|
As with the pre-gen/replay discussion, only one or two Venture-Captains or Paizo staff will pop in if there needs to be any clarification. I want to make sure to get feedback from the fanbase without undue influence.
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.
Thoughts?
I never noticed a huge difference between a 6 player table and a 7 player table, but I wouldn't be upset by this change.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is, in general, a negative experience. But not always.
Years ago, I had the pleasure of sitting in on a design workship by chaosium's Sandy Petersen. He talked about wanting to rate players on a "virtual player" scale, based on the amount of attention they took from the referee. The average player was worth 1 VP, of course. But there are some people who are new to the game system, who see what they can get away with ("Of course I have a dagger on me as a secondary weapon. I use it to eat my rations.") or who constantly complain about stuff. If you could normally handle a table of six average players, having a 2 VP-player takes up two of those seats. A terrible 3 VP player takes up three of them; two of those guys is all you can handle at a table.
But there are other players who are gret sports, keeping careful notes, always thinking in character about the scenario ... they might be worth 0.5 VP. Or even 0 VP. You can add as many of those guys to the table and things work out great. There are even people are so helpful, guiding other players, that they have negative VPs.
So, there are some great players out there that would make a fine 7-player table. But it's uncommon.
But there are other players who are gret sports, keeping careful notes, always thinking in character about the scenario ... they might be worth 0.5 VP. Or even 0 VP. You can add as many of those guys to the table and things work out great. There are even people are so helpful, guiding other players, that they have negative VPs.
So, there are some great players out there that would make a fine 7-player table. But it's uncommon.
I think it's not just a matter of more players taking up more time (although that's part of it). There's also the issue that having seven fighters ganging up on one ghoul (say) will probably not make an interesting fight.
Canadian Maplecakes
|
Agree 100%.
I know this can suck for convention play, where you're juggling players around a lot, but I think this is needed.
There has to be a FIRM limit as to how many players can be allowed at a table, otherwise GMs will find themselves overloaded and the enjoyment of other players could be lessened.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've played in a 7-player table several times:
When my FLGS was first starting to run PFS, we grew from a single table of 4-5 into (eventually) consistently two tables. However, there was a significant transitional time during which we'd end up with seven players and no second GM. Alternatively, we'd sometimes have a second GM show up and six players, which meant either one table of 7 or two tables of 3 (with both GMs then needing to run pregens).
I would much rather have a table of 7 than two tables of 3. I would think (though admittedly this is speculation) that a GM would rather run a table of 7 than try to run the scenario and also a pregen. The extra players do their own bookkeeping, while a GM pregen adds work for the GM.
And honestly, I don't get the "seven-player tables are terrible" sentiment that I hear on the boards every now and then. As I said, I've played at a lot of them, and frankly I've never noticed any reduced fun level whatsoever.
|
|
As with the pre-gen/replay discussion, only one or two Venture-Captains or Paizo staff will pop in if there needs to be any clarification. I want to make sure to get feedback from the fanbase without undue influence.
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.
Thoughts?
I can see how this would help speed the game along since by adding a player will, at the very least, increase the time used for discussion of strategy. An alternative to restricting table size is for the adventuring group to pick a team leader for the scenario which will help keep direction and keep the table on-time. Perhaps this is done while people are sharing the details of the character and reinforced by the story's venture captain who shares the mission details in the scenario "You all will be under command of <insert character name here> and report back to me when you have completed this mission."
I've GM'd tables with 7 players and have ended on-time with all the players enjoying the session. However, I know that this type of session may be in the minority.
I'd understand either ruling.
Changing the soft cap to five players and the hard cap to six players in public play situations where you will be playing with strangers would be good, but leaving the hard cap at seven players for home games where everyone is used to each other would be good too.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've GM'd tables with 7 players and have ended on-time with all the players enjoying the session. However, I know that this type of session may be in the minority.
Going purely from the posts I've read and people I've talked to IRL, it seems more like the majority are okay with (or indifferent to) 7-person tables while a small handful find it tantamount to bubonic plague.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Changing the soft cap to five players and the hard cap to six players in public play situations where you will be playing with strangers would be good, but leaving the hard cap at seven players for home games where everyone is used to each other would be good too.
