Can I purposely restrict the size of my Society Games?


GM Discussion

1/5

I find at smaller tables the action flows better. Also I have put up signs for a big game only got just enough players to play (4) at the last minute. The game was excellent.

So my question is:
Since I can field a table of four...

Can I host a game for pathfinder and specifically specify that I only want 4 people, no more, and will not take a 5th?

4/5

Have you asked your local VO and/or game day coordinator this question? I think having their support is more important than anything we say here.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

Absolutely. You can seat as few as three if you'd like.

2/5

I would say it is sad if you are only fielding a single table for a public game and saying to the fifth player- "No". Is there a reason you don't want to take that 5th player? Honestly, the sweet spot for me is actually 5 and I loath to go to 6 (or 7). Depends on your goals as an organizer, I suppose... if you are trying to build a PFS community, not sure why you might turn away a 5th... is there more to this story?

5/5 *****

Personally when I run con games I generally limit myself to four players. It allows for more screen time for each player, more interaction within the game and is generally a more pleasant experience.

I have played in a number of 6 and 7 player tables and they were just not really very pleasant. Everything was far too rushed in order to give everyone a chance to be involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it's a private game, of course you may restrict the size of your table.

If it's a public game hosted as a part of a public event, then you are more than welcome to contact your VO and inform him/her of your preference. An empathetic VO should accommodate your needs and respect your decision. There may, unfortunately, be times where you have to run tables of more than four people. If you're asked to run a table of five or more, you need to have a back-up plan, be it running the table, not GMing at all, or something else entirely.

If you run signups on Warhorn or other similar sites, you can even restrict the number of people who can register for the table.

(For example, after too many bad experiences with tables of seven, I draw the line at six players, preferably fewer. My local VOs and store co-ordinators know this, and know that I will politely turn away a player or abstain from GMing should the situation arise where I'm presented with a seventh player.)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Whiskey Jack wrote:
I would say it is sad if you are only fielding a single table for a public game and saying to the fifth player- "No". Is there a reason you don't want to take that 5th player? Honestly, the sweet spot for me is actually 5 and I loath to go to 6 (or 7). Depends on your goals as an organizer, I suppose... if you are trying to build a PFS community, not sure why you might turn away a 5th... is there more to this story?

Well then why stop at 7, or even 8 or 9? Every GM has a limit, and it would be much better to turn away a 5th than for the original 4 to have a bad time because the (volunteer) GM (who is hoping to have fun and provide a fun game) got stressed out and overwhelmed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jfkg306 wrote:

I find at smaller tables the action flows better. Also I have put up signs for a big game only got just enough players to play (4) at the last minute. The game was excellent.

So my question is:
Since I can field a table of four...

Can I host a game for pathfinder and specifically specify that I only want 4 people, no more, and will not take a 5th?

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

4/5

I've ran 3-7 player tables and sometimes you need the extra players. However I've seen that with MOST Season 0-2 mods can be completed with 4 PC's and any more than that and they run roughshod through them.

If this is a single table you're running and the GM is comfortable running only 4 players then I'd say I rather have a table than not.

However in a convention setting this needs to be spelled out either in the Warhorn listing or other such listing that shows 4 players are the max.

Example - last Kublacon there were 4 Player tables for early season scenarios Later seasons had 6 slots scheduled. So long as its known beforehand I don't see an issue.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

LazarX wrote:

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

LazarX, could you cite some support for this? It's been my experience that there are often alternatives, and as a coordinator, I'll do my best to make sure that my GMs run a game that's comfortable for them.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
LazarX wrote:

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

LazarX, could you cite some support for this? It's been my experience that there are often alternatives, and as a coordinator, I'll do my best to make sure that my GMs run a game that's comfortable for them.

+1.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I also feel 4-5 player tables are far superior to 6-player tables (and simply ban 7-player ones from my events, nor will I play at one for 90% of scenarios).

I don't ban or limit 6-player tables though, because GM shortages would mean players wouldn't get to play, and would be rather inflexible for planning purposes. It would also provide a less uniform experience of PFS rules for new players, who might not understand what is allowed, if not preferable.

For the OP: Plan your events how you like, but do be clear on the allowable PFS rules.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

You can accept however many you want in a game for your own event (whether it's an "open-call" game or a private game).

The exception is if it's a public game at a con or under someone else's event where you're obliged to run by their rules as a matter of courtesy.

It's absurd to say you have to accept people into your own games, whether you like it or not. If it's an open call, it is probably courteous to announce the limit of players on it so people are aware - some will like it and some won't, especially considering table scaling.

