Jump to content



Photo

House ruled multiplayer variants for original?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 AussieKSU

AussieKSU

    Member

  • Members
  • 101 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:08 PM

Some multiplayer variant in the future (under the assumption that the "core" rules are strictly 1v1 as the box suggests) would be welcomed by me. As Richard Garfield said in his interview, playing against some global deck didn't quite cut it, but alteast a multiplayer variant would be a nice addition. I know I'm getting well ahead of myself here! I read in another thread that house rules were made for a multiplayer variant, but nicely polished, published rules would be great. I can dream right?

 

With this in mind, did anyone devise a system for additional players that seemed to work well in the original Netrunner?



#2 AussieKSU

AussieKSU

    Member

  • Members
  • 101 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:09 PM

And I do mean by multiplayer as more than 2 people :D



#3 Mikko Leho

Mikko Leho

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:31 PM

 I remember trying a variant in which corp and runner joined forces against another pair of corp and runner. The pair that collected enough combined agenda points won the game. It did not really work as multiplayer because each player would have effectively only one opponent and interaction with your partner was non-existent.



#4 ChaosChild

ChaosChild

    Member

  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:31 AM

2 Corp players and 2 Runners? That way, everybody has 2 opponents. Not sure on the details, haven't seen the rules yet after all.



#5 Silnan

Silnan

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

 I'm kind of a fan of the "Big Sell-Out." (http://www.darkpact....BigSellOut.html) I'm wondering why that wouldn't work.



#6 DavidAnnable

DavidAnnable

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:25 PM

 As someone whose played The Big Sellout a number of times, I can attest to the fact that while it was fun, it was also deeply flawed.  Great for a relaxed boardgame night where you want to get everyone playing and it actually functions as a pretty decent way to teach the game to new players.

 

 



#7 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 05:13 PM

AussieKSU said:

And I do mean by multiplayer as more than 2 people :D

 

I remember playing everyone sitting in a circle, corp deck to the right, runner to the left, and simply running left. Combined score.

Main flaw is that only two people are acting at any one time, so there is a lot of downtime for the other players. That means its best to have something else happening which also has a lot of downtime (and players who are capable of mentally switching easily).

IIRC we were playing a lot of Jyhad (V-TES) at the same time, so the Netrunner games were a subgroup of the bigger Jyhad games.



#8 DavidAnnable

DavidAnnable

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 02:50 AM

Corbon said:

AussieKSU said:

IIRC we were playing a lot of Jyhad (V-TES)

 

Now there's another game I'd kill to have redone as a LCG.  Loved V-TES.

 

 



#9 wormhole surfer

wormhole surfer

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:57 AM

DavidAnnable said:

Corbon said:

 

AussieKSU said:

IIRC we were playing a lot of Jyhad (V-TES)

 

 

 

Now there's another game I'd kill to have redone as a LCG.  Loved V-TES.

 

 

 

the day it arrives then the most two briliant game will be resurect



#10 Messenger

Messenger

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:51 PM

Mikko Leho said:

 I remember trying a variant in which corp and runner joined forces against another pair of corp and runner. The pair that collected enough combined agenda points won the game. It did not really work as multiplayer because each player would have effectively only one opponent and interaction with your partner was non-existent.

I have a similar idea.
I think the key for more interaction between players here is to design and implement rules that allow members of a team to more directly work with or against each other, rather than just two Corp and Runner team working as completely aloof partners.
As far as one Corp deck is actually supposed to be competing with another Corp, why shouldn’t the Corp member of one team “sponsor” the Runner? For example, he could be allowed to provide an “allowance” (Click: transfer credits from the Corp’s pool to the Runner’s). Or, he could supply equipment (both hardware and software) and opportunities to the Runner (the Corp can pay a Click to let the Runner draw a card). Etc.
Similarly, I don’t think such reputable companies would want the public or competition to know they’re working with known outlaws (since all Runners are technically criminals and social rebels). Perhaps another rule can be implemented that allows the Corp from the opposing team to stop or punish such shady transactions (pay Credits: sponsoring Corp chooses 1: cancel the action or continues it but takes 1 Bad Publicity).
I figure similar rules can be applied for some direct Runner vs. Runner action as well. I’d imagine a Runner getting paid by a Corp wouldn’t mind disrupting an intruding rival’s run. It would be like hiring a hacker to do system security because he knows how it’s done.
The rules just have to be simple, balanced and appropriate to the game and setting.
And I apologize for the thread necro. I was going to propose the Corp w/ Runner vs. Corp w/ Runner format but searched first if it’d been discussed before. I found this thread and thought it’d be better to add to it.



#11 ODie

ODie

    Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:22 AM

Haven't seen any reason why The Big Sell-Out would not work any better / worse for A:NR than for Original NR. It does need more than four people to make it work well, otherwise you may as well play two "normal" games and combine match scores as a "team" play.

For a decent, rambling game that keeps a mob of players of Netrunner in a store amused all night, the variant works well, and I know some environments that preferred it to the original game.



#12 Huitzil37

Huitzil37

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:54 AM

Messenger said:

Mikko Leho said:

 

 I remember trying a variant in which corp and runner joined forces against another pair of corp and runner. The pair that collected enough combined agenda points won the game. It did not really work as multiplayer because each player would have effectively only one opponent and interaction with your partner was non-existent.

