I rarely play multiplayer, but some friends have scheduled a session in a couple of weeks. I wondered if anyone have any good house rules to help mitigate a main drawback of multiplayer magic: When a player is eliminated, he may end up having to sit around for hours without getting to play while the rest of the players finish the game.
We tried a version that had the game end when the first player died, and whoever had the highest lifetotal at that point was the winner. This obviously removes the problem entirely, but it also drags the game out as often the player who is able to take out someone else is not the person with the highest life total, or they are afraid that another player with open mana may play a burn-spell/lifegain to win. So the game just stalls forever.
When a player is eliminated, he may end up having to sit around for hours without getting to play while the rest of the players finish the game.
Has that been a recurring problem for you? I've been playing multiplayer Magic of every size, format and power-levels for over a decade and I've rarely encountered this scenario. Unless this has consistently ruined your previous play sessions I don't see a compelling reason to worry about it. I'm not saying that this "can't happen" or anything but it's not the average use-case from what I've experienced.
How long does your games typically last? In my experience, there are a few games that last a few tens of minutes, but most of the time, multiplayer magic is a "one per evening" type of event.
How long does your games typically last? In my experience, there are a few games that last a few tens of minutes, but most of the time, multiplayer magic is a "one per evening" type of event.
Eh, I doubt that my average game duration is going to provide you with any meaningful information. If your games run long then your games run long and that's all there is to it. The reality is that there's no easy answer to your question because it's extremely subjective in nature. Things can sometimes go awry when there's a massive difference in card quality which can lead to early exists in otherwise protracted games. All I can say is that even when I was playing janky 100 card singleton decks with my brothers and friends a decade ago we rarely ran into the problem if having people dying a couple of turns into a 2 hour game. Games are usually slow because no one wants to do anything (especially make enemies) and even when a player is lagging people people usually ignore them out of sympathy (or some other emotion). Not everyone nor every time but more often than not people won't deliver the killing blow early on. If you're newish to the multiplayer scene I strongly encourage you to play the game "as is" unless that proves to be problematic on a consistent basis. The reality is that house rules create a whole host of problems of their own and typically incentivize the wrong things. Unless you're desperate for a solution I don't see a compelling reason to employ them. After all, EDH is arguably the most successful casual format of all time and to the best of my knowledge this has never proven to be a major rules concern. As such there's reasonable evidence to suggest that multiplayer formats are naturally self-correcting and capable of creating fun and interactive games of Magic despite the looming threat of players dropping out early on.
I played an Casual form of Two-Headed giant for years out of that exact fear (Is Two Headed Giant even still a thing anymore?) One day I decided to try multiplayer. My first game stretched out for about two hours (long enough for Coraline to start and end) and it wasn't half bad. I got knocked out early and it just felt like a D&D campaign. Watched the game, Coraline, made a quick run to Jack in the Box, chatted. The remaining players got tired and everyone withdrew.
I don't think I felt bored because everyone continued to interact with each other.
Smaller tables help.
Playing with four per table keeps downtime lower in my experience.
At five or more the games last longer and can take quite a while to end when one person gets defeated in the early game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In magic there's Harry Dresden, Fizban, Sethra Lavode, Dorotea Senjak and me...
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
The others already made good suggestions. Playing team formats like Two Headed Giant (4 Players), Traitor (5 Players) or Emperor (6 Players) helps to decrease downtime.
We tried a version that had the game end when the first player died, and whoever had the highest lifetotal at that point was the winner. This obviously removes the problem entirely, but it also drags the game out as often the player who is able to take out someone else is not the person with the highest life total, or they are afraid that another player with open mana may play a burn-spell/lifegain to win. So the game just stalls forever.
Any better suggestions?
We play a similar variant we call "King of the Hill". The game is finsihed when one player is killed by another, so the first kill ends the game. However, you are not allowed to target or attack every player but only the "King". At the beginning of each players turn the King is the player with the most life. If you are the King, then you can treat the player with the second highest life as king (other player still have to treat you as king). If two players have the same amount of life, they are both targets. Only the king can be target of spell with a single target that is a win condition (damage, loss of life, mill). Only the king may be attacked. Global spells stay global and you can win by kiling the weakest player with e.g. Breath of Malfegor even if that player is not king. Permanents on the other hand can be targeted freely.
In this variant all players usually go low on life until someone can pull a win in mid- or lategame.
