PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How much of a problem is a large group?



Pinjata
2018-08-04, 06:09 AM
I'm currently DM-ing for a group of six well adjusted, cool headed people. When we finish current campaign, I'm thinking of inviting another three. All three are well tested, experienced players. I have about 10 years of experience as a DM and I think such a group might be interesting - and even fun.

What can you tell me on this?

thanks

DeTess
2018-08-04, 06:31 AM
Combat will slow down, and there'll be longer periods in which someone has to wait, increasing the risk of people getting distracted.

Discussions and plan-making will take longer, and people's overall contribution will decrease.

Planning the games in such a way that everyone can attend might become more difficult.

Yora
2018-08-04, 06:33 AM
I think it depends very much on the campaign and especially the system. With a system that has players regularly spend a minute or three on every combat turn, having 10 players will be a complete nightmare.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say the more players you have, the less dice you want to roll. Also characters not having a lot of different combat options to chose from (and contemplate each of them on every combat turn) helps a lot.

But you have to consider the dynamics of group interaction as well. In practice, a discussion can not involve more than 6 people at a time. If you have more people at that, some will sit back and take a spectator role, but not actively participate in the discussion. And in practice it will almost always be the same people in each group. Depending on what the campaign is supposed to be about and the identity of the characters, it might be necessary to regularly split the party up into small groups to create the space to allow all players to actively participate. But then you have to consider what to do with the players whose characters are absent in the current scene. It might require a lot of hopping between different groups so that nobody gets bored.

In my experience, 6 people isn't just a general tendency, but a pretty fixed number for how many participants in an interaction the human brain can keep track of. Going from 5 people to 7 might still not be that notable with the right group of people, but when you go from 6 to 9 there will definately be a major change in the dynamics of group interaction.

You also have to consider scheduling. With every additional person it becomes a lot harder. I would even go into this with the assumption of never having the whole crew together in the same session. Some players are probably going to be more regular than others, but playing with only 7 or 8 will almost certainly be a regular neccessity. The campaign and party should be set up in a way that makes the presence of no specific PC mandatory.

BWR
2018-08-04, 06:55 AM
I think it depends very much on the campaign and especially the system. With a system that has players regularly spend a minute or three on every combat turn, having 10 players will be a complete nightmare.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say the more players you have, the less dice you want to roll. Also characters not having a lot of different combat options to chose from (and contemplate each of them on every combat turn) helps a lot.

But you have to consider the dynamics of group interaction as well. In practice, a discussion can not involve more than 6 people at a time. If you have more people at that, some will sit back and take a spectator role, but not actively participate in the discussion. And in practice it will almost always be the same people in each group. Depending on what the campaign is supposed to be about and the identity of the characters, it might be necessary to regularly split the party up into small groups to create the space to allow all players to actively participate. But then you have to consider what to do with the players whose characters are absent in the current scene. It might require a lot of hopping between different groups so that nobody gets bored.

In my experience, 6 people isn't just a general tendency, but a pretty fixed number for how many participants in an interaction the human brain can keep track of. Going from 5 people to 7 might still not be that notable with the right group of people, but when you go from 6 to 9 there will definately be a major change in the dynamics of group interaction.

You also have to consider scheduling. With every additional person it becomes a lot harder. I would even go into this with the assumption of never having the whole crew together in the same session. Some players are probably going to be more regular than others, but playing with only 7 or 8 will almost certainly be a regular neccessity. The campaign and party should be set up in a way that makes the presence of no specific PC mandatory.

What he said.

The best way I know of to handle a large group of players is pbp, preferrably with a wide variety of things happening concurrently in a small area so people can show up in smaller groups for whichever activity they want to,

Dawgmoah
2018-08-04, 10:25 AM
I find it to be more of a question of personalities and how the players "click" (or don't.) I've had two player games go south with the two players bickering over everything as well as an eight player weekly game going into its third year. I've never had luck running more than 8 people at a time and only agreed to it as six of the players are all friends already so pretty much get along.

Yora
2018-08-04, 11:11 AM
The one big group game I played with great success was a one-shot Shadowrun heist. Such games actually get the more fun with the more people you have. Because in practice, most of the game consisted of all the 10 or so character sitting around a table in their hideout with a map of the warehouse and coming up with plans how to get in and drafting a shopping list for the needed equipment. It doesn't include any die rolling and there's no turn order.
When it came to executing the plan, all the players knew what their role was and at what point they would be doing their jobs. Under these circumstances, spending 20 minutes "sitting in a van" or "lying in wait with nightvision binoculars on a nearby hill" while other players were doing a good amount of dice rolling was fine. You knew your time to shine would come.
Being Shadowrun, the whole plan went hilariously out the window when it turned out the security of the warehouse included a fire elemental that had not been mentioned in the briefing. My sniper providing covering fire from the other side of the river didn't even land a single hit, but I still had a blast.

kraitmarais
2018-08-04, 12:02 PM
In my experience, even with “only” six players, the time that any individual person gets to actively play is so small that it’s hardly worth the time. I can’t even imagine the boredom of ten players; if one character fails a single save and gets incapacitated for a round that’s basically the end of half of their game night.

Also, the number of enemies you’d have to manage (on a finite-sized gaming space!) to balance out the action economy would be absolutely insane.

Pleh
2018-08-04, 12:11 PM
My close group of college friends consistently had about 9 players throughout my college career. I was frequently DM.

I developed a technique using a Cinematic transition, pushing to get a few players to a reasonable pausing point and proclaiming, "meanwhile..." to switch to other players. Players commonly split into smaller groups, but we were all close enough as friends that the people who weren't actively playing got a chance to finish their food or have a side conversation with each other.

The idea to reduce rolls is spot on. If you want 20 goblins for 9 heroes to fight, simplify. Have 3 or 4 goblins melee to hold the line amd keep the players back from the line of archers. Then have half or more of the rest Aid Another with suppressive fire so you only need 3 to 4 more shots that have a better chance of doing damage (and dealing less damage per round).

JoeJ
2018-08-04, 12:31 PM
You didn't say what game you're playing, which makes a huge difference. If actions are resolved quickly, a big group isn't a problem, but if requires a lot of time for each player to take their turn things can get bogged down pretty quickly. I wouldn't hesitate to run DC Heroes for a very large group, and I've heard that Savage Worlds is also very good in that respect. I wouldn't want to try it in Champions or D&D 3.x, and my understanding of D&D 4e is that it would be even worse. D&D 5e would be better than 3.x for a large group, but 9 people still sounds like it might be too many.