 

I have a similar idea.
I think the key for more interaction between players here is to design and implement rules that allow members of a team to more directly work with or against each other, rather than just two Corp and Runner team working as completely aloof partners.
As far as one Corp deck is actually supposed to be competing with another Corp, why shouldn’t the Corp member of one team “sponsor” the Runner? For example, he could be allowed to provide an “allowance” (Click: transfer credits from the Corp’s pool to the Runner’s). Or, he could supply equipment (both hardware and software) and opportunities to the Runner (the Corp can pay a Click to let the Runner draw a card). Etc.
Similarly, I don’t think such reputable companies would want the public or competition to know they’re working with known outlaws (since all Runners are technically criminals and social rebels). Perhaps another rule can be implemented that allows the Corp from the opposing team to stop or punish such shady transactions (pay Credits: sponsoring Corp chooses 1: cancel the action or continues it but takes 1 Bad Publicity).
I figure similar rules can be applied for some direct Runner vs. Runner action as well. I’d imagine a Runner getting paid by a Corp wouldn’t mind disrupting an intruding rival’s run. It would be like hiring a hacker to do system security because he knows how it’s done.
The rules just have to be simple, balanced and appropriate to the game and setting.
And I apologize for the thread necro. I was going to propose the Corp w/ Runner vs. Corp w/ Runner format but searched first if it’d been discussed before. I found this thread and thought it’d be better to add to it.

 

 

Uh, rules like this DO exist for The Big Sell-Out multiplayer variant. I don't know why people are saying there's no team interaction.

 

Under BSO rules, the Corp can spend an action/click to transfer any number of bits/credits to the Runner at a 1:2 ratio; the Runner can do the same but transfers at a punishing 3:1 ratio. The Runner resides on a central server (Human Resources) that the Corp protects with Ice, and opposing runners can run HR like they can HQ, Archives, or R&D; getting in allows them to tag the Runner, or pay the cost of one of their Programs to steal it. Runners can also temporarily rez Ice protecting HR by spending their own bits/credits. A runner who steals an Agenda can choose to give it to his Corp partner who immediately installs it in a data fort/server and can advance and score it as normal to benefit from its game text, which should be actually interesting in ANR since different factions have exclusive access to different agendas. And you play to 11 points, not "whoever gets the most". 

 

I posted a simplified version of the variant for boardgaming.com 's house rules section, where I changed money transfers to be 1:1 and only from corp to runner (the runner's money supply ultimately dictates what is or isn't going to happen while the corp's dictates how much the runner must spend to get what she wants, so transferring to the runner shouldn't be so super-efficient, and a 3:1 runner-> corp ratio is so punishing it may as well not be there), changed the benefit of successfully running HR from "pay a program's cost to steal it" to "pay a non-unique program or hardware's cost to trash it" since steal effects are way, way too cost-effective, made the optional "un-flatline a Runner" ability not optional and adjusted the cost to be in line with ANR's "forfeit an agenda" instead of "spend some agenda points", and cut some other minor stuff that I thought didn't add enough to justify the extra complexity introduced, but those are just tweaks, and all the team interaction is already there. The only thing I might add is one more direct way for the Runner to help the Corp other than "run Human Resources to stop the Runner messing with you", probably something that interacts with Archives, but I'm not sure what it'd be. 

 

Obviously, it isn't totally perfect -- some of the stuff you'd want a multiplayer variant to do, would have to come in the form of cards that interact with multiplayer instead of additions to the rules -- but I think it's more interactive than people give credit for.



#13 kaffis

kaffis

    Member

  • Members
  • 82 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:40 AM

Huitzil37 said:

Obviously, it isn't totally perfect -- some of the stuff you'd want a multiplayer variant to do, would have to come in the form of cards that interact with multiplayer instead of additions to the rules

Do I hear "The Big Sell-Out as a deluxe expansion" here? That'd be pretty awesome, actually.



#14 Gaztingo

Gaztingo

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:20 AM

  My friends and I played using the Big Sell Out rules for years with the original Netrunner, we can't wait to try them out with Android.

We used slightly modified versions as well along the lines of what Huitzil37 suggested. Trashing runner cards on a successful run. Varying bit exchanges rates (we tweaked those a lot not sure what we decided on.)

As for interaction it really felt like there was a decent amount of interaction as you and you runner / corp coordinated plans, protecting your runner giving them bits for run etc was all part of the fun / strategy.

And I also would love to see an officially supported expansion using these rules.



#15 Frizzler

Frizzler

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:47 AM

http://anr.phtn.de/formats/ANR_BigSellOut.pdf

This is a simplified, improved and tested variant of the aforementioned Big Sell Out.
Me and some friends already had some playing experience with the Big Sell Out, and after modifying some rules, we recently tested and discussed it again (with the original Netrunner).
Further playtest with Android:Netrunner is necessary.
If you played this variant with four (or six or eight…) players, please post any comments and suggestions in this thread.

SeeYa, Frizzler

 



#16 Lindorm

Lindorm

    Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 06:53 AM

If V:tES became an LCG, I'd buy into it for true.  Unfortunately white-wolf pulled the support.  I've kept five playable decks in case friends wanna come around and feel nostalgic.

 

As for a multi-player format (2v2) for Netrunner, a friend and I wanna start developing rules for Corperate Sponsored Runner.  The Corp. gets an option to to use a click/action to move money down to the runner, the runner, when scoring an Agenda allows the corp to "activate" the effect and gain the benefit it provides.  I think this idea could work. Just gotta work out "how much" can the Corp back their runner with 1 click.  Perhaps the runner, after scoring an agenda can spend a click to send the file to corp so that they can access the benefit?



#17 Lindorm

Lindorm

    Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 07:08 AM

I just read the Big Sell Out variant and with some slight tweaking and play-testing, I think it's very playable and would prove to be a lot of fun. 



#18 Todbog

Todbog

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

Has anyone tried rules pertaining to a lopsided versus match?  1 corporation vs 2 runner groups would be an intriguing prospect.  Modify corp actions to ensure they can keep up in the arms race but allow the versatility of the runners to give them an advantage.  Make those games where you have an odd number of players a bit more fun.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS