|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 gajillion. bold emphasis mine.Just so you are aware, and you have the proper context there..
That post you quoted was in support of 8 man table and reporting that 8 man table as 2 games, and there fore getting credit twice for 1 game and gaming the GM star system. *He did not do it himself he just supports it being done*
If you ignore all that and make it for 7 player tables, it is a good post.
Wrong. What I supported was the bold section I highlighted, that IF the players left happy and IF they left thinking good things about PFS and PFRPG, then the mission was accomplished.
I believe that 1000%.
Adding mooks is OK, even if it breaks the rules IMHO, IF everyone enjoyed the adventure and IF everyone leaves thinking PFS and PFRPG is good.
Keeping 7 or 8 man tables up if necessary is OK, even if it breaks the rules IMHO, IF everyone enjoyed the adventure and IF everyone leaves thinking PFS and PFRPG is good.
See where I am going with it. I can pretty much agree with that sentiment about breaking ANY of the "rules", if in enhances the fun for the people involved.
|
So what did I do when I started having 7 Player problems?
This may be a long story so keep with me...
At first we played 1 game every other weekend which worked fine for exactly 7 games, then I started hitting the 7 player limit so I requested another room and got it. Now the problem was they could only ever give me 2 rooms so that would always be my limit.
That worked fine for about oddly another 7 weekends running 2 game before I reached the 7 player limit or was close to it, so I added an late afternoon game, encouraging players to show up at the morning or afternoon game but not both. So now we where at 4 games every other weekend.
Problem was the encouragement did not work, people just played both the morning and afternoon games so for a short time I was pushing the limit.
But it ended up I overestimated the problem because a bunch of people left for various reasons.
That was stable like that for year until recently when I had a Huge influx of players and almost consistently had 7 player tables which we all hated and if every player would decide to show up I would have to turn them back because the games where full, to stop that from happening I had to come up with a new plan based on the fact growth at the current location would not happen due to lack of space.
I put a call out to all my players looking for new space to play at. At once a player came back with the perfect location, I investigated the location noting they almost exclusively catered to Magic the Gathering but still getting a lot of support from the owner to include telling me many of his normal customers will most likely want to join us.
This new place has lots of room for growth able to handle me running 8 tables if I wanted to per 5 hour slot.
So starting in March one of my GMs is moving to the new location to coordinate it and recruit the local customers and start running 2 games *1 in the Afternoon, 1 in the evening*. I will be having both location playing on the same day to stop players from playing at both locations and therefore not fixing my 7 player per table problem, but off set enough in start time that if someone want to go from the place we normally play at to the new place for the evening game they could.
Now my only problem is to convince players to change location on where they play... Still not sure if I will be successful with that since no one has signed up for the games at the new location, but it is still early on that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The day "rules" overcomes someones fun, is the day that I quit PFS. Its as simple as that.
The day that Every player I have thinks playing within the rules cannot be fun is the day I quit. I Know that Rules and Fun can be done.
I can not advocate blatant cheating especially cheating that belittles others hard work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..others hard work.
It really wasn't *that* hard killing so many PCs. Sometimes the players just do it to themselves. Other times the dice decide to overcome any strategies or builds the players come up with. Really, I had very little do with it. Probably only 10% of PC deaths at my table are my fault. That's like, what? 20 PCs? ;-)
New question, 'Moon. What if a GM has 8 players show up and decides to run two tables of 4 simultaneously? If they report it as two tables of 4, is that against the rules as well?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
New question, 'Moon. What if a GM has 8 players show up and decides to run two tables of 4 simultaneously? If they report it as two tables of 4, is that against the rules as well?
Does this really happen. or is it just a Myth?...
I would never do that to myself, it sound horrible!
It sounds like it would just have too much of a chance to be a bad experience for both players and GMs.
I would say if you had an 8 player show up and you could not split short notice to 2 tables with 2 different GMs, to just tell the new player sorry at this time I can't put you in, but now that I know you are interested I will start working on a solution to be able to fit you in the next game.
Saying No once in awhile, for me at least and my players, an over all better experience in the long run, and a reasonable player would fully understand why they can't play that weekend. Making accommodations that can cause a horrible experience or break rules, for an unreasonable player is just not the way to go.
I don't feel I need to accommodate unreasonable people.
|
|
I would say if you had an 8 player show up and you could not split short notice to 2 tables with 2 different GMs, to just tell the new player sorry at this time I can't put you in, but now that I know you are interested I will start working on a solution to be able to fit you in the next game.
