PDA

View Full Version : New player joining, although the group doesn't want to?



Bücherdiebin
2019-08-09, 09:30 PM
Hi Giants! :)
This is my first post, so please don't be hard on me... Also not a native speaker, but I'm happy to clarify anything I might have missaid!

I'm a fairly new DM (about 1 1/2 years) and my group has gone through a lot of changes, mostly because we all started out as total newbies and kinda learned the game together (which I loved!).
I've felt like we had quite a good dynamic going, and after a lot of changing around and trying new characters, everyone seems to have settled on something he enjoys playing. So I thought it's time to start a bigger campaign, which we have so far played for

Now the problem: one of my players really made an effort to introduce her boyfriend into the game, by asking us to let him watch. We all agreed, already half knowing one day she would probably ask us to let him play with us full time, but that seemed to be some time from then as he also didn't seem to invested in the game and it seemed to be more her dream than his.
Last week she proposed to lead a Oneshot herself, which I happily agreed to because I like to give everyone a chance to experience DMing (and I'm glad someone thought so when they let me take the wheel... :D)

She finished composing the story faster than anticipated and we moved her session to today. She used the same world as me, but another setting unrelated to mine and she asked us to do new characters for that.

Today she brought her boyfriend, who has also prepared a character (surprise!) and stated she wants to have him join us for her Oneshot. As it was her game I thought that was okay and today it really was fun! :)

Afterwards, he came to me asking if he could play with us from now on. As he approached me alone, as the DM, I felt like that wasn't a choice I could make without the group and postponed a decision, but I'm not quite sure how to handle it.. I know the group won't be thrilled, but I am afraid his girlfriend would be upset if we said no...

Any experience on how to handle situations like this? I don't have a problem with the guy, I'm just reluctant to let someone join if the rest is of the group is unhappy with that and solely because we don't know how to voice our concerns.

I am truly sorry for this novel.. it kinda makes me happy to be able to receive feedback from someone who is not quite as invested as me, and maybe some new ideas... In case anyone has made it through the wall of text :D

Anyway, if you did - thank you!!
Love,
Lia

Inchhighguy
2019-08-09, 09:47 PM
I guess you could vote?

Though, guess first you'd have to vote on how to vote: is it majority rules? Must it be unamimious?

You did not really mention why did the group dislike the guy.....

Bücherdiebin
2019-08-09, 09:58 PM
Thank you for your reply, Inchhighguy! :)
Oops, might have forgotten to include that...

It's not that we don't like him, it's more that

a) we already are 5 players + DM and kinda agreed a while ago that a sixth player at the table might be too much for us.

b) we don't have a lot in common and nothing to talk about (expect his girlfriend). We started out as a group of friends and I personally hoped to keep it that way.

c) aaaargh I don't know I wish I just wouldn't like him, that would make things a lot easier ^^ or am I just being picky / selfish by purposely keeping him out of the group? Now that you have asked me for my reasons I have problems pinpointing them. Might this be a sign....? :D
I talked to one of my players about it and he felt the same way, that's why I keep saying "we", but maybe I shouldn't just go with my guts but actually ask the others. Stupid me..

A vote sounds good, except it might be awkward for him to attend, but telling him to leave the room so we can vote is equally awkward :D

Great Dragon
2019-08-09, 10:10 PM
I talked to one of my players about it and he felt the same way, that's why I keep saying "we", but maybe I shouldn't just go with my guts but actually ask the others. Stupid me..

A vote sounds good, except it might be awkward for him to attend, but telling him to leave the room so we can vote is equally awkward :D

Definitely talk to your group.
If you don't already have the following set up, ask the Group if they would be interested, and which would be easier for them to use.

As the DM, I do my best to make sure everyone in the group has at least one way to contact me. Email is the most common means for me. Not only can I put in more information, it can also be used to link players within the same Group.

Since you are all friends, perhaps Phone, text for short messages and calling for long/complex messages, would be the best way to reach each other?