Glimbur
2018-08-04, 04:04 PM
I ran a campaign for six one semester, and when more people wanted to join we ran two sessions for two different parties of six the next semester. There is only so much spot-light time so the more players you have the less focus time each gets. I would suggest you consider two groups.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-04, 04:30 PM
Play 1st Edition D&D. That's what it's for.

sktarq
2018-08-04, 05:02 PM
A big part of this is going to be playstyle

If you are combat or heavily turn focused (like many dungeon delving adventures even outside combat) how long a turn is will be the limiting factor in how many people you can cram into a group.

If the group naturally spends a lot of time on INTRA-party dynamics...discussing things, even plotting against each other etc the more you can. In these games the DM/GM/ST is much more a conductor and larger groups are more manageable.

the amount of connection any given player needs with YOU is the real key here.


running the "meanwhile" mini party system is a pretty good one if your players are pretty quick and entertaining in their own rights.


also I will say 6 seems to be about where I start hearing a spike in horror stories about oversized unwieldy games going wild donkey ancestor over teakettle on a regular basis. . . I hear far fewer "great game" stuff above 6 people.

Calthropstu
2018-08-04, 10:46 PM
9 players is far too many.

I only played with that many one other time. The 2 combats we played each took over 4 hours. The cohesion was nonexistent. The gm threw lvl 4 people at us, which one shotted us. We had to keep reviving people with healing mid combat.

But the worst part was space. The room could barely hold us. One person needs to get up, we all needed to get up. So make sure there's a fair amount of space.

Plotting took a long time as well. Arguing was inevitable. I quit after 3 sessions because the campaign was ****, my pregen character was ****, the gm was a railroading jackass and wanted to choose my character level ups. It was bad all the way around, but the 9 people thing was enough to make me want to drop by itself.

RazorChain
2018-08-05, 06:45 AM
I as a player would never partake in a game with 8 other players because it means I am really getting little bang for my buck. I don't get much time to play as I there is only one GM.

Second as a GM it get's harder to keep track of things as you have to keep more balls in the air.


For me the optimal number of players who are proactive and immersed is around 4. Because if you have 9 proactive, immersed players.....no sorry you won't, you'll have 9 frustrated, bored players.

Pleh
2018-08-05, 10:58 AM
For me the optimal number of players who are proactive and immersed is around 4. Because if you have 9 proactive, immersed players.....no sorry you won't, you'll have 9 frustrated, bored players.

You don't know that. It's a pitfall to account for and work around, not a foregone conclusion.

It will make certain styles of play more challenging, but you can still have 9 players engaged in the game and having fun, especially when the players are friends before they were a party.

Calthropstu
2018-08-05, 12:51 PM
You don't know that. It's a pitfall to account for and work around, not a foregone conclusion.

It will make certain styles of play more challenging, but you can still have 9 players engaged in the game and having fun, especially when the players are friends before they were a party.

My experience seems to be otherwise. Everyone I have talked (thousands) to indicate 6 is a hard max for tabletop gaming. Rarely 7 is used and it starts breaking apart there. The group I play with now have been friends for years and they have to turn away people from their table because it's "full."

4 is solid, 6 is ok, 7 is pushing it, 9 is inviting disaster.

Pleh
2018-08-05, 02:35 PM
My experience seems to be otherwise. Everyone I have talked (thousands) to indicate 6 is a hard max for tabletop gaming. Rarely 7 is used and it starts breaking apart there. The group I play with now have been friends for years and they have to turn away people from their table because it's "full."

4 is solid, 6 is ok, 7 is pushing it, 9 is inviting disaster.

And my experience contradicts yours. Since all I need is a single counterexample to disprove your point (you're claiming an absolute limit and I'm arguing the limit is only a statistical trend), I've rather done all the work necessary to disprove your assertion.

Calthropstu
2018-08-05, 05:58 PM
And my experience contradicts yours. Since all I need is a single counterexample to disprove your point (you're claiming an absolute limit and I'm arguing the limit is only a statistical trend), I've rather done all the work necessary to disprove your assertion.

Ok. Good luck with that. If the op does it and it goes well, great.

It probably won't but eh? No skin off my back. I gave the warning, presented my personal experience and what I have been told by many others. If op chooses to ignore it, so be it. My due diligence is done.

Coventry
2018-08-05, 10:35 PM
I'm currently DM-ing for a group of six well adjusted, cool headed people. When we finish current campaign, I'm thinking of inviting another three. All three are well tested, experienced players. I have about 10 years of experience as a DM and I think such a group might be interesting - and even fun.

What can you tell me on this?

thanks

Have you asked your players what they think? That will give you the feedback about whether or not they already feel like there are too many people for them to get the spotlight, or if they would be happy with the new situation. I would bet the former, but the latter is certainly possible.

BreaktheStatue
2018-08-06, 08:35 AM
Snip

In my experience, 6 people isn't just a general tendency, but a pretty fixed number for how many participants in an interaction the human brain can keep track of. Going from 5 people to 7 might still not be that notable with the right group of people, but when you go from 6 to 9 there will definately be a major change in the dynamics of group interaction.


I'll second this. You look at how most large organizations are structured - the military comes to mind - and it doesn't matter how high-ranking or high-performance a commander is, at any given echelon, they usually only have direct responsibility for/direct communication with like 3-6 people (who are then responsible for 3-6 people, and so on). Things go off the rails, fast, if you try to have one individual account for more than that.

Blaede
2018-09-06, 03:21 AM
Main problem I have with large groups of players is that it reduces the time each player has to speak and when you have to wait to get your turn, you get bored :smallsmile:

Incorrect
2018-09-06, 07:59 AM
I actively resist more than 6 players, for the same reasons as everyone above.
I recently had a GM mention a plan to include player #7, but every single one of us players said no. Check with your players that they are okay with including that many.