Saying No once in awhile, for me at least and my players, an over all better experience in the long run, and a reasonable player would fully understand why they can't play that weekend. Making accommodations that can cause a horrible experience or break rules, for an unreasonable player is just not the way to go.
I don't feel I need to accommodate unreasonable people.
+1,000
A while back, when I started trying to run a Star Wars (Dawn of Defiance) campaign, I had 8 people, only 4 or so had signed up, show up for the first session.
I discussed the situation with the "extras" and the people who had already signed up, and we split the group up into two sessions, on two separate days, so I could have tables I could handle, where the players could have fun.
So, no players lost, all players had fun, shop got more people through, no problem with running out of tables.
YMMV.
|
|
New question, 'Moon. What if a GM has 8 players show up and decides to run two tables of 4 simultaneously? If they report it as two tables of 4, is that against the rules as well?Does this really happen. or is it just a Myth?...
1) You didn't answer the question
2) Yes. Ask me about it next time we're hanging out.|
|
I know, I saw the trap there a mile away and I try very hard not to answer Trap questions...
Can I just kill your PC next time we hang out?... ;)
Actually it's not a trap (Only one of those tables was reported with me as the GM).
To kill my PC, I'd have to agree to let you GM for me. I've done that once. I won't make that mistake again. ;-)
>walks in, blushes<
'Oops. Damn, guys, get a room!'
:P
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't feel I need to accommodate unreasonable people.
I'm sure everybody feels that way. The problem lies in the definition of "unreasonable": is it the person who came along to the FLGS expecting (based on the flyers/newsletter/whatever...) to be able to play, the person who just gets up and walks out if a seventh player is seated at the table, the store owner who will only allocate you a single table, or any of the myriad other bêtes noir that have been mentioned in this thread.
|
wait, hold it. In what way am I being unreasonable?
I did not read what he said as accusing those people of being unreasonable, but asking the question are they? I think the answer to your resolution is no. I can't fault someone for not wanting to play at a 7 player table and decides to give up his legal seat so the other guy can play.
wait, hold it. In what way am I being unreasonable?I did not read what he said as accusing those people of being unreasonable, but asking the question are they? I think the answer to your resolution is no. I can't fault someone for not wanting to play at a 7 player table and decides to give up his legal seat so the other guy can play.
It also depends on how that player gets up and leaves rather than playing at a seven player table. Do they do it quietly and politely, as I assume you do, or do they make a fuss and whine and complain and stomp away like a spoiled brat?
|
|
Someone mentioned this previously and I think it's a fine idea. If a seventh unscheduled person shows up, give everyone at the table a slip of paper and let them write Yay or Nay. Any Nay votes and they are out of luck. If folks want to game they should sign up in advance and if the tables are full then you know not to show up. First time players get one free pass.
It's not that hard for players to sign up in advance. It's also not hard to set the expectation that five player tables is the NORM and 6-7 players is reserved for first time walk-ins. Really, players *get* that organization and planning is part of PFS and don't get angry so long as they know the score up front.
|
|
I can count on one hand the number of 7 player tables I've had to organize/GM in three+ years of PFS and involvement in well over 200 tables and that includes both local events and two regional conventions.
As a player, I can only recall three times being at a 7-player table and one was scheduled as two tables that had to be combined because GM #2 bailed and notified the organizer 5 minutes after the slot was scheduled to start.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
(bolding is mine) wait, hold it. In what way am I being unreasonable? Up until the game starts, I always have to option to leave. for whatever reason. Or was there someone else saying they bow out when a 7th player is added to a table?I don't feel I need to accommodate unreasonable people.I'm sure everybody feels that way. The problem lies in the definition of "unreasonable": is it the person who came along to the FLGS expecting (based on the flyers/newsletter/whatever...) to be able to play, the person who just gets up and walks out if a seventh player is seated at the table, the store owner who will only allocate you a single table, or any of the myriad other bêtes noir that have been mentioned in this thread.
It wasn't aimed at you, or at anyone in particular on the forums. But even in my (very limited) experience of PFSOP I've seen this happen more than once. As others have mentioned here, a better solution (if possible) is to split the table. At a convention that's almost always possible (and there's a fair chance there'll even be one or two other folks around to avoid a 3 player + 1 pregen table) even if there isn't a spare GM hidden under the counter. Just getting up and walking away eliminates that possibility.