Seeing as PFS (and PF in general) is already pretty complicated, I think split rules should be avoided wherever possible. Despite being against reducing the hard cap, I'd rather have it happen anyway than have two different rules.
|
|
I think its pretty widely known, or at least with a quick forum search, that I absolutely HATE 7 player tables. From a player and GM standpoint, they more often than not produce the worst experiences ever. I don't know what it is, but games just become a grind at 7. Role playing either eats up most of the time or dwindles to nothing because 8+ (if more than 1 NPC) at the table makes it hard for folks to shine.
You also have to consider these scenarios are written with a 4 player table in mind. You really are throwing things out of whack when that 7th person sits down because you've almost double the size of the table intended. I mean, when you considering a lot of scenarios have maybe 1 or two BBEGs and your PC party has 7+ (in the case of having a summoner or druid), you don't get any chance to challenge the party. Especially since adding +1 to the APL does not accurately reflect the true APL sitting down at that table (at least in my experience).
I've done 7 player tables at store games, home games, and conventions as a player and a GM. I even went through the level 12 arc with a 7 player table as a player. More often than not it becomes unenjoyable. Not to say it doesn't happen at other tables, but on the whole the likelihood of it at a 7 player table far exceeds that of other limits.
Venture-Captain, Croatia & Slovenia
|
Changing the soft cap to five players and the hard cap to six players in public play situations where you will be playing with strangers would be good, but leaving the hard cap at seven players for home games where everyone is used to each other would be good too.
+1
While it is perfectly possible to GM 7 people and finish a scenario in time, it also makes for a significantly poorer roleplaying session.
I'd always prefer a smaller table of 3 even with the burden of a pregen because it will give those players the spotlight.
In the last game with 6 PCs, we sat down afterwards to discuss how it was. While we did end perfectly, with enough time for paperwork and cleaning up, guys did comment that it would've been a much more relaxed and interesting session if everyone had more time for roleplay. The scenario (First Steps 3) offered several engageing and fun encounters for interaction but everyone felt the pressure of time so on several occasions they decided to cut it short or not roleplay too much so that other PCs can step in more. In the end only 3-4 players got to shine.
And of course, in the last encounter I had to add enemies to make the whole thing more exiting (and it was, in the best possible way).
|
Venture-Agent, West Virginia—Martinsburg
|
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.Thoughts?
Im in with this one.
Being a DM/GM who has run a table that had 7-8 players before, I can only say I would have much preferred the 6, and leave it at that. Its not necessarily the amount of multi tasking that is required to engage all the players, but the fact you need to modify the current scenario/adventure to allow for the extra 1 set of hands. With home brewed games, this is no problem, as you can modify on the fly. With scenarios, and being hard coded, its a little rougher to do that without some kind of imbalance brought forth, be it the players advantage or the GMs.
|
In favor, myself.
Some things to think about for those who want to leave it at 7:
1) Spotlight time, especially in a time-locked public setting, either convention or game store.
1) Combat consequences, both negative and negative:
i) Too many PCs, not enough enemies, makes for short ocmbats where some PCs may not get to act.
ii) Combats too difficult, as with a table of 3s forced into subtier 4-5, and not able to handle the damage output if the BBEG gets off his fireball on the party.
iii) Combats too easy, say for a table of 7 level 5s in a tier 1-5 scenario, having to play it at subtier 4-5, and that can turn it into a walkover.
So, IMO, splitting a GM and table of 7 into 2 GMs and two tables of 3+NPC is the better idea. YMMV.
|
As with the pre-gen/replay discussion, only one or two Venture-Captains or Paizo staff will pop in if there needs to be any clarification. I want to make sure to get feedback from the fanbase without undue influence.
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.
Thoughts?
I think it should be at coordinator/GM discresion. Some GM's are really tight about it being 6 only, and some can go up to 8. I think if you have *just one* over max, it's not the end of the world, and you shouldn't tell that one player that they cannot play just because we are *one* person over table max.