5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

I can think of a dozen reasons why it might be better to limit a table's size. This may be because you're playing with a group or player that has special needs or a handicap, because the room is too cramped to comfortably fit a larger group, because the GM has difficulty hearing a large party in a noisy hall, because the organizer is trying to tactfully separate incompatible players, etc.

As long as you have a good reason, you can place any reasonable restrictions needed to ensure a positive play experience.

Scarab Sages 4/5

LazarX wrote:

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

Yes, please cite a reference. I may need to resign, since I have already banned a couple of players from my public events!

2/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:
Whiskey Jack wrote:
I would say it is sad if you are only fielding a single table for a public game and saying to the fifth player- "No". Is there a reason you don't want to take that 5th player? Honestly, the sweet spot for me is actually 5 and I loath to go to 6 (or 7). Depends on your goals as an organizer, I suppose... if you are trying to build a PFS community, not sure why you might turn away a 5th... is there more to this story?
Well then why stop at 7, or even 8 or 9? Every GM has a limit, and it would be much better to turn away a 5th than for the original 4 to have a bad time because the (volunteer) GM (who is hoping to have fun and provide a fun game) got stressed out and overwhelmed.

I don't believe I am saying to heck with limits (in my post). Also, I didn't read anything in the original post about the GM being stressed out and overwhelmed. I wondered if the OP had a problem with a particular player or something that caused the post in the first place. After re-reading the post it just sounds as though he *prefers* four- simple as that.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have considered placing a limit on my Roll20 games to make tables more managable, running 4-players max instead of 6. If this is not allowed I too would appreciate a citation or clarification so I know for certain.

1/5

Thanks for all you input, but I'm still a little shy of getting a clear answer, and it seems I left out some details.

First of all, I only GM Online. There is no VC, VO, EMPD, NSYNC, or LMFAO that I contact when I want to play the game. I do however play once every month or so with the same group and a Venture Captain. Who I haven't seen in about 2 months.

Yes - something did happen. I find in accepting large tables online, players not only have to acclimate to playing pathfinder, which can be rulez-a-licious at times, they also have the double duty of acclimating to the Virtual Table Top. I recently had a situation where the person didn't do either duty. I have no complaints about when it goes good. But when It goes bad, it goes bad. I'm talking 30 minute combat rounds for a 7 person table.

I neglected to mention these experiences when I posted because I was aware of all the proactive responses available to me - Coaching, limiting time between turns, offering options, asking people to pay attention or have their next move ready, and asking them to spend some personal time getting to know whatever Virtual Table Top we're using. And many of you already know the results of those actions. I do enjoy Gm'ing, but I don't enjoy the presence of people who aren't mindful of everyone else's time too. Were all there to have fun. It kills the table's fun and my fun.

In my last online game, many people left due to time overage, and I myself was exhausted from trying to coach, help, and police.

The reason that I asked If I can field a table of four is because - I still want to care and have fun. If a slower or less attentive player shows up at a table of four, It just seems to fix itself. I can help, offer suggestions, the actions moves too swift for them to get lost in whatever they're doing elsewhere, and the other 3 players count on them to be "in" the game, and even show them how to do stuff. And even if there are problems that just can't be fixed, a game with 2-3 good speed players and one slow still fixes itself and comes out fun.

As you all know, GMing Takes ALOT of time. Not just game time, but Prep time, reading the module 5 times time, preparing the maps/understanding the encounters and triggers time, and then, placing it all in a Virtual Table Top time. I find my energy is High and upbeat after GMing for a table of 4-5. When I gm for 6-7 I feel like I just went Christmas Shopping on Black Friday and emptied my savings.

I use Roll 20, and the "double work" of GMing PLUS having to install, set-up and manipulate roll 20 can be taxing for 7 people. And yes, Roll 20 is one of the easy (if not easiest) ones.

So let me rephrase the original question.

I only GM online. So far only for two modules. Because I began this under my own initiative at home, I speak/Report to no "Venture" anyone. Can I post and host a game on the online forums and Pathfinder Society online collective, strictly limiting the amount of players to 4 or 5? I would not be a private game, as I am inviting any who would join-up to a limit that I am comfortable with. I would like to keep on Gming if I can keep it comfortable and fun to me.

And alternatively, can I GM a Private PFS game of 3 people and then "outsource" calling online for the 4th slot and the fourth slot only? That would make it Private/public.

Manjuba wrote:
For the OP: Plan your events how you like, but do be clear on the allowable PFS rules.

What are the allowable PFS rules concerning table size? Would you please share them with me here?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seth Gipson wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
LazarX wrote:

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

LazarX, could you cite some support for this? It's been my experience that there are often alternatives, and as a coordinator, I'll do my best to make sure that my GMs run a game that's comfortable for them.
+1.

