RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I recently hosted my first PFS game in my area, and had 6 people show up. I was only expecting 3, so this was a pleasant surprise. I'm getting ready to have my second game this Saturday, and I've had another potential player get in touch with me, who mentioned possibly getting his wife to play. If you're counting, that makes potentially 8 players.
It won't be an issue this weekend because one guy and his two kids are out of town, but if I ever have 8 people show up, I'm not sure what I'll do. Out of all of these players, only one has played Pathfinder at all before, and he's never played PFS, so I don't think he'll be ready to GM any time soon (I don't think he's GM'd anything before, because he didn't have his own mini for the first game, but I could be wrong).
So what should I do if I have 8 players show up for a game? I'd hate to turn people away, or require them to sign up beforehand on Warhorn, because I don't want to scare off such new players. And I certainly don't want to run more than 7 players, both because of the rules and because I don't want to bore any of the kids that are playing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would contact my regional Venture Captain and see if he/she has someone in my area that might be able to lend a hand. If you have 8 and cannot break out a second table, unfortunately, someone will have to sit out. If that is the case perhaps you could alternate who sat out from one week to the next, until you had someone ready to GM.
|
I recently hosted my first PFS game in my area, and had 6 people show up. I was only expecting 3, so this was a pleasant surprise. I'm getting ready to have my second game this Saturday, and I've had another potential player get in touch with me, who mentioned possibly getting his wife to play. If you're counting, that makes potentially 8 players.
It won't be an issue this weekend because one guy and his two kids are out of town, but if I ever have 8 people show up, I'm not sure what I'll do. Out of all of these players, only one has played Pathfinder at all before, and he's never played PFS, so I don't think he'll be ready to GM any time soon (I don't think he's GM'd anything before, because he didn't have his own mini for the first game, but I could be wrong).
So what should I do if I have 8 players show up for a game? I'd hate to turn people away, or require them to sign up beforehand on Warhorn, because I don't want to scare off such new players. And I certainly don't want to run more than 7 players, both because of the rules and because I don't want to bore any of the kids that are playing.
Well that is definately a good "problem" to have. Is there any way of making sure that everyone knows that there are only 7 slots before hand?
Nathan Meyers
NYC Player/GM
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Like I said in the OP, there's only one person who's ever played Pathfinder before AT ALL, and none who are familiar with PFS in particular.
I would contact my regional Venture Captain and see if he/she has someone in my area that might be able to lend a hand.
Unfortunately, I live in Kingsport, TN, and the nearest VCs are all 4-5 hours away (you're actually one of them, Delbert).
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Like I said in the OP, there's only one person who's ever played Pathfinder before AT ALL, and none who are familiar with PFS in particular.
I think your best bet is to encourage someone who played earlier with you to take up the torch of GMing. Schedule your table a little before his, and have him sit in and watch.
Have him do the same scenario as you when he runs, so he can essentially "do what you did." Then, when you finish, sit in at his table and help him out with any rules questions. Let him know that if he runs into any questions, to come and ask you.
PFS is half knowing the rules and half knowing how to GM. The second part is irrelevant to the system -- so them being new to Pathfinder is no excuse. His first few games might be rocky, but hey, at least your not turning anyone away.
PS -- The "him" could be a "her" if you have one of those.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
When you figure out who would be best at being the "backup GM" then have him prep either We Be Goblins or Master of the Fallen Fortress. Both of those modules can be played over and over by anyone, so long as it is played by a brand-new, 1st level character.
This way, when you get 10 people instead of 4, you can get your backup to run for the ones who didn't sign up for your game. If they're repeating, well, no harm done due to their ability to replay. Surely not everyone will have played the scenario, so several of them will be brought into the fold, so to speak.
After the games, make sure you tell everyone that you have a sign-up list for a whole bunch of reasons, the most important of which is so that you can be prepared with the proper scenario so that everyone has fun. If they don't want to replay MotFF fortress over and over, then they need to sign up so that you can prepare for the eventuality of running two tables instead of one.
|
If you can't get a GM for a second table, perhaps you can split them up into 2 groups a morning group and an afternoon group. Of course running two different scenarios. You would have to let them know in advance as well. You'll probably get a couple to carry over or start in the early game too. Giving you nice full tables.
