Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I am in support of this new ruling. The game, particularly combat, begins to break with seven player characters all running around.
I agree with this point.
My only problem with this change is the potential for it cause players to be turned away. Still have a lot more PFS players than GMs, and I still see players that shy away from taking on the GM role, despite the rewards and perks they receive for running a game (as in a risk free advancement through low levels, the ability to have a second Chronicle for the same scenario for a different character, i.e.) I am luck to have a fairly large stable of GMs, but even I have had 7 player tables, especially at conventions.
In my experience 6 players and a GM can have a great time. In every case where I have had to run or play with 7 it has turned into a bad experience. Whether from the module not being balanced for that many actions per round for the PCs or the time per round dragging to a crawl. Add in the likelihood of different factions with the expanded faction list and you have a great chance of things dragging to a crawl.
Turning away someone is unfortunate and makes one unhappy person. Playing/running with 7 makes everyone unhappy in my experience.
|
I would prefer to have 6 player tables, and I would like to see this rule implemented. In my experience you lose a lot when you go with 7 players for all the reasons already stated. Encounters designed for four players are overpowered, it’s harder for the GM to concentrate on the players and make an enjoyable experience, and many other reasons just make me vote in favor of capping this at 6 player tables. I would rather have an enjoyable experience with 6 players and leave one player out in the cold rather than have eight miserable people at one table and have no one excluded.
|
There seems to be a lot of "I dont like 7 player tables/GMing" and just about as many "meh, ain't no big deal" back and forth.
The simple fix is to leave it up to the GM Coordinator.
There is no reason for a "crutch" ruling.
If as a GM/Coordinator you do not want to run a 7 man table, say nope so sorry have a biscuit and go home.
If as a player you don't want to play a 7 man game, get up, grab a biscuit and go home.
But to make this a hard and fast rule is pointless and more than a bit obnoxious IMHO, and really doesn't promote the "anyone is welcome" kind of atmosphere necessary for potential first time players and onlookers. Strictly enforcing the 6 man table limit reeks of airs of exclusivity to me, and isn't a good thing.
I am against requiring a table limit of 6 at most, and would recommend avoiding turning away players if at all possible.
|
|
In a corollary to the above post, I routinely run 7 and often have at least one person looking on and wanting to play. I have had to open up a second table in our venue, and we are now filling that table as well. All of this was accomplished via the 7 man table limit. If there were a 6 man limit, I would still have 2 players essentially being told "Oh well, so sorry, there is a rule in a book here that I can't dare break."
|
|
One problem I see that might come up if the 7 player table is kept on the books, and if there is a core of GMs who want to refuse to seat more than 6 people is that there might be a nasty backlash against those GMs who want to have 6 player tables. There would be demands that those GMs should HAVE to take that seventh player. “Because it says in the rules you can.” Potentially to the point players might threaten to go to regional coordinator or higher with their complaints. And there is no guarantee a GM and a regional coordinator are going to see eye to eye on this matter. It will be used as an arm wringing tool against the GM who wants the 6 player table by those players who want to get that seventh player at the table.
Regarding the past few posts and others before that, just remember that the normal, or soft, cap for a table is already 6 players. Seven players is the hard cap and is only to be used if that seventh player would otherwise not get to play. Seven player tables should only be happening if they are needed and not just because people want to play it that way. Say you have 10 players. You do not fill the first table to seven and then stick the other three with a GM-run pre-gen at the second table, rather you try to make the tables as even as possible.
|
Personally I wouldn't consider banning 7 player tables a bad thing. I despise them, loathe them, hate them. Every time it has been a serious hassle and has decreased at least my enjoyment.
I'm going to be selfish on this matter and not give much thought about this at large. I have absolutely no idea how sessions at US conventions are managed and thus I can't give any good insight. Here we just announce games and wait for players to sign in, and every session has a maximum of 6 players (not enough space otherwise). Every person over that is considered to be on reserve, if one of the signed players doesn't arrive (either on time or at all).
I hate 7 person tables at conventions where there are time limits and a lot of background noise, but my local group has 8 people so 7 player tables are frequently essential. It's a social activity so splitting the tables is undesirable. I'd prefer a rule that just says the GM is entitled to restrict tables to 6 players if he wants and the seventh player is at GMs discretion. I know there will still be pressure on the GM but that does at least give them the ability to say no. Organisers should just specify in advance if tables will be restricted to six so there are no surprises.
|
I'm adamantly against banning 7 player tables.
I don't like them. I try to avoid them. They don't happen often. But every single time I GMed or played on such a table there was a very special reason why there was a seventh player.