How about the common decency of not turning people who've spent hours trying to get to your game only to be sent home? You're advertising a public game. That means you're obligated to serve the public that shows up, up to the legal limit allowed by PFS. I should not be obliged to show some kind of "support" for meeting the obligation you set yourself up to. It's simply a no-class thing to do whether you're judging at a table or a game day. I'm pretty sure the man running the store who's providing the space isn't going to be happy with you turning people away unnecessarily.

So what are you going to do when six people show up? Say "sorry, two of you have to go home."? Sometimes you will have to do that when 8 folks show up and you don't have a second judge, but you should not be doing it before you have your six.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Signups and notification that only four players will be seated helps.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, when you say "you have got to do this," you're not citing a PFS rule then, only your personal sense of "obligation". Good.

--

Typically, people don't spend hours getting to our local game days.

What do I say, if we have six people at a table and I know the GM can handle four? I say, two of you, play over at that table, or, two of you, come here, and with one of those fellows, we'll make a third table.

That's the same kind of thing I expect a coordinator to say, when I have six people at my table and he wants to send a seventh. Or five players, with three of them new and running 7th-level pre-gens, and he wants to send me a sixth. Sorry, I know my limits, and that's them.

Or we'll note that there were four slots available for that game on Warhorn.

And if there's absolutely nothing that can be done for the extra two people, then we apologize, and make sure they get first dibs the next time we play. It's better to send two people away, than to give all six and the GM a bad experience.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can find no rule saying that you must seat everyone. There are some options for bending the rules to seat more people, and there is a stated objective to get everyone a game somewhere. But since you are running online, there are other games for people to play.

You can always just say "due to personal and technical limits, I can only accommodate 4 players at this time, and if I have to seat more, I will be unable to GM the game." At which point the principle of supporting the most players in the most games dictates that you should run the game with 4 rather than not run the game at all.

The person who can give you the diffinitive answer, by the way, is Joseph Caubo (his email can be found in the guide to organised play.)

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

jfkg306 wrote:
What are the rules for allowable table size?

The hard bottom is three player characters, plus an NPC run by the GM. (In practice, a lot of times the GM will assign that NPC to the players, reserving veto power incase they want to cook and eat Kyra.)

4 PCs is fine. That's what Seasons 0 - 3 expect.
5 PC's is fine.
6 PC's is fine. That's what Seasons 4 - 5 expect.

7 PC's is a hard top limit, and this *always* needs permission of the GM.

1/5

Lazar wrote:
How about the common decency of not turning people who've spent hours trying to get to your game only to be sent home?

Again, this game is online. I think you are responding to a situation that I am not talking about. Thought what you say is valid.

Tri Omega Zero wrote:
Signups and notification that only four players will be seated helps.

Yes Tri, the signup would distinctly say 4-5 people.

Flite wrote:
You can always just say "due to personal and technical limits, I can only accommodate 4 players at this time, and if I have to seat more, I will be unable to GM the game." At which point the principle of supporting the most players in the most games dictates that you should run the game with 4 rather than not run the game at all.

Thank you. No, I do not suffer from any gaming handicaps or limitations, I simply wish to play the game in a way that is fun for me as a Gm and for my players. All things considered, i prefer a smaller table. I have once GM'd in a comic book store for a table of 10 people. This was a weekly game. Talk about 30 minute rounds, it was an hour before people got to do anything again.

Thank you for the info about Jospeh Caubo. I will indeed find his email and ask him this.

Silver Crusade 3/5

If I was hosting a game in my home, but advertised it as open to the public for the first four people who signed up, and stated clearly that I wasn't taking any more, then I am confident that no one would give me a hard time. There is no reason to view your online game any differently. A legal table is between 3 and 7 players, with 4 to 6 being the recommended size.

3/5

The "you need to accept 6 - or maybe even 7 - people at a public table, regardless of its diminution of play" mentality is an artifact of the early days of PFS, when there was a kind of intersection between a desperation to grow the player-base and a lack of GMs.

PFS has reached a level of maturity in which it's just no longer necessary. I myself will *never* judge OR play at a 7-person table - it just ruins the game. I actually prefer 4-player tables myself (both for play and to GM), but current-year scenarios presume a 6-person table (for what it's worth). I'd actually love to see 4-player tables become the standard (Pathfinder itself assumed 4-player tables), but it's unlikely given the problem of table space and GM availability for gamedays and conventions.

