Hi all,
Apologies if this has been asked before but are there any good guidelines for the minimum and maximum number of players at a PFS scenario table? At PaizoCon, Joshua seemed reluctant to have a table with less than 5 players. I didn't note a maximum, but we weren't exactly full up.
I'm running an event that has 8 confirmed attendees (including myself and a DM for a possible second table) and a few (3-5) maybes. If only 8 of us show up can I run a scenario with 7 players? If we get ten can we run 2 tables with 4 players? Ideally we'll have twelve or more so we can have 2 tables with at least 5...but I'm not sure that'll happen.
So, advice? Thanks in advance! :)
M
Edit: If the scenario matters at all, we'll be running #24 Decline of Glory for one table and adding #14 The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch for a second table if we open it.
|
Hi all,
Apologies if this has been asked before but are there any good guidelines for the minimum and maximum number of players at a PFS scenario table? At PaizoCon, Joshua seemed reluctant to have a table with less than 5 players. I didn't note a maximum, but we weren't exactly full up.I'm running an event that has 8 confirmed attendees (including myself and a DM for a possible second table) and a few (3-5) maybes. If only 8 of us show up can I run a scenario with 7 players? If we get ten can we run 2 tables with 4 players? Ideally we'll have twelve or more so we can have 2 tables with at least 5...but I'm not sure that'll happen.
So, advice? Thanks in advance! :)
MEdit: If the scenario matters at all, we'll be running #24 Decline of Glory for one table and adding #14 The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch for a second table if we open it.
You'd have a hard time finding it but the topic has been raised before. It should be sewed up by the new OP guide appearing soon. There's a hard floor of 4 players per table, and a soft ceiling of 6. One of the discussions occurred on this thread.
Interesting discussion. Thanks for linking it.
I'm truly hoping I get enough for a minimum of four per table. I'd sure hate to get just nine people (total) and have to decide between an 8-player table (with me as DM) or a 4/3 split (with me and another as DM). I guess I'd have to go with the 8-player table (Joshua says "rarely, please" on 8 but gives a hard floor of 4).
I certainly don't want to turn anyone away our first time out...as you note in your other thread, the important thing here is to build PFS membership.
M
4 is the minimum, period.
6 is the maximum. You can do 7 if you have to, but 8 is two tables of 4.
Additional details coming soon in 2.0.
4 is the minimum, period.
Got that part for sure, from your other posts.
6 is the maximum. You can do 7 if you have to, but 8 is two tables of 4.
Problem is that to convert my 8 players into two tables will require me to tap one of those players to be DM, taking us below minimum.
I'm really hoping this won't be a problem this time, though. Looks like we'll have enough...as long as everyone that has RSVP'd shows up.
Official ruling?: If it comes down to running with 8 players or splitting into two tables of 4 and 3 (again, I'll have to siphon off a DM), which would you prefer? I presume your answer isn't going to be to tell one to sit out...but please let me know if so.
M
Also, can I run a PFS-legal character as an NPC to fill out a table with only 3 players? When I didn't get to DM at PaizoCon I was essentially an NPC in another tables' game. Just curious if this could be a solution.
M
|
We already know the answer: 4 is the hard floor, 8 is not great but if you can't turn people away then it "will do".
Personally, I'd still play it with 8, because in my experience 1-2 guys will not show up if these are strangers you're gaming with.
The risk of splitting it up into two groups of 4 is that if you have a 'no show' on a new player, it will ruin the night. When meeting new people, it's best to book 6-7 players because 1-2 are bound to not show up.
I'd only split it up if:
A) I knew these players
B) I thought I could recruit another player into each group for a total of 5 players per group
We already know the answer: 4 is the hard floor, 8 is not great but if you can't turn people away then it "will do"
Actually, not really: Joshua said 8 is two tables of 4, he didn't say 8 was okay. And, 8 isn't two tables of 4 if I have to take one of those to DM that new table...it becomes one table of 4 and one table of 3. I just wanted to know which he prefers: A table of 8 or two tables with 3 and 4.