Given the choice in circumstances like that I rather break the rule. And I guess I'm not the only GM or coordinator who might do that. Please don't force me to do that.
Leave the decision to the GM, coordinator and players.
|
Please.
Having GM'd tables of several modules where there is both serious combat and role play, having 7 PCs (and their Eidolon/Animal Companion/Mount/Summoned Creature) at the table makes it extremely difficult to both keep things moving and provide an adequate challenge in combats. Worse, during encounters with clear 'bottlenecks' some PCs never even get to take an action beyond holding while they await a chance to enter the room. This isn't fun for anyone.
I acknowledge that 6 is not a huge leap down from 7 (ideal party size is 5 in my mind) but it will certainly alleviate the problem a bit.
|
|
It already is strongly recommended against and is still happening a lot.
What does 'a lot' mean.
1%
3%
5%
10%
20%
This would help for an informed discussion.
Are there GMs or conventions that have a significant higher rate. Are there any conventions that advertise 7 seats per table? Have there been GMs who have been forced to GM a 7 player table against their will. If any of this is the case - would education help. Do these GMs and conventions need extra support.
Shouldn't education and support to reduce the number of 7 player tables be preferable to just banning them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, it's starting to sound like there are more people who dislike 7-seaters than I originally thought. I guess my experience of "it's really not a problem at all ever" might be the exception rather than the rule. (Either that or the anti-sevens are just more vocal.)
In any case, I do have one other thought:
I notice that, among all these people who dislike 7-seaters, there are two main camps:
1) Those who dislike 7-seaters but are willing to make do when necessary in order to let as many people play as possible.
2) Those who dislike 7-seaters and would rather leave the venue in protest than be forced to endure such an egregious perversion of the most holy gaming experience and want a hard rule to make it clear to everyone that their sense of entitlement is entirely justified.
At least, those are the sentiments I'm picking up from people's tones and descriptions of their own behavior. Guess which camp I'm most willing to sympathize with.
|
|
We run 7 frequently and it doesn't seem any worse than a 6 player table.
This is my experience too. The scenarios simply don't scale well to a 6 or 7 person table.
EDIT: I play at two different venues. One I always play at a 6 person table. The other one I play at a four person table (occasionally 5). The quality of my experiences are like night and day.
While I approve of banning 7 outright the same problems with occur with 6.
|
I don't really understand the dual nature "as a GM and a player I don't like 7 player tables but as a Coordinator I find them to be a necessary evil" that a couple people stated. I guess what gets me is if you, as a GM or a player, tend to have horrible experiences at tables with 7 players, why do you want to use them as a Coordinator and potentially cause folks to have a bad time? That just seems counter-intuitive.
I know that 6 player tables were the norm at both GenCon and Dragon*Con this year, with 7 player tables being few and far between. The key is just having more GMs available to run games, which means a tad more work for a Coordinator, but nothing that can't be done.
|
I don't really understand the dual nature "as a GM and a player I don't like 7 player tables but as a Coordinator I find them to be a necessary evil" that a couple people stated. I guess what gets me is if you, as a GM or a player, tend to have horrible experiences at tables with 7 players, why do you want to use them as a Coordinator and potentially cause folks to have a bad time? That just seems counter-intuitive.
I know that 6 player tables were the norm at both GenCon and Dragon*Con this year, with 7 player tables being few and far between. The key is just having more GMs available to run games, which means a tad more work for a Coordinator, but nothing that can't be done.
Because Joseph, saying 'You can't play' is the worst of all situations.
|
|
Because Joseph, saying 'You can't play' is the worst of all situations.
I'd argue that having a bad experience at a 7 player table is worse than not playing at all, because a bad experience is all it takes for someone to never play PFS again. But this is an area where I think we will just agree to disagree! :)
|
|
Because Joseph, saying 'You can't play' is the worst of all situations.I'd argue that having a bad experience at a 7 player table is worse than not playing at all, because a bad experience is all it takes for someone to never play PFS again. But this is an area where I think we will just agree to disagree! :)
So the occasional bad experience to people who have already devoted time and effort into the game is somehow worse than allowing a new player to walk away for good?
|
|
So the occasional bad experience to people who have already devoted time and effort into the game is somehow worse than allowing a new player to walk away for good?A 7 player table is not the best environment for a new player to the game. That's a table where they can easily get lost in the mix of people and not really get a good grasp of what's going on is not somewhere I'd want to stick a new player. A drop to 6 players hard cap makes it already conducive to making sure you have another GM on hand.
|
|
So the occasional bad experience to people who have already devoted time and effort into the game is somehow worse than allowing a new player to walk away for good?A 7 player table is not the best environment for a new player to the game. That's a table where they can easily get lost in the mix of people and not really get a good grasp of what's going on is not somewhere I'd want to stick a new player. A drop to 6 players hard cap makes it already conducive to making sure you have another GM on hand.