Keltest
2019-08-09, 10:16 PM
I'm generally in the camp of "the more the merrier", but if you genuinely think that you as a group would struggle to add more people and keep everybody involved, I think your best move here is to be up front about it. It isn't that you specifically don't want him in, its that you aren't sure you can add him without everybody having to start taking some time in the back seat.

When he was there watching, was he interacting with the group, socializing, and interacting with the other people even if he wasn't in the game? Remember that the goal is to have fun, and if youre all still having a good time with him around even at the expense of game progress or player spotlight time, i'd say youre still all coming out ahead. I've expanded my circle of immediate friends more than once by inviting friends of friends over for some tabletop gaming. Youre almost certainly all at least some flavor of nerd there, so I would be surprised if you couldn't find other things to talk about after a little bit of getting to know him.

Personally, I would give him a chance, and if you genuinely couldn't work with that many people, let him know after a couple sessions that youre really struggling to keep everything running. Make it clear that it isn't personal, you don't dislike him and don't actively want him gone, you just cant expand the group while still being fair to the players who were already there.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-08-09, 10:44 PM
I would have just said straight away that I can't run this game for more than five people at once.

False God
2019-08-09, 11:17 PM
Thank you for your reply, Inchhighguy! :)
Oops, might have forgotten to include that...

It's not that we don't like him, it's more that

a) we already are 5 players + DM and kinda agreed a while ago that a sixth player at the table might be too much for us.

b) we don't have a lot in common and nothing to talk about (expect his girlfriend). We started out as a group of friends and I personally hoped to keep it that way.

c) aaaargh I don't know I wish I just wouldn't like him, that would make things a lot easier ^^ or am I just being picky / selfish by purposely keeping him out of the group? Now that you have asked me for my reasons I have problems pinpointing them. Might this be a sign....? :D
I talked to one of my players about it and he felt the same way, that's why I keep saying "we", but maybe I shouldn't just go with my guts but actually ask the others. Stupid me..

A vote sounds good, except it might be awkward for him to attend, but telling him to leave the room so we can vote is equally awkward :D

A: I'd say two things at once, you don't know until you've tried, and this is probably your best argument for not letting him joing.

B: I mean, I don't have a lot in common with the folks I play D&D with, but I enjoy D&D with them and that's enough. Maybe his "not-in-common" elements will bring something new and exciting to the table and everyone will learn and grow and you'll get a new friend!

C: You NEED to ask everyone. It would be worse to not ask and find out that the other players think the guy is great and want to play with him, or are at least willing to give him a chance. I mean obviously the girlfriend is biased here but include her in the discussion, SHE needs to know as much as you do how everyone else in the group feels.

IMO: it sounds like the guy enjoyed himself in the one-shot and would like to keep playing. Even if it's "hard" to run for 6 people, I'd give it a go. You never know the guy could be super easy to deal with. And I would absolutely recruit the GF to basically "co-DM" and (pun intended) hold her BF's hand through the first few sessions. She wants him to play, she needs to have some responsibility for handling him, and given her willingness to run a one-shot, it sounds like she's already willing to do that.

Spore
2019-08-10, 07:53 AM
Personally I advocate against an open vote. I would let him or her get a "trial" of sorts. This sounds very snobby but this way the guys have a possiblity to watch her in action (rather than inaction), and having her in the game should be something that is decided uni sono rather than by popular vote anyhow.

If people don't want her, please ask them why.



Any experience on how to handle situations like this? I don't have a problem with the guy, I'm just reluctant to let someone join if the rest is of the group is unhappy with that and solely because we don't know how to voice our concerns.

You are the DM in this case, a person of trust I hope. Often people let themselves guide their opinion, or even change their opinion upon additional facts. And honestly, it is twofold here. You can gauge interest or sympathy, but you can also create sympathy for her.

Maybe even chat or speak with every player individually to gauge their personal feelings in an environment that has no peer pressure.