Anyway, I would definitely get a sign-up list going for the reason Drogon stated.
|
|
I think you should take the issue head on, before it actually becomes an issue. Explain to all 8 potential players that a single table can only hold 7, so if all 8 of them ever show up at once, and no one else is willing to help GM, that means someone will have to sit out.
I realize you are talking about a lot of people who are pretty new to PFS and/or rpgs in general, so it may take a little coaxing to get someone else to GM, but leave it in the player's hands. You can only GM for so many players at once. Does one of them want to step up? Do they want to split into separate groups? Suggest the things other people have suggested to you here to see how they want to handle the situation. Let them make other suggestions.
No one can tell you the perfect solution for your group, it is something you and your players will likely have to work out for yourselves. It's up to all of you to work together if you are all going to have a good time. The best thing you can do is to make sure the end result is as fair as possible among the players.
Good luck. :)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So what should I do if I have 8 players show up for a game? I'd hate to turn people away, or require them to sign up beforehand on Warhorn, because I don't want to scare off such new players. And I certainly don't want to run more than 7 players, both because of the rules and because I don't want to bore any of the kids that are playing.Our local version of "Ironman GMing" is running two tables at once.
Yikes. Please tell me you're kidding...
RainyDayNinja, don't ever do this.
|
I think you should take the issue head on, before it actually becomes an issue. Explain to all 8 potential players that a single table can only hold 7, so if all 8 of them ever show up at once, and no one else is willing to help GM, that means someone will have to sit out.
+1
In my home game, I have 8 potential players (10 on a temporary basis). Luckily, someone always has something to do and I've had between 4-6 each session.
We can't split into 2 tables because:
1) Everyone is new to PF.
2) Some are new to RPGs.
3) The experienced RPGers don't like GMing.
In addition, we play in someone's home, and wives don't want their houses used very often, so it's not like we could split up into 2 separate groups anyway.
If I were you, I would ask (via email) who is coming each week. If too many people are coming people will have to sit out on a rotational basis (volunteer at 1st). You might get lucky like me and never have anyone sit out.
|
|
That's one of the ways, you make a 5 star Judge,
...That's very disturbing.
And generally, those two tables of four have a rocking good time.
Other than the social aspect, I can't imagine how. I'm not usually one to hog the spotlight, but I couldn't imagine playing with a GM who was only paying attention to my group half the time.
|
In our local organization, knowing PFS would get popular, before I ran game 1 I set out some rules, key among which is that everyone who plays has to GM occasionally.
If we get too many people on a given day, it's already understood that someone gets their opportunity to GM that day.
(The two-table thing wouldn't work in the building we use; the poor GM would constantly be running back and forth between closed doors. Loud Magic players usually occupy the open space.)
|
|
Set up a laptop and have a DM cyber commute?
"Hello... dave...."
I would actually do this if someone ever had this problem an asked me to do so. It was creepy for some when I telecommuted to a slot 0 in Durham. Especially the people NOT at the table.
In all seriousness though this is a tricky situation. Pre-registration would be one way to go but that doesn't really solve the problem of turning folks away. Getting someone to run is the best solution but especially if you have a group of newer folks this can be tricky.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Personally, I'd take those that are new to the game over the experienced players, and tell them (the exp. players) "Sorry, I'm not turning away new players. If you really want to play, here's a copy of the scenario, and one of you can run it, otherwise I'll see you next time." If it comes to the choice between not playing or having to run it, they'll most likely run it.
|
|
Personally, I'd take those that are new to the game over the experienced players, and tell them (the exp. players) "Sorry, I'm not turning away new players. If you really want to play, here's a copy of the scenario, and one of you can run it, otherwise I'll see you next time." If it comes to the choice between not playing or having to run it, they'll most likely run it.
