|
Our weekly Pathfinder RPG group has grown popular with good gamers, and a 7th gamer asked to join us. Because of a long standing friendship I welcomed him to the table for a session, letting him know the group would provide feedback both quantitative (is a 7th player too many?) and qualitative (do we all get along?).
Answers to any of the following, or other advice is appreciated:
Are there any groups out there have 7 players plus GM?
What issues might arise?
What things can be done to mitigate the effect of a 7th player?
For example:
Should I expect combat to drag? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect more rules lawyering? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect less time for roleplay? (If so what could I do?)
Thanks,
Pax
For example:
1) Should I expect combat to drag? (If so what could I do?)
2) Should I expect more rules lawyering? (If so what could I do?)
3) Should I expect less time for roleplay? (If so what could I do?)Thanks,
Pax
(Added numbers)
1) yes, combat will slow down, Solution: every player has 10 seconds to do their actions, IF they take more than that they LOSE their turn (brutal, but works)
2) will vary based on group composition, (As GM, what you say is FINAL!)
3) will vary based on player and group composition (No solution here)
Depends on the 7th player/character. If he's a melee guy, add a few extra mooks. If he's a low level caster, consider altering the loot a bit so that he and the other caster aren't always at each other's throats over that magic maguffin. Mid-level casters are a bit trickier because of the action economy balance.
I've run large groups in the past and came up with these rough guidelines to help keep things running smoothly. The important thing thought is to get player involvement in this. Let them know, as a group, that you are a tad concerened about things dragging and talk it out.
Make it a policy for people to know their own rules. Meaning that the player should know how their characters abilities work. The wizard should not have to look up what that arcane mastery does. The fighter should know how their feats work and when aao's can be taken. If you need to make notes. If the GM can rely on the players knowing their stuff and being correct it really speeds play.
Really crack down on spellcasters. Casters have to know what their spell will do when their turn comes around. No looking things up on your turn. That is what other peoples turns are for. If they balk recommend spell cards, there are a number of free sources on the web. They are quick and put the important info ones finger tips.
Really really crack down on summons. The caster has to have the statblock of their summons ready when the beastie hits the field. This means already altered to reflect the casters summon effecting feats and to take account of any template used. This will require som prep on their part but is is SOOOOOO worth it in play. 3x5 cards are perfect for this.
Crack down on pets. Everything said about summons goes for mounts/ companions/ familiars/ what have you. If you have to figure out the numbers at the table it draggggggggggggs.
That should help.
Are there any groups out there have 7 players plus GM?
Yes, of course. I even know of larger groups.
What issues might arise?
The two main areas are lack of individual screen time with GM and balance issues. Depending on the group, it is also harder to come to a consensus with more people.
What things can be done to mitigate the effect of a 7th player?
For example:
Should I expect combat to drag? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect more rules lawyering? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect less time for roleplay? (If so what could I do?)
Balance issues are fairly easily solved by increasing the number of opponents. Avoid simply making them a higher CR because special abilities don't necessarily scale as well as additional numbers.
Combat will take a bit longer because you have more (and/or tougher) creatures to fight. I find, paradoxically, that the less the often a player's turn comes up the less often he is ready to act. (This has to do with distractions with side conversations and the greater likelihood that someone will do something that will cause him to change his planned actions.)
I don't see any more rules lawyering than normal. In fact, sometimes with the numbers of other knowledgeable players, someone will be able to find the exact reference needed sooner when several people look up a rule. Also, it's harder to argue when three or four people agree with the GM.
You will probably see as much time spent roleplaying, maybe even more, but each individual player will have less time to interact with a given NPC.
In general, it will take longer to finish any given adventure with more players. Cooperative and attentive players will definitely help this along.
You also have a risk of the new guy upsetting the party dynamic, either in-game or out-of-game. I think this will actually affect your play experience more than just adding another PC.
For the record, I prefer smaller groups. You tend to get more screen time, you individual effort represents more, each member has a role to fill in the party. With a large group, you are much more likely to have two PCs with similar abilities.