I say that as a newbie DM and someone who was thrust into charge of more than a dozen people at work a few months ago. If you ask, you have to accept no for an answer. If you can avoid a dilemma for yourself by influencing the result in a positive way (without forcing people to change their mind), then do that.

Lastly you have to know yourself if you CAN manage 5 players. It is possible imho but 4 players just cut the downtime. You have to tell the players the facts:

1) Another player means you will have to be quick about taking turns.

2) It means there will be less RP for you and more RP to watch.

3) It could mean more deaths (because encounters have to be upscaled but the individual's HP stays the same).

4) It could create discord in your decision making (we have lost many hours conversing what to do next but that has also lead to some cool RP moments).

Honestly I would keep a positive attitude and try it.

Jay R
2019-08-10, 11:34 AM
He is part of her life now -- and quite probably a more important part than your game. You need to expect that quite possibly, you are not choosing between having 5 or 6 players. You might be choosing between having 4 or 6 players.

Bücherdiebin
2019-08-10, 11:40 AM
He is part of her life now -- and quite probably a more important part than your game. You need to expect that quite possibly, you are not choosing between having 5 or 6 players. You might be choosing between having 4 or 6 players.

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking. I don't think you need to bring your partner into every hobby you have at any cost, but that's a person view :)


Thank you everyone, I will talk to my group but will definitely keep in mind that we don't want to lose her. I appreciate all of your opinions! It has helped me reflect on the situation and why I might be feeling this way :)

Mastikator
2019-08-10, 11:55 AM
Thank you for your reply, Inchhighguy! :)
Oops, might have forgotten to include that...

It's not that we don't like him, it's more that

a) we already are 5 players + DM and kinda agreed a while ago that a sixth player at the table might be too much for us.


5 + DM is already a lot, not accepting another player for that is all the valid reason you need.

Still put it up for a vote so you're not the bad guy.

Jay R
2019-08-10, 12:23 PM
Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking. I don't think you need to bring your partner into every hobby you have at any cost, but that's a person view :)

You don't have to, and she probably won't. And for all her hobbies except one, that's none of your business. But this particular hobby is one that she wants to share with him, and he wants to share with her.

It may be one of several, or it may be the only one. Doesn't matter. Your only concern is that she wants to share this one with him.

Bücherdiebin
2019-08-10, 12:29 PM
You don't have to, and she probably won't. And for all her hobbies except one, that's none of your business. But this particular hobby is one that she wants to share with him, and he wants to share with her.

It may be one of several, or it may be the only one. Doesn't matter. Your only concern is that she wants to share this one with him.

Hey, please stay calm :) it's alright, but you shouldn't criticize me based on this alone, especially since I didn't criticize her - and if I do so I will, but personally :) there's a lot more to this then I wrote down - just because I think it's nothing to share publicly.

I'm glad for your opinion, thanks for sharing it. Just please watch for your tone please and remember that you might not know the whole story, before taking out the moral club. :)

denthor
2019-08-10, 04:25 PM
Let him play. If he does not like he will leave. You do not like him? Gee never knew that was something. I do not like the people in my group. I do not go out for food afterwards. Do not go to there home or be with them anywhere else.

You never know. I change personalities with each character different thought solutions.

GrayDeath
2019-08-10, 05:10 PM
Now as it seems to me, its not that you, or as far as you know anyone, have a specific reason for him not to join (he didnt make an ass out of himself, eat all the snacks, or distract his GF all the time or whatever ^^), so I would vote to do it like I do with my groups:

First ask your group, when tehy all are there,m if they are generally OK with another player.

If they say no, ask why, but accept it.

if they say yes, let him play for a while and see where it elads.

Normally, as long as all players are fine with their characters being taken care of by the DM if they should not make it to a game too late for it to reschedule, more players are always a good thing (TM).

As long as all get along, that is. ^^

Quertus
2019-08-11, 06:47 AM
Welcome to the Playground, Lia.