That said, I do wish the campaign rules would be amended to explicitly "permit" GMs to specify table size; it's time for the campaign to grow in play quality rather than player quantity. The scenarios have been excellent in Years 4 and (now) 5, but it's frequently impossible to follow or enjoy the story arcs given the "busyness" of a 6-player table, especially under a time limit.

A player at a 6-table has about 34 minutes of total actual playtime in a 4-hour slot; it's no wonder that eyes wander to tablets and books for much of the scenario, missing out on snippets of explication!

Grand Lodge 4/5

PFS Table Size rules, expanded/expunded:

Minimum table size: 3 players plus one of the PFS-legal iconic pregens.
As noted, while the pregen should be played by the GM, it is frequently given into the hands of the players to run, with GM veto for the nonsense. (No stripping the Cleric naked, and leaving her as a rearguard, for instance)

Maximum table size: 7 players, but, as mentioned, this needs GM approval. I usually also make sure that all the players agree to it, as well. As a player, I don't usually want to play at a seven player table, especially if the PC I was planning on playing for the game is a Summoner. Or there are many pet-classes at the table with pets.

@LazarX: a 7 player table could comprise 7 PCs plus 7 ACs/Familiars/Mounts/combat animals (anyone can own a riding dog) before you add in the actual opponents.

There are some rules, in the Guide, about how to calculate APL, and how that, along with table size, determines what sub-tier is played.

And, as mentioned, a slong as your gfame postings clearly indicate how many players you are willing to accept, you should be fine.

I know there is at least one GM on PFSOC that posts for 5 player games without any kick-back.

The kick-back that occurred on the PFSOC and Paizo forums regarding exclusionary tables was not based on table size, but on excluding otherwise-legal PFS builds, one of the GMs was posting his PFS games with the addendum, "No Summoners need apply." It caused a real brouhaha.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

LazarX wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
LazarX wrote:

No.. if you post an open game, you've got to take who comes in until you get the legal limit of 6.

If you want to play with fewer people, then make it private. You still need a minimum of three to report it though.

LazarX, could you cite some support for this? It's been my experience that there are often alternatives, and as a coordinator, I'll do my best to make sure that my GMs run a game that's comfortable for them.
+1.

How about the common decency of not turning people who've spent hours trying to get to your game only to be sent home? You're advertising a public game. That means you're obligated to serve the public that shows up, up to the legal limit allowed by PFS. I should not be obliged to show some kind of "support" for meeting the obligation you set yourself up to. It's simply a no-class thing to do whether you're judging at a table or a game day. I'm pretty sure the man running the store who's providing the space isn't going to be happy with you turning people away unnecessarily.

So what are you going to do when six people show up? Say "sorry, two of you have to go home."? Sometimes you will have to do that when 8 folks show up and you don't have a second judge, but you should not be doing it before you have your six.

If you have an RSVP system that you require folks to use to guarantee a spot at the table, then you will very rarely run into the problem you suggest.

I've run into it only once in over 2 years if organizing.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I think 7-person tables should also need the approval of the players already seated. I hate playing at a 7-person table, and I don't think it does the players a service either. To that end, when I'm playing a game where the coordinator adds another player to our table and it hits 7, I'll bow out and go home. It's not a protest - well, not really - it's a, "I know I'm going to have a miserable time if I stay, so I'm not going to put myself through that."

4/5

I would use the PFS online method of requesting games if you are advertising the games as public ensure you include something like the following:

To secure a slot, please email me the following information at xyz (at) gmail (dot) com.

Your name
PFS #
Character name
Race, Class, and Level
Faction
Desired token (if any)(link or attach to the email)

Current Roster:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Waitlist
5.
6.

That way it tells the players its a 4 person game and if your feeling generous you can add the 5th or 6th player.

PFS is happy that your running a game whether it online or at a store, and if 4 is the limit for a game in which you create then that's okay too.

I ran an online game about a week ago and I had 7 player requests. What I did was email all of the players and ask them if this was okay. Majority said no so I informed the 7th player before the game and moved on. Online is easier since you're only sending the vtt link to those you approved so its not like someone walking up to the table and asking in person.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
OP wrote:
Majuba wrote:
For the OP: Plan your events how you like, but do be clear on the allowable PFS rules.
What are the allowable PFS rules concerning table size? Would you please share them with me here?

Others have explained the rules. All I meant was that you should take some small steps to make it clear to any new players what those rules were normally. It's important to keep a consistent culture for PFS. For an online game, not such an issue though.

Jeff Mahood wrote:
Frankly, I think 7-person tables should also need the approval of the players already seated.

