So, tonight just happened to be our local RPG meetup group that I attend (also my RotRL game that I play in runs at it occasionally). I asked around for players for Kingmaker as I want to start running it. I now have 9-10 interested players that may be coming to my house next Friday to make characters! YIKES!
Does the game look like it will scale to a large party size? Looks like we'll have most of the government spots filled out too!
|
I would recommend getting a second DM. Before you begin, make sure to have a good long talk with the entire group about their expectations for the game, and their availability.
I had much the same problem with my latest campaign getting off the ground. I ended up with eight people wanting to play, and didn't want to turn anyone away. So I said 'let's see how things turn out.' It turned out alright after two players decided the game wasn't what they wanted and they didn't have the time to commit to it. But it could very easily have turned out badly.
I can understand not wanting to turn people away, but be sure to get everyone on the same page. It will help make things run smoothly.
|
I've found that in situations like this, if a second, or co-DM, isn't available - make absolute sure, without even a shred of compromise, that all the players understand that their characters are in it together.
Whatever method that works for you; group templates, every character must know and like one other character, shared background development, etc, etc,.
In groups that big, it only takes one player whose character doesn't quite 'fit in', to really, really slow things down.
|
If you end up with 9-10 players, grab someone, slap a DM sticker on em.
With 6-8 consistent players, it seems like the right kind of AP to run. Sandboxy, plenty of movement, intrigue, pirates, ninjas, etc... If you cannot get another DM, I would refuse to play. 10 is too many, sometimes with even 2 seasoned DM's reffing.
^-what CJ said above, make sure they have, and read, the rules before play. Char Gen, any Houserules, and the general "teamwork" setup should be laid out right at the beginning. No PC-killing, looting, and whatnot should be addressed, especially with strangers/semi-acquaintances playing.
-t
I haven't read enough of the AP to know for sure but maybe they could be split into two groups, each with their own lands to explore, and split the plot with another DM. Just a thought...but it might require a lot of work to get it working correctly using the provided material.
M
I agree. split into 2 groups. I'd also emphasize group cohesion. I've got a group of 5 and I'm planning on telling them up front that if a "chaotic" character kills a random citizen randomly, the only way to quell the populous unrest is to publically execute the offending PC.
I think the threat of possibly being executed by a fellow PC (instead of the GM) is enough to keep them inline.
Creative Director
|
I'm running a game with 9 players now, and the ONLY way that works is because of the following:
1) I have abandoned any concept of getting things done on a specific schedule. If I had it in my mind "the PCs must accomplish these three things in this month of gaming" I would go crazy. Instead, it's very much a sandbox game where the PCs set the pace.
2) My players are all pretty good with the rules, and more to the point, they're pretty good with the concept of how when you're gaming at a table and it's not your turn to be doing things, you should be relatively quiet AND pay attention to what's going on. Easily distracted players, even ONE of them, can totally ruin a game, and it gets progressively easier for them to do this with more players.
3) I generally don't try to have more than one combat encounter per hour, and no more than one BIG one per session. With lots of players, THIS is where your game is going to slow to a crawl, because you'll have progressively more players taking turns. It's probably a good idea to not allow things like Leadership, summoners, or class options that allow you to have companions too. Limit each player to one character.
4) Keep sessions shorter than longer. Running a game with 9 players is EXHAUSTING, and gives you as the GM a LOT less time to present the game since there's so many more people taking turns. As a result, the temptation might be to expand the length of your session, but I think that's a bad idea because it'll burn you out fast.
5) All of the players respect me as the GM, and they listen when I ask them to pipe down.
If you have the time and energy to run two groups, that's usually the better choice.
|
+1 to James' response. If you were going to run a weekly game i'd recommend that you split up the group into two. Most people would kill for a regular fortnightly game, so playing one group one week, the other the other should still work. Either as seperate continuities or all working together for a common cause moving in different directions.
WHile I personally enjoy a large group (on the 8 to 10 scale), I've been playing of late with a few players who don't, and have in fact been breaking my group into smaller factions and sending them in different directions - so 5 players Friday, 4 to 7 players Sunday seems to be working (at one point I had them split three ways, but suffered a bit from one group being too small).
Now in my old Birthright days, I managed a group with up to 15 players. THAT got a little extreme...
Thanks for all the feedback. I think this is valuable info, not just for me, but for anyone with this issue.
I think I can make it work in one group. The sandboxy nature of the AP should lend itself to a larger group. Not only that, but with nine people, some people will miss every session (we have this with 7 people in our RotRL game).
Also helping will be that the group are all experienced players. Maybe not with Pathfinder, but they're all players who've been playing several years (my wife is probably the shortest-played person at roughly 3 years now).
I'm starting with a session of pure character creation this week. I want players to establish relationships with other players and figure out if they know each other beforehand and all that.
Anywho, I'll have something to get ready for this week thankfully.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
2) My players are all pretty good with the rules, and more to the point, they're pretty good with the concept of how when you're gaming at a table and it's not your turn to be doing things, you should be relatively quiet AND pay attention to what's going on. Easily distracted players, even ONE of them, can totally ruin a game, and it gets progressively easier for them to do this with more players.
I have to agree with this, its' frustrating when your players are easily distra- squirrel!
I'm hoping to start Kingmaker come next month, and i wish I had your problem (or someone else to DM instead of me).
I'm running a game with 9 players now, and the ONLY way that works is because of the following:
[Excellent advice omitted for space reasons]
If you have the time and energy to run two groups, that's usually the better choice.