First, some formalities: apologies in advance for anyone (including myself) who is to hard on you. I'm a **** at times. Don't take any of our strongly-stated "it must be X" advice too seriously - we aren't at your table. And your English posts are excellent - better than many native speakers. Also, what does "Bücherdiebin" mean?

That out of the way,

Talk to your group. Find out how they really feel.

You've put yourself in a bad spot - the player knows you're about to start a big campaign, and so it's a "now or never" moment for their SO to join.

IMO, your best option is to put that campaign on hold a little longer, and (assuming your players don't object) run a short adventure (maybe 3-5 sessions) that includes this new player.

This will give you time to put your objections into words, and maybe even to test whether they are true or not. For example, the objection that an additional player would be one too many. Was it too many when the other player ran the game and included their SO? Either way, actually test to see if it's too many for you.

Personally, I wouldn't make the decision in the form of a popularity contest, with a vote - I'd make it in the form of Science, with testable hypotheses.

Pleh
2019-08-11, 11:25 AM
I've had a similar scenario.

It's important to have a conversation with the group outside of game time to let everyone express their feelings about this. The person being talked about shouldn't be there, so people can be free to be honest without hurting feelings. If the "new" player's SO can be part of the conversation without being hurt by rejection, they should be there, since they are part of the group. If they would take it personally, they probably should not be part of the conversation, so people can express their feelings honestly.

It's not quite a vote. It's more of a discussion. You want to try to please everyone as far as you can, but you also don't want the other players hiding resentment. Towards the end, there should be something like a vote where people give a short answer to how they feel about things and what they feel the group should do. It's an act of coming to a group decision.

After the group has made a decision, you bring the "new" player (and SO, if they weren't there) and you express the group's decision in a polite and respectful manner. If you feel this may be hurtful, then instead the DM should convey the information with these players privately and explain how accomodating their desires would disrupt the existing game dynamic.

OverLordOcelot
2019-08-11, 01:28 PM
One thing to think about: Is the new guy joining as a new member of the group like everyone else, or is he an adjunct who's just attached to her and not a real member of the group? Because if you do bring him in, you should really think about what you'll do when the two of them eventually break up. Will one of them automatically get kicked on that occasion, so there should be an implied 'don't get too attached to this guy, she could decide he's gone at any second', or will they both have the option to stay, and then you'll need to abjudicate a nasty custody battle over who gets to be in the game?

I mean, yeah, of course they expect their relationship to last forever and ever and ever, but the real world most relationships just don't sustain indefinitely.

Gnarbrag
2019-08-12, 11:37 AM
Talk about this with your group but I warn against voting. Voting creates winners and losers and you probably don't want that.

kyoryu
2019-08-12, 04:51 PM
6 isn’t that bad. And, as has been pointed out, you are likely choosing between 4 and 6. If she wants to play with him, and can’t do it with your group, she will probably do it with another group.

Talk to the group. If you can do so without her, express your concern about losing both of them. See if you can try it and see how it goes. Then emphasize to him that this is making the group large and that it would be a good sign on his part if he can make sure to be on top of things and not drag the game down - be ready with his move on combat, etc.

Faily
2019-08-12, 05:25 PM
Welcome to the Playground!


My answer will be a little bit different, as I was the "girlfriend who go invited to the boyfriend's playgroup". Mind you, I wasn't completely new to roleplaying games but still pretty newbie. I was allowed to tag along for the group's session once, and since one player couldn't make it I got to play their character for them... which ended horribly as I ended up getting the character killed! :smalleek: .

Anyhow... after that little blunder, I was given the chance to make my own character to join the group with. It meant the group of players grew from 5 to 6 (and plus the GM), and while I don't know how the others felt about the "girlfriend who tagged along" at the time, I do get along great with them today and still play with most of them.

And well, that's because I think they were willing to take the chance and let a new person try to discover the fun of playing roleplaying games. It was probably difficult to handle one extra player to start with, but in my experience I had great help from everyone at the table to get me into the swing of things and I don't think I stalled the game anything. Besides, a new player might introduce new dynamic to the party composition as well as new ideas.