Yeah, I'd be tempted to turn away non-GM regulars over new players that might turn into GMs.
|
|
Have them RSVP on Warhorn or create a group on Meetup.com and RSVP there.
Whether you want to do it or not, this is the fairest way to determine who gets to play and who doesn't. If you won't do that, first come first serve is your only other fair option.
You can try to recruit GMs at your FLGS (friendly local game store) by posting a notice or your player base, but if no one is willing to help out, you're only one man. Players with all the books, or who seem to be rules lawyers, are your best bet.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Do signups ahead of time. People who volunteer to GM get priority over those that don't. If there are no GM volunteers, make it first come first serve on the signups, then first come first serve for walk ups. Make sure your regular payers understand how you allocate your limited resources.
This!
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Do signups ahead of time. People who volunteer to GM get priority over those that don't. If there are no GM volunteers, make it first come first serve on the signups, then first come first serve for walk ups. Make sure your regular payers understand how you allocate your limited resources.This!
Not that I want to be gainsaying Venture Officers, but...
You should be recruiting GMs ahead of time. One of the incentives you can offer to said GMs is the right to sign up for tables ahead of time, as well. I have recently begun posting my month's schedule ahead of time, asking for GMs. As they take a game, I give them the option to choose another to play at. I have done this two months, now, and have filled 18 tables each month with GMs within 24 hours of making each post. After getting all GM spots filled (and taking their playing requests) I post the schedule for my players' general viewing.
Do not create a situation where people resent others merely because they are willing to GM. Some people really cannot GM, and will never get behind the screen (nor should they, in some cases).
Incidentally, by taking on the spot volunteers who will otherwise lose their chance to play, you may also actually create the situations where people GM "cold" or attempt to run multiple tables, both of which are legitimate tools at a GM's disposal, but should be left in the tool bag where they belong.
|
|
I've tried using Facebook to organize games but people don't want to use it and never actually say if they are attending or not. Then I tried Warhorn, which was even worse because people don't like signing up for stuff. Summers are particularly brutal here as everyone has different schedules. What I'm trying to set up is an email mailing list, that way there is no signup involved and you get a reminder when the next game is.
As for the group too large issue, when you get that 8th person you're at the perfect number to split into two groups. The GM will have to NPC a character, but it still works. I also second the idea of We Be Goblins, and even the First Steps I because it's so simple and self contained.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried using Facebook to organize games but people don't want to use it and never actually say if they are attending or not. Then I tried Warhorn, which was even worse because people don't like signing up for stuff. Summers are particularly brutal here as everyone has different schedules.
Huh. I use Yahoo! Groups (which, admittedly, I hate with a passion), but I certainly don't have problems getting people to sign up.
I run between 14 and 18 tables each month.
I insist on signups ahead of time and will not seat people who do not sign up unless there is space (and there is usually not space).
I fill every single seat at all those tables within a week of posting the schedule. Most of those tables run concurrently (meaning I have three or four tables going at the same time during the time slot). So, I have between 21 and 28 players (counting GMs), who have all signed up, and happily take their seats when the games start.
Stick with it. Use a sign up ahead of time policy. I'm pretty sure it works.
|
|
Huh. I use Yahoo! Groups (which, admittedly, I hate with a passion), but I certainly don't have problems getting people to sign up.I run between 14 and 18 tables each month.
I insist on signups ahead of time and will not seat people who do not sign up unless there is space (and there is usually not space).
I fill every single seat at all those tables within a week of posting the schedule. Most of those tables run concurrently (meaning I have three or four tables going at the same time during the time slot). So, I have between 21 and 28 players (counting GMs), who have all signed up, and happily take their seats when the games start.
Stick with it. Use a sign up ahead of time policy. I'm pretty sure it works.
This works, I see it every month as both my wife and I sign up for spots.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
This works, I see it every month as both my wife and I sign up for spots.
Stick with it. Use a sign up ahead of time policy. I'm pretty sure it works.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment - I'm sure it works. But it runs counter to the priority stated upthread of seating new players (including walk-ins) ahead of experienced players who choose to play rather than GM.