Instead of having the rogue take the spotlight when traps are suspected you end up with a race as the two thieves grab dice and say "I'm checking for traps." "No, you're not I said it first." "Well, I rolled a 35 trap check." "Oh, I can beat that." "Guys, there are no traps...."
I wouldn't expect a 7th player to make much of a difference when you already have 6. The issues with the extra player should be similar to the issues you already have (if any). Depending on the new player's playing style, of course.
Our weekly Pathfinder RPG group has grown popular with good gamers, and a 7th gamer asked to join us. Because of a long standing friendship I welcomed him to the table for a session, letting him know the group would provide feedback both quantitative (is a 7th player too many?) and qualitative (do we all get along?).
Answers to any of the following, or other advice is appreciated:
Are there any groups out there have 7 players plus GM?
What issues might arise?
What things can be done to mitigate the effect of a 7th player?For example:
Should I expect combat to drag? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect more rules lawyering? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect less time for roleplay? (If so what could I do?)Thanks,
Pax
My weekly group has seven players, with me as GM at the moment. It's definitely doable, particularly if you have the right mix of folks. With that many players, of course you have to make encounters more difficult. I routinely double the number of enemies faced, or add the advanced template to single opponents, or add a couple of levels to opponents with character levels, or some combination of those three. That translates into more prep time, of course.
It also definitely has the potential to slow things down in combat. I find that I have to be more organized and brutally efficient and demand the same of my players. I insist that they be ready with their action when their turn comes up on the initiative table. No looking through books for spells or feats while they are "on the clock". If they aren't ready, then they are holding action until they are ready or they just lose their turn. This has the added benefit of eing a little more "realistic". That minotaur isn't going to wait for you to thumb through your spellbook and find the perfect spell for the occasion. By the time you've found it, he's feasting on your entrails.
As for rules lawyering, it depends on your group. I have little patience with this even in smaller groups, and you really don't have time for it with a bigger group. I do not have the rules memorized and do make mistakes. If someone thinks I've made a mistake, they can state their case quickly and succinctly and I'll change my ruling if they can show an error. If they can't do it quickly or if they just disagree with my interpretation of the rules, I politely and firmly say that my ruling stands and that I would be happy to discuss it with them after the game, when we aren't wasting everybody's time.
I don't think this should effect the amount of time for roleplay necessarily. It might effect the amount of time any one character gets to be in the roleplaying spotlight. If you have some players who like to roleplay and some who don't, you might also want to try and speed up the drama majors a bit so the guys who just like to roll the bones and kill something don't get too bored. The key is balance, trying to give everyone enough time in the spotlight/doing the stuff they like to do without boring everyone else, and that is indeed harder the more players you have.
With a good group of folks, however, who aren't too selfish, larger groups work just fine. They don't work fine if you have players who are spotlight hogs or unrepentant rules lawyers or who don't work and play well with others. The more folks you have at your table, the more cooperation from them the GM needs to make things run smoothly. so even more imperative to follow the best advice for gaming: Don't Game with Jerks!
Should I expect less time for roleplay? (If so what could I do?)
The larger the party, the more likely it is for them to all split up when they're safe. If you have 3 people, they'll probably stick together or split up into two groups-- but with 7, you could have three or four groups going to different places and doing different things. With that in mind, one thing I would suggest is specifically gearing roleplaying scenarios for those who want to do them. The biggest problem I had with large groups was positing roleplaying to people who were genuinely uninterested in the situation at hand while others were very interested, yet their characters were not present.
I'm not saying "don't allow everyone to roleplay," but make sure to pick and choose what happens a little more concisely. If A like interrogations, if the party splits up, have A be the one to get into the interrogation situation. If B likes to shop, don't have him wander into the interrogation encounter. That kind of thing.
Saves time and makes sure that people won't like chew on their options trying to decide what they would do-- they know what their character will do because they've thought about this because they enjoy it.
EDIT: Another good tip is to round-robin the spotlight for each session, but you probably know that. With bigger groups it becomes even more important, but it also means you need to become a radar dish that intercepts "when will my backstory come up?" signals. I was never good at this, but I can at least warn you. My players, when we talk about my old games, always say things like "I wish we got to X storyline, I wanted to see what would happen" and it makes me mad at myself.
