Pulp Alley Multi-Player Notes

[Mr. Peabody]

A few useful notes on multi-player games of Pulp Alley. These questions had been posted in threads with unlikely subjects or on the excellent Pulp Alley forum, so I hope pulling them together here is helpful.

Pulp Alley is well written, with multi-player fun in mind, so there isn't a lot that follows. But our group found this information useful for our first multi-player games...

Table Size

...If the lads want a big free-for-all that's doable and can be lots of fun too. Although it will cost you a few more Sanity Points.  ::

Even in BIG games, the only thing I increase is the size of the table. No, I don't increase the number of plot points.
...I'm  very cautious about adding in too much extra stuff when we have 5+ players going at it.

Sequence of Cards in Large Games

--Unfortunately, this is not spelled out well enough in the rulebook, but this is how it is intended to go--

When players have the opportunity to play a peril on one of your characters, like when your character enters a perilous area, the player to your left has the option to play a peril first. If they choose not to play a card, then the next guy (going clockwise around the table) can play one, and so on. There will bound to be some table-talk, like someone asking "Does anyone have a good one to play?", but this gives us a good order to follow.

Dice Matching in Large Games

So three of us are playing a basic game of Pulp Alley. I have initiative and I direct the player on my Right to activate a character. He decides to attack the player to my Left. No one is dodging. Who directs the Dice Matching?

In our games the Active Player does the matching, but the question has been asked a couple of times now and by different players, so I thought I would ask for the skinny on this.

It looks like you're doing it exactly right. The active character always determines who controls the dice-matching -- unless the defender dodges.

So in your example, the player on your Right would have control of the dice matching.

HAVE FUN

[Elk101]

This is very useful and handy for adding clarifications to.

[Amalric]

This is very useful and handy for adding clarifications to.

What he said!

[magokiron]

One of the most difficult issues we have faced in 3+ sided games is:

All players vs one player syndrome.

How do you handle that?

Note that this is not necesarily a CONSCIOUS attitude, but as the game evolves, one player MAY BE SEEN as the one who has some "advantage" (maybe has retrieved a couple plot points, maybe has been lucky killing some enemies, maybe...) and suddenly all players are mutually ignoring each other to focus against just one player.

In my experience that quicly turns into an UNPLEASANT experience for the player who is attacked, and can break the joy of a game.

Of course, there are games SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED so one side has to face all others, but in that case it is asumed from the begining, and the "one" vs all ussually has some kind of advantage, and he/she has to make some strategic changes to start with. Not the case when suddenly a player has to face 2+ enemies who are ignoring each other for no good reason.

Please share your thoughs.

Thank you.

[Conquistador]

One of the most difficult issues we have faced in 3+ sided games is:

All players vs one player syndrome.

How do you handle that?

Note that this is not necesarily a CONSCIOUS attitude, but as the game evolves, one player MAY BE SEEN as the one who has some "advantage" (maybe has retrieved a couple plot points, maybe has been lucky killing some enemies, maybe...) and suddenly all players are mutually ignoring each other to focus against just one player.

In my experience that quicly turns into an UNPLEASANT experience for the player who is attacked, and can break the joy of a game.

Of course, there are games SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED so one side has to face all others, but in that case it is asumed from the begining, and the "one" vs all ussually has some kind of advantage, and he/she has to make some strategic changes to start with. Not the case when suddenly a player has to face 2+ enemies who are ignoring each other for no good reason.

Please share your thoughs.

Thank you.

Sounds like human nature to me.  Hopefully it isn't excessive competition, (none of us are immune to that in all cases,) and a lack of awareness of the practice in one's self is often not intentional (some "want to win" instinctively more than others, hence the term "Rhino Hide" in reference to a friend back in my SCA days.)

From a Devil's Advocate viewpoint, should you try and "be fair" (my words) in a multiple player game?  If it spoils the tone of the game for you perhaps a post game talk might worry out if the other players actually thought it was a problem and, more importantly, why they/you think that.  If you are losing in real life don't you redouble your effort to either turn on the opposition in the lead or hit a weaker foe in an attempt to salvage the situation?  In sports (also a game) players who "quit" when behind are not seen as trying their best, although granted there are few if any popular 3+ sided sporting events other that track and field/horse (or car) racing...

I am curious why two players trying to take down the third player who is the "points" leader is seen as a problem if it is not a personal outside the game context matter between participants (which I have seen and deplore.)

Gracias,

Glenn

[gary42]

Those are all excellent points!  I think in the same way the recent attitude shift (Maybe not so recent?) towards a more fun, less rules lawyer approach to gaming may minimize this to some degree.  I have no problem losing a game if it's a cinematic and fun loss!  If I saw that a player was getting hammered on by the other players to the point where his fun meter was dropping significantly, I would probably do something about it.  Whether that was to ease off a bit or try some more chancy strategy that might fail BUT LOOK COOL I'm not sure.  I'm not talking about throwing the game in any real way just being the purveyor of good fun   If the player getting hammered still appears to be enjoying himself, have at him!:)

Fun's where it's at lads.

[Elk101]

I was thinking about this very thing for a 4 player Pulp Alley scenario I'm working on for a potential participation game. There will be 4 Leagues; one ostensibly good, one bad and two neutral though with one leaning towards good and the other bad. This in itself may restrict 3 on 1 but I'm also thinking about NPC triggers to help rebalance things if they are getting out of hand. This would include temporarily allies, random events, etc,

[Conquistador]

<snip> This would include temporarily allies, random events, etc,

Has merit as long as it is not perceived as 'favoring' a person.  

It is like that old canard... Sorry, policy... "It is  not what you meant, it is what was perceived by someone or even a third party that is the 'decider' of culpability in EEO matters..." and that kind of perception might equally unbalance the game.  Still, it might work.  

Also a truly unaligned NPC team (preferably a 'weak' team) might choose that time to 'intervene' in an attempt to win the prize (if you use that you need to make sure the players are aware an NPC party not on the table is potentially in the game.)  Hell, I would plant that thought/paranoia in the game set-up even if I didn't plan on doing that.  <evil grin>

Gracias,

Glenn

[Mr. Peabody]

If it happens once or twice, I wouldn't want to change the game to accommodate it. If you regularly play with three or more players, your group will likely become adept at building Leagues suited to multi-player games.

But if the gang-ups continue to be a problem then you should have enough information to be able to decide how to handle it. Maybe the whipping boy gets extra cards or a surprise ally. Elk101's idea of an 'NPC Trigger' is also a good idea; a surprise threat will keep players tied up and vulnerable.

[Conquistador]

<snip>

But if the gang-ups continue to be a problem then you should have enough information to be able to decide how to handle it. Maybe the whipping boy gets extra cards or a surprise ally. Elk101's idea of an 'NPC Trigger' is also a good idea; a surprise threat will keep players tied up and vulnerable.

Yes, the unknown can reduce the certainty of any set of tactics.  Paralysis by analysis...

Gracias,

Glenn

[Elk101]

I think successful triggers will only really be determined through playtesting as Glenn is correct when he says it shouldn't be seen to favour one player over another. The ideal player response would be either 'cool' or 'fair enough'!

[religon]

If three-vs-one mismatches continue to disrupt the game, something I've tried before is a die roll randomizing alliances each turn.

#1
A & B Allies
C & D Allies

#2
A & C Allies
B & D Allies

#3
A & D Allies
C & B Allies

In this case, if League A jumps out to a solid lead, only two of his opponents will be able to attack him in a given round. His "ally" for the turn either has to forgo his own attacks or attack one of the other players trying to thwart Player A.