There may be good reasons for this (such as, say, limited table space). But it's a bad policy if your goal is to grow the number of players.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
This works, I see it every month as both my wife and I sign up for spots.
Stick with it. Use a sign up ahead of time policy. I'm pretty sure it works.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment - I'm sure it works. But it runs counter to the priority stated upthread of seating new players (including walk-ins) ahead of experienced players who choose to play rather than GM.
There may be good reasons for this (such as, say, limited table space). But it's a bad policy if your goal is to grow the number of players.
Do you think I ended up with 18 tables per month on the same day I announced I was running PFS three years ago?
If your goal is to grow, then I think I'm okay there, too. I have gone from 3 tables per month in August 2009 to what I am running, now. I think that's reasonable growth. That whole time I have operated under a sign up ahead of time ideal.
I use a "Learn to Play" night to grow my player-base, and run two tables for new players on that night each month. We provide an "indoctrination course," for all intents and purposes, to new players who will be joining PFS (or not, as they prefer - they can instead take what they learned home and start a home game; I have no problem with that).
My player base, if I had to guess conservatively, numbers around 50 players who I see every month, with another 50 who come in off and on over the course of a couple months. I would not be surprised if it was more than that.
I think I've grown just fine.
The key thing to take away from this is to have a plan. Don't "wing it." Your events will suffer for it. If your plan is to have backup GMs on hand to take tables as needed, then so be it. If your plan is to hand out pamphlets explaining the sign up process and how PFS works so that they will be better prepared to join you next time, that's great, too. But don't simply cross your fingers and hope what you have in place will be enough.
[Edit] For the record, turning away anyone is bad policy. If you have a sign up list in place, and make sure everyone knows how to access it and utilize it, you will not get walk-ins that need to be turned away. Instead, you will be able to present options to them when they try to sign up for something that is full.
By the way, if you turn those veteran players away in favor of new players enough times, I'm willing to bet they'll stop showing up, too. Do you really want that, instead? I hope not.
|
|
Turning people away isn't a good thing, but neither is running a crazy game with too many players. When we were in your situation two years ago of growing to our second table, I was lucky enough to have another GM who was fine to just jump in and do it. But, he didn't want to only GM, he wanted to play as well. So, the main job of a coordinator quickly becomes the care and feeding of GMs. You can give them incentives like letting them sign up before others, you can support them by doing GM 101 training nights or so forth, but it is the only way to avoid turning away folks.
On advance sign-ups: we sign up tables of 5 in advance, and then take a waiting list. This leaves room for the new player to just show up and still have a place to sit, because it is unreasonably to expect a brand new player will sign up in advance.
Finally: If you don't want to turn new players away, you will grow and grow quickly. We run 6-8 tables a week in two locations, after starting out exactly like you did 2 years ago. It is better to plan for growth now and be ahead of the curve, and that means concentrating on finding GMs. Even if one is a back-up who only has to run if too many players show up, it will really help.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Good points...Some people really cannot GM, and will never get behind the screen (nor should they, in some cases).
I only disagree with this. I think everyone is capable of GMing, and I think that every player should at least attempt it once - as a learning experience. Maybe they shouldn't do it "on the spot," like you mentioned, but they definitely should.
The last thing we want to do is create a feeling of more separation between players and GMs. We're all the same people -- we just sometimes play in different roles.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Good points...Some people really cannot GM, and will never get behind the screen (nor should they, in some cases).
I only disagree with this. I think everyone is capable of GMing, and I think that every player should at least attempt it once - as a learning experience. Maybe they shouldn't do it "on the spot," like you mentioned, but they definitely should.
The last thing we want to do is create a feeling of more separation between players and GMs. We're all the same people -- we just sometimes play in different roles.
I... must disagree Walter.
I love to help new Judges. I have encuraged, fostered and urged and in some cases bribed people into the fold... but there are some people cannot. Maybe due to personality, or for what ever reason. But ... I do not agree with the statement that "...everyone is capable of GMing...".