If you absolutely had to run a game for 9, I do have a suggestion for you.
Having nine players is not the problem! Having nine Characters is!
If there are always 3 players creating new characters, there is no problem! Just keep killing characters!
I never said it was a good suggestion... :smallwink:

kivzirrum
2018-09-06, 08:04 AM
I DM for six people--my two sisters, my partner, and our three best friends. We all get along super well, we know each other super well, and we have similar playstyles and excellent cohesion. Even under these ideal circumstances, I think six is pushing it. There are times in combat where, due to all the people, things can start to drag. Sometimes people lose a little bit of focus. I wouldn't add another person, I think the whole thing would collapse.

But then again, depending on your group, maybe 9 players could be a lot of fun! You can always try it, and then if it doesn't work you'll know for next time. :smallwink:

Quertus
2018-09-06, 11:01 AM
Well, I personally prefer larger groups. I've roleplayed and war gamed with groups numbering in the double digits. Good times.

Clearly, the right group can enjoy a huge multiplayer war game - which consists of nothing but dice rolls and tactical combat. And the right group can enjoy a huge multiplayer LARP, with chatting and scheming and no dice whatsoever. So clearly the type of activity has little bearing on whether a larger group is successful.

So, what, then? What are those who don't know how to make a larger group work missing? As I am not one of those individuals, I can only speculate.

Perhaps they don't play with people who are friends first, gamers second. Perhaps they play with people who don't enjoy one another's company, don't enjoy one another's successes, rather than those who would look at the idea of getting bored during someone else's turn, or of complaining about having to share the spotlight, and roll their eyes, likely accompanied with numerous disparaging remarks.

Perhaps they lack the ability to communicate expectations or establish guidelines in session zero, and, for them, the more people who join a group, the more different directions people will try to take the game.

Perhaps it's an issue of homogeneity, where everyone has this expectation of exact equality of participation in all aspects of the game, rather than a more pragmatic distribution of responsibility, where people alternate between being active participants and wallflower observers depending upon the contents of the scene.

Perhaps the secret sauce contains elements of each of these. Shrug. It's come so naturally to my groups, I've never really tried to dissect how it could fail.

Trampaige
2018-09-06, 01:19 PM
I'm currently DM-ing for a group of six well adjusted, cool headed people. When we finish current campaign, I'm thinking of inviting another three. All three are well tested, experienced players. I have about 10 years of experience as a DM and I think such a group might be interesting - and even fun.

What can you tell me on this?

thanks

I would be really upset and quit the campaign if the DM ruined a group by doing this. It's way too many. Don't ruin something good by thinking bigger is better.

DeTess
2018-09-06, 05:15 PM
Clearly, the right group can enjoy a huge multiplayer war game - which consists of nothing but dice rolls and tactical combat. And the right group can enjoy a huge multiplayer LARP, with chatting and scheming and no dice whatsoever. So clearly the type of activity has little bearing on whether a larger group is successful.


I disagree with your conclusion here. I think the kind of activity matters a lot. In a big multiplayer wargame, I'd imagine there are 2-3 sides, so half of the players are actively acting all at once. In a LARP, you don't need the 'DM' for most things you might want to do, so you can constantly do your thing and be active. And even in LARPs I've noticed issues arising if there are not enough of the games masters (the people that have written the story and adjucate freeform powers like magical rituals) around to help everyone during critical moments.

In a PnP rpg, however, you've got one dm that has to be involved with everyone's actions. Even if you're just doing some banter with some of the other adventurers you'll be preventing other things from being easily discussed, unless you can physically leave the table and go elsewhere to do your talking.

Quertus
2018-09-06, 06:41 PM
I disagree with your conclusion here. I think the kind of activity matters a lot. In a big multiplayer wargame, I'd imagine there are 2-3 sides, so half of the players are actively acting all at once. In a LARP, you don't need the 'DM' for most things you might want to do, so you can constantly do your thing and be active. And even in LARPs I've noticed issues arising if there are not enough of the games masters (the people that have written the story and adjucate freeform powers like magical rituals) around to help everyone during critical moments.

In a PnP rpg, however, you've got one dm that has to be involved with everyone's actions. Even if you're just doing some banter with some of the other adventurers you'll be preventing other things from being easily discussed, unless you can physically leave the table and go elsewhere to do your talking.

Hmmm... Maybe.

Yes, the key to making that kind of LARP work does seem to be making sure that the GM is not the bottleneck.

In some kinds of war games, yes, players can / could theoretically take their turns at the same time. The players taking / holding the hill can be run independently the hoard charging the defended position / the defenders mowing them down, etc.

But, thus far, were talking about how it is done, not what they are doing. I'm that regard, I stand by original statement.

However, in, say, Battletech, a dozen people each taking their turn individually would not be unheard of at my tables. The key is having everyone invested in observing the overall for if the battle, and the individual triumphs and failures.

In a large conversation, yes, skill at not talking over one another / at having multiple conversations running at the same time is clearly helpful.

In a large party RPG battle, yes, being able to pre-roll all your rolls and succinctly express the results helps expedite matters.

Also, what you said about GM ratio in a LARP could carry over to an RPG table: simply have multiple GMs. I've played at numerous tables where that was the case.

So, I continue to contend that it is not what you do, but how you do it, that determines the success or failure of / the feasibility of a large table.

Still, you are correct that my conclusion does not logically follow from my statements.

Like I said, it's always just worked, so I'm trying to work backwards to understand why it wouldn't.

Pelle
2018-09-07, 04:02 AM
Perhaps it's an issue of homogeneity, where everyone has this expectation of exact equality of participation in all aspects of the game, rather than a more pragmatic distribution of responsibility, where people alternate between being active participants and wallflower observers depending upon the contents of the scene.


I'm not sure it is a problem of expectation, rather than just finding it more fun when everyone are active. Having wallflowers is ok, but to me it is much more fun to game with those person when they are more active. Some of my friends who are very active and fun to play with when there are few players, just zone out when we are many. That's ok enough if the player still enjoys himself, but to me it is still a better experience overall with a smaller group.

DeTess
2018-09-07, 04:28 AM
Hmmm... Maybe.

Yes, the key to making that kind of LARP work does seem to be making sure that the GM is not the bottleneck.

In some kinds of war games, yes, players can / could theoretically take their turns at the same time. The players taking / holding the hill can be run independently the hoard charging the defended position / the defenders mowing them down, etc.

But, thus far, were talking about how it is done, not what they are doing. I'm that regard, I stand by original statement.