If I can get the new person at the table, even if its a 7 man table, I've just improved my chance of getting him to return astronomically. If I have to turn him away, my chances are next to 0.
Having an extra DM is never a gaurantee. Most of my players would rather play than not play. Because some players and judges don't like 7-manners (including me) is no reason to ban them flat for everyone.
|
|
Thoughts?
I like the option of running a 7 player table.
Wherever possible we try to avoid it (in store) and I never allow it to happen in my home game, but there are times when it's necessary.
We ran a 7 player table at Gen Con for example, and you know what? It was still good.
I ran a 7 PC table of Frostfur Captives and it was also good, everyone was fast.
Tbh, whether a 7 player table runs fast or not depends MOSTLY on the speed of the GM. Of course if you have newbie players or players who insist on rolling one die at a time, sure it's going to be slow. What would normally take 5 seconds takes 1-3 minutes.
If you're getting complaints about 7 player tables, the GM in charge should just say "NO". If I disliked them that much, I know I would. Tell these GMs to stop letting their players and coordinators walk all over them. Grow a pair. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A 7 player table is not the best environment for a new player to the game.
What kinds of "new players" are you talking about? Ones who've been playing tabletop RPGs for years and are just new to PFS? Because those players have probably played in suboptimal situations before and are likely to be understanding of the need to stretch tables to accommodate player volume and/or a lack of GMs.
Or do you mean "new players" to be people who are only newly venturing into the world of RPGs? Because those players are probably not very comfortable with the roleplaying yet and would welcome the chance to get somewhat "lost in the shuffle" and see how other people do things. This sort of new player very frequently wants to AVOID the spotlight because they're not used to the situation. That's how it was with me, that's how it still is with my wife, and I've seen other newbies feeling awkward at a small table where they wished there was a bigger crowd to fade into.
|
|
A 7 player table is not the best environment for a new player to the game.What kinds of "new players" are you talking about? Ones who've been playing tabletop RPGs for years and are just new to PFS? Because those players have probably played in suboptimal situations before and are likely to be understanding of the need to stretch tables to accommodate player volume and/or a lack of GMs.
Or do you mean "new players" to be people who are only newly venturing into the world of RPGs? Because those players are probably not very comfortable with the roleplaying yet and would welcome the chance to get somewhat "lost in the shuffle" and see how other people do things. This sort of new player very frequently wants to AVOID the spotlight because they're not used to the situation. That's how it was with me, that's how it still is with my wife, and I've seen other newbies feeling awkward at a small table where they wished there was a bigger crowd to fade into.
Joseph was responding to my post.
I meant New Player to be anyone new to PFS, which could also mean new to RPGs.
|
|
Joseph was responding to my post.I know, I was just trying to illustrate that I think he overestimates the emotional damage that will be done to a "new player" who sits down at a 7-seater.
Agreed.
I also agree with you that most new players dont take a very active role in their first game as they are getting used to the rules. I also try to give them some focus and help them to understand what is going on rules-wise when they need it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't concur with the impression that new players ought to watch PFS from the security of large parties.
I want new people having fun. Engaged in the thick of the action. Making decisions. Talking with NPCs in character. Worried. Thrilled. Either victorious or spectacularly dead.
I want them leaving the table eager to sit at the next.
I also want someone to explain the PFS rules to them as we go, simply but thoroughly enough that they can make informed choices. If that's going to be the GM, then the party size needs to be small enough to permit that.
|
|
The "bad experience" isn't tied to new players, its just a general statement. Not all 7 player tables are created equal (as in they are formed because a new player joins at the last second). And you shouldn't just assume that the 7th player is the one with the bad experience, adding the 7th player has a greater likelihood of souring the scenario for everyone seated, not just for one person. I'd agree that a new player won't get soured too much because they're new and probably don't have a good understanding of what is going on. That's where my whole other issue for new players comes in because a 7 player table makes it really hard for GMs and fellow players to take the time to explain how things work.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't concur with the impression that new players ought to watch PFS from the security of large parties.
Then it's a good thing no one's claimed that. No one ever said new players ought (or "should", or similar) to play in a large table. I just said that a large group is not so objectionable to a new player as some haven't-been-a-new-player-in-decades veterans seem to think.
I want new people having fun. Engaged in the thick of the action. Making decisions. Talking with NPCs in character. Worried. Thrilled. Either victorious or spectacularly dead.