The best way I can recommend to play with seven people is to find two additional people and split into two groups of four players + 1 GM.
Possibilities:
- The games should be run simultaneously, preferably in different rooms of the same building. If one or both GMs is short on players that day, the groups can be combined for that session.
- The groups could be working on different parts of the same general plotline. They could be working wiith or against one another. They might not even know about it for a while.
- If the parties wish to contact one another, it's just a matter of skype or speakerphone. The two GMs can coordinate a bit during the game with an IM session ("My team just destroyed the dam, so do the 'Flash Flood' encounter soon").
- In case of Epic Boss Fight, or Epic Party vs. Party fight, have one group switch locations. This is unwieldy, of course, but having two GMs might help with the monsters.
- For bonus points, during the combined battles try having each GM run half the PCs and monsters - simultaneously. Just make sure you sync up at the bottom of the round so that nobody gets to go twice before someone else. Things are bound to be a bit confusing since other creatures can act while you're trying to take your turn. (This is probably a terrible idea.)
Alternatively, just split off into two separate gaming groups that run at different times and whose campaigns do not necessarily intersect much. Run both if you have the time and energy.
|
Our standard group is 9 players, plus 2 ACs, plus an occasional guest visitors from time to time (old players home on leave, etc). It is not easy to run big groups, but we have great times that just aren't the same with smaller groups, so we wouldnt change for the world. Combats can be slow, but they also tend to be more likely to be epic and memorable with a large group.
Things I figured out about large groups that saved me from losing my mind:
1- Combat is very long. As some others have said large groups cause very long combats. We use initiative cards, that have ac, feats, CMD, and other stuff I might want to know so I can tell at a glance without having to ask the player. We roll initiative, I order the cards, add the monster's initiative cards in, and then just go thru the stack. I call out whose up, and also whose "on deck" so they can get ready and not delay the combat. Also to re-iterate, if they don't know what they are going to do or have to look something up, skip them and don't add them back in until they are ready. Harsh but if you tell them in advance, its necessary.
2- Delegate stuff to the players to track. You will have enough going on that some things are better handed off. For instance, I made the rules lawyer in my group the official rule checker. If something comes up, he looks it up, freeing me up to keep things moving. Rarely is something a show stopper that prevents anything else from happening until its checked. Also someone tracks treasure, monsters killed, NPCs talked to (I make up NPCs on the fly sometimes, and it helps me record them later if the players note it).
3- Have an online resource for players to go to. It reduces overhead during your gaming time if you use Obsidian portal, Wikispaces, or some other method of having offline discussions, divisions of loot, planning, logistics etc. Also a good place to resolve issues that come up during game.
4-We never debate GM rulings during the game. There just isnt enough bandwidth to hash over everything during a game session. My player's know to roll with it and we will talk afterwards. I am very fair about "retro" corrections if the ruling had serious consequences.
5- I strongly strongly encourage the use of the Monte Cook method of encounter balancing. More than 6 players IMO renders the CR calculation methods in the book useless, since the sheer economy of actions shifts the balance. I found the use of swarms to be very effective to absorb some of the extra turns that many players get, if I want to make an encounter tough or memorable. They are annoying and debilitating without being deadly for the most part.
6- Preserve your roleplaying. This is the most difficult part of our large group. When combat takes forever, and you as a GM are juggling the next encounter, 4 players wanting to talk to you, etc, the first thing that goes out the window is the creative descriptions during battle, the in character interactions, etc. At least for me, the tendency is to start cutting these things short as the night goes on, and the extra work of juggling a large group starts to bear down. Make a special effort to include a certain amount of this no matter what. I often email my players interactions or things they notice later during the week, which also helps.
7- No extras. Its the GMs call, but I advise no cohorts, no hirelings, no summoned monsters, and if you can swing it, no animal companions. This is hard to do when you have a caster oriented druid or a cavalier/paladin type character with a mount, but you really have to enforce this stricture. I think the hardest one is every wizard wants to be a conjuration specialist. I also allow no summoner class in my game, but your own preferences may be different.