They do - it's in the Guide.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

jfkg306 wrote:
Flite wrote:
You can always just say "due to personal and technical limits, I can only accommodate 4 players at this time, and if I have to seat more, I will be unable to GM the game." At which point the principle of supporting the most players in the most games dictates that you should run the game with 4 rather than not run the game at all.
Thank you. No, I do not suffer from any gaming handicaps or limitations, I simply wish to play the game in a way that is fun for me as a Gm and for my players. All things considered, i prefer a smaller table. I have once GM'd in a comic book store for a table of 10 people. This was a weekly game. Talk about 30 minute rounds, it was an hour before people got to do anything again.

I didn't say you had a handicap. I said you have a personal limitation (you don't enjoy games with more than 4 player, and you don't have time to play games with 30 minute combat rounds. Those are both personal limitations.) and you have technical limitations. (You stated that the time it takes to get 7 people installed with the right software and synced up is too much. That is a technical limitation.)

A limitation isn't a bad thing.

4/5

Majuba wrote:
Jeff Mahood wrote:
Frankly, I think 7-person tables should also need the approval of the players already seated.
They do - it's in the Guide.

Well look at that.

Then I revise my statement to read:

"Frankly, I think coordinators should make absolutely sure that all the players at potential 7-person tables are okay with that 7th person."

'Coz it sure doesn't happen that way all the time.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, when you say "you have got to do this," you're not citing a PFS rule then, only your personal sense of "obligation". Good.

--

Typically, people don't spend hours getting to our local game days.

What do I say, if we have six people at a table and I know the GM can handle four? I say, two of you, play over at that table, or, two of you, come here, and with one of those fellows, we'll make a third table.

That's the same kind of thing I expect a coordinator to say, when I have six people at my table and he wants to send a seventh. Or five players, with three of them new and running 7th-level pre-gens, and he wants to send me a sixth. Sorry, I know my limits, and that's them.

Or we'll note that there were four slots available for that game on Warhorn.

And if there's absolutely nothing that can be done for the extra two people, then we apologize, and make sure they get first dibs the next time we play. It's better to send two people away, than to give all six and the GM a bad experience.

+1

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

Personally, I have played at 4 seven player tables... and with those specific examples (and good GMs), there hasn't been a problem. In fact, one of those was Elven Entanglement, at 10-11, with 3 or 4 players out of tier. So, it actually helped (again... good GM, good, experienced group).

On all of these tables, the players worked together with the GM to make it a pleasurable experience. However, with the wrong group (and the group I was in for Darkest Vengeance was close to it), I can see how that could go really badly.

Personally, I am used to GMing larger tables (our home games have typically been 6-9 players), but also know that others are not.

GM to your level of comfort. Know the scenario, and the players, and make the decision appropriately. If you are limiting, please let the players know BEFORE they arrive at the event.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, This is the Email I received From Joseph Caubo

Joseph Caubo
To Me
Today at 5:23 AM
If you are organizing your own table, you can do what you want. If it's for a Gameday or convention, you will need to work with the event organizer.

Sent from my iPhone

4/5

jfkg306 wrote:

OK, This is the Email I received From Joseph Caubo

Joseph Caubo
To Me
Today at 5:23 AM
If you are organizing your own table, you can do what you want. If it's for a Gameday or convention, you will need to work with the event organizer.

Sent from my iPhone

Well look at that there you go.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

The thing about the 7-player situation is that if a 7th player rocks up wanting to join, and there appears to be a gang-up of people saying "sorry, we don't want a 7th player", that person could easily take it personally.

It's important that gets handled delicately enough that it's explained out fully and they get a sense that it was just a matter of being late to the game rather than not wanting them to play, and that you're keen for them next time. Just do whatever you can, short of making your table too big for comfort.

The same sort of thing can apply with a 5th player at a 4-player only table.

4/5

Avatar-1 wrote:
The thing about the 7-player situation is that if a 7th player rocks up wanting to join, and there appears to be a gang-up of people saying "sorry, we don't want a 7th player", that person could easily take it personally.

This is why I generally choose to excuse myself rather than to refuse another the right to sit at a table.

Liberty's Edge

As a new (unstarred) GM, I am most comfortable with a table of 4 or 5 for any game, including public PFS games. My games generally run long anyway. With more players, it's worse, which stresses me and makes the whole thing unenjoyable for me. I admit, if it was not for the 4 hour time block, it would not be as big of a deal.

So far, the PFS coordinator in our area has been understanding as I gain GM experience; but I think that if a coordinator told me that I could not put a cap on my table size, I would stop GMing public games.

We use a sign up process on a forum much like June Soler commented on. While we do get some walk-ins, the vast majority of players have learned to sign up their +1s for game days.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Can I purposely restrict the size of my Society Games? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.