I'm on nosig's side in this. I made my statement because I personally know two people who are completely incapable of getting in front of people and taking on the role of administrator. They either mentally or physically cannot GM. And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to call them out; I'm simply stating a fact. I love playing with them, but I will never expect to see them behind the screen due to the difficulties they would each have with it.
Just like there are people who are color blind and will never be able to tell the difference between red and green no matter how much you tell them they can, there are those people who will never be able to GM no matter how much encouragement you give them.
|
|
Do signups ahead of time. People who volunteer to GM get priority over those that don't. If there are no GM volunteers, make it first come first serve on the signups, then first come first serve for walk ups. Make sure your regular payers understand how you allocate your limited resources.This!Not that I want to be gainsaying Venture Officers, but...
You should be recruiting GMs ahead of time.
<snip a whole bunch of good stuff>
Just to clarify, I didn't say, "People who volunteer to GM at the last minute."
Also, if people are going to resent me giving priority to people who are volunteering their time to make sure games happen for other players, then I'm frankly unconcerned with their resentment.
|
|
I'm on nosig's side in this.
Likewise. While I've seen players who have felt that they would be poor GMs, and wound up being actually pretty good once they tried, I've also had players who just, frankly, should never even consider GMing.
The friend of mine who has Asperger's Syndrome, and really just has a terrible time reading social cues and knowing how to converse with others. The friend who, even after years of playing regularly, barely knows the rules. The friend who stutters terribly when he reads out loud. The friend who can't finish even a simple turn for his PC in combat in under 3 minutes.
Good people, all, and at least tolerable players...but they would be horrible GMs, even in a more-forgiving home game environment. Even if they decided they really wanted to GM, and practiced, they might not get appreciably better.
Should we be encouraging people (even those who may be a bit reluctant) to try GMing? Absolutely. But, the blanket "everyone is capable of GMing" statement is, IMO, inaccurate.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't think anyone is arguing against giving seating priority to your regular GMs. The more controversial choice is whether to give priority to walk-ins (and, in particular, new players) or to regulars who signed up ahead of time.
Those who have followed Painlord's posts on these forums know what he would do; he has often expressed his belief that a new player should be seated in preference to somebody who doesn't give back in some way to the community. Volunteering as GM is the most obvious way to contribute, but there are others - mentoring new players, helping the GM or event coordinator with the paperwork, or just plain being the player that everybody else wants to game with (bribing the table with cookies can help here ...)
While I feel that Painlord perhaps takes this viewpoint a little too far, if you've only got room for a limited number of participants it makes sense to try and increase the numbers of those who will pull their weight.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Should we be encouraging people (even those who may be a bit reluctant) to try GMing? Absolutely. But, the blanket "everyone is capable of GMing" statement is, IMO, inaccurate.
Even if you believe that to be true (@ nosig's / Drogon's posts as well), you shouldn't advertise it, or say it here. How many people do you think will cite "not everyone is capable of GMing" as an excuse never to try it?
"Oh sorry, I'd love to try, but I'm just not capable of doing it."
I think that if you are capable of playing (understanding the game, rules, playing nice with others), you can easily GM. Clearly, this opinion is unshared, which is fine, as it's just my opinion. But I think saying that not everyone can do it is a bad attitude to have (or maybe just a realistic one, idk). If someone has grave character/mental flaws, then they likely won't be able to (just like a man can't birth a child), but aside from that GMing is nothing but hard work. That's it.
And if people can't do hard work they're just lazy.
Maybe I'm wrong or too idealistic, but all those people you're talking about that could never organize anything, lead, or control a table describes myself, and more than half of my playerbase before we started GMing. It just takes some effort.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should we be encouraging people (even those who may be a bit reluctant) to try GMing? Absolutely. But, the blanket "everyone is capable of GMing" statement is, IMO, inaccurate.Even if you believe that to be true (@ nosig's / Drogon's posts as well), you shouldn't advertise it, or say it here. How many people do you think will cite "not everyone is capable of GMing" as an excuse never to try it?