But I would leave it to the one running the table and the coordinator. As a coordinator, we have that problem alot and so we keep having loads of problems and turning away ONE person, because of the 6 per table max rule.
Concerning the "poorer RP" comments, I think that it's based on the how the GM facilitates and how the players play. If you have 4 people who steamroll a table for RP time, it's not going to matter if you have 6,7 or even 8 at your table. The GM has to learn how to manage a table. Example: I go around the table and speak to each person individually, I do NOT EVER let my players just yell out what they are doing.
|
|
Lady Ophelia, I agree with a lot of your post, but I also feel that in any group of 7, there is one person who ends up quieter than they would be in a smaller group. This limits their fun and the roleplaying that the whole group experiences... As a quiet-minded person, I like playing outgoing characaters, as its not Me and that disconnect is a good amount of extra fun. in a 7 person table, there is almost always someone louder/more controlling of a personality than me in real life, which makes me act as though I am intimidated (usually I'm not, but if I'm spoken over with the same idea, I suddenly have nothing to add to the conversation..)
|
|
I would much rather have a table of 7 than two tables of 3. I would think (though admittedly this is speculation) that a GM would rather run a table of 7 than try to run the scenario and also a pregen. The extra players do their own bookkeeping, while a GM pregen adds work for the GM.
I would always sit 2 tables of 3 before I sit a table of seven.
I am going against the grain here.
I can't stand 7 player tables, and every bad experience I have had with PFS is related either GMing or playing 7 player tables.
It was a Major request at Gen Con this year by all the GMs not to muster 7 player tables.
I think the Convention was a better experience this year because we avoided 7 player tables.
As a GM there is nothing more I hate then running a table of 7.
|
|
Lady Ophelia, I agree with a lot of your post, but I also feel that in any group of 7, there is one person who ends up quieter than they would be in a smaller group. This limits their fun and the roleplaying that the whole group experiences... As a quiet-minded person, I like playing outgoing characaters, as its not Me and that disconnect is a good amount of extra fun. in a 7 person table, there is almost always someone louder/more controlling of a personality than me in real life, which makes me act as though I am intimidated (usually I'm not, but if I'm spoken over with the same idea, I suddenly have nothing to add to the conversation..)
I feel for you Cpt_Kirstov.. I myself am like this when I play as well. So one of the things we do when we train GM's in our society, is that we make sure that everyone gets a chance to say or do something without having to over yell someone.
1) When my players sit down and start working with me, one of the things I do is I announce that after I say or instruct concerning something in the adventure, I will go around and speak with each player and allow them to do their plans as desired. Anyone who yells out what they are doing, will be ignored, and their turn skipped. This also goes for those who roll a DC or an iniative.
2) I go around the table and speak to each person individually, as promised. I do NOT EVER let my players just yell out what they are doing. That's not only noisy, but it's disrespectful.
Why the players ask? Because it's called respect for the players, and respect for the GM. Something unfortunately that is being lost not only in RP Gaming, but in the general populace society as well.
|
|
I would much rather have a table of 7 than two tables of 3. I would think (though admittedly this is speculation) that a GM would rather run a table of 7 than try to run the scenario and also a pregen. The extra players do their own bookkeeping, while a GM pregen adds work for the GM.I would always sit 2 tables of 3 before I sit a table of seven.
I am going against the grain here.
I can't stand 7 player tables, and every bad experience I have had with PFS is related either GMing or playing 7 player tables.
It was a Major request at Gen Con this year by all the GMs not to muster 7 player tables.
I think the Convention was a better experience this year because we avoided 7 player tables.
As a GM there is nothing more I hate then running a table of 7.
Although we are all in agreement, that 6 is always going to be the official "magic number". For most GM's having to split a 7 table to two 3's and having a NPC play in is WAY too much work for a GM, if you can even find a second GM at all. So then what do you do? Tell them "thanks for coming, but because I'm a rigid GM, I'm not going to let you sit at my table?" Isn't the goal of PFS to get more players in as best as possible? That's kinda stupid.