I've seen good 7-player games, and bad 6-player games. Just reducing the number of players doesn't really address anything, especially since the sort of player who walks away to improve the experience for others is often the sort of player I'd like to have at the table. That's why I argue against a "7 players bad, 6 players good" mantra.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Believe it or not, I've had players tell me that they refused to sign up on line because they hated Warhorn or some other lame reason and if I refused to seat them because they were "extra" players, they would quit.
I guess that's another good example of an unreasonable player.
|
|
HERE, this will help with that
For the record, as a player I refuse to play at 7 person tables (and really hate 6 player tables). As a GM, I almost always refuse to run 7 player tables.
I participate in PFS to have fun. I don't find 7 player tables fun. Why would I spend 5 hours of my life participating in a hobby while not having fun if I had a choice?
The 7-player system at Gen Con last year was the most elegant yet and should be adopted at most major conventions in my not at all humble opinion.
|
Sooo....
I've been debating whether or not I should get involved in this thread. It seems to be a big enough flame war without me.
But I really don't get see what the big deal is. Why are so many people so violently opposed to 7 player games? I get that with so many people, each person doesn't get to do as much, so the "sweet spot" for number of players is probably around 5, but is it really that big a deal to have more?
We used to only have 5 "regulars" who showed up to our local group every week, so we'd have a GM and 4 players, and if one or two people couldn't make it, we'd be short for the week. We did a round of recruiting and now we have 8 of us who show up almost every week, so we're playing 7 player tables probably 90% of the time, and we still have fun.
And I recently attended my first convention, and had 7 players at my table for two of my five sessions, and they were still fun games. Actually, my two worst sessions were games where there were 5 and 6 players, and those were bad for reasons that had nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality (and not just of the players).
I can understand an organizer planning for the possibility of splitting off to another table, in case too many people show up, but I just really don't understand those of you who would refuse to play at a 7 player table.
|
|
I just really don't understand those of you who would refuse to play at a 7 player table.
Simple, experience. You have had good ones at your 7-player tables and that is great, but for those of us who have have the "privilege" of playing or GM'ing a 7-player table that was a disaster, we choose not to do it again.
The key to remember is that the issue is no different than the many others we encounter in gaming. Everyone plays the game "right" for them and what is "right" or "wrong" will be different for *you*. This is no different than not understanding why a player wants to build a combat-monster with no role-playing capability or a useless combatant with extreme skill prowess. It's what is fun for them.
*We* don't have to understand their motivations, just respect their choice. If a player recognizes that a certain aspect of OP makes them unable to have fun and they choose to avoid it, that is a win for everyone. As long as they are not being jerks, who cares how someone else enjoys their game?
|
|
We used to only have 5 "regulars" who showed up to our local group every week, so we'd have a GM and 4 players, and if one or two people couldn't make it, we'd be short for the week. We did a round of recruiting and now we have 8 of us who show up almost every week, so we're playing 7 player tables probably 90% of the time, and we still have fun.
Like Fromper, I didn't weigh in on this thread at first because of our group's "special situation". (I am one of the GMs for that group and the organizer/host.) While we talked over breaking our group of seven into two three groups (we could, we have several GMs), it isn't appealing as I think everyone enjoys playing together the way that we do. Yes, we are lucky to have some players who are also just cool, fun people to be with.
As a GM, it is tougher to run seven than five (the optimal number, in my opinion) as you have to keep things moving (we accomplish that with a "It's X's turn, Y is 'on deck'." type initiative management, and players just delay if they can't figure out what they want to do- it's a team effort), adjust some encounters to keep it challenging (carefully), and try hard to give each player a chance for some of the spot-light. That last part is the hardest- and biggest detractor from having so many players. Sometimes I wish I had more time to give each player- but that is just how it is for us right now.
All that said, most of this discussion is dealing with groups that are not like us- "open tables" at regular PFS events. For those, I can definitely see drawbacks to having seven. It really should be a rare occasion if the organizer can swing it- if it were me, I would set up the two three-player tables and try to quickly recruit fourths from the crowd... seems like there are always "last minute" stragglers who wander in. :-)
WJ
One of the issues of larger tables I do not think I have seen people address is the time limit. If you are playing PFS at home or at a store where your start time allows you to play for 5 or 6 hours, a seven player table is a lot less of a problem, and that sounds like the situation that a lot of the supporters of seven player tables seem to have. But where the table size becomes a problem is at conventions where the tables are scheduled for the standard 4 hour slot, and seven players in that kind of time crunch can be a real pain, which seems to be at least part of the experience of those here who are against seven player tables.
|
|
*shrug*
There are a *lot* of ways to avoid seven player tables. The things is you have to recognize them as something to avoid first then plan around it.
