So I have a pathfinder group at my college. I'm the DM. Now last semester, my group consisted of Serious RPer A, Not that great Power Gamer B, The player that sucks C, Person who holds up the game D, and I'm here cause my friends are E.
When school started up again, I mentioned the new campaign and A, B, and C jumped right at it, but D and E didn't, so figuring they didn't want in, I let two experienced players join. Then, they spoke up right when we were about to start playing. So I told them not this time cause I don't want to DM a group of 7 people. Was this wrong? Should I keep them out? Kick out the new players? Just suck it up and DM 7 players?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I have a pathfinder group at my college. I'm the DM. Now last semester, my group consisted of Serious RPer A, Not that great Power Gamer B, The player that sucks C, Person who holds up the game D, and I'm here cause my friends are E.
When school started up again, I mentioned the new campaign and A, B, and C jumped right at it, but D and E didn't, so figuring they didn't want in, I let two experienced players join. Then, they spoke up right when we were about to start playing. So I told them not this time cause I don't want to DM a group of 7 people. Was this wrong? Should I keep them out? Kick out the new players? Just suck it up and DM 7 players?
Your game, your right. They didn't jump at the chance, and two other people who were more interested took their spot. Keep your new players, and enjoy not having D hold up the game and E's lack of enthusiasm.
Games with more than 5 players get bogged down, usually with several players not actively participating. That has been my experience.
Online and in person are vastly different hawx.
I think if you are concerned about 7, then dont do 7. Tell them next time. You also might want to think about running some PFS, which can take 7 and is much easier on the prep time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is perfectly fine to say that the game is full. Just be nice about it. No need to say "you should have said something sooner," or anything like that. Just tell them, "sorry guys, I have as many players as I can comfortably GM. I will let you know if a space opens up."
To clarify this is a private game.
There's no "right" answer to this, the individual group dynamics are what matters.
Running a seven player campaign can be a bit trying for a new GM, but it's doable. I actually sort of like a six player group compared to a four player one. Five is the "magic number" for me though.
One benefit of a large group when you have inexperienced players is that they might learn a bit faster.
Also, there's always the chance that someone will have to leave and you'll have minimal impact if you already have enough players to keep going.
Are you being paid? If not, you are under no obligation to do anything that will make the game into more work and less fun for you.
If you're worried about prep time, I would stick firmly to your guns. It's not fair to kick out players who you already told could play because your previous players didn't speak up in time.
If you're just worried about the game bogging down there might be another solution - use hard time limits on players' turns. Give them something like 90 seconds to declare all their actions for the turn (although don't include the time it takes to resolve the actions.) Hell, if someone consistently finishes their turns in less than 30 seconds, you could even throw them some extra XP. Whatever it takes to keep the game moving. If someone hasn't declared their actions by 90 seconds into their turn, they just automatically go on delay.
Person E isn't a problem. He generally takes his turn in a relatively short time. Person D is a big worry as often we have to tell him to sit at the table when he isn't rolling dice. He's constantly on his computer, and playing annoying videos for everyone to hear. My personal problem is letting E in but saying no to D, especially since they were both asking at the same time. I said no to both to avoid drama with selectiveness and stuck to a first come first serve basis.
This is a game that you run, you have every right to select what players will make it most fun for you and for the group. If you pick E to join you, just tell D that E fits the group dynamic a bit better. Or you could just be honest with D and tell him he distracts the group and it makes DM'ing harder for you and less fun for everyone when he does the other stuff he likes to do. You want people at your table who take it more seriously and want to have fun with more immersion.
As a DM it is well within your purview to also set the table rules ahead of time, things like:
1) No use of electronic devices to play other games, movies, or sounds to distract.
2) Stay in character at the table, if you want to move off for a moment to talk to someone ooc about the taste of their beer, do it in the other room.
3) Always be on time to the table, if you need to cancel let the DM and everyone else know at least a day or two ahead of time.
Table rules like that can make your game flow better and it keeps everyone on track. If you have no rules there will only be chaos, which I think you are seeing with some of your players (namely D). The other players will respect you more if you do things that make the game more enjoyable for them.
You are a Gamemaster, not a babysitter. Player D sounds like he shouldn't be there in the first place. I personally would not think twice about telling him, "You have acted disruptively in the past, you slow down games and ruin the immersion for everyone by playing with your computer, and you act like you're bored at the table. With such a large group, I don't have room for a disruptive player, I'm sorry." You seem to be a very nice person, so perhaps you could put that more diplomatically, but for your own sake and the sake off all of the other players, don't let him talk his way back in.
What it comes down to is, you should be having fun. If Player E is your friend and you have more fun when he's at the table, absolutely you should let him play. Player D had his chance to show that he is mature enough to play, and he failed. Move on without him.
Ah college gaming groups.
There are two answers:
1- Are any of these people close friends? If so your close friends should always have a place at your table. Even if it means running a separate game just for them.