While all those things might be fun for you, they might translate to unwanted pressure/focus for someone who's not used to tabletop RPGs. When someone doesn't know what to do in the thick of the action, doesn't know what decisions to make, has never spoken "in character" in their lives, they might find those things more off-putting than engaging at first.
Again, the notion that a 7-player table is ideal (for new players or anyone else) is something that no one was claiming - you came up with that all on your own. All I'm saying is that if there's anyone for whom a 7-seater isn't going to be the nightmare that others in this thread describe it as, it's going to be the new players.
Point being this: there are plenty of valid arguments against 7-seaters, but "it's worse for new players than sending them home would be" is NOT one of them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The "bad experience" isn't tied to new players, its just a general statement.
That I can accept.
And you shouldn't just assume that the 7th player is the one with the bad experience, adding the 7th player has a greater likelihood of souring the scenario for everyone seated, not just for one person.
True.
I'd agree that a new player won't get soured too much because they're new and probably don't have a good understanding of what is going on. That's where my whole other issue for new players comes in because a 7 player table makes it really hard for GMs and fellow players to take the time to explain how things work.
Having things explained in detail constantly can feel like lecturing, and also revives the "unwanted spotlight" issue. Explain things to them as necessary, but also leave room for them to learn by observation without everyone looking at them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I see it, the only reason 7 player tables ever happened was due to "Play, play, play" and the organizers of cons/FLGS games underestimating demand and growth for PFS. Everyone (well, most everyone) agrees that < 7 is ideal, so the real question is: is PFS organized play at a point in its growth that it can afford to turn away that 7th player? To me, that is the only question that really matters here.
(My vote, if it matters, is to allow a 7th only in small venues. Large cons can pull enough 7th players to fill a new table with a last-minute volunteer to DM, and if they can't, well, big cons have lots of other things to do and see. Maybe have a "rain check" consolation boon or free ticket to another slot or paizo d20 or something to compensate.)
|
|
As I see it, the only reason 7 player tables ever happened was due to "Play, play, play" and the organizers of cons/FLGS games underestimating demand and growth for PFS. Everyone (well, most everyone) agrees that < 7 is ideal, so the real question is: is PFS organized play at a point in its growth that it can afford to turn away that 7th player? To me, that is the only question that really matters here.
(My vote, if it matters, is to allow a 7th only in small venues. Large cons can pull enough 7th players to fill a new table with a last-minute volunteer to DM, and if they can't, well, big cons have lots of other things to do and see. Maybe have a "rain check" consolation boon or free ticket to another slot or paizo d20 or something to compensate.)
+1
I can see banning it on the Con level, but it may be the only thing keeping some Game Days and Home Play going.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As I see it, the only reason 7 player tables ever happened was due to "Play, play, play" and the organizers of cons/FLGS games underestimating demand and growth for PFS. Everyone (well, most everyone) agrees that < 7 is ideal, so the real question is: is PFS organized play at a point in its growth that it can afford to turn away that 7th player? To me, that is the only question that really matters here.
(My vote, if it matters, is to allow a 7th only in small venues. Large cons can pull enough 7th players to fill a new table with a last-minute volunteer to DM, and if they can't, well, big cons have lots of other things to do and see. Maybe have a "rain check" consolation boon or free ticket to another slot or paizo d20 or something to compensate.)
+1
I can see banning it on the Con level, but it may be the only thing keeping some Game Days and Home Play going.
This feels like something I can get behind.
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
|
|
In the grand scheme of things, I am in favor of serious restrictions on the 7 player table. Whether or not I would say "ban" still depends on reading more of the discussion this week. When it comes to keeping a family group together or the like, I can stomach a 7 person table.
Potential Backlash
There are a few points I would like to hit. First, I second Mr. Gray's assertion that there might be some backlash for judges who refuse to run a 7 person table at a large event such as a convention. Due to the admirable coordination skills of my Venture-Captains both past and present, I haven't had that kind of pressure, but I can imagine it being an issue somewhere. At conventions where volunteer judges get free entry or subsidized hotel stays, it might get uglier. Countless Dilbert cartoons spring to mind.
If a pro-7-table coordinator regularly acquires additional players that he has to send to extant 6 person tables run by mean ol' "humbug, I hate 7 player tables" judges, those judges can refuse to accept the players. After this hypothetical event, the coordinator might say "Gee, ol' humbug constantly refused to accept a seventh player; he must not be a team player. Having determined that his selfish actions are not good for PFS, I will never invite him back to judge for me." This is a somewhat extreme example, sure, but a lack of drastic action does not mean some building, unspoken resentment is absent. No ruling by Mike is going to sweep away all hard feelings, but said ruling's language could tell us whether PFS favors a judge who can "man up" and run a 7 person table or "grow a pair" and politely refuse.