However, in, say, Battletech, a dozen people each taking their turn individually would not be unheard of at my tables. The key is having everyone invested in observing the overall for if the battle, and the individual triumphs and failures.

In a large conversation, yes, skill at not talking over one another / at having multiple conversations running at the same time is clearly helpful.

In a large party RPG battle, yes, being able to pre-roll all your rolls and succinctly express the results helps expedite matters.

Also, what you said about GM ratio in a LARP could carry over to an RPG table: simply have multiple GMs. I've played at numerous tables where that was the case.

So, I continue to contend that it is not what you do, but how you do it, that determines the success or failure of / the feasibility of a large table.

Still, you are correct that my conclusion does not logically follow from my statements.

Like I said, it's always just worked, so I'm trying to work backwards to understand why it wouldn't.

Yeah, this I can very much agree with, especially the multiple DM suggestion. I think a 9-10 player RPG group could do fine, and even be epic, if you've got a second DM to help streamline things and allow for things to happen in parallel.

Lemmy
2018-09-07, 04:59 AM
It depends on what system you use, but IME, anything above 6 players in a tabletop game is doomed to failure. Even "just" 6 players is pushing it. I've never seen a large group that didn't break up or split in two in a few weeks... I'm sure some people manage it, but I've never seen it.

My current groups all have 3~4 players. And I already told them to let me know if they want to invite someone, because I'll not GM for more than 5 people. We play 3.X, so each additional characters means additional enemies, NPC, plotlines, etc... And as much as I love the system, its combat already takes too long as it is.

So... My advice to you is... Don't.

You have a good thing going. Don't ruin it by needlessly inflating your numbers. Sometimes less is more.

Epimethee
2018-09-07, 05:11 AM
I played at some point with 12 players and I even did it with 3.5. I was young. Still, you can do it. It's not my favorite size, I mostly stay around 4, but it is possible and even interesting.

One thing to keep in mind is that groups dynamics would take more place than outside influences. I mean in such a group what happen between the players is as important, if not more, than how they interact with your world. It will take most of their time anyway (and probably yours) as you have only a finite amount of attention.

But let's start at the beginning: as was previously said, you may do well by preparing the game with your players, even taking time to meet and prepare together before the real session. The less you have to manage the presentations and the finitions, the more time you will have to play.
Also you may state some heavier rules around this table than in sessions with less players, such as having keywords to demand silence or some limitations on the ways players would discuss and move around the table after initiative or in-character. Also even more than in other sessions think about the food and drinks. Really.

So the setting of the gaming area is important to consider. Usually, with twelves players, each would have one place were he could play, I mean take the turn, but was able to move freely around the table to address other players between its turns. In a fight scene, it was important for me not to keep track of the player across the room, so it was convenient to impose that. At the same time, moving was important to let players communicate freely. It seem simple but you don't want to have them shout across the room.
The room was as big as possible to have place to move freely but the tables were placed as to let every players see all the others. It was also important in my opinion to choose a place as central as possible for the DM, not to be too close or any from a single player. Boards or tokens to communicate important informations like initiative were also very useful.

On such a scale, you cannot emphasize enough the importance of preparation, for your players to start thinking about their actions before it is their turn to talk. You should do as much as possible to make a combat swift and efficient. I used limitations of their real time as an absolute weapon, but I often abused of some dramatics enhancer to keep them on their feet (the palace/ruin/ship/cart is crumbling/sinking/on fire).

Also as much as possible, you should be careful that no player is left behind in the conversations. Don't hesitate to ask the players who spoke less on their point of view when the group discuss the best course of action.
The same is true when roleplaying in the broader sense. In a town for example, some players would want to do a lot of thing, some would head to a quiet place and wait for the next step in the adventure. Let them do both, take a bit of time with the players who wish to be actives, but go back frequently to the players who are silent, even to state again with them that they do nothing more. Engage them sometimes, make something happen for them but don't force them too often into action: some players are comfortable with keeping quiet when they think it is efficient.
You want not only to keep the players engaged but also look as fair as possible, and you don't want any player to feel forgotten. But again here you have to ponder the dynamic of the group.

On a more story focused side, I tended to play mostly linear adventures with a lot of action. Don't get me wrong: players should be able to make important choices but the logistic of the discussion make a total sandbox game unpractical.
You are often better with giving them a huge choice, if possible in a flavorful background and with a relatively comfortable in-game time to take their first decisions.

Then you give them an interesting background that will draw them to a lot of action in the larger sense of the term. As was stated by a lot of people, a succession of short cut scenes between different parts of the group is efficient. It is dramatic and keep the players in the game and mostly also in what happen to their comrades. In this case, you may also cut just before the difficulty, cliffhanger-style.
Not only would it keep the players glued to the game (I have often heard players saying they feared for the other groups), it would give each group time to prepare its reaction, thus keeping also a better level of fluidity.

So for example the players have to take a fortress. They would have time to discuss and prepare but then you split the party and play it like a succession of short scenes till a big final confrontation with all the players converging on the most dramatic moment of course. Honestly that's smooth. But after the players have planned their actions, the scenario is mostly linear, even if they still have to react to their environnement. I hope I made clear what I meant by linear in this context.

Don't be afraid of huge scale battle, be careful of playing them in a context that make each one of them a spectacle. Play in a tavern near a fishing factory to destroy the wall and fill the place with fish, play on a boat, on a flying boat even, atop a tower with thunder and lightnings, in the mist of a zombie invasion, the more the better. Think Indiana Jones or Jacky Chan, imagine a lot of interactions so even the players that cannot fight in a way or another have something to do: steering the ship, helping the McGuffin, stopping the thing, climbing the stuff, disturbing here or poking there.

Ok, it's difficult. But in a way the most chaotic the scene, the easier it is for you to manage it as a lot of little pieces, not a huge scene but five or more micro-scenes. In the end it is not that difficult. Also your players would be less likely to start making a micro-tactical game, counting the remaining hp of each gobelin.
So you can more easily manage your monsters as dramatic forces. As was stated above, you need sometimes huge numbers of creatures. At some point you should relax a bit on the perfect account of each point. It is really important only for the leaders and the true obstacles. The others creatures are like a control tool that let you manage the economy of actions for the group.

