|
1) Make 7 player tables illegal. This is the single biggest complaint I had as a Venture-Captain in Atlanta. It almost always make for a poorer experience at the table for both GMs and players. That one extra player at a table really does drag the game down.
I am of two minds about this. The tables I've had least fun at as either player or GM were 7 players. Fights are too short. Role play is cut down or out. People end up feeling irrelevant. The paperwork takes longer. There is less chance for players to come up with creative solutions because every possible skill ends up being covered in triplicate. I would have no problem at all seeing them go away.
I have also been the person who bowed out of a game so that someone else could play. At a convention this is not a big deal, but at a store while waiting for your ride to finish, ugh. Not fun.
All considered, less fun is better than no fun. I vote to leave it is at is and instead give GM's the option to add an additional thug or two to the encounter for every person over 5. That worked reasonably well in other campaigns I have participated in.
|
We must be doing something wrong here in Kentucky. My table of 7 has essentially gamed together now for closing on 15 adventures, with nary a problem and no complaints. Everyone has a good time, everyone has complimentary skill sets and roles in combat and out of combat. We all laugh and smile, we joke about the guy with 13 AC and joke about the guy with 24 AC (a combat effective monk, on a 20 point build that apparently was also being done wrong too...different thread) and the table has grown again, so now we have PFS EVERY week instead of every other week like we had planned.
7 players, 6 months, group growth and venue growth, a solid core of players and 3 GMs.
Not every 7 player table is the veritable hell that many here seem to make it out to be, and I'd daresay that perhaps its not so much the table as it is the players and the GM involved.
Or maybe like I mentioned before, I'm doing it wrong.
Eliminating the 7th player possibility will drive me from organized play.
|
|
From a player perspective I agree that 7 player tables are a drag for all involved. I hate playing at them, I hate judging them. However I still have to push against the outright ban of them. The reason why is, well, what is a convention coordinator to do when the dreaded 7th player shows up. It's one thing at the FLGS but at a con, it gets really hard really quick to turn that player away. When PFS officially allowed this option I was overjoyed after all the...difficulties I had with this issue as an LG con coordinator.
Maybe the solution is to make a distinction between private and public play. There's no reason 7 players should be allowed in a private play setting but the option needs to be there in public play settings
|
We must be doing something wrong here in Kentucky. My table of 7 has essentially gamed together now for closing on 15 adventures, with nary a problem and no complaints. Everyone has a good time, everyone has complimentary skill sets and roles in combat and out of combat. We all laugh and smile, we joke about the guy with 13 AC and joke about the guy with 24 AC (a combat effective monk, on a 20 point build that apparently was also being done wrong too...different thread) and the table has grown again, so now we have PFS EVERY week instead of every other week like we had planned.
7 players, 6 months, group growth and venue growth, a solid core of players and 3 GMs.
Not every 7 player table is the veritable hell that many here seem to make it out to be, and I'd daresay that perhaps its not so much the table as it is the players and the GM involved.
Or maybe like I mentioned before, I'm doing it wrong.
Eliminating the 7th player possibility will drive me from organized play.
A bit extreme response, there at the end.
And it is not that you are doing it wrong, it is that you have a non-standard version of the situation, since you have a group of players who ALWAYS play together, so they tend to build PCs as part of a normal group, rather than what the 7 player situation more normally deals with, 7 pick-up players, where each PC was designed as a stand-alone character, without knowing what other PCs you might be playing with.
Your situation probably winds up with a fairly well-balanced party, with someone for every role.
In normal, pick-up, public events with 7 players, you could wind up with anything from the rare well-balanced party, to a party of 7 PCs all of the same general class and build. And the rare well-balanced party may have fun, but the unbalanced parties tend to wind up with issues of various sorts, from someone being totally eclipsed, and noisily complaining about it, to failing the scenario because they have no one who can locate X clue.
|
|
The bottom line is that Conventions, Game Days and Home Play are going to do whatever they want regardless of the rules, UNLESS Paizo staff is on-site running things (like Paizocon, Gen Con). I saw that in Living Greyhawk and other RPGA organized play events when seven player tables were reported as six players tables with one omitted and eight player tables were reported as two - four player tables (both at a time when 7 player tables were forbidden).
