Running a one/multi shot for a group of 7 new players?

[Pikashell]

Hello, guys, long time no see!

Got myself in a bit of pickle recently after I suggested playing dnd to some guys from my university. Things kind of went more off the rails than I thought and we currently have 7 potential players. I expect that somebody will probably quit before we start but I am still concerned as I've never run a game for more than 4 players and I haven't dmed in a while.

My idea was to run a pre written adventure, either one made by wotc or a friend who does homebrew in his spare time. I don't want to spend too much time writing a narrative/ creating maps because of studying.

So what would you guys suggest in a situation like this? Should I just beef up the encounters of an existing adventure or just split the group up into 2 and run whatever I want? Do I have any alternatives?

Thanks for reading

[Mastikator]

If I were you I'd drop 2 players. Encourage them to DM and recruit more players themselves (you can even share players). I wouldn't try to DM for all 7 though, not as one group or as two groups. There's only one of you and DMing one group is already a lot.

[Pikashell]

If I were you I'd drop 2 players. Encourage them to DM and recruit more players themselves (you can even share players). I wouldn't try to DM for all 7 though, not as one group or as two groups. There's only one of you and DMing one group is already a lot.

Wouldn't it be okay having 2 groups just for the one shot though or is it too much still? Because I don't intend on it turning into a regular campaign, I have my own group already.

[Mastikator]

You could, but you'd be spreading yourself pretty thin. Unless there's a big time gap between the two groups. Splitting the group is a fine idea IMO, but you DMing both of them is not. With so many people perhaps someone else could heed the call and step up behind the DM screen.

[tKUUNK]

Hmm yeah 7 is a bunch, especially new players. If you DO run one game for all of them, consider separating the characters into two squads. The squads can work in parallel toward a common goal... simultaneously storming a castle from two angles (air & underground)...or tracking different crime suspects across a city...something like this. Allow them to use meta-knowledge (maybe they are all mind linked by some special magic).

I find that even though it means players have down-time, it also means everyone in a bigger group gets a chance to really engage with the plot.

[Vyke]

Hello, guys, long time no see!

Got myself in a bit of pickle recently after I suggested playing dnd to some guys from my university. Things kind of went more off the rails than I thought and we currently have 7 potential players. I expect that somebody will probably quit before we start but I am still concerned as I've never run a game for more than 4 players and I haven't dmed in a while.

My idea was to run a pre written adventure, either one made by wotc or a friend who does homebrew in his spare time. I don't want to spend too much time writing a narrative/ creating maps because of studying.

So what would you guys suggest in a situation like this? Should I just beef up the encounters of an existing adventure or just split the group up into 2 and run whatever I want? Do I have any alternatives?

Thanks for reading

Big thing is are the 7 new players?

If so I'd definitely keep the 7. It's a little too many for my taste but for a limited run it should be ok. They have enthusiasm now and trying to introduce scheduling and side-lining some will kill that.

You have a hell of a resource with your friend who homebrews. Assuming they aren't one of the 7 see if there's anything you can steal. You want enough for one night.

If these are new players keep it real simple. 5 encounters for a night with a clear ending tops. You'll not get as far as you think, you'll be busy handling rules questions. If your friend is free it might be handy to have an assistant DM to answer rules questions for new players. If not, no worries it's doable without.

Same idea with characters, ask what they're interested in, gen up some simple sheets and let them pick.

7 is tricky but weirdly only really hard on the night. The size of the group actually means you need material... they'll take longer to go through it. Just make sure that it has a clear goal and a fun encounter at the end and it'll b fine.

If they want more... that's where you need to start making decisions.

[opaopajr]

This goes back to the Geek Social Fallacies that because people are remotely interested they are entitled to invite others and all play at the same time like everyone's glued at the hip, and that you who may be: rusty GMing, limited play area occupancy, busy with life thus unable to handle a size greater than X, etc. can not use such an "excuse" without social censure. :smallsmile:

This is Socially False.

You are the one hosting, and GMing, so in fact it is your responsibility to define this event's parameters for the consideration of those participating.

The challenge is how to "break it gently" without "breaking hearts"?

Very simple, all you can do is be professional and courteous opening the adult conversation about what you can manage and how together the group can narrow down the experience to the most novice and desirous players who can commit to the date.

There is no shame or sin in the open ask. There is no shame or sin in the gentle refusal. You asked and seven people showed interest. Now that they "asked you" and you can not perform at such capacity, now you must do the gentle refusal. No acrimony, just open mature understanding.

Further you may run another event in the future that will prioritize those who did not get a seat at the table the first time.

Be unafraid. People are way more understanding than we give credit. This also explains why public speaking scares a majority of the people more than death -- and yet most people don't die from public speaking. :smallcool:

[Vyke]

This goes back to the Geek Social Fallacies that because people are remotely interested they are entitled to invite others and all play at the same time like everyone's glued at the hip, and that you who may be: rusty GMing, limited play area occupancy, busy with life thus unable to handle a size greater than X, etc. can not use such an "excuse" without social censure. :smallsmile:

This is Socially False.

You are the one hosting, and GMing, so in fact it is your responsibility to define this event's parameters for the consideration of those participating.

The challenge is how to "break it gently" without "breaking hearts"?

Very simple, all you can do is be professional and courteous opening the adult conversation about what you can manage and how together the group can narrow down the experience to the most novice and desirous players who can commit to the date.

There is no shame or sin in the open ask. There is no shame or sin in the gentle refusal. You asked and seven people showed interest. Now that they "asked you" and you can not perform at such capacity, now you must do the gentle refusal. No acrimony, just open mature understanding.

Further you may run another event in the future that will prioritize those who did not get a seat at the table the first time.

Be unafraid. People are way more understanding than we give credit. This also explains why public speaking scares a majority of the people more than death -- and yet most people don't die from public speaking. :smallcool:

This is absolutely fair, your comfort matters as much as theirs. There will also inevitably be at least a couple who are enthusiastic, but less enthusiastic. They won't mind dropping out as much as you might think. Ultimately youneed to decide what you can be comfortable with. If you can do all seven and they're all keen... do that (It's probably the ideal, but the world isn't ideal). If you can't, just say that and break it up as you feel comfortable. They'll get it.