The others already made good suggestions. Playing team formats like Two Headed Giant (4 Players), Traitor (5 Players) or Emperor (6 Players) helps to decrease downtime.
I couldn't disagree more with the Emperor suggestion. From my experience Emperor games always take way longer than typical FFA games. It usually boils down to two 1v1 games on the outsides giving the Emperors time to build up a massive defense.
It sounds like the original poster has a group of people that are all taking decks, intended to be played 1v1, into a multiplayer game. I've seen this issue a number of times before with new players starting out in my playgroup that have never done true multiplayer FFA games before.
A perfect example is someone that's playing a mono red burn deck for the first time in multiplayer. They know they have enough damage to kill off a single person before top decking starts so they figure, sure why not, I'll kill at least one person before I run out of cards. So they end up only targeting one out of the 3+ other players so they feel like they accomplished something in the game. That kind of "pick on one person" mentality can lead to unfun games when it comes to multiplayer, especially if you're on the receiving end. Then the targeted person gets killed off super early and has to sit there and wait.
You can help to avoid situations like that by playing more multiplayer friendly cards that damage or effect "each opponent" instead of just one. Cards like Guttersnipe, Blood Tithe, Crackling Doom, Liliana's Specter or Grasp of Fate. That way people tend to die at the same rate and the people that get killed off early don't have to wait around as long.
You can help to avoid situations like that by playing more multiplayer friendly cards that damage or effect "each opponent" instead of just one. Cards like Guttersnipe, Blood Tithe, Crackling Doom, Liliana's Specter or Grasp of Fate. That way people tend to die at the same rate and the people that get killed off early don't have to wait around as long.
That works if everyone plays with those kinds of cards but it won't prevent that monored player showing up with the only deck that he/she owns.
We typically get through 2 to 5 games in a night.
Depends on the decks, experience & turn length of the players and of course how pissed we are.
For the times where we're down to the last 2 or 3 players, if it seems there's some kind of stalemate happening, usually the players forced out will call "bull*****" and demand a new game. It's kind of a house rule we abide by to keep everyone happy, given we often have varying deck power levels.
If you're after a game to play when you're waiting for others to finish - I usually pack a deck of Exploding Kittens.
I've defiantly had this problem. Dying and then watching the next person obliterate the board is not fun. I've been on the receiving end and sat around for 2 hours.
If we have 5 people we play star
If there is an even number of expel we play teams (combined life totals)
These are the most fun.
I've also played attack to the left. This needs to a very fast aggressive format.
Also played the first to take down 2 players wins. But this can lead to people sniping wins with an instant speed light lot.
I couldn't disagree more with the Emperor suggestion. From my experience Emperor games always take way longer than typical FFA games. It usually boils down to two 1v1 games on the outsides giving the Emperors time to build up a massive defense.
Interesting. Maybe decks are different, maybe house rules are different. We play with spell range two, as soon as one lieutenant is dead you can attack the emperor from that side and all players in one team play the same time like in Two-Headed Giant. When one or two lieutnants are killed, game usually doesn't take very long after that in our meta.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I rarely play multiplayer, but some friends have scheduled a session in a couple of weeks. I wondered if anyone have any good house rules to help mitigate a main drawback of multiplayer magic: When a player is eliminated, he may end up having to sit around for hours without getting to play while the rest of the players finish the game.
We tried a version that had the game end when the first player died, and whoever had the highest lifetotal at that point was the winner. This obviously removes the problem entirely, but it also drags the game out as often the player who is able to take out someone else is not the person with the highest life total, or they are afraid that another player with open mana may play a burn-spell/lifegain to win. So the game just stalls forever.
Any better suggestions?
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
Has that been a recurring problem for you? I've been playing multiplayer Magic of every size, format and power-levels for over a decade and I've rarely encountered this scenario. Unless this has consistently ruined your previous play sessions I don't see a compelling reason to worry about it. I'm not saying that this "can't happen" or anything but it's not the average use-case from what I've experienced.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
Eh, I doubt that my average game duration is going to provide you with any meaningful information. If your games run long then your games run long and that's all there is to it. The reality is that there's no easy answer to your question because it's extremely subjective in nature. Things can sometimes go awry when there's a massive difference in card quality which can lead to early exists in otherwise protracted games. All I can say is that even when I was playing janky 100 card singleton decks with my brothers and friends a decade ago we rarely ran into the problem if having people dying a couple of turns into a 2 hour game. Games are usually slow because no one wants to do anything (especially make enemies) and even when a player is lagging people people usually ignore them out of sympathy (or some other emotion). Not everyone nor every time but more often than not people won't deliver the killing blow early on. If you're newish to the multiplayer scene I strongly encourage you to play the game "as is" unless that proves to be problematic on a consistent basis. The reality is that house rules create a whole host of problems of their own and typically incentivize the wrong things. Unless you're desperate for a solution I don't see a compelling reason to employ them. After all, EDH is arguably the most successful casual format of all time and to the best of my knowledge this has never proven to be a major rules concern. As such there's reasonable evidence to suggest that multiplayer formats are naturally self-correcting and capable of creating fun and interactive games of Magic despite the looming threat of players dropping out early on.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
So in your experience, when the game "starts to end" it all ends rather quickly?