5- I strongly strongly encourage the use of the Monte Cook method of encounter balancing.
What is this?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monte Cook wrote a three part article about DMing large parties that helped me a lot. Here is the excerpt I am referring to:
In my specific campaign right now, the PCs are both tougher than normal and the group is almost twice the size of the typical four-character party. So how do I know what kind of encounters to use in the game? I test them. First, I start simple. At 1st level, I throw a CR 1 encounter at them. Do they defeat it handily? I'm sure they do. So I raise the stakes. Can they handle a CR 2 encounter? Yes. And so on. This is an inexact science, but it is sort of a science. Realize, for example, that an encounter that comes after a series of other encounters is by its very nature tougher. Doing the video game thing and putting the "big boss monster" at the end might be climactic, but it's also potentially going to be deadly. (Sometimes, a good way to handle this is to have the lead-up encounters to a really hard one be particularly easy. Another way is to offer the characters a chance to rest and recuperate right before the big encounter.)
In the tests of my own large group, I've found that I can easily throw CR 3 and CR 4 monsters at my 2nd-level party without problem. Last week, I used a 3rd-level bugbear cleric (CR 5), two more bugbears (CR 2 each), and a krenshar (CR 1) for a total of EL 6. It was a bit tougher of an encounter than I had thought, but that's all part of the process. That bugbear cleric was, in retrospect, too powerful for them -- although they pulled it off and survived. I can't safely go with monsters of a higher Challenge Rating than probably about CR 4. The special abilities (with their fairly high save Difficulty Classes) are too much for them. But lots of low Challenge Rating opponents aren't the perfect answer either. I threw a ridiculous number of 1st-level warriors at them a few sessions ago and it wasn't particularly challenging -- although it was interesting for the novelty of it. (As an aside, what it did was to make the low-level casters feel slightly less useful. Their contributions were minimal unless they had purely damage-inflicting spells. Why daze or distract a foe that can be hacked down by a fighter with ease?)
Here is the link to the articles portions:
|
|
A couple more thoughts I wanted to add to my earlier list:
8- I highly recommend as low a point buy (15pt preferable, 20pt as a max) or as weak a dice rolling character generation system as your players can stomach. You don't want to ruin their fun, but a 15pt buy character is still powerful when he has 6-8 other allies with him, and you have cavaliers, bards, and clerics spamming bonuses to everyone in range. Same goes for magic items- don't feel the need to make sure all of them have the same individual magic items or wealth that a character of similar standing would have in a 4 player group. Chances are several players are going to take crafting feats, plus there isnt as much need for lots of items when you have a party with more actions per round. Power levels can get out of hand fast with a large party, especially if you plan on a campaign into the higher levels. Better to reduce the power in the beginning than try to reduce it later in the game. You can always increase things if you find its unplayable the way you started.
9-It is easy for quiet players to get left out in a horde of loud, social outgoing players, so you as a GM have to pay attention and make sure they get heard. We have one very quiet player who often comes up with the best ideas, but they often get glossed over due to louder players. My daughter (not a quiet one), had to tell everyone else to shut up sometimes to make sure he was heard. Make sure no player gets left out or left behind due to size.
Answers to any of the following, or other advice is appreciated:Are there any groups out there have 7 players plus GM?
What issues might arise?
What things can be done to mitigate the effect of a 7th player?For example:
Should I expect combat to drag? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect more rules lawyering? (If so what could I do?)
Should I expect less time for roleplay? (If so what could I do?)
Yes!
For several months, our group had 7 players plus GM, and we are likely to return to that or end up at 8 plus GM for a brief while (one player is likely leaving soon, unfortunately).Issues that may arise: People lose focus and stop paying attention more readily; when Character A is the center of attention, the other 6 players now have 5 potential chat partners to choose from. Counter this by involving numerous players in situations, declining to let individual characters go off and do things very often (or at all), or rewarding players for paying attention later on.