A single boss is possible also but again, the way you frame it is important. A straight boost of power is stupid in most case (you may want this exact effect), as the boss could be able to kill each players in a round. So again the background is the solution. The boss may be on an elevation, so only a part of the group may efficiently fight against him, or only a specific last action could land the final blow, so the players have to fight and manage those conditions to happen at the same time, or they have to defend the gate against an army of weak minions... Or they could fight on the scene of a burning theater. Again, think dramatic, give your players thing to do beside poking at the baddies.

Then for the most difficult part: the group dynamic. In a group that huge you would have some guys who become like leaders. They would take charge of the organisation of the group. Other would follow more, some taking responsibilities when they think they are entitled to do so, others counting on the others to act. A leader can be great, helping the group to play but he can also try to impose is will. Accordingly, some players would start retreating more and more from the play, sometimes starting to disrupt it to regain an amount of action on it. By this point their comportement is mostly your fault.
(Of course they are other options but that's in my experience the main drive of a lot of problems and why you should be fair in every situations regarding the attention you give to each players, as the first precaution against this kind of hierarchization: you can make everything go wrong by seeming to give unjust time and attention to a single or a few players.)
With the players expected to tire at some point, it may become relatively nasty, as tired peoples may be short tempered.

So your job is to manage this complex of tempers. Mostly, I proceeded by trying to identify those kind of dynamics, then trying to give each players something to do according to those forces. I mean, it was not railroaded, I tried to make scenes were the players could feel where and how the others were strong. I tried to play with this dynamic to make them feel as a group as soon as possible, to understand what kind of problem the others were the best placed to engage. It was then easier to keep them focused on their common goals. Thus the leaders would run the group but taking advice when necessary from those who would happily stay less on focus. It was also easier to refocus the story around them regularly as they didn't fell coerced to play.

Also it was important to make regular pauses and to debrief correctly the session, sometime even during play. It was important to identify the potential problems as soon as possible and to treat them quickly.

So again, it is possible, but you need to take some precautions doing it and be as clear as possible on what your goal and expectations are.

Pelle
2018-09-07, 05:43 AM
So again, it is possible, but you need to take some precautions doing it and be as clear as possible on what your goal and expectations are.

Many good tips, here. For me though, yes you can make a lot of adjustments on how you play to accomodate more people. But all those adjustments make it slightly less fun than what it was with fewer players, otherwise those adjustments would be the default. So for me it's the choice between a fun enough game with many people, or a very fun game with few.

Malphegor
2018-09-07, 06:59 AM
I'd also note that it's probably okay to split the party more often if you have 8+ people, with encounters generally being designed for 3-4 players.

Which means you as a DM can feel free to use methods to split party members without really penalising their combat effectiveness much.

Plus you might be able to get away with less combat-focused characters with bigger groups since you'd have some party members being all fighty fighty, so maybe you can truly get some more variety in characters then, as optimisation stops being a pressing concern once the action economy makes it so they seldom actually need to do much stabby.

I'd say you'd have to speed things up though. Monsters would take their turn in unison, for example, so the players can just get to it.

Epimethee
2018-09-07, 10:27 AM
Many good tips, here. For me though, yes you can make a lot of adjustments on how you play to accomodate more people. But all those adjustments make it slightly less fun than what it was with fewer players, otherwise those adjustments would be the default. So for me it's the choice between a fun enough game with many people, or a very fun game with few.

Thank you Pelle.
I would agree with you if my default setting was not to adjust to accommodate my players, whatever the conditions are. Also fun is a relative term.
Most of the things I quoted about group dynamics appear in smaller setting, but with a larger scale they are bound to take greater significance sooner. They may be as disruptive with even two or tree players but it is easier for you to be sure that the measures you take against such disruptions are understood in a smaller group. So it's not that you will find new problems in such setting, it's just that you may need different means to address them and I recommend to do it as soon as possible.

This point about information is really important. In a small group you are in constant relationship with every participant, in a larger group you cannot see everybody all the time, so you have to prepare for this difficulty.

Adjusting mean mostly that for a lot of peoples this kind of scale is unusual so, like in every new setting, you need to take care where you go. But really it may be rewarding.
For one, with a large group, the relationship between the players are really central. If some of your players like to role-play, you are bound for epic moments of great fun. Also in such a group, it is often easier for those who are more reluctant to role-play to let go. Really, it tops everything you may do as a gamester.
Sometimes, you just sit down and let them make an argument for half an hour. As I often played with novices, I had to help them organize at first but soon they looked forward to those kind of huge moment, when each tried to show some part of the character. Again, in this case, the size helped the shy.

I tried also to to have a lot off moments when they would interact with the peoples as a group, like a trial, a championship of poetry, a theater, a huge council about the fate of the world... In such a case the group need to act together in a roleplaying scene and again it may lead to great and unexpected solutions.

With this scale, an adventure may also go quite fast. They may book place on a boat, at the same time collecting supply, following a suspect, and interrogating another one. In my opinion it makes for some cinematic narration, but it also reward clear goals and simple starting points.

Also you cannot start to imagine how fun an action scene may be, providing you have streamlined the mechanical process. The sheer size of the group lead to very clever tactics, but also some very fun problems for the players to manage, and the fight could change tremendously between turns. Also the possibility of splitting the group lead really to some great narrative moments. Just don't abuse it.

It's a bit like Avengers versus Jessica Jones. I mean to contrast an ensemble piece versus a single character narrative. Both could work or not, both could be tremendous fun but obviously they cannot be plotted the same.

@Malphegor: Yeah, mostly. But you are not obligated to split physically the group for this to work. Say they are all on a ship, and one group is in the mast, one in the hull fighting a boarding party and another are trying to steer the ship. It is the same scene but each group act as in an independent encounter.

Also, you are right on optimization and specialization, and also on the action economy that is differently a concern than with a little group. But, as combat could take some time, every player should have something to offer.

Also I tended to play my monsters in two or three different phases. As the turn is already huge, it offers you more flexibility and more challenge for your players. An alternative would be to have a moving background, again like a sinking ship, or some hazard, like a trap, a strange plant who try to grab the players, some birds disturbed by the action... Really you have to challenge every player so try to give you more than one way to act and to make them react.

Pelle
2018-09-07, 10:40 AM
Thinking more about it, I feel the issue with adjusting to many players is that the main activity we are doing together is changing from A to B. If I just want to meet as many friends as possible and just do something, either is fine. If I really want to do activity A, then I don't want to do B instead or a poorer version of A.