So, my advice would be to give him a chance. I think it would mean a lot to your friend to be able to share this with her boyfriend, because if she wants to introduce him to you and your playgroup I think it means something in how well she regards you guys.

Knaight
2019-08-12, 05:39 PM
My first inclination would be to temporarily defer entrance - tell them that you've already got a sizeable logistical load and don't want to add to it for the current campaign, but that he's definitely invited to any future one shots and that you'll add him to the next one where you can account for the new group size from the beginning. Granted, I also consider a long campaign 15 sessions; if you're aiming for something long this doesn't work as well; waiting a month is a lot less to ask than waiting three years.

Glorthindel
2019-08-13, 04:27 AM
One thing I will suggest - if you have any type of vote it is vitally important that the vote is conducted blind.

No-one likes being the guy who says no, and in an open vote where everyone (including the girlfriend) can see who voted what, even people with a strong reason to say no, will not do so, for fear of being seen to be the killjoy who kept the guy out (and will likely earn the emnity of the girlfriend). Have people submit their votes to you, and you relay only the result, not who voted what. This will allow people to vote how they truly feel, and not be peer pressured into voting another way.

Aneurin
2019-08-13, 04:49 AM
I would talk to your group, but do it individually and privately each time. No-one is going to want to speak out against someone's boyfriend in their presence. This means speaking to the player who's boyfriend it is, as well, though I'd speak to them last and help them understand the issues others may have, as well - preferably without mentioning names.

I would also be very careful to have quick access to the prospective player so that you can explain the decision to them before anyone else can, so that they get as complete and unbiased a view of the situation as you can contrive. This is especially important in the event the current player doesn't like the decision and becomes upset - it would be very easy for them to misrepresent the reasons to their partner in that case.

I probably wouldn't do a vote, or, at least, wouldn't do a vote until I'd sounded everyone out and they'd said yes. At which point it's fairly pointless, but it's nice for everyone to see that they agree.


In any event, if the group agrees and you're still not sure you can handle a group that large, tell that to the prospective player and offer them a trial period to see if you can cope, with no hard feelings if you can't. Everyone has limits, and that's okay. And at least you tried.

Hope this helps!

RNightstalker
2019-08-13, 05:42 PM
He is part of her life now -- and quite probably a more important part than your game. You need to expect that quite possibly, you are not choosing between having 5 or 6 players. You might be choosing between having 4 or 6 players.

I think this is the best reply so far. Me personally I would allow someone to bring a bf into the group to not risk losing her.

That being said, it's nice to have the other player's consent for two reasons though:
Where is the game being played at? The host must be cool with someone new coming into their home. If it's played in a public space, disregard.
Also, does the bf know anybody else in the group? If there's a bad history with someone or even an ex in the group, that could be bad.

Name_Here
2019-08-13, 08:33 PM
Personally I say you're the GM so that means it's your table and you get to decide who plays at it. The vote or talking to the other players just puts them in the middle of a conversation that they have no real stake in. They're not going to have to work harder or juggle one more ball. So for that reason I say make the decision on your own and then just be honest with the bf. If 6 is too many tell him if you tell people the way things are going to be 9/10 times they'll accept it and move on.

Quertus
2019-08-14, 07:25 AM
Personally I say you're the GM so that means it's your table and you get to decide who plays at it. The vote or talking to the other players just puts them in the middle of a conversation that they have no real stake in. They're not going to have to work harder or juggle one more ball. So for that reason I say make the decision on your own and then just be honest with the bf. If 6 is too many tell him if you tell people the way things are going to be 9/10 times they'll accept it and move on.

But *is* 6 too many? Has the OP tested that hypothesis? Certainly not with this particular group.

Was 6 too many for the other GM (the SO)? If it's too many for the OP, but not for the SO, then maybe the OP should step down, and let the SO run the game (at least until the OP can get their skills to the SO's level).