The argument over maximum number of players has gone on back to Living City days. I do think cons tend to abuse the privlege of running seven player tables - if you don't have a good handle on attendance and the number of PFS players (and most cons don't) - I think you schedule fewer judges because it is cheaper and rely on going to 7 player tables to make up the slack.
What is Paizo going to do if this rule is implemented and someone runs a seven player table? Forbid the convention from ordering PFS modules in the future? Pema-ban of DM, Players and PFS coordinator? I just think that anything other than the current rule is just asking for trouble.
|
I agree with Joe Cabou and Caepio Alazio that I would prefer to have a good 6 player table where everyone is having fun verse the 7 player table where things are just worse off on average. It just further divides the GMs attention, causes issues with combat, and reduces the amount of roleplaying each player can get. It only gets worse if you have one or more new players, and the GM has to bring the game to a grinding halt at every juncture because he needs to sit down and explain the rules to the player/s. I’m sure there have been plenty of experiences where players and GMs have had good seven player tables, but on average in my experience it has not been enjoyable for everyone at the table. And this is what I have heard across the board with the GMs I regularly talk to and work with.
As has already been mentioned. Even if there is a rule in the books that a GM can reject that seventh player, there will be backlash against the GM who does not want 6 player tables sooner or later unfortunately. Either from the players, a coordinator, or someone organizing a convention. This compromise to let GMs turn down a 7 players table can make things very awkward for the GM. There is typically a lot of pressure on GMs to take that seventh player at conventions. Those GMs who refuse the 7th player will get a reputation of being a spoilsport and a poor team player with some if not a majority. I don’t see me having issues with the VCs of my region, but I cannot be guaranteed that with every coordinator I meet.
I can understand where those who want to keep the 7 player table are coming from. No one wants to turn a player away, and as a general rule all PFS judges want to be inclusive. But I think compromising the fun of the game to be slightly more inclusive just does not work for me in this situation.
|
|
What I don't understand is people in the reskinning thread are saying to take it away kills the fun in the game. However, even though a 7 player table can kill the fun in a game, it is ok if the need arises. You either want to keep the game fun or you don't. You can't really have it both ways.
Of the 78 games I have GMed, 12-15 of them were 7 player tables. I'm a skilled GM, but no matter how hard you try, the combats are cakewalks and each player loses face time that the majority of players enjoy, and even crave. They lose some of this FaceTime with the GM when there are 7 players. All of the tables I have GMed with 7 players are always a worse experience for the players than when there are only 6 or less. As a GM, it really doesn't affect me that an extra player is there because I am running the tactics as written. But, there is a cheapened experience for the players with that one extra player added. I've had new and veteran players alike at 7 player tables tell me the same thing.
As a convention coordinator for four cons over the past year where we ran 80+ tables at each, most players at 7 player tables at those cons had a lessened experience due to the 7 player table.
If it is a home group who is used to running a game with the same players, the same experience isn't going to happen, except the easier combats, because they are all accustomed to playing with each other. At conventions, 7 player tables are almost always a worse experience when compared to a 6 player or less table. I've been to 17 Gencons and started with Living City, and it has always been my experience as both a player and GM.
With that said, I will continue to watch this thread until Monday.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with banning 7-player tables is that it means that there are then 6 players having (allegedly) more fun while one shut-out player has no fun at all, or one of them is roped at-a-moment's-notice into GMing (when duplicate materials may not be available), which means there will be two 3-player + iconic NPC tables -- and these problems, I had always assumed, are why PFS opted for 7p in the first place.
I played a 7p last Sunday, and one thing which helped a lot was that the GM skipped one of the also-ran combats to give more time to roleplaying.
(BTW, crowded tables are not necessary cakewalks -- in fact they can be quite deadly, particularly when enemy AoE spells are involved in "target-rich environment" situations -- such encounters can turn into routs where lots of PCs are simultaneously unconscious and the healer(s) can't easily handle multiple victims.)
|
no matter how hard you try, the combats are cakewalks
This, more than anything else. Encounters with 3 goons and 7 players force me to add more goons to the scenario (which I know I'm not supposed to do) just to give everyone a chance to act, and maybe threaten the party a little.
And depending on how many pets/summoned creatures the party has, one round can take forever in a party of 7! It's a lesser experience for everyone.
