nature of the game, you're going to be hard pressed having something like this work. Part of netrunner is how both sides see their infrastructure grow during the game. Early game netrunner differs from later game netrunner.

In the situation quoted above, the runners are getting the same number of clicks as the corp, but the runners can't pull on each others resources. The corp is getting much more clicks than any individual runner. So R1 may have a decoder and R2 may have a killer, but the corp has had enough time and resources to put a sentry and a code gate on each fort so each runner individually is screwed.

I guess someone could try and do modifications to actions or cards or the like, but it'll be tough to balance it correctly. For instance, drawing extra cards for extra runners. Drawing extra cards can potentially be a huge disadvantage for the corp, even with an allowed reshuffle of the archives into R&D just because the runners can run archives before it is shuffled. You could take away the runners ability to run archives, but that gives the corp a huge advantage (and also negates the criminal's most thematic card.)

I never played Big Sell Out (MP variant for classic NR), but IMO it looks like the only setup that could potentially work for multiplayer Netrunner.

Have no doubt, I love Netrunner. But adaptability to variants is one arena where MtG has the upper hand.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
reed makamson
United States
Vallejo
California
flag msg tools
malhaku wrote:

I guess someone could try and do modifications to actions or cards or the like, but it'll be tough to balance it correctly. For instance, drawing extra cards for extra runners. Drawing extra cards can potentially be a huge disadvantage for the corp, even with an allowed reshuffle of the archives into R&D just because the runners can run archives before it is shuffled. You could take away the runners ability to run archives, but that gives the corp a huge advantage (and also negates the criminal's most thematic card.)


I think you're on to something.

Reinterpet the corp actions:
click:install or play cards up to number of runners.
click:gain credits equal to number of runners.
click:draw cards up to number of runners.
click, 2 credits:trash a resource of every tagged runner.
3 clicks:purge all virus counters of all runners.

for any activated ability which costs an action, for each action spent, corp can choose to either draw cards or gain credits up to the number of runners, minus 1.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galathonredd wrote:
Saan wrote:

How about a rotating turn order like this(3 player as an example):

Corp > Runner 1 > Corp > Runner 2 > Corp > Runner 1 etc...

And cut down on everyones actions in one turn so that it moves faster. Say the corp gets 2 clicks a turn and +1 card for each runner beyond the first, and each runner gets 3 clicks a turn.

Thoughts?


THIS. I asked about something like this in the OP. Maybe this thread could turn into creative thoughts as to making it work, or reasons it wouldn't?

I thought giving the Corp in this scenario 1 card per runner with each draw action (and trash-pile reshuffles once per extra runner) could balance out the card advantage (if the Corp gets a turn every Runner turn, money wouldn't be such a problem, but I could be wrong). Is less clicks per turn per player feasible or necessary, though? Seems like, though turns would go faster, the whole game would go longer, as less gets done per turn.

Thoughts?


I dont think it is going to be simple to balance, and will take some playtesting (which I probably will mess around with this on the weekend), I think there are enough things that can be modified to make it work.

Here are a number of things that could easily be tweaked that could be used to balance the game:

Clicks/turn
Creds/turn
Draws/turn
Runner or corp hand size
Victory conditions (maybe runners need 9 to win, etc)?

The big problem with the corp is that he will have to deal with 2x/3x more potential threats. Unlike magics kill spells or counterspells, ice and icebreakers arent 1 shots and arent super easy to get rid of. Each runner deck having 1 different kind of icebreaker out is a huge headache, because, if the runners work together, will very easily have an answer to whatever you do, since they have 2x/3x the options.

This is why I think that the corp players actions should scale faster than the runners. Granted, icebreakers cost money, so that will still be a bottleneck just like in the 1v1 game.

Here is an idea - maybe the runners are not working cooperatively? Maybe the game ends when the runners, as a group, have acquired 9 agenda points, but at that point, the runner with the most agenda points wins?

EDIT: As far as the less clicks per turn making the game longer: Well, it would be more turns, but not nessecarily longer. Also, I think less downtime and more turns is better than the opposite.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In Yu-Gi-Oh team play (whether tag team or one-vs-many), teams usually shared play fields - what one player brought into play could be used by his teammates on their own turns, necessitating teamwork but balancing buildup advantages. They have their own decks, hands, and discard piles, but otherwise act as one many-headed entity against the opponent. So, back to A:NR, if one runner installed things or drew bits that any runner could use during their turn between Corp turns, would that alleviate the aforementioned Corp advantage?

Eliminating the need for Corp reshuffles seems easy, though; just change opening hands so that the Corp starts with extra card(s) per runner and each Runner one or two less card(s) per Runner (instead of having Corp draw extra cards per runner with each Draw action, which seems too powerful over the long run anyway), and/or make sure the Corp builds a bit larger deck.

Thoughts? We may be on to something here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galathonredd wrote:
In Yu-Gi-Oh team play (whether tag team or one-vs-many), teams usually shared play fields - what one player brought into play could be used by his teammates on their own turns, necessitating teamwork but balancing buildup advantages. They have their own decks, hands, and discard piles, but otherwise act as one many-headed entity against the opponent. So, back to A:NR, if one runner installed things or drew bits that any runner could use during their turn between Corp turns, would that alleviate the aforementioned Corp advantage?