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
I don't think I felt bored because everyone continued to interact with each other.
Playing with four per table keeps downtime lower in my experience.
At five or more the games last longer and can take quite a while to end when one person gets defeated in the early game.
My meta: 3 or 4 player free for all, anything goes but boring games or broken decks cause a vote to end that game.
We play a similar variant we call "King of the Hill". The game is finsihed when one player is killed by another, so the first kill ends the game. However, you are not allowed to target or attack every player but only the "King". At the beginning of each players turn the King is the player with the most life. If you are the King, then you can treat the player with the second highest life as king (other player still have to treat you as king). If two players have the same amount of life, they are both targets. Only the king can be target of spell with a single target that is a win condition (damage, loss of life, mill). Only the king may be attacked. Global spells stay global and you can win by kiling the weakest player with e.g. Breath of Malfegor even if that player is not king. Permanents on the other hand can be targeted freely.
In this variant all players usually go low on life until someone can pull a win in mid- or lategame.
I couldn't disagree more with the Emperor suggestion. From my experience Emperor games always take way longer than typical FFA games. It usually boils down to two 1v1 games on the outsides giving the Emperors time to build up a massive defense.
It sounds like the original poster has a group of people that are all taking decks, intended to be played 1v1, into a multiplayer game. I've seen this issue a number of times before with new players starting out in my playgroup that have never done true multiplayer FFA games before.
A perfect example is someone that's playing a mono red burn deck for the first time in multiplayer. They know they have enough damage to kill off a single person before top decking starts so they figure, sure why not, I'll kill at least one person before I run out of cards. So they end up only targeting one out of the 3+ other players so they feel like they accomplished something in the game. That kind of "pick on one person" mentality can lead to unfun games when it comes to multiplayer, especially if you're on the receiving end. Then the targeted person gets killed off super early and has to sit there and wait.
You can help to avoid situations like that by playing more multiplayer friendly cards that damage or effect "each opponent" instead of just one. Cards like Guttersnipe, Blood Tithe, Crackling Doom, Liliana's Specter or Grasp of Fate. That way people tend to die at the same rate and the people that get killed off early don't have to wait around as long.
That works if everyone plays with those kinds of cards but it won't prevent that monored player showing up with the only deck that he/she owns.
Guilds of Ravnica - Commander 2018 - Core 2019 - Battlebond - Dominaria - Rivals of Ixalan - Ixalan - Commander 2017 - Hour of Devastation - Amonket - Aether Revolt - Commander 2016 - Kaladesh - Conspiracy 2 - Eldritch Moon - Shadows Over Innistrad - Oath of the Gatewatch - Commander 2015 - Battle for Zendikar - Magic Origins - Dragons of Tarkir
Green - Blue - Red - White - Gold
Depends on the decks, experience & turn length of the players and of course how pissed we are.
For the times where we're down to the last 2 or 3 players, if it seems there's some kind of stalemate happening, usually the players forced out will call "bull*****" and demand a new game. It's kind of a house rule we abide by to keep everyone happy, given we often have varying deck power levels.
If you're after a game to play when you're waiting for others to finish - I usually pack a deck of Exploding Kittens.
If we have 5 people we play star
If there is an even number of expel we play teams (combined life totals)
These are the most fun.
I've also played attack to the left. This needs to a very fast aggressive format.
Also played the first to take down 2 players wins. But this can lead to people sniping wins with an instant speed light lot.
Interesting. Maybe decks are different, maybe house rules are different. We play with spell range two, as soon as one lieutenant is dead you can attack the emperor from that side and all players in one team play the same time like in Two-Headed Giant. When one or two lieutnants are killed, game usually doesn't take very long after that in our meta.