For example, I love social deduction games. One Night Ultimate Werewolf is fantastic for smaller group, Two Rooms and a Boom is great for a large one. Both are fun. If I just want to play a social deduction game, I'll pick the one suited for the number of players I have at the moment. If I really want to play ONUW, I will limit how many people I invite.

Epimethee
2018-09-07, 01:33 PM
Yeah, mostly that Pelle!

That's what I think is great in roleplaying games: you have far more than one way to do it! But then you cannot do the same thing around a different table.

In the case of a huge group, each player have to adapt to every other players. So the least that the gamester should do is acknowledging this fact and plan accordingly.
That's also why I insisted on looking as fair and balanced as possible. You show that you care about the whole group. That's also why helping the group find an equilibrium is important.

And finally, that's why I think you should plot to play around the size of the group and not copy/paste any encounter a bit multiplied. I think you could try almost any type of story but you have to find a way to tell it that don't put too much focus on one or another player. In some case, I would externalize the story: the main protagonists would in fact be a NPC and the players would be the enabler of its destiny.

That's because a huge group would accept easily longer descriptions and even some short narrations, as they understood the need to move some part of the story further but tend to be weary if one player is always front and center, something more achievable in a smaller group. So I had a few important NPC that developed their own huge story along the group.
Of course, the players would interact with a lot of peoples along the way but it was important to have a few peoples to really stand out, as you could not take time to deepen each interaction with everybody in the background.
(BTW, funnily, the size make even the escorting mission bearable, as it is an occasion to role-play and the same players have not to do the chores all the time. It may even become comic relief, as the players who have experienced it first wait for their comrades to discover how clumsy the escorted is.)

Thrudd
2018-09-07, 01:38 PM
Old D&D had the expectation of more players than the wotc editions, (although 9 was still around the top of expected group size) and it had the concept of the party "caller". That's one player who has the role of organizing the chaos of everyone talking at once and to announce to the DM what the characters are actually doing. It's a bit like DM's assistant that helps listen to the other players and hash out disagreements before people declare their final actions, and then keeps track, of who should be going when. Of course, in these editions, combat had everyone in the party going at the same time, in any order they wanted. You didn't have to wait for ten or more individual turns to pass before you thought about what was happening with your character, the whole party goes on the same initiative- so everyone talks and debates what they're going to do and who should do what first, and then the caller tells the DM the final decision about what's happening so the dice can start being rolled- and helps watch the dice get rolled and calls out who is taking their action next, etc.

Go with an older edition of D&D, like 1e AD&D or Basic/Expert or retro clone- that has fewer mechanical decisions to make, lets the players all go at once, and resolves combat quickly. Those games are made with the expectation of a larger group than most modern games. And assign a group "caller" to act as DM's assistant to keep track of who should be going and help listen when everyone is talking.

On top of side initiative, you may consider implementing a time limit on taking turns, as well. Give a definite time limit for everyone to debate about what they will do on their turn, like 5 min at most. When the caller announces who's going, that player should have like 10 seconds to say what they're doing. You don't need more than that, since you've spent the previous minutes planning it. As DM, take the turns for monsters/NPCs as quickly as you can, too, try to hold yourself to the same time limits they have, or be quicker if you can.

Epimethee
2018-09-08, 12:11 AM
In my experience, both solutions you give, Thrudd, are best used after you let the players try a bit on their own and if they have problems in doing so.

The caller is a bit old school and may put too much weight on a single player, as he seem to be more involved than the others. And I like it better for flavor reasons when a player speak for his or her character.
Also forcing a determined time for things to happen may come back to bite you at some point.

My way of tip-toing around both problems, the organisation of the group and the time taken to act was to state the rules regarding our interactions, I mean DM-players, to give them general advices and then to let them try a bit by themselves. If they hurt themselves too much, stop, make some order, state stricter rules of comportement, ask for one guy to explain the situation to you and what the group intend to do. Here, before the action, you may fix a time limit at any moment on a case by case basis. If they cannot seem to agree on anything, give them ten minutes and ask for someone to explain the plan of the group clearly before the end of discussion and the rolling of the dices.

As a matter of fact, a lot of groups tend to organise themselves pretty quickly after the first round of shouting and you would find the guy who like explaining plans pretty soon. But don't enshrine it: sometime another one, like the guy who actually made the plan, would do it and in my opinion, as long as the group is clear and say at some point: we are doing that, let them a bit of space.
Again, changing something like that would help to keep every player involved.

Then, after the last dice is fallen, I would relatively quickly debrief the scene, pause the action to ask them what worked, what could be bettered, to ask them for example how they could go faster or better discuss the solutions of the challenges.

Only if they cannot manage to find a way should you impose a set time or a caller.

To go deeper on set time, sometime, and even more in a huge combat, you need time to describe a situation, or to reassess the positions of the players. Also relatively often players would use the combat to role-play a bit outside of the limit of what is exactly allowed in their actions. If your table start an in-character discussion in the middle of a fight you should be able to let that happen. As I said combats could take time and sometime you are better with letting the players get out of it a little bit for the sake of fun and playing their characters.

Giving a definitive limit may make every combat a bit bland, as you would try to play the time and not let some necessary and great moments of role-play, of interaction and so on.
I imposed it a few time but only to drop it as soon as the players understood the advantages of going quickly.

One trick i tended to use was to put a time limit on a scene itself, like the sinking ship or the flaming wagon. I would then really press the players to go as fast as possible, making them loose their actions if they could not explain them by the limit. Then, after they would achieve their last minute saving of the day, I would notice how quick and efficiently they played.
More than often it was enough to take a huge step forward on the next scene.

Also I think that making your players act all at once is a bit a relic of wargaming and you can totally use the initiative of later editions if you choose to play D&D.
As a matter of fact, I started with a simplified version of the 3.5 (fewer classes, feats, abilities and so on) but started to increase the rules relatively quickly to increase specialization.