The OP has indicated that they believe that the group is against this course of action, but has provided no justification for this belief, having (iirc) not actually discussed this with their group.

The OP has clearly shown that they have reservations, but that they are unable to articulate those reservations. If the OP makes a potentially group-damaging or -destroying decision without consulting the group - especially when group might have opinions on and information about the decision that the OP lacks - that's abuse of power and bad managerial skills.

And, further, the group is *highly* invested in the outcome, as either decision could damage or destroy the group. Or improve it. Also, the GM juggling an additional ball means both less time with the GM's hands on their ball, and more balls for them to play with. Personally, I happen to prefer games with double-digit players at the table. IMO, that group should get the experience to give an educated answer regarding their preferences - on all counts.

Reevh
2019-08-14, 04:02 PM
This sort of happened to my group recently. We were 5+the DM. We played a full campaign this way, but a guy that was marginally attached to our group got jealous and wanted in. Most of the group found him to be a bit needy, anxious, and just generally someone whose emotional state you have to babysit all the time. The DM in particular couldn't stand the guy. But the one woman in our group liked him and they started dating.

In order to keep her happy, our DM allowed him to join our game when we started a new campaign. It was fine for a few sessions, but ultimately a combination of scheduling issues (getting 7 people together consistently is tough) and his attempts to change the way we played got a lot of us upset with him. Unfortunately, because he and the woman in our group were dating, it ended up being an us vs. them scenario, and devolved into bickering. She left, he left, and now we're a party of 4+DM.

It's kind of sad, because they were both actually great players, a lot of fun in game. But the out of game dynamics just didn't work anymore. The good news is that an adventuring party of 4 is much more manageable than a party of 6.

Name_Here
2019-08-14, 11:59 PM
But *is* 6 too many? Has the OP tested that hypothesis? Certainly not with this particular group.

Was 6 too many for the other GM (the SO)? If it's too many for the OP, but not for the SO, then maybe the OP should step down, and let the SO run the game (at least until the OP can get their skills to the SO's level).

Gotta admit I'm not actually interested in the answers to your question. If OP thinks six is too many then it's his call to make without judgement. Saying that he shouldn't be allowed to GM unless he is willing to bring in more people than he feels comfortable with is quite frankly an insane standard.


The OP has indicated that they believe that the group is against this course of action, but has provided no justification for this belief, having (iirc) not actually discussed this with their group.

Which is why I encouraged him to go with his own judgment about his table and to not go with the opinions of his players. Being honest and forthright is always the best way to deal with people.


The OP has clearly shown that they have reservations, but that they are unable to articulate those reservations. If the OP makes a potentially group-damaging or -destroying decision without consulting the group - especially when group might have opinions on and information about the decision that the OP lacks - that's abuse of power and bad managerial skills.

Lots of hyperbole there. In what world is saying "sorry I don't think that I can run a game of six players" group damaging or group destroying? Sure the guy and his SO will be disappointed but they get to ask for a spot at the table and the GM gets to say no.

Also I can't think of a worse quality for a manager than being lead around by those he's supposed to be leading against his own judgement.


And, further, the group is *highly* invested in the outcome, as either decision could damage or destroy the group. Or improve it. Also, the GM juggling an additional ball means both less time with the GM's hands on their ball, and more balls for them to play with. Personally, I happen to prefer games with double-digit players at the table. UMO, that group should get the experience to give an educated answer regarding their preferences - on all counts.

Are we not doing phrasing anymore?

Look I've been GMing a long time. I've never had a player at my table who wouldn't have responded with some version of "why are you asking me? Invite who you want" if I asked them about bringing X person into the group. And I would give the exact same trust to any GM I played with.