Mitigating the effect of a 7th player: This should be unnecessary, IMO. First off, the chances of all 7 being in attendance every week are low -- absences will happen. The upside is you can keep going quite well if only 5 or 6 players are present.
The 7th player should be adding to the overall game with a new voice, a new character, new ideas, and more RP participation. You shouldn't be *mitigating* anything -- if the 7th player is a detriment, you should ask him or her to leave.
Will combat drag? - Very possibly. Limit players' time to tell you what they are going to do, as mentioned elsewhere, or assign a player to serve as an assistant GM, which I believe is discussed in the Gamemastery Guide.
More rules lawyering? Less time for roleplay? To be blunt, these are things that entirely within your purview as GM. If you do not appreciate rules lawyering, shut down the lawyer at the table and tell them you will be happy to discuss this AFTER the game, but you have made your ruling now and are moving on. As the GM you can run an entire campaign, if you desire (and the group doesn't hate it), with RP and no combats.
There's no reason MORE rules lawyering (or any!) or LESS roleplaying will happen if you as GM do not allow it.
Groups over 4 are not everyone's cup of tea ... but as I always say, some people are poor judges of tea. :P
Biggest group I ever had was 9. We had 4 halflings (rogue, bard, forget what the other two were), an elf ranger, a human ranger, dwarf fighter, human fighter, and human wizard. The problems I encountered were mostly related to the characters/players themselves.
The halfling rogue stole a lot of the spotlight after he got his hands on an intelligent (and malicious) Ring of Invisibility. Him and the bard were BFFs, so they were always running off and getting into trouble, so I had to take time out for them.
The other two halflings were new players, and were always making rookie mistakes, which lead to a lot of issues (like being attacked by orcs and a troll after they failed their stealth checks terribly).
The human fighter got jealous of the halflings ring, so he eventually tried to take it by force. It eventually lead to him getting killed, and the player quit showing up after that.
The elf and dwarf were always trying to compete with each other in kill counts, so they tried to take center stage and outdo each other in combat as much as possible.
The wizard nearly got himself killed by trying to solo a Balor, and he missed a few weeks after that.
The human ranger liked to play up the tragic hero bit (his character was of royal blood, but he didn't want to claim it.) He also had a habit of falling for female NPCs, which got awkward.
The party as a whole had a tendency to get split up much more than I would like, so I often had a group of people sitting around until I could get to what their group was doing.
That particular campaign was a bit difficult to run, but was overall pretty rewarding, with a suitably epic ending. Playing with a big group can be a challenge, but with the right players and assigning 'assistant' roles, you can make the load a lot easier on yourself.
Holy Cosmos,
9 players + GM, that is a big one.
I could not imagine the difficulty the GM had in managing that large group.
You can expect RP to go right down the crapper. Any sustained PC-NPC interactions keep one person involved while 6 lose the flow of the game after 5 minutes. I don't know why, but this one gets worse the greater the number of players; interactions that work with four people become game stoppers once you've got seven.
Nah, Peter Jackson was up to the task... :)
I'm glad someone got the blatant reference I was making ;)
|
|
You can expect RP to go right down the crapper. Any sustained PC-NPC interactions keep one person involved while 6 lose the flow of the game after 5 minutes. I don't know why, but this one gets worse the greater the number of players; interactions that work with four people become game stoppers once you've got seven.
I agree completely, plus as a GM, you are juggling way more during a game with that many people, not the least of which is having to talk over people and get their attention, as well as trying to answer questions for 3 ppl at any given time.
I found that my attention to details, descriptions, and "setting the scene" type activities that lead to good RP tends to be the first thing to go out the window if I don't focus on it to a certain degree. I tend to make notes to myself before each game session with things like
-Focus on combat scene descriptions or
-Focus on the effects of the rain on their equipment and terrain
so I can be sure to factor them in during the game.
Moving individual RPing scenes offline helps a lot when possible as well. That way you don't sacrifice the individual attention, but it doesn't hold up the whole group.
