Advice for DM'ing a big group?

[Squibsallotl]

I've got a game coming up where (at least initially) I would be DM'ing for 7 people.

I've got a few years experience at running games, but the biggest group I've had was 5 players. My games have tended towards roleplay-heavy in the past, but I'm thinking with more players a combat focus may be preferable to keep everyone engaged.

Any tips from other DMs who have run big groups before?

[MrFahrenheit]

My current game has 8 players.

Reflection 1: I have never had 100% attendance since expanding my game to this number, so one or two or more players are doubling up each session.

Reflection 2: The above isn't necessarily a bad thing; out of combat still sees specialized roles (social, stealth, lore, etc.), but with a few more capable PCs in their respective positions.

Reflection 3: Go to what one of my players dubbed the "cloud-based" initiative system for combat: initiative goes by what cloud you're in. Here's an example:

Rogue - highest initiative
Bard - next highest
Monster A
Monster B
Barbarian
Monster C
Fighter
Monk
Cleric
Monsters D-L
Last two PCs

Rather than restricting each turn to go in order, the rogue and bard form cloud 1, and can go in whichever order they choose - between the two of them. Same goes for monsters A and B. Due to his sandwiched initiative, the barbarian is de facto forced into an allotted initiative slot, as is monster C. But the the next three PCs can determine their own order between the three of them.

Note that the cloud system means that any grouped PCs (or monsters) can determine their intra-cloud order each round.

In game, it lets things like the cleric casting bless occur before the fighter or monk go. At the table, it means a full caster gets a little more time to determine which spell to sling next, while a fellow party member goes who'd otherwise have to wait.

[Aembrosia]

You all have the next two minutes starting when I end this sentence to write down an up to three sentence summary of what you want to do on your turn; collaborating is encouraged, if I do not receive a card you stand around with your thumb in your mouth. If you have a question dont ask it and assume your preferred answer to be correct. - used with a group that had been playing together for 2 years. Combine it all in a narrative, improvise when necessary, give the opposition the same deal.

How do we prevent a scenario where six people are waiting for their turn while one person at a time asks how far away two skeletons are and then chooses which one they want to miss?

You have limited time. Figure it out. If you dont you lose your initiative and the baddies attack you.

With a group of strangers... I guess I'de grin and bare it again until a dialogue of mutual respect could be established.

[Tanarii]

in my experience, larger groups work better with classic dungeon or wilderness adventures, or other very direct adventures with plenty of encounters. That's not to say they can't have lots of exploration or even social interaction ... the classic caves of chaos had all three elements for example.

As for handling the group, I find it helps to drag out some not very often used party roles - basically the equivalent of party leader/caller, and one or two responsibilities similar to mapper/time-keeper. You can crazy with that if you like. Depending on your adventures the latter might be a person responsible for keeping track of the overall plot / mystery details, another for important NPCs (ally or enemy), possibly one for actual mapping (even its just a flow chart of what's where), one for tactical planning & coordination before encounters, another for keeping track of PC details (who's skilled at what) and making sure to remind players and the party leader when someone might be the best to step forward and take the limelight at something, someone to keep an eye on expended resources and know when they party might need to rest (or restock, if you use logictical type resources), even someone who's job it is to know the PC names and make sure they get used constantly.

I find the biggest problem is making sure everyone gets a chance to take the spotlight (even quieter folks, provided they're okay with it), and nobody hogs it. That's why I like the party/leader concept, as long as it's someone who knows how to move the spotlight around well, but with distributed responsibilities. Of course, it's best if you can get the party thinking in those terms themselves and let them shake it out, and invent their own responsibilities for things they think are most important.