"Oh sorry, I'd love to try, but I'm just not capable of doing it."
I think that if you are capable of playing (understanding the game, rules, playing nice with others), you can easily GM. Clearly, this opinion is unshared, which is fine, as it's just my opinion. But I think saying that not everyone can do it is a bad attitude to have (or maybe just a realistic one, idk). If someone has grave character/mental flaws, then they likely won't be able to (just like a man can't birth a child), but aside from that GMing is nothing but hard work. That's it.
And if people can't do hard work they're just lazy.
Maybe I'm wrong or too idealistic, but all those people you're talking about that could never organize anything, lead, or control a table describes myself, and more than half of my playerbase before we started GMing. It just takes some effort.
Fair enough.
Let's agree on this: everyone should be given the chance to GM. No one should be pre-judged as not capable/competent/whatever, and the possibility that they may want to GM should be raised to everyone. But no one should be subsequently judged as lazy/uncarring/uninvolved if they subsequently look at you like you're asking them to shoot their grandmother.
Is that a reasonable position for everyone?
|
|
Maybe I'm wrong or too idealistic, but all those people you're talking about that could never organize anything, lead, or control a table describes myself, and more than half of my playerbase before we started GMing. It just takes some effort.
I think that the people I've described are likely to be far more extreme examples that what you're describing in yourself and your players who have taken up GMing.
My friend with Asperger's? He's never shown any desire to GM, as far as I can tell, but, based on my experiences with him as a player for the past 10 years, I'm pretty darned certain that, if I were an event organizer, and assigned him to a table, the players at that table would want to kill him (and me) within an hour. I'm sorry, but I'm extremely skeptical that any amount of effort or hard work is going to change the fact that he would be a train wreck as a GM.
Am I saying that the people who just should not GM are numerous? No, I'm not. Do I recognize that getting GMs for any OP campaign is an ongoing challenge? Certainly. Do I feel that most people who say "I can't GM" actually can, and have the potential to actually be reasonably good at it? Sure.
(And, yes, I do think perhaps you may be a little too idealistic. ;-) )
|
|
Let's agree on this: everyone should be given the chance to GM. No one should be pre-judged as not capable/competent/whatever, and the possibility that they may want to GM should be raised to everyone. But no one should be subsequently judged as lazy/uncarring/uninvolved if they subsequently look at you like you're asking them to shoot their grandmother.
Is that a reasonable position for everyone?
At what age/maturity level do you expect this to be true for? Half of my local group is between the ages of 7-13. Do you think I should give any or all of them who want a chance to GM (who are likely only interested so they can try to get a race boon) if they want to? Or should I use my own judgement on how well I believe they understand the rules of the game before allowing them a chance?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
At what age/maturity level do you expect this to be true for? Half of my local group is between the ages of 7-13. Do you think I should give any or all of them who want a chance to GM (who are likely only interested so they can try to get a race boon) if they want to?Let's agree on this: everyone should be given the chance to GM. No one should be pre-judged as not capable/competent/whatever, and the possibility that they may want to GM should be raised to everyone. But no one should be subsequently judged as lazy/uncarring/uninvolved if they subsequently look at you like you're asking them to shoot their grandmother.
Is that a reasonable position for everyone?
Why not?
I started DMing at the age of 9. By the age of 12 I was writing books because of that experience. Are you telling me that, because I was that young, what I was doing was something I wasn't capable of? I'm glad you weren't there to stifle my creativity or I wouldn't have all the accomplishments I have enjoyed in my life.
Or should I use my own judgement on how well I believe they understand the rules of the game before allowing them a chance?
You do what you feel is best for your gaming group. The comments I made were "not everyone should/can GM." Those comments were followed by others who said, "EVERYONE should/can GM."
The statements you quoted were the compromise to those two positions.
But, for the record, I'm pretty sad that, had you been involved in my young gaming career, you would have stifled everything I have gone on to achieve just because I was "too young," according to your opinion.