Sorry for the walk-ups who can't squeeze in, but they really ought to pre-register. Ideally, organizers would have something with minimal prep like Crypt of Everflame or We Be Goblins ready to go and put a table together for new player walk-ups, but after that, anyone wanting to play in an Organized Play system needs to be ready to pre-register. Pre-registration allows organizers and GMs to plan appropriately. If you are just walking in to see what's available, you're taking a risk. Sometimes you can get in, sometimes you can't.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's kinda the big rub: There's really three types of PFS games being played:
1) Convention PFS: Ex-Paizo-Con and Gen-Coon
2) Local PFS Chapters: Game shops, other local places (I know a group that plays out of their local library conference room once a week.)
3) Home Societies
Each group is going to have different dynamics and issues. As well as different styles of GM's and players. While having 7 players may work in Home Societies, and some local PFS chapters, it really doesn't work as well in convention PFS. If that be the case, we really can't drop a master rule to apply to all societies. It's unfair, and most likely to be broken.
What do we do to solve said problem? Leave the rules as is, and leave the decision to the coordinators and GM's. At the end of the day, GM's and coordinators are the ones running the show and the last thing you want to do is tie us down with hard rules that we would have to take hell for because we broke them and rules lawyers all over the place would come down on us about.
If we're going to have to put a hard rule down, then I think this rule should really only apply to Convention PFS players. As I have GM a 7 table at a con, and the noise alone is enough. Did my players have a good time nonetheless, yes, but six will always be the ideal number in a convention setting.
|
|
If you have eight people in one room, there will be more noise with two 3p+iconic tables than with one big table. Why? Two GMs have to simultaneously make themselves heard over the the other table.
(I'm guessing that a lot of rancor toward 7p tables is due to the shape of the table more than anything. Most CONs are in hotels which have long, thin tables rather than the more-squared ones typical of game stores and dining rooms.)
|
What do we do to solve said problem? Leave the rules as is, and leave the decision to the coordinators and GM's. At the end of the day, GM's and coordinators are the ones running the show and the last thing you want to do is tie us down with hard rules that we would have to take hell for because we broke them and rules lawyers all over the place would come down on us about.
Pretty much this.
There shouldn't be many rules that make my job as a local coordinator more difficult or more inflexible.
-Pain
|
|
What I don't understand is people in the reskinning thread are saying to take it away kills the fun in the game. However, even though a 7 player table can kill the fun in a game, it is ok if the need arises. You either want to keep the game fun or you don't. You can't really have it both ways.
I think the key words there are "can" and "if the need arises". A 7 player table can kill the fun in a game, and some people (yourself included) have had bad experiences with it. Other people haven't and don't mind a 7 player table. In some situations it's the only way you can fit everyone who wants to play.
The argument here (nicely summarized by Lady Ophelia & Painlord) is that it is better to give local coordinators & DMs flexibility than it is to restrict their options from the top down. A 7 player table isn't right in every situation, but it MAY be the best option under the circumstances. Which does fit with the arguments in the reskinning thread, where people in favor seem to prefer having the option and knowing it might not always work out at every table then having the possibility cut off entirely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a skilled GM, but no matter how hard you try, the combats are cakewalks...
If there is a problem with PFS combats being cakewalks, then perhaps that problem should be addressed directly, by toughening the combats or by officially giving GMs the flexibility needed to toughen the combats on-the-spot.
Reducing maximum table size is an indirect and ineffective solution which will not solve the problem of combat-cakewalks. The combats are already cakewalks with less than seven players.
-Matt
|
Of the 78 games I have GMed, 12-15 of them were 7 player tables.
Michael
If you GMed so many 7 player tables then something is wrong - but not with the rule itself. It should be left for exeptional circumstances and you can't have them that often.
As far as I can tell I GMed 2 out of 62 with 7 players (unless I forgot a table). Out of the 54 I organised not a single one was a seven player table (but I nearly messed this record up yesterday night). And I played once or twice on a seven player table. In all these cases there were special reasons.
Let me give you an example:
At a four day convention my wife drove down on day 2. I was ahead on GM duty. Timing was tough but she thought she would manage to get into the late slot. Places are given out at mustering 10 minutes ahead of play.