But hey, to each their own in the GM world.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Echoing much of the above, I won't play at a 7 player table and I'll rarely run a 7 player table.
Core Tenet #9: I believe in the infinite purity of a well run module by players playing it for the first time. This, to me, is the single biggest selling point of PFS play. As a coordinator, if I all do is make each and every single running of a module the best it can be, then I think I've given an incredible gift. PFS modules are almost sacred, IMHO, because you only get to experience them for the first time once and because there are so few.
I believe that 7 player tables move away from the pure experience every time that they happen. I prefer tables of 4 or 5 players.
That said, as a Local Coordinator, I would hate ruling them out. Although I would do my best to avoid them, I recognize that this isn't a good rule. In fact, I wouldn't feel bad at all about breaking this rule (if it were in effect) at all: sometimes it's just necessary.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That said, as a Local Coordinator, I would hate ruling them out. Although I would do my best to avoid them, I recognize that this isn't a good rule. In fact, I wouldn't feel bad at all about breaking this rule (if it were in effect) at all: sometimes it's just necessary.
Pain really nailed it. I can't stand seven player tables, but sometimes it's either seven players or someone walks away unhappy and I hate sending people home.
It would be cool if it were a rule that GMs had a couple free passes to break.
|
|
As with the pre-gen/replay discussion, only one or two Venture-Captains or Paizo staff will pop in if there needs to be any clarification. I want to make sure to get feedback from the fanbase without undue influence.
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.
Thoughts?
I think turning players away from your game is a poor business decision. As much as I dislike seven player tables, banning them would cause all sorts of problems at the local conventions (and occasional problems at the weekly game here in Chicago).
|
I dislike 7+ player tables because of the following:
1. Less time per player in theory but also see that some player dominate a game while some sort of coast it.
2. Related to #1 is that you don't get to experience the module enough. You only get to play it once (assuming not a intro module)
3. Noises around the table is higher.
4. Combat tend to be more clunky because there is less space to work with on the battlemat and most combat are in doors.
5. Combat isn't designed for 7 player actions and can make the game seem to easy.
The problem is when you have 7 players 1 GM and no one wants to GM. DO you just force a player out and say oh well see you later? Yes I know we all agree people SHOULD GM if they play so much but the fact remains people don't want too or don't know enough to GM. Which is why I think the 7+ player tables were never banned outright.
I do support the idea of 6 player tables max limit.
|
|
I have a strict no more then 6 players at a table rule, in fact I strive for only 5 player tables.
Any time a player has shown up unannounced and the game was full, telling them that was not a problem and they would come the next time and schedule themselves in.
That is the reaction of a reasonable person.
Telling a player that he can't join because you already have 6 players at the table already scheduled for the game is not the end all of everything, and a reasonable person will react "reasonably" in that situation.
I would rather make sure the 6 players will have a great time then worry about that 1 player that may react poorly to telling them no.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dragnmoon,
I agree with you on all counts. The only reason I would like a provision in there to break the rule is because... stuff happens. Unfortunately, it seems like regardless of how strongly you discourage seven person tables unless there is a hard/ fast rule people will always find excuses to break the soft rule.
I'm behind the limit to six players.
|
That said, as a Local Coordinator, I would hate ruling them out. Although I would do my best to avoid them, I recognize that this isn't a good rule. In fact, I wouldn't feel bad at all about breaking this rule (if it were in effect) at all: sometimes it's just necessary.Pain really nailed it. I can't stand seven player tables, but sometimes it's either seven players or someone walks away unhappy and I hate sending people home.
It would be cool if it were a rule that GMs had a couple free passes to break.
+1
This is the basics in a nutshell ... I respected PFS for Play, Play, Play!, and this is the result of not excluding anyone who wants to sit at a table.
Do I prefer a 7 ... no, for all the reasons listed above.
Will I tolerate their existence as a lesser evil, yes.
|
|
For most GM's having to split a 7 table to two 3's and having a NPC play in is WAY too much work for a GM, if you can even find a second GM at all.I would rather make it slightly more difficult for 1 GM then give a terrible experience for 7 players.