You can expect RP to go right down the crapper. Any sustained PC-NPC interactions keep one person involved while 6 lose the flow of the game after 5 minutes. I don't know why, but this one gets worse the greater the number of players; interactions that work with four people become game stoppers once you've got seven.
I wholly disagree. The only factors to blame for RP going down the crapper are a GM who can't running a roleplaying situation correctly, or players who aren't attempting to involve themselves.
|
|
You can expect RP to go right down the crapper. Any sustained PC-NPC interactions keep one person involved while 6 lose the flow of the game after 5 minutes. I don't know why, but this one gets worse the greater the number of players; interactions that work with four people become game stoppers once you've got seven.I wholly disagree. The only factors to blame for RP going down the crapper are a GM who can't running a roleplaying situation correctly, or players who aren't attempting to involve themselves.
There is a problem of the amount of spotlight time that can be delegated to each player. It is radically lessened each time a new player is added to the group.
|
|
You can expect RP to go right down the crapper. Any sustained PC-NPC interactions keep one person involved while 6 lose the flow of the game after 5 minutes. I don't know why, but this one gets worse the greater the number of players; interactions that work with four people become game stoppers once you've got seven.I wholly disagree. The only factors to blame for RP going down the crapper are a GM who can't running a roleplaying situation correctly, or players who aren't attempting to involve themselves.
I didn't say it was impossible, but frankly the crowd control aspect of a game that size becomes half your work as a GM, even if everyone is merrily cooperating. And you can't expect all of your players to sit rapt while the other 9 are doing their turn. Even with our streamlining the hell out of turns, its 10 minutes per combat round, approximately. People talk, get sidetracked, etc. all that destroys some of the mood and immersion that fosters good RPing. That is really what suffers the most, the immersion and mood necessary for some encounters and adventures to be something special (like Books 2-3 of RotRL for instance). Also, individual one-one-one RP interactions are very hard to juggle when you have 10 players wanting them, plus you are running the session for the group.
I didn't say it was impossible, but frankly the crowd control aspect of a game that size becomes half your work as a GM, even if everyone is merrily cooperating. And you can't expect all of your players to sit rapt while the other 9 are doing their turn. Even with our streamlining the hell out of turns, its 10 minutes per combat round, approximately. People talk, get sidetracked, etc. all that destroys some of the mood and immersion that fosters good RPing. That is really what suffers the most, the immersion and mood necessary for some encounters and adventures to be something special (like Books 2-3 of RotRL for instance). Also, individual one-one-one RP interactions are very hard to juggle when you have 10 players wanting them, plus you are running the session for the group.
I agree with that. But the suggestion I was referring to was that roleplaying goes "right down the crapper", which is always avoidable.
Combat DOES take much longer with 7+ players. If your goal is roleplaying, then it probably behooves you to enter into combat less often than a 3-4 player group. If your goal is hack-n'-slash, then you didn't really care all THAT much about roleplay in the first place, did you?
I can't speak to whether or not you can expect players to sit rapt while you interact with a couple characters -- but I think it's fair to expect players to pay attention to others' roleplaying time. I suspect I know the answer players will give if you ask them, privately and one-on-one, this question:
"Do you want anyone else in the group to actually pay attention to what happens to your character, and how you roleplay your character, or is it all right with you for everyone else in the room to be talking, ignoring you, and absorbed in their own business?"
I didn't say it was impossible, but frankly the crowd control aspect of a game that size becomes half your work as a GM, even if everyone is merrily cooperating. And you can't expect all of your players to sit rapt while the other 9 are doing their turn. Even with our streamlining the hell out of turns, its 10 minutes per combat round, approximately. People talk, get sidetracked, etc. all that destroys some of the mood and immersion that fosters good RPing. That is really what suffers the most, the immersion and mood necessary for some encounters and adventures to be something special (like Books 2-3 of RotRL for instance). Also, individual one-one-one RP interactions are very hard to juggle when you have 10 players wanting them, plus you are running the session for the group.I agree with that. But the suggestion I was referring to was that roleplaying goes "right down the crapper", which is always avoidable.
So, you agree that immersion and mood and 1-1 RPing decline, which was basically my point. That's fine by me.