In my experience, you have a more spectacular turn if you let every player play act by initiative. What a group this size may achieve in a single turn is amazing and it is really great to use that as much as possible.
Also the scene is bigger. As much as the group is the size of a platoon, they are likely to be separated in smaller clusters around one of the many problems you should drop in their way. You would then go back and forth between the players regardless of their position but by initiative order, intensifying the sense of cinematic as the players wait to know what happen around them.
I think it work better than starting with the left to the right and it feel definitively more organic and eventful.
That's also why I played my monsters in more than one phase. What you seem to gain in efficiency, you loose in possibilities, in my opinion.

But I think both are great tools to achieve a better group organisation, just not necessary the more the players are used to play together.

Asmotherion
2018-09-08, 03:54 PM
Things that are really bothersome:

-Dividing the group: I literally remember sessions were I visited a brothel (skiped the fun part), drank a beer, and followed a suspicious hooded figure unsuccesfully in 4 hours of play. It was not during downtime.

-Less spotlight. The more people involved, the less action each will have in each scene. Sometimes you'll either have to compete with each other for the spotlight, or just not bother to do so, and fade in the backround. Turn taking is a solution, but the more you get absorbed by the RP and get into it, the less you'll pay attention to it. An other good solution is to remember that, just because you can pick locks, doesn't mean you have to take it away from the Rogue if you're a Bard (stated as a simple example).

-Scene Colision. When two discusions are happening at the same time and not everyone is involved. Chaos. You have people trying to communicate, and instead you get people not doing so. This is especially true if the D&D is happening Online, where you don't have the luxury of actually breaking the group.

-Initiative Chaos. The more people involved, the slower the combat, and the more probable initiative will somehow get messed up. It also adds more monsters/npcs, which sometimes results in unbalanced encounters.

-RP Mess up. As a result of less spotlight, and trying to avoid stealing the spotlight from others, you don't develop your character as much as you'd like, and your character is only a fraction of what you want it to be. Sometimes you feel presured to "perform" your RP quickly when you get the spotligh, which results in a crude and bad RP.

Those are the problems I've encountered in big groups so far.

farothel
2018-09-08, 04:16 PM
I must agree that the comparison with LARP is a poor one. In a LARP you have a group of people who wrote the story and they send 20 or so NPCs out to push things with the players (in the one I did about 50 PCs). the NPCs are often briefed before the event, so they can do their thing pushing the plot for a group of 4-6 PCs. In the end you basically split the large group of PCs up in little groups, each with an NPC or storyteller as guide.

In tabletop I would also go with 6 as a maximum. Of course, if you know up front that of those 9 only 6 or less will make it each week to the game and your game is adapted to handle varied attendance, you can still go for it. I did a game like that once, with less people but also as a back-up game when not all people could make it for the main campaign. You just have to plan for it then and make sure the game can handle it. For instance Shadowrun is possible. The group that's there does that night's run and the rest are off for something else.

Epimethee
2018-09-10, 07:02 AM
Things that are really bothersome:

You are quite right to point that out. I think not every player would enjoy a large group and not every DM would like the intensity of managing a scene that huge. But still I think they are a few tricks a DM could use to help lessen or manage the things that bothers you.
As an unrelated but important mention, count a bit more time for a standard session than for a session with less peoples. If a small scale group can easily play for short bursts (in my opinion a short session would take roughly four hours but you can do something with less), you need more time to settle more people so reach for double the time than your usual game (6 to 8 hours following the approximation above).


-Dividing the group: I literally remember sessions were I visited a brothel (skiped the fun part), drank a beer, and followed a suspicious hooded figure unsuccesfully in 4 hours of play. It was not during downtime.


If I divided the group, I tried to keep little packs of players, as they would have more things to do. I would also streamline some moments, and go only as deep in my descriptions as the players wanted to go. That doesn't mean. that I gave the players the next thread of the plot, but that I concentrated more on dramatic moments and would not hesitate to skip a few things I would have used more in less crowded play, like roleplaying a lot of background NPC.

If one player was alone, I tried to come back at him often, resolving in most case the action in two part. Say the player is scouting, he tell me he crouch under a bush to crawl. I thank him, go back to a sub-group, then come back to him, explain him what he saw, I let him maybe react to something and ask him to ponder the next action, then I go to another sub-group, then I go back to the lonely person. If he try to buy or sell something alone, or make some lengthy action, I would only give the briefest hint of role-play, some flavor words more than an actual bargaining session. If the player feels that the discussion is important I would play it but I would again not hesitate to skip to the next players.
That's not exactly more to do, but thats keep him involved.

Skiping help also a DM to manage the flow of the game and to think of the next best way to pose a challenge to the part of the group or the players you just left. You have a lot to think and to craft so you may feel dry at some point. By being able to concentrate on other things, you may find new solutions for your first problem more easily later.


-Less spotlight. The more people involved, the less action each will have in each scene. Sometimes you'll either have to compete with each other for the spotlight, or just not bother to do so, and fade in the backround. Turn taking is a solution, but the more you get absorbed by the RP and get into it, the less you'll pay attention to it. An other good solution is to remember that, just because you can pick locks, doesn't mean you have to take it away from the Rogue if you're a Bard (stated as a simple example).


I like your solution. Here it is exactly why I said a MD on a large table must act as fair as possible. He need to make the players shine appropriately, and not let some fade in the background. You will always find a moment when RP would stall, for example as two players are engaged in a never-ending circle, so sometimes interrupt the moment to ask directly someone who talk less but you are sure has opinions.

As for action, that's why I recommend to aim for the spectacular. You obviously need some staby peoples, but staby one then staby two and staby three preceding staby four is dull. If two guys engage the monsters, one try to manage the catapult, another throw himself with the same catapult, then you have the two guys who try to take the adversary by the side by climbing nets and one who try to saw a chain to let a huge pile of stuff drop upon the adversary, not mentioning a guy for piloting obviously a ship again, and the three last players could follow on the back of dolphins or mermaids. Of course they fight against pirates.
Everybody got the spotlight. Everybody wait for the next opportunity to act.
A tactical combat is by comparaison boring, long and seem not to evolve on any given turn.




-Scene Colision. When two discusions are happening at the same time and not everyone is involved. Chaos. You have people trying to communicate, and instead you get people not doing so. This is especially true if the D&D is happening Online, where you don't have the luxury of actually breaking the group.