5 minutes ahead of mustering I get a phone call. She is somewhere close, in tears and doesn't know where we are. GPS malfunctioning. It takes her 20 minutes to reach the convention. Just before she arrives she is close to turning back and drive home 4 hours. And off course her space is taken.
The co-ordinator and the GM arrange a seventh place for her. At the end of night she is back to her normal self and enjoyed two more days of great gaming made possible because she could take part as a seventh player.
If you GMed more than 15% of tables with 7 players and dislike it, then something is wrong. But don't solve it with a rule change. Leave it up to co-ordinators and GMs to decide.
Thod
Thod
|
|
What do we do to solve said problem? Leave the rules as is, and leave the decision to the coordinators and GM's. At the end of the day, GM's and coordinators are the ones running the show and the last thing you want to do is tie us down with hard rules that we would have to take hell for because we broke them and rules lawyers all over the place would come down on us about.Pretty much this.
There shouldn't be many rules that make my job as a local coordinator more difficult or more inflexible.
-Pain
I agree with my fellow local PFS Coordinator Master Painlord. (From same gaming region.) Please don't tie me down anymore than needed. Many days, just being the PFS Coordinator is a hard enough job. Extra rules that will tie me up and put me in a corner, really doesn't help me.
You know what would help me though? A PFS Subscription plan would.. Or more marketing support for the FLGS that host our socities? Anyway we can do something about that? Free swag for GM's who reach a certain star level would be nice too :)
|
|
2) Being denied any kind of interaction with the NPCs in the adventure severely limits the level of fun (in my opinion). PFS has not been very giving in regards to PC-NPC interactions, at least in comparison to the OP campaign with which I was most involved (Living Arcanis). Likewise, being denied 'face time' because of a multitude of players at the table can limit fun, but it does not keep it from happening.
IME, the players usually have a lot more fun roleplaying off each other than they do the NPCs.
I think everyone could benefit from occasional crowded tables, especially noobs just starting -- it gets them acclimated to a roleplaying mindset when amongst of bunch of others all talking in-character.
GMs in the situations feel pressed to put a kabosh on the antics to move the adventure forward -- but do they really have to? A quick-thinking GM could merge two of the encounter groups/locations/whatnot to save a ton of time while simultaneous presenting the larger-than-normal groups of PCs with a more credible challenge. (It makes sense that a outnumbered of bag guys would retreat from a larger-than-expected force of PCs, who then encounter them later with reinforcements.)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What I don't understand is people in the reskinning thread are saying to take it away kills the fun in the game. However, even though a 7 player table can kill the fun in a game, it is ok if the need arises. You either want to keep the game fun or you don't. You can't really have it both ways.I think the key words there are "can" and "if the need arises". A 7 player table can kill the fun in a game, and some people (yourself included) have had bad experiences with it. Other people haven't and don't mind a 7 player table. In some situations it's the only way you can fit everyone who wants to play.
The argument here (nicely summarized by Lady Ophelia & Painlord) is that it is better to give local coordinators & DMs flexibility than it is to restrict their options from the top down. A 7 player table isn't right in every situation, but it MAY be the best option under the circumstances. Which does fit with the arguments in the reskinning thread, where people in favor seem to prefer having the option and knowing it might not always work out at every table then having the possibility cut off entirely.
+1 to this. Michael ("Mike"? "Mr. Brock"? What do you prefer?), I think what might be happening* is that since in your experience the 7-seaters aren't fun, then people arguing to keep them available must be doing so with a goal other than "fun" in mind (logistics, etc). Basically, that you might be unknowingly interpreting the discussion as "fun versus 7-seaters" when really it's more about whether or not 7-seaters are even the least-fun option in the first place - for instance, a lot of this thread has been about the discussion of whether a 7-seater or a sending home is less fun. Most of the arguments in favor of keeping 7-seaters as an option are based on the idea that sending someone home is less (total) fun than having a 7-player table, not that the 7-seater is somehow necessary in spite of being the least-fun option.
Basically, I suspect you're mis-identifying the discussion as "is the least-fun option worth doing anyway?" when really it's "what is the least-fun option?" and that might be what's leading to your above-referenced confusion.
At conventions, 7 player tables are almost always a worse experience when compared to a 6 player or less table.