So, you agree that immersion and mood and 1-1 RPing decline, which was basically my point. That's fine by me.
I didn't say it was impossible, but frankly the crowd control aspect of a game that size becomes half your work as a GM, even if everyone is merrily cooperating. And you can't expect all of your players to sit rapt while the other 9 are doing their turn. Even with our streamlining the hell out of turns, its 10 minutes per combat round, approximately. People talk, get sidetracked, etc. all that destroys some of the mood and immersion that fosters good RPing. That is really what suffers the most, the immersion and mood necessary for some encounters and adventures to be something special (like Books 2-3 of RotRL for instance). Also, individual one-one-one RP interactions are very hard to juggle when you have 10 players wanting them, plus you are running the session for the group.I agree with that. But the suggestion I was referring to was that roleplaying goes "right down the crapper", which is always avoidable.
Not quite. Most declines don't require a toilet metaphor, which suggests a really, really unpleasant decline. That RP quality ever has to sink to that level is your belief (and possibly failing) alone.
|
|
The story ends ... with the group in favor of capping the group at six players. It wasn't that we "couldn't" make it work, but that the opportunity cost of less rp time, coupled with longer rounds, cramped reach to game pieces, and general lack of GM face-time was a deal-breaker for some players. About half the group didn't care either way, the other half felt strongly that 6 was already a little more than enough for a quality game.
I plan to run a monthly group for that 7th player and his friends in Pathfinder RPG, so it seems it all worked out.
Thanks for all the advice.
Pax
|
On the plus side, we have found that more players is better; it seldom happens that all the players show up. We have just had to house rule that a character is off doing something else if the player can't make it. Our GM also declared that characters automatically level if they would fall two levels below the highest level character in the party.
Sounds like the issue resolved itself, but I'll add my 2 cp, anyhoo. Adding a player makes the group stronger by more than that fraction, IMHO. It's one more person with a round to act, potentially making an encounter too easy. More mooks is good, but tougher BBEGs can go down that much easier, too.
And, as Theconiel said, it's one more person who can't be there for whatever reason.
There's a lot of good advice here already, covering what I might add for the most part, but I think I have a few tidbits to toss in.
On keeping track of initiative: I use a large wipe-board so everyone can see who's coming up next and shift their tactics accordingly. Green markers for PCs, Blue for allies, Red for antagonists works well for keeping track more generally of the assorted combatants.
On RP: I play with a good number of experienced players who have no trouble chewing the scenery between each other, whither their dealing with npcs or not, and often it can get quite entertaining. Heck, there are times I as GM like to sit back and let the inter-party sparks fly (GMs need to be entertained too, after all). Key to be mindful though is that players are keeping it all in good fun & in-character - occasionally it can slip into inter-player (not inter-character) drama, and that's no good.
In general I've found the number of players that works for a group depends more on the group than the game. Some groups I've been in work like a well oiled machine, even with 7-8 people, while some can be ready to self-destruct with only 3.
I wouldn't expect a 7th player to make much of a difference when you already have 6. The issues with the extra player should be similar to the issues you already have (if any). Depending on the new player's playing style, of course.
This.
It seems around here, the average group size is 4. If your already running a bigger than normal group, then you already know the issues that will arise.
My biggest concern would the pets... Don't let the pets steal the spotlight... and with 7 pcs there shouldn't be much NEED to summon in a bunch of stuff... But your combat could quickly go from 7 pcs... to 10-12 pcs if people go summon crazy. and if the whole board is covered in elementals and lions... then the warriors will get frustrated for not being able to REACH the combat...
Also... I'm not sure if it's RAW or not... but GET RID of initiative every round. It's how we always did it in 2E, and we carried that over to Pathfinder... Every round we rolled inatiative... On a whim we just decided to do it once per combat... and keep the order. SPED COMBAT UP IMMENSELY!!! And there's really no DOWN side to it.
Since then whethere its the four of us, or 4 + 2 elementals, the lions, a dinosaur and the snake.... There hasn't been any actual drag in combat.