You are again quite right, it is really painful. As I played only on such scale around physical tables, I agree also with changing sometimes the order around it to ease some process. You don't really need to break the group outside of dramatic effects, you have a lot of ways to manage it, including sitting active and reactive players so the active one cannot take all the place.
In a way, that's why I implemented stricter conditions around my ruling and my means to impose silence. If I may say so, a DM need to be dictatorial with a huge group.
But it is also why I tended to run a lot of discussion around those moments, questioning the players on how they felt the situation, and helping them articulating the difficulties. Again my groups tended to regulate themselves relatively quickly as soon as the problem was spoked out.

I think you should be careful to differentiate between the moments when the group discuss together, when a bit of chaos is expected, and the moments when they act in the world, when you need to be a bit more stricter.
For example,, in combat, I limited the peoples who could talk together. After a few of those moments, the players themselves picked the trick and started to say between themselves when it was relevant: "You cannot talk to him, you are too far/on the other side of the wall/under the sword of a foe/dangling on the last straw of a rope".
It really did wonders for the rhythm of combats and was actually pretty involving for everybody.

In moment when they were arguing, it was a delicate balancing between the fact that it is sometimes a normal group dynamic and the fact that it is often quite unproductive. Again, you need as a DM to be able to stop such discussion, restate the aim of the group and refresh the atmosphere or to let it go as it is an important moment for your group of players.


-Initiative Chaos. The more people involved, the slower the combat, and the more probable initiative will somehow get messed up. It also adds more monsters/npcs, which sometimes results in unbalanced encounters.


Right again. That's why a board or another mean of clearly and easily sharing informations is necessary.

On balancing, there's no way around: you have to accept that a part of the monsters have no other interest than to help the DM manage the economy of action. The goblin with an unique HP is classic. But if a scene end with the last standing HP of the last standing foe, you are missing something. So you need to know when the scene end, what conditions would trigger the next step. Killing a specific foe, opening a portal, starting the wagon, climbing on a ship, grabbing the McGuffin... the possibilities are really endless but you may find efficient to think of combat more like a dramatic moment than a tactical one.
The boss may be more difficult to balance, but again, with a big group, you have to think big.

One race to HP that I remember was great (and the scenario in a nutshell is for me a great example of what you could do with a huge group) actually happened in a tavern.
The players were stuck there because of some peace council that they had to protect. The tavern was actually great to offer a lot of threads: some players were involved with the council, others were searching around the city for an enemy that wanted to disrupt the proceeding, and they were also a few little snippet of topical things to do, from mangling with the locals to helping the owners of the place.
Here the setting was helpful to make all players feel relevant in a way or another, the stake were different but each moved forward a part of the story, be it the flavour of the tavern or the general narrative of the campaign, and I had always some side scene to use.

At one point evil forces would act, infiltrating some kind of shadow stalker inside the place. Think of some spoof on Alien of course. Here the aim was actually to kill the last one of the beasts, but the setting of the fight was the entirety of the tavern, too huge for the players not to split.
They were involved in the same fight but, by using an entire building, I was able to make the action more dynamic. Balancing was easier, a regular CR was totally fine, and the players were involved in the life of the tavern so the tension was also there.

It worked well, at least for my group.



-RP Mess up. As a result of less spotlight, and trying to avoid stealing the spotlight from others, you don't develop your character as much as you'd like, and your character is only a fraction of what you want it to be. Sometimes you feel presured to "perform" your RP quickly when you get the spotligh, which results in a crude and bad RP.


Again, that's right but, like an overexposed Marvel superheroes kill an Avenger movie, fleshing a character for a large group is a different task than for a little table.
I know that for a lot of peoples, developing a character is judged by the weight of pages detailing their domestic chipmunk or the last week of school of their old Aunt Griselda.
In a huge group, your basic RP should be simple to begin with, even starting with a catchphrase. You will emerge from that by actually playing your character, using your compagnons and your adventures to build a specific way of making it work. The Giant here does something like that for quite some time now.

But again, all the difficulties you state are real, and the trick I used may not work for everybody, for some it is not what they expect from roleplaying, for others it is a great way of having fun. I have really fond memories of those huge groups, as much as it was a very intense experience to make them work. I prefer today to play in more intimate settings but I still think that there is a place in the landscape of gaming for huge, chaotic and epic tables.

Kaptin Keen
2018-09-11, 12:56 AM
The problems of a large group are multiplied by the number of players in it. Obviously.

One player: Hardly any problems. One multiplied by one is still one. You're golden.
Two players: One-player-problems squared
Three players: Two-player-problems squared
Four players: Three-player-problems squared
And so on.

This problem can be seen at it's most extreme in those big game houses we call parliaments.

Disclaimers:
I have no clue about maths, and any nonsense in the above I refer to Jan Madsen, my public school math teacher. He's many years in the grave now, but that's not on me.
I also made a joke about real world politics. I beg forgiveness of the powers that be for this heinous crime. I was just trying to be clever.

Rhedyn
2018-09-13, 11:21 AM
I'm currently DM-ing for a group of six well adjusted, cool headed people. When we finish current campaign, I'm thinking of inviting another three. All three are well tested, experienced players. I have about 10 years of experience as a DM and I think such a group might be interesting - and even fun.

What can you tell me on this?

thanks
Don't do it. My normal group is 7. That's too large. People get on their switches between turns or even out-of-combat when something does not relate to them.

This means pulling them in for their turn or when they are spoken to, takes time and that little time adds up pretty quickly, and once that is going people start side conversations to keep themselves entertained as they wait and so on and so on.

I would never start a group with more than 6 players. My current secondary group is 5 players.

If you really want 9 players, I have a suggestion. Maybe have two groups of 4 and a co-GM that handles half the duties. Have the two groups be important to each other and maybe switch tables, but run each separately (could even be in the same room). That way people get to do things and you get your large group.

Quertus
2018-09-13, 12:49 PM
So, you take a group of experienced large-group war gamers, tell them that a dozen people will each be playing three characters, they'll do the math, and be surprised at how few playing pieces there are. Tell them that your group has problems managing even a quarter of this, and they'll just boggle. Telling people whose biggest concern is finding enough table space to field their armies that you have players who lack the attention span to manage a single piece? It's utterly ridiculous.

No, large tables are not inherently problematic. They aren't a problem unless people's game style and expectations make them a problem.

So, the problem I'm still trying to work out is, what play styles and expectations make larger gaming groups problematic? Because, y'know, it's worked just fine at my tables...