So I hope that you are the GM that has to deal with the three players and a NPC. Because trust me, being the GM who has had to do that, I would rather take a table of 7 than deal with all that mess.
|
|
I've had good 7 player tables. I even had a good 9 player table for a Living City game at Origins in Ft. Worth ages ago. I have had about as many bad 4-5 player tables as 7 player tables. My experience has been that players at conventions are more cooperative when they have seven players than at local game days.
I don't have a strong preference, since most of my PFS is local. I do think that a hard limit would be preferable. That takes the pressure off of the GM and other players when the coordinator wants to add another body to the table.
|
|
My general preference is to not deal with 7 player tables. There are some instances where it's somewhat unavoidable; the example I have is from Gencon when a younger player was sat at my table with 6 others. Just as we were getting started one of the staff brought over his dad who had stood in the generic line giving the son the regular ticket. We were asked if we were ok with a 7 player table and it was explained that he was the boy's dad. In that instance I think the exception could be make. I would rather judge a 7 player table (I've learned to work within the constraints of having that many people) rather than play at one tho.
Long winded -- except in the extreme circumstances 7 player tables should be banned.
|
|
So I hope that you are the GM that has to deal with the three players and a NPC. Because trust me, being the GM who has had to do that, I would rather take a table of 7 than deal with all that mess.For most GM's having to split a 7 table to two 3's and having a NPC play in is WAY too much work for a GM, if you can even find a second GM at all.I would rather make it slightly more difficult for 1 GM then give a terrible experience for 7 players.
Oddly enough, in my experience, both as player & GM, is that a 3+NPC table is a lot easier on the GM than a 7 PC table.
7 players + a GM is enough to have two tables of 3 + GM, and only really needs someone of your "regular" players willing to step up and help out.
Some other downsides of 7 player tables:
More downtime for each player, especially when the GM acts totally autocratic. What does such a GM do when a single player's action takes more time during a turn? I have a PC whose combat turns can both take longer, and cause additional players to have to chime in during his turn.
More downtime for the game, since more players makes it more likely someone is going to have to leave the table for a while, for one reaspon or another (potty break, phone emergency, what-have-you)
More work for the GM. Contacting eacyh player in turn is a nice idea, but not always a reasonable way to handle things. Myself, I delegate certain tasks to willing players, to reduce my own overhead. Initiative is something a player, as long as he or sge is paying attention to the game, can handle for me. And I can still reserve NPC initiatives off the board until they actually act, so as to preserve some of the fog of war needed by the game.
More work for setting up each combat encounter. More minis, more initiatives to track, more tie-breakers to deal with. More readied actions to adjudicate. More special effects (spell, equipment or ability) to deal with.
|
|
As a GM/Player I don't like 7 man tables.
As a coordinator it's a good option to have in the tool box. I'm only slightly more fond of tables of 3 than I am of 7. I have also had instances of stubborn gamers where a 7 man ban would have made it so no one got play.
It's not ideal, but a handy tool. Outright banning them seems harsh.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
7 players + a GM is enough to have two tables of 3 + GM, and only really needs someone of your "regular" players willing to step up and help out.
I don't think a 7-player table is ideal.
Neither do I think much of a 3-player-plus-NPC table where the GM is handed the scenario he was expecting to play through, and told to run it cold, with no maps or miniatures.
Which situation is better is best left as a judgement call of the people involved.
(I seem to recall Josh Frost once suggesting that one person could GM the same adventure at two tables, simultaneously, offering that as a possible solution.)
|
|
That said, as a Local Coordinator, I would hate ruling them out. Although I would do my best to avoid them, I recognize that this isn't a good rule. In fact, I wouldn't feel bad at all about breaking this rule (if it were in effect) at all: sometimes it's just necessary.
I have seen many times in other systems people break the hard cap limit. Greyhawk, LFR, etc. What this leads to is usually 1 table getting reported as 2 which may skew the numbers.
A ban won't stop them. It will just make people be tricksy about it.