Possible Counterpoints
A counter-argument might remark on this being a problem that should be resolved without backhanding the other party with a new rule. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't made up my mind as to whether a set rule or simply stronger language is needed. I've also read arguments paraphrased as "this would not be a problem if you did things the way that I do things." To those who can make 7 person tables work, I offer my sincere congratulations. I have a reputation in my area as being the GM whose games run the longest (a difference in style that does not detract from the fun), and in my experience, running 7 person tables takes a longer time. At game days and conventions with time limits, my taking on a seventh player would be irresponsible for all involved.
Who Does This Hurt the Most?
As Mr. Caubo recently mentioned, adding that seventh player can sour the experience for all involved. Sure, a player can stand up, say "Yeah, I don't like 7 player tables," and leave, but ask yourselves who those "volunteers" tend to be. In my experience (based on three direct observations, about a dozen first-hand accounts from judges, and forum posts from those who so "volunteer" to leave) somewhere in the realm of 75% are the players who have been playing PFS for a while.
TwoWolves just keenly voiced the question of whether PFS is at a point where it can stand to turn away the odd late arrival - often times a fairly new player. Allow me to voice a few questions that piggy-back on his/hers: Which does PFS find more valuable - the new player or the committed fan? Is it more important to recruit new customers (favoring the seventh player) or provide sound customer service (arguably favoring the guy who has to keep abandoning 7 player tables for which he was the first to sign up)? Which is the priority for organized play success - focus on building a player base or maintaining existing players' interest?
A Parting Thought
What would you say to banning 7 person tables for public events that schedule less than 5 hours per slot (not including mustering time and scheduled breaks)?
|
|
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?
If we're going to do this, why not 5 player tables? If the scenarios are balanced for 4, why make the leap to 6 players?
I'm okay with 7. Not a fan, but I can live with it. My personal preference is 5.
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
Oversized tables generally happen when the playing population rises faster than the GM population, so such tables often have newer players. It's especially important that the new players have a positive experience: For that reason, heavy tables should be strongly discouraged.
Additionally, I've often adjusted encounters quite a bit to make PFS scenarios suitably challenging for a table of 7. I only do that when I'm confident that none of the players might object, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of novice GMs making substantial changes. Allowing 7-player tables almost mandates such scenario alterations.
|
|
Potential Backlash
If a pro-7-table coordinator regularly acquires additional players that he has to send to extant 6 person tables run by mean ol' "humbug, I hate 7 player tables" judges, those judges can refuse to accept the players. After this hypothetical event, the coordinator might say "Gee, ol' humbug constantly refused to accept a seventh player; he must not be a team player. Having determined that his selfish actions are not good for PFS, I will never invite him back to judge for me." This is a somewhat extreme example, sure, but a lack of drastic action does not mean some building, unspoken resentment is absent.
Completely unrealistic. There's no way that a "6 player limit" GM wouldn't get invited back to an event when the event is already in short supply of GMs. lol.
I also don't think it's realistic that a PFS coordinator who would get mad or have "hard feelings" towards a "6 player limit" GM. I think almost all coordinators are appreciative to their GMs, for whatever they can do.
|
|
I can see being annoyed with said judge, but I'd still respect their decision.I also don't think it's realistic that a PFS coordinator who would get mad or have "hard feelings" towards a "6 player limit" GM. I think almost all coordinators are appreciative to their GMs, for whatever they can do.
That's refreshing to hear. Beyond a trip to Gen Con, I have little PFS experience outside of the Southeast US, so I can't speak to experiences in other regions. If the situation is unrealistic, then it's not worth policing. Still, I'd rather it be brought up and shot down than never explored at all.
Moving on, then
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
More generally speaking: I think it's important that GMs know their strengths and weaknesses, their limits and abilities, and that coordinators respect their GMs' self-judgements.
For example, I know that I'm okay to run a scenario on very short notice once I've prepped and run it once. I have a reputation for being a good GM for brand-new players. But I hate running an adventure cold if I haven't read it; I'm terrible at that. And I know that I have a tendency to run long, and since I try to give everybody at the table some time to shine, it's hard for me to run large tables inside a 4-hour window.
A good coordinator will play to the strengths of his GMs.
|
|
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.
I've played and GM'd little PFS. I DM'd and played a lot of LG. I've played and GM'd 7 player tables, and find that they aren't enjoyable. However, they will happen, regardless of whether they are permitted. And, frankly, I think the experience is worse when it's known to be a rules violation. It may be a necessary evil.
Whichever way it goes, leaving an option to avoid the 8-total-player problem is very important, such as via 3+NPC.