Zhorn
2019-08-15, 01:35 AM
Are we not doing phrasing anymore?
I would have, but you got to the quote first :smallwink:

@OP
This is a tough one.
I side with the opinion that you shouldn't feel obligated to expand the table if you do not want to, but I can understand that not everyone is as 'understanding' of that type of decision making.
Votes will either cause a rift if there are votes 'against' (be they cast in secret or open), and no one wants to be 'that guy' by openly voting against someone (potentially leading to a false-approved).
By even considering a vote with the opinion that you don't want him to join the game is just that again; trying to avoid being 'that guy'.
And then saying 'no' under any circumstance is bound to have implied meaning attached to it, which could lead to the pair of them moving off to another game anyway.

I do not envy the situation you are in.
Whatever happens, I hope your games continue in an enjoyable fashion.

Tawmis
2019-08-15, 02:20 AM
So I've played D&D since late 1975 (not even kidding!), and have been actively DMing for about 20 years now.
Until this past year, my preference was 5 players + DM.
The reason being is a round of combat (especially with new people) can take a long time to get around the table; especially when you throw in monsters into the rotation.
New players will frequently ask questions (out of character) to other players as to what they plan, what spell should they cast, should they move forward, etc. etc.
So 5 players + Monsters for rounds of combat can be considerably long.

That said, I began DMing for people who had never played D&D (one of them had played twice at a brewery) - and it started off with six players + me (DM). Just recently, the cleric's husband hearing how much fun she's been having (she went all out; bought a figure on Hero Forge, bought the player's handbook, can't even count how many sets of dice, joined the blind D&D loot box thing, etc) - he asked to join. Being the fact he was military, and everything he does for our country, I wasn't about to decline him. As it turned out, surprisingly, he was a great fit to the group. Combat does indeed take a long time to get around a table (it took almost 3 hours to fight an undead dragon!)

So, you could use the excuse that you're new to DMing still; and feel like 5 is a good fit. If you - and your players - get better/more comfortable and move the game faster; you could consider another player.

Or, take the risk, and see how it goes (naturally speak to your group and share the pros and cons).

Great Dragon
2019-08-15, 02:44 AM
If you - and your players - get better/more comfortable and move the game faster; you could consider another player.

Or, take the risk, and see how it goes

(naturally speak to your group and share the pros and cons).

I've been doing D&D since about 1983.
Very similar experiences as Tawmis.

Right now, I'm DMing for two large groups, one of about 8 players, and one for around 10.

For Initiative, I make a numbered list of players, add important Monsters; reminding players to plan ahead as much as possible; and keep the pace going as much as I can.

I do agree that you (Bücherdiebin) should inform and get feedback from the players, but shouldn't force yourself to do anything that makes you uncomfortable.

Once you decide, talk to the GF and SO and be honest. Sure, they might both leave, but maybe return later when there's enough room.

Unfortunately, the only way to find out if one more Player is too much, is to find out by trying. But, only you should decide if that's something you want to do.

Knaight
2019-08-19, 04:54 PM
But *is* 6 too many? Has the OP tested that hypothesis? Certainly not with this particular group.

Was 6 too many for the other GM (the SO)? If it's too many for the OP, but not for the SO, then maybe the OP should step down, and let the SO run the game (at least until the OP can get their skills to the SO's level).
This whole framework assumes that this is a matter of skill. It can't be that a game is more enjoyable with fewer players, it's just that the GM isn't good enough to hack 6. That's nonsense, and it's obvious nonsense for anyone who doesn't favor your very idiosyncratic way of playing. There's also the small matter of how adding a 6th player to an ongoing game is an entirely different matter than creating a game from the outset with the intention of having 6 players (or even with the intention of easily varying how many players are in it). Hence my suggestion of including the new player after this game concludes.


And, further, the group is *highly* invested in the outcome, as either decision could damage or destroy the group. Or improve it. Also, the GM juggling an additional ball means both less time with the GM's hands on their ball, and more balls for them to play with. Personally, I happen to prefer games with double-digit players at the table. IMO, that group should get the experience to give an educated answer regarding their preferences - on all counts.
The GM does not have an obligation to give the group an education into their own preferences by torpedoing their current successful game by turning it into some sort of experiment in group sizes.