Comments like this I find a little perplexing. Are there really people so finely attuned to the nuances of D&D that they can tell between a table of 6 players and a table of 7 players? In my experience, the natural variation between players (in terms of how much fun that player brings to the table) is an order of magnitude larger than the difference added by one extra player.
But of course, a line has to be drawn somewhere; I certainly wouldn't want to be in a 20 player group playing a module designed for 5 players. Whether it's 6 or 7, I don't really care.
|
|
The bottom line is that Conventions, Game Days and Home Play are going to do whatever they want regardless of the rules, UNLESS Paizo staff is on-site running things (like Paizocon, Gen Con).We can say that for any rule, it is not a reason not to make one.
If people aren't going to follow the rule, then it shouldn't be a rule. Setting rules that people won't follow undermines the willingness of people to adhere to the rules in general. It creates a general "wink and a nod" environment. It creates factionalism and conflict between players that continue to follow the rules and those that don't.
There is a military adage that a good commander does not give an order that he knows will not be followed.
|
|
While the fun issue is a factor at 7 player tables, a lot of discussion has steered away from the other issue faced with having 7 player tables. There has been plenty of other threads about how to increase the challenges of encounters by adding extra baddies in and the like. This is a direct result of scenarios are geared towards being played by tables of 4-5 people, and the APL adjustment accounts for tables of 6. Scenarios just aren't meant to be played by tables of 7, period. The APL is completely broken at this point because you've nearly double the number of players the encounters are designed for.
Instead of treating the symptoms of the problem by creating a whole new ruleset for how GMs can increase the difficulties of scenarios and eating up a lot of development time that could be used to focus on more awesome things to bring to PFS, this rule change fixes the problem at its source.
|
|
Seems to me that a significant number of people are arguing that outlawing 7 player tables is forcing them to send someone home.
It isn't.
One thing you, as the coordinator, can do, is encourage one of your regular players to be ready to step up and GM a table if you hit that 8 person number.
After all, even if the rule doesn't change, you get to the exact same issue when that 8th player, the 9th person, walks in.
Probably the best choice for module(s) to have someone prep would be the First Steps series. They can be run multiple times for credit; they allow the new player to get their feet wet and learn PF/PFS from the groundup.
Yes, there may be some venues where there isn't enough room to split into two tables. Then again, I suspect that those same venues are going to be physically uncomfortable to have 8 people seated around a single table. In either case, then, you are probably best off seeing if one of your regulars is willing to give up their seat to the newbie or out-of-towner.
|
|
Seems to me that a significant number of people are arguing that outlawing 7 player tables is forcing them to send someone home.
It isn't.
Really?
So every single place that runs PFS has the judges to make this happen?
Every single place has the right number of people willing to step up to make this happen?
This may be how things are in your neck of the woods Callarek, but it by far isn't how it is everywhere.
/ Sorry if that came off as snarky, but the assumption made here got my goat (sorry Howie)
EDIT: Ok doofus, read the whole post :P (me = doofus)
I can tell you that very close to 100% of my players would rather play a 7-man table than not play at all. I can tell you that if I can get a new person to sit down (even at a 7 man table) my odds of getting him to return are astronimically higher than the near 0% for sending him away.
|
|
Every bad experience I have had with PFS is related either GMing or playing 7 player tables.
This.
It's not that they are always horribly bad, but they are the only times that PFS is horribly bad.
I really think "I'm sorry, we're just full up and no one is willing to step up to run a second table" is far better than "Sure, pile on" and having a decent chance of walking away with a terrible experience.
I would rather run 2 tables at once, than a table of 7.
|
|
Basically my feeling comes down to this.
PFS has always been an inclusive game. 7-man tables help to gauarantee that. By mandating 6-man tables you have now dropped some of that inclusiveness. Someone may be going home dissatisfied at best and angry at worst.
If you have already made the decision to not play or run at 7-mans then this rule already doesn't affect you. Arguing to impose a rule that doesn't affect you that may ruin the fun of others is darn selfish. You are basically saying, I'm willing to ruin the fun of others so that they are forced to play the way I play.
This seems counter-intuitive to the spirit of PFS in the first place.
EDIT: Not trying to be a jerk or troll here or illicit nasty responses. What I do want people to think about is How does this rule change affect me? If it doesn't then you really have no bone in the fight. Then think How does this rule change affect others? Could there be a negative impact? What's the positive impact? Whats the balance of those two?