The impression I get is many people aren't willing to go to any efforts to plan around it and run 6-7 players all the time.
I agree with this...
I I think the Venture-Captains should have a talk with Mike on Setting up a Coordinator 101 class in addition to the GMing 101 class.
|
|
In my experience, the number of players doesn't really impact game time. If you have a large group, it takes longer because more decisions have to be made and there are more players who may not be working together as well as they could. So, it becomes harder to prepare for your next turn. Not to mention more chances for various levels of rules understanding.
At small tables, the combats tend to take longer because the enemies can be more effective. They are less impacted by economy of actions, spells with limited targets effect a larger portion of the group as a whole, etc.
I tend to run long at every table, no matter the table dynamic. It's my personal weakness as a GM. I'm sure everyone has at least one, even the mighty Kyle Baird...well, maybe not DougDoug, but he's a cybernetic organism sent back in time to termin, er um, teach us how to GM better ;-)
|
|
In my experience, the number of players doesn't really impact game time.
Now run 7 player table with 4 Summoners, a player that has to look up every spell during his turn to figure out what he is casting, another player that takes for ever to figure out his bonuses to hit *And gets it wrong every single time* and another player that argues with the GM with every rule...
All at one 7 player table... by themselves they slow down games, but put them together, games start going backwards!!!
*Yes I have experienced the above*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I really don't get see what the big deal is. Why are so many people so violently opposed to 7 player games? I get that with so many people, each person doesn't get to do as much, so the "sweet spot" for number of players is probably around 5, but is it really that big a deal to have more?
The game is designed around 4-5 players. The further you get from that the harder it is to keep it challenging without making serious modifications to the scenario. If you play at tier, encounters are over before the bad-guy or half the players get to act, if the group plays up then players or even entire groups can easily get wiped out by a single attack from a creature which is appropriate for the higher tier the players are running.
Probably the worst game I've run in a long time is when I was asked to run a table with seven players at a con and the group wanted to play up. I was left with the unpleasant choice of softballing a couple encounters or a TPK which would have killed an 8 year old kids character and two characters who were brand new to PFS and running pregens (irritatingly enough the 8 year old's parent was the loudest proponent of playing up). That table was the only time I've ever had a player get frustrated and leave in the middle of play which quite frankly spoke to how bad the experience was.
The way I see it there are no good choices in a situation like that. Playing at tier, the game is going to be a cake walk or the GM is going to have to have to creatively modify the scenario on the fly. Playing up, the GM is going to have to softball the nastier monsters or have a TPK. If everyone at the table is an experienced player then I'm fine with them making the choice to play up and having a TPK (I've done exactly that), but when there are kids and new players at the table that's not exactly a fun/ viable option.
My strong suspicion is most GMs who run seven player tables let player play up and softball the encounters. Players like it because it 'feels' challenging and they get higher rewards. Overall, I think it's dishonest because the players are getting higher rewards than what they actually earned.
Maybe it's the fact that I really don't like killing off characters or having players storm off because their characters are way over-matched, either way I never want to deal with that crap again.
|
|
I can understand an organizer planning for the possibility of splitting off to another table, in case too many people show up, but I just really don't understand those of you who would refuse to play at a 7 player table.
Because if a scenario is run as written and at tier there is a fair chance that characters who don't have crazy high initiative modifiers will never get to act in combat or will be relegated to clean up. That's just boring IMO. Role play is also more difficult when you are playing at a big table and often gets monopolized by one or two players.
Role play is also more difficult when you are playing at a big table and often gets monopolized by one or two players.
Wait, people roleplay in PFS? I thought the point was dealing crazy damage and keeping the other people at the table from contributing meaningfully to the scenario.
|
|
I just got a thought
Very interesting idea. Something I would like to explore if not for the nasty side effect. I think it would encourage cheating. We would likely see an increase in 7 player tables being reported as two for the higher rewards.
Granted, we cannot stop cheating altogether, but this might be too much of an encouragement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's my personal weakness as a GM. I'm sure everyone has at least one, even the mighty Kyle Baird
My "weakness" is only a perceived one. I only let some players survive my tables so that they can tell other players that it wasn't so tough and they should play at my table. This fake compassion for their character's lives keeps more poor souls showing up at the table.