As to organization, I'm just asking people to show up and then I'm going to try to make it work with how many I've got. Nothing is set in stone except that two tables is the max this time...I just need to know when to go with one or break it into two.
M
My rule has always been and will continue to always be so long as people don't get turned away do you what you need to do. There are hard rules and soft rules in PFS--maximum table size is a soft rule.
BUT if you find that your group is ALWAYS 8 players, find another GM and run two tables.
Thanks, Joshua. Much appreciated.
M
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
Problem is that to convert my 8 players into two tables will require me to tap one of those players to be DM, taking us below minimum.
I'm really hoping this won't be a problem this time, though. Looks like we'll have enough...as long as everyone that has RSVP'd shows up.
Official ruling?: If it comes down to running with 8 players or splitting into two tables of 4 and 3 (again, I'll have to siphon off a DM), which would you prefer? I presume your answer isn't going to be to tell one to sit out...but please let me know if so.
M
This is exactly what happened last Tuesday at my FLGS. 9 showed up, two of which were willing to GM. Our choices were: one GM and 8 players or two GMs and a table of 4 and a table of 3. I asked the players and they said that 8 would be too slow. We chose the two tables and the table with 3 had characters die. I let the remaining characters join my table of 4 half-way through the scenario.
Not sure if it's entirely kosher but I just ran an NPC to round it out. Tough with just three.
|
Not sure if it's entirely kosher but I just ran an NPC to round it out. Tough with just three.
I think that is a perfectly acceptable work-around for the situation.
I had four players confirm for a session last weekend, but only three showed up. It would be nice to invite five players, so if one doesn't turn up, you can still play a legal table with four, but living in an apartment means I really only have table space for four players, and even that is pushing it. Rather than forfeit the game, we decided to play on. All three were personal friends of mine, and play well together, and the scenario was one I had GMed twice before, so I was familiar with it and knew which spots to watch out for, the players didn't have any difficulty completing the scenario.
I realise that running three players could potentially be deadly, particularly so for some scenarios, by you can alert yourself to these by reading the GM Discussion thread for that scenario before running it, and making adjustments if required.
If I had the option of GMing a large table, or breaking it up into two smaller tables, I would choose to break it up every time (that is if a second GM were available to run it). I find large tables are too noisy, it takes too long for each player's turn to come around, and shy or new players often get left behind. You want the experience to be a good one for every player. Smaller tables are a lot snappier and allow every character their moment of fame.
Some encounters are deadly if played as written. GMs shouldn't be afraid to take it easy on small tables if they're like to struggle, or be a little more ruthless on larger tables if they can handle it.
|
Tables of 4 players tend to be risky if someone cannot arrive (mainly due to laziness and incompetence). Would it be bad to have a "GM's best friend", an imaginary friend who always happens to be there when someone else is missing? Easily could play those pregen characters.
Of course using this sock puppet should be by the line of "only in dire situations", like those described above.
|
Tables of 4 players tend to be risky if someone cannot arrive (mainly due to laziness and incompetence). Would it be bad to have a "GM's best friend", an imaginary friend who always happens to be there when someone else is missing? Easily could play those pregen characters.
Of course using this sock puppet should be by the line of "only in dire situations", like those described above.
I personally would not do this, The Scenarios are supposedly built with 4 PCs in mind, I find that with 6 PCs these scenarios are way to easy, even when the PCs are acting stupid ;-). That said, with 4 PCs, the scenarios can be unforgiven to poor tactics.
The TPK I had I think was with 5 PCs, But 3 of them where Pre Gens, which made them weaker.
In the Future I most likely will be more forgiving with Beginning players at conventions to avoid the situation like the TPK, Will change up tactics so the PCs have a better chance. For experienced PCs I will be less forgiving ;-).