Eliminating the need for Corp reshuffles seems easy, though; just change opening hands so that the Corp starts with extra card(s) per runner and each Runner one or two less card(s) per Runner (instead of having Corp draw extra cards per runner with each Draw action, which seems too powerful over the long run anyway), and/or make sure the Corp builds a bit larger deck.

Thoughts? We may be on to something here.


One way or the other, I dont see any way that shared play fields would work in netrunner - it would give the runners way too many options, and it wouldn't take long for the runners to have an answer to everything the corp could dish out. No amount of ice could deal with that fact.

Corp reshuffles don't seem like a big deal - if its needed, its easy to implement, just reshuffle all face up cards in the archives to form a new stack. I dont see that becoming too much of a problem (at least, as much as other stuff).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Saan wrote:


One way or the other, I dont see any way that shared play fields would work in netrunner - it would give the runners way too many options, and it wouldn't take long for the runners to have an answer to everything the corp could dish out. No amount of ice could deal with that fact.


Fair enough. I'll have to playtest it once I've got my hands on it and see how bad it is, and what kind of fixes might be implemented to overcome that. Maybe back to extra cards per Corp draw? Maybe one less Click per Runner? Perhaps just limiting their starting hands can help make Runner teams work harder to get their "answers to everything." It might not work, as you say, but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet - it's too good an idea to bury just yet.

Quote:
Corp reshuffles don't seem like a big deal - if its needed, its easy to implement, just reshuffle all face up cards in the archives to form a new stack.


Added to Good Ideas archive. Seems runners have no need for face-up discards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Work or no, the only way to find out is playtesting.

One thing is for certain - there is no way a corp could deal with combined runner turns or play areas. Your original idea for turn order will mitigate that, and give the corp player time to react to each runner. So thats in for sure.

Now, with 2p netrunner, the corp starts out vulnerable, but the game evens out as the game gets longer and more and more ice gets on the table.
With more runners, the amount of options they have at their disposal gets larger right at the start. If we didnt change anything, having a total of 15 or 10 cards in runners hands vs the 5 in the corp hand would make that initial runner advantage too great. You'd see runners getting off early runs and money cards that would seriously impact the corps ability to buckle down and build up a defense.

I think this weekend I will start out with the base rules, with only two changes:

1. The revised turn order
2. Game ends when Corp has 7 agenda points, or the combined total of all runners agenda points is 9. At that time, whichever runner has the most agenda points wins. If a tie, the person with the most leftover creds is the winner.


I'll start with that (which almost certainly isnt balanced) and go from there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Linnell
United States
Bedford
NH
flag msg tools
I really need a new badge, avatar, and overtext. GM me with any ideas....
badge
This is the seahorse valley
Avatar
mb
My stab at multiplayer rules would be a bit different:

Equal numbers of runners and corps.
Remove victory by decking the corp or flatlining the runner.
Game is played to 7 Agenda points, however, each runner must score at least one agenda from each corp.
Flatlined runners must skip a turn, or potentially lose previously scored agenda.

Of course, I've done none of the actual grunt work of trying this out and attempting to find balance, but I would expect that this gives a slight advantage to the runner - mostly due to the fact that the runner will be more likely to find a weak spot to exploit in order to gain "on a successful run" effects. On the other hand, the runners will be responsible for keeping all the corps in check - so just because they all got their agendas from Player X in the first turn doesn't mean that they can ignore him/her for the rest of the game. Also of consideration - how do tags and other effects on a player's game state interact with more than one player? Can Corp A utilize Corp B's tags? I'd lean towards no, but would vote that a virus on a peice of ICE lowers it's strength for all runners.

Second thought on Flatlines = Points for the corp doing the flatlining (or credits)

Any thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Owens
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Saan wrote:

2. Game ends when Corp has 7 agenda points, or the combined total of all runners agenda points is 9. At that time, whichever runner has the most agenda points wins. If a tie, the person with the most leftover creds is the winner.


If Runner A gets to 5 agenda points, what incentive is there for the other runners to continue playing?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malhaku wrote:
Saan wrote:

2. Game ends when Corp has 7 agenda points, or the combined total of all runners agenda points is 9. At that time, whichever runner has the most agenda points wins. If a tie, the person with the most leftover creds is the winner.


If Runner A gets to 5 agenda points, what incentive is there for the other runners to continue playing?


Many games would end with a more than 9 points total for the runner (I think).

If Runner A gets to 5 and runner B is at 2 or 3, then they could score a 2 or 3 to tie or win, depending. If its tied, maybe it should just keep going instead of creds breaking the tie.

Also, there should be a rule where you arent required to score an agenda that you access (if you hit a 1 you could maybe choose to not score it if it would lose you the game.

Also, the corp player would be encourange to play ice and such that would help against the leading runner - after all, if this runner wins, the corp does not.

Good point though - it is something to consider.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noah D

Arlington
Virginia
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I know you already stated you're not looking for suggestions on how to play it 2 player. But I will just throw out there... We used to have an absolute blast with the LoTR TCG doing a big old round robin tournament with 8 or so people. We'd even all chip in for a prize for first and second place.

Disregard if this is of no interest to you, but just a thought
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Drake
Spain
Burgos
Burgos
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I find in this page http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=203 a link of rules for the old version of Netrunner, maybe would be using in the new version too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.