In this case the negative could mean a home group that plays 7 stops playing PFS, Game Days have harder times seating tables. Good is that you may, in general, have more fun at the table. Whats the balance there? We could be losing a lot of people with this change.
|
|
And the rare well-balanced party may have fun, but the unbalanced parties tend to wind up with issues of various sorts, from someone being totally eclipsed, and noisily complaining about it, to failing the scenario because they have no one who can locate X clue.
You can also have unbalanced groups of 4 players that experience the same thing. If anything 7 player tables offer more variety, not less. I don't think that's a valid argument against 7 player tables.
|
|
Seems to me that a significant number of people are arguing that outlawing 7 player tables is forcing them to send someone home.
It isn't.
One thing you, as the coordinator, can do, is encourage one of your regular players to be ready to step up and GM a table if you hit that 8 person number.
This really got my blood boiling. Do you really think that co-ordinators aren't already doing this as a preferred option.
I remember a CON I went to in January. I signed up for 8 slots as GM and wanted to play 3 to bring some new modules back to my home group.
I ended up to GM 10 as there just were too many players who wanted to play. I even pre-pared one new scenario early morning while everyone else was still asleep to have a novel scenario ready for the right tier to enable someone reaching 7th level.
Yes - I played a single game in the end. This was a part II I was looking forward to (as well as my group back home). I was thankful to be allowed by the co-ordinator and the GM to play - as the 7th member on the table.
Please tell me for the sake of 'more fun' I should have been kicked from this table. And no - I couldn't sign up in time because I was sitting at my table and GMed when I would have needed to ensure I had a place as one of the first six.
The co-ordinator did his best to avoid 7-player tables and he managed more often as not to avoid them. But it gives him an extra option.
It is difficult to predict ahead how many GMs you need if you go to (or organize) conventions where you sign up on the spot. Having contingency GMs is an important step to ensure this still works. But not everyone is happy to be on stand-by and if not enough players show up to neither GM or play.
Thod
|
|
Sorry for the walk-ups who can't squeeze in, but they really ought to pre-register. Ideally, organizers would have something with minimal prep like Crypt of Everflame or We Be Goblins ready to go and put a table together for new player walk-ups, but after that, anyone wanting to play in an Organized Play system needs to be ready to pre-register. Pre-registration allows organizers and GMs to plan appropriately. If you are just walking in to see what's available, you're taking a risk. Sometimes you can get in, sometimes you can't.
A lot of game days and even smaller cons pre-register for attendance, not for specific games. The advent of warhorn has made individual sign ups possible, but in some cases, this is handled by the community, not the convention organizers. And some times the extra load is due to judges who can not make it for legitimate reasons, so while you planned for 7 tables of six, you now have 42 players and only six judges.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but the unbalanced parties tend to wind up with issues of various sorts, from someone being totally eclipsed, and noisily complaining about it, to failing the scenario because they have no one who can locate X clue.
Whenever you get a group of people together there will be individuals who will look for a reason to complain. You find them at a table of four people as easily as a table of 7. You could even argue that a smaller table encourages more complaints because there is a greater expectation of "face time" at a smaller table and therefore reason to complain when they don't get it. A larger table with more people requires everyone to curb their expectations right from the start.
Also, no table should fail a scenario "because they have no one who can locate X clue". If finding a specific clue is necessary for the scenario to progress and there is absolutely no way the party can find it otherwise then the DM should improvise some other way for them to gain access to the clue. There is an ballpark example of that right in the Guide to Organized Play under the Dealing with Death part of Chapter 6:
Don’t decide the scenario is over just because the old man with the letter was caught in a magical crossfire and roasted alive, destroying both him and the important letter. Reveal that the letter survived by some freakish miracle (it was in a fire-proof pouch in his pocket) or maybe that the old man had a lackey who was watching from a nearby alley and knows everything the old man did, and so on. Improvisation will keep your scenario moving forward and will help get you around unforeseen obstacles.