First of all, +10
I have a group of 8 players. Except when it's four. Or six. Or five. Due to realities of life, not everyone can make it to every game, which makes it especially challenging. I have run for as few as two (one of the best games ever, as a matter of fact), and as many as nine.
Four or five interested players is my favorite, however.
|
|
2) My players are all pretty good with the rules, and more to the point, they're pretty good with the concept of how when you're gaming at a table and it's not your turn to be doing things, you should be relatively quiet AND pay attention to what's going on. Easily distracted players, even ONE of them, can totally ruin a game, and it gets progressively easier for them to do this with more players.
I have to agree with this, its' frustrating when your players are easily distra- squirrel!
I'm hoping to start Kingmaker come next month, and i wish I had your problem (or someone else to DM instead of me).
The GMs curse man. I hear ya.
|
|
I'm running a game with 9 players now, and the ONLY way that works is because of the following:
1) I have abandoned any concept of getting things done on a specific schedule. If I had it in my mind "the PCs must accomplish these three things in this month of gaming" I would go crazy. Instead, it's very much a sandbox game where the PCs set the pace.
2) My players are all pretty good with the rules, and more to the point, they're pretty good with the concept of how when you're gaming at a table and it's not your turn to be doing things, you should be relatively quiet AND pay attention to what's going on. Easily distracted players, even ONE of them, can totally ruin a game, and it gets progressively easier for them to do this with more players.
3) I generally don't try to have more than one combat encounter per hour, and no more than one BIG one per session. With lots of players, THIS is where your game is going to slow to a crawl, because you'll have progressively more players taking turns. It's probably a good idea to not allow things like Leadership, summoners, or class options that allow you to have companions too. Limit each player to one character.
4) Keep sessions shorter than longer. Running a game with 9 players is EXHAUSTING, and gives you as the GM a LOT less time to present the game since there's so many more people taking turns. As a result, the temptation might be to expand the length of your session, but I think that's a bad idea because it'll burn you out fast.
5) All of the players respect me as the GM, and they listen when I ask them to pipe down.
If you have the time and energy to run two groups, that's usually the better choice.
LOL This is my life! I've been running campaigns for 6-10 players my entire GM'ing career! Currently I have 8 and we finished exactly 2 combat encounters this weekend. In the 8 hours we played (not counting the funky Spring forward effect) I easily lost half the tables attention on more than a few occasions. It also doesn't help that not everyone has a Book yet, so rules queries happen...
However in the past we have run many campaigns sucessfully. As the DM the onus is on me to keep the pace going, but the Players absolutely have to police themselves in order for you to do your job.
--Monsters of Vrock tour!
I've been having this problem myself. To the point I have been burned out from it. I had a nice group set up with 5 players. The the wife of another keeps thinking it is absolutely ok to keep inviting more & more. We have had too many campaigns drop to the wayside because I never had a consistent roster. Also she was inviting to participate were here step-son & his GF & another friend. The bottom line was that they really weren't wanting to roleplay. They were really just interested in a hack-n-slash. Always wanting to get to the next combat & didn't want to actually find clues or anything.
I'm beginning to get the itch again thanks to Kingmaker. I will approach a little different. Looking for people that will actually read some rules & not count on me all the time. I was beginning to feel like I was playing their characters as well as GMing.
I thought I had problems with 7 players in my new group. Yeah I'm in agreement with everyone else. Ask if people have interest in splitting the groups into two 5 person games that run every other week, say on a Sunday. First group starts the adventure then the second group the following week. That sounds doable to me. Good luck with whatever you decide.
OMG!!! WHAT DO I DOMake sure all those players buy the Pathfinder PHB...
;-)
I agree. for my ROTR campaign, I did a 3 week demo (Into the Haunted Woods/ Treasure Chest).
But I told the players who got to join the main campaign that they HAD to get a PF Rulebook, and bring it every week, but xmas.
They did.
Players should invest SOMETHING into the game.
I guess I overreacted earlier. While I still potentially have 7 players, It looks like it will work well as people are always having something to do where one or two can't make it.
There's the real curse of a group of thirty-something gamers, life getting in the way.
I guess I overreacted earlier. While I still potentially have 7 players, It looks like it will work well as people are always having something to do where one or two can't make it.
There's the real curse of a group of thirty-something gamers, life getting in the way.
As long as they all concentrate on the game & actually participate, it can be done.
And I know all about the older gamer crowd.
If only I had that problem when it came to finding players. Damn my FLGS for remodeling it's roleplaying room.
I used to have the other problem, little to no players. Sometimes I miss those days, lol.
If only I had that problem when it came to finding players. Damn my FLGS for remodeling it's roleplaying room.
I used to have trouble finding players for my RPGs. Or just getting enough together.
For over a decade, my home game was, at best, 2 players and a GM. College was a bit easier (captive audience) but after graduation, it got tough again.
Then I started running RPG demos at the FLGS. That was 13 years ago and I have had plenty of players since. (My first 3.0 game, I was expenting most players to not show, as is normal. So, I let everyone who rolled up a character play. For 3 weeks, we had 16 players, then it whittled down to 10 for almost 5 years.) And when you run a RPG demo that expands into a campaign, you can sort of mold the players into the playing style you work best with. (No evil or CN. All players MUST work togehter as a team. No deliberately blocking other character's actions just to be a jerk, etc.)