If you end up with a party of all fighter types sitting at your table you shouldn't prevent them from completing the entire adventure just because they don't have the ability to channel energy and the mcguffin at the end requires someone to do that. Improvise in some way for the party to hire a cleric or otherwise bypass the channel energy requirement in order to complete the adventure.
|
Nobody has answered why not less than 6 per table. If so much time is lost because of 7+ players, then wouldn't a 4 person table be even better? It's even stated that scenarios are written for 4 people, so 4 people should be the limit. It's a fallacy of course. But it's the same reason that 7 player tables = bad is a fallacy.
If there's not enough people stepping up to DM, then we should take the next (il)logical stance of doing only 4 people tables so people HAVE to step up and DM.
Let's not just automatically blame 7 player tables, let's look at the real problem, which might be that scenarios are written for 4, and that going over that just changes everything. Or maybe that too many people are selfish and don't want to DM, so forcing 7 player tables became more common.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having run soooo many tables. My experience is that the seven player allowance is there so that GMs don't HAVE to turn someone away from the table if they don't want to. GM's can take up to seven players, they don't have to take more than four.
So long as the GM is comfortable running seven players I see no reason to outlaw seven player tables. Leave it up to the GM's running the tables.
I think the rule should be it takes three to make the table valid and it is closed at seven and the GM should be allowed to take as many as necessary to run the scenario and no more than he/she is comfortable managing.
|
|
Nobody has answered why not less than 6 per table. If so much time is lost because of 7+ players, then wouldn't a 4 person table be even better? It's even stated that scenarios are written for 4 people, so 4 people should be the limit. It's a fallacy of course. But it's the same reason that 7 player tables = bad is a fallacy.
If there's not enough people stepping up to DM, then we should take the next (il)logical stance of doing only 4 people tables so people HAVE to step up and DM.
Let's not just automatically blame 7 player tables, let's look at the real problem, which might be that scenarios are written for 4, and that going over that just changes everything. Or maybe that too many people are selfish and don't want to DM, so forcing 7 player tables became more common.
You don't go far enough with the 4 person table.
Some of my best experience I had was with 2 GMs at a table. One Master GM and a helper GM to play important NPCs or otherwise help out. I got the idea when I once read that Thea had helped out as assitence GM at a CON.
The (i)logical stance is not to doing only 4 player tables but rather to out-rule the much too common 1 GM table. For the sake of fun we should have 2 GMs at the table.
Back to be more serious again. This occured to me earlier when I thought about the argument of 'more fun'. In an ideal world the above scenario would allow the best player experience possible. But the reasons against it surely outweight the benefit so dramatically that even advocating it would sound ridiciolous.
But I hope it gets people thinking that there is more as maximizing the fun that is important.
|
|
Nobody has answered why not less than 6 per table. If so much time is lost because of 7+ players, then wouldn't a 4 person table be even better? It's even stated that scenarios are written for 4 people, so 4 people should be the limit. It's a fallacy of course. But it's the same reason that 7 player tables = bad is a fallacy.
If there's not enough people stepping up to DM, then we should take the next (il)logical stance of doing only 4 people tables so people HAVE to step up and DM.
Let's not just automatically blame 7 player tables, let's look at the real problem, which might be that scenarios are written for 4, and that going over that just changes everything. Or maybe that too many people are selfish and don't want to DM, so forcing 7 player tables became more common.
You don't go far enough with the 4 person table.
Some of my best experience I had was with 2 GMs at a table. One Master GM and a helper GM to play important NPCs or otherwise help out. I got the idea when I once read that Thea had helped out as assitence GM at a CON.
The (i)logical stance is not to doing only 4 player tables but rather to out-rule the much too common 1 GM table. For the sake of fun we should have 2 GMs at the table.
Back to be more serious again. This occured to me earlier when I thought about the argument of 'more fun'. In an ideal world the above scenario would allow the best player experience possible. But the reasons against it surely outweight the benefit so dramatically that even advocating it would sound ridiciolous.
But I hope it gets people thinking that there is more as maximizing the fun that is important.
Well I said 5 is probably the best overall. If scenarios are balanced for 4, than 5 really should be the tipping point. I know it's probably not going to happen, but rather than just blame it on 7-man tables, the problem could be something else.
Perhaps longer scenarios (6-7 hours) that are worth 2 XP and 4 Prestige.
Perhaps scenarios need to be balanced out better for 6 players.
Perhaps this is only really a problem at Cons.
Perhaps the problem is not enough people DMing, so make some incentives to do so.
Perhaps to tier up automatically to account for WAY more than 4 players.
Perhaps allow the DMs to add more opponents if there are that many players. I'm not sure of the current rule on this, so clarification might be necessary.
Perhaps the best thing is leave it to the DMs, and leave it as is. Most groups can probably make their own decisions, and a complete all-encompassing rule from the top isn't the best way to handle it.
|
|
I will remind everyone that this is a discussion as to whether a new rule should be instituted. This is not me saying that this is now the rule so live with it. Any rules modifications or discussions I place here for playerbase discussion, has already been talked about on the Venture-Catpain forum with a majority of the Venture-Captains agreeing to the rule.
I felt that it is important that I get feedback from the playerbase as well, and not just Venture-Captains, or not just making an arbitrary ruling and you having to deal with it.
With that said, the tones in some replies are starting to turn in a direction that will make me lock this thread, especially if the implications of a personal attack are there. Remember, this is my reaching out to the fanbase and seeing what people think about a possible rules change. Don't force me to not be able to do this in the future because people want to turn the message boards into their own battleground. I respect everyone's opinion on a matter. However, if these debates can't be carried on with civility, they won't happen at all.
|
|
With that said, the tones in some replies are starting to turn in a direction that will make me lock this thread, especially if the implications of a personal attack are there. Remember, this is my reaching out to the fanbase and seeing what people think about a possible rules change. Don't force me to not be able to do this in the future because people want to turn the message boards into their own battleground. I respect everyone's opinion on a matter. However, if these debates can't be carried on with civility, they won't happen at all.
I'm a bit guilty of this, though I've tried to go back and edit my posts to take down the harshness.
How bout this question. For those of you who ran in Greyhawk days, which was easier for the coordinator, Greyhawk's limit of 6 or the PFS limit of 7? Hands down for my the PFS limit of 7 makes my life easier. If I have to start turning people away, as far as I'm concerned, I've failed. Everyone deserves a seat, turning people away, for any reason, is a bad decision.
|
|
Here's what it really comes down to, Michael:
Coordinators, by and large, do not aim for having seven-player tables. They come up due to the realities of organized-play campaigns. There is no reason to make the coordinator's job more difficult than it already is by outlawing a cushion against the realities of coordination.
Seven-player tables can be salvaged. Perhaps what PFS should do is empower coordinators and GMs with additional flexibility to perform this salvaging.
On the other hand, sending someone home cannot be salvaged at all.
-Matt
P.S. Between my Living Greyhawk coordination days and my PFS coordination days, having the seven-player limit has taken a significant amount of stress off of my shoulders. I have a tool now to absorb reality that I didn't have before.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let me ask a follow-up question:
What are the most favorable circumstances for a 7-player table?
That is to ask, if you as a GM or player don't like a 7-player table, but are willing to cope with it, what are the conditions that make it better than it would be otherwise?
My answers include:
- all the PCs avoid using animal companions, summoned critters, or other battle pets in combat.
- Everybody knows his or her PC well, and can pay attention.
- There's not a lot of noise.
- The table is large enough so that nobody is cramped, and there's still room for the map grid, but nobody is very far away from the GM.
What's on your list?
|
|
It sounds like you are trying to jam too much into a one size fits all rule.
A seven player table might be just fine for a home PFS game when time is not an issue.
A seven player table might be really needed at your local game store because there just isn't a second GM. Also, you might not have the same time restraints as a big convention.
A seven player table at a big convention has issues with player experience because you have more people hence more noise, and because of all the less time/cake-walk issues.
I think you might want to make a strong recommendation and or guidelines for your Venture Captains on what they do at conventions, but not change the Play-Play-Play rule. Also, you should make a clear statement that GMs at 7 player tables can modify the combats to make them more difficult. I have seen this before and I think it's fine. For example the BBG might have an extra underling and might use there better tactic first instead of waiting till the third action as specified in the text.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
What are the most favorable circumstances for a 7-player table?
-I have the flexibility as a coordinator or a GM to make a 7-player table fun for everyone, be it by modifying the challenges, skipping unnecessary combats, etc.
That and table space are the two things that could be in my control as a coordinator/GM.
-Matt