2- This time in life is a wonderful opportunity to play with a wide variety of people. When I ran a game in college I set up a waiting list and then let anyone who was interested sign up. That way if I wanted to start up a new game OR if a player dropped out or got booted for poor play I had instant fill in players to take the seat. By using the top five people off the list when starting a new game I also was able to find the good players and the bad players by playing with so many people and then later on in school I was able to set up a game with just the good players in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... tell them to bring the beer and pretzels. Everyone is happy!
You aren't so good at the people thing, are you"You have acted disruptively in the past, you slow down games and ruin the immersion for everyone by playing with your computer, and you act like you're bored at the table. With such a large group, I don't have room for a disruptive player, I'm sorry."
Hey, the next sentence was "You seem to be a very nice person, so perhaps you could put that more diplomatically." I never said I'm a nice person :p
You are no more required to play PF with these people than to play checkers with them.
|
PFS, or private game?
PFS, you are required to do what you can to seat everyone who has not earned hard rejection from inclusion.
Private game, you are free to accept and reject the players that you want to spend your time with. There are ALWAYS social consequences as a result of making these preferences known, of course.
I THINK you are asking about a private game. Do what you need to do for you.
This isn't true. Pathfinder Society is a set of rules that allow for organized play, but a homegame that plays PFS is not obligated to allow other players. Stores are a little different, but even they are not obligated to accept someone.
Yeah, I wouldn't try to get 7 players on board at once in that kind of environment.
Maybe offer them alternate spots in case a current player drops out or proves to be even more problematic than a player that "sucks", "is bad" and/or "holds up the game".
Go ahead and try 7 if you want. I will not willingly go past 5 players anymore. Been there, done that! As for your players, I sympathize. Some of my group is in a weekday game with other players and I'm a pinch jealous, even though I don't even have time for a second game and they know it. Keep the explanation short, simple, and friendly. It sounds like you already gave a worthwhile explanation though. You are justified in what you have done.
When I was younger we would sometimes try gaming with people who left info on the cork board at the game store. One time that ended up in a fun year long campaign. One other time though the new player took a two hour bus ride to the house we played at, but when our host got to the door and saw him he lied and told the poor guy we had cancelled the game. Apparently the guy was very obviously highly socially awkward type. Sending him away was probably passive and cruel, but our host's decision saved the rest of us the trouble of rejecting him later. Gamer meet-ups are a bit more reliable for finding players.
Though I am not a GM, I have learned many times that the GM has to have fun too. Otherwise there is no game. We had a GM that was AWESOME. He did a perfect job every time, but I don't think he had much fun and he had 'GM burn out'.
Put your foot down and say no. This is your game and you are trying to make the best of it by the description of your players. With any luck you can mold B and C into A's :D
One other time though the new player took a two hour bus ride to the house we played at, but when our host got to the door and saw him he lied and told the poor guy we had cancelled the game. Apparently the guy was very obviously highly socially awkward type. Sending him away was probably passive and cruel, but our host's decision saved the rest of us the trouble of rejecting him later. Gamer meet-ups are a bit more reliable for finding players.Really? You're happy with wasting 4 hours of some guys time and dismissing him on the say so of one guy's 2 second impression.
Unless we are talking that he had a ski mask on and was holding a dripping machette that is a terrible way to treat another human.
Particularly one that you suspect has difficulty in social settings.
I hope you all chip in and buy him some therapy!
I was 16. Forgive me for acting like a kid.
Person E isn't a problem. He generally takes his turn in a relatively short time. Person D is a big worry as often we have to tell him to sit at the table when he isn't rolling dice. He's constantly on his computer, and playing annoying videos for everyone to hear. My personal problem is letting E in but saying no to D, especially since they were both asking at the same time. I said no to both to avoid drama with selectiveness and stuck to a first come first serve basis.
you could let both in and tell the guy no computer hes there for the game he can watch youtube at home or you could stick with sorry your too late
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
My current group is an 8 player party. The dynamic works for us, because we've all be together for a long time. I wouldn't recommend large groups for new GMs, or for groups that aren't very cohesive, though.
My first thought for you, though, is if the decision to exclude your late arrivals is bothering you enough that you're posting about it, you probably should let them in. I know it would drive me nuts if I knew some folks who wanted to join my game and I didn't at least try to let them in...
I've been GMing since the early 1980s, for numerous systems. Six PCs are a hard and fast maximum for me as a GM. I've successfully run larger groups, but it becomes more of an exercise in crowd control than gaming, and players tend to get bored waiting for their turn. Honestly, I don't have fun running more than 6-- and six is even pushing it.
For a private game, what you did sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm decades out of college, but I still have more gamer friends than I have player slots in my campaign. When I started my current campaign, I had to make some tough decisions about who to let in and who to tactfully suggest that this campaign wouldn't be a good fit. (In this case, my campaign has some hard horror elements, and two of my gamer friends are kind of squeamish about that kind of thing.)
You need to be diplomatic if you value the friendship, or if you value the friendship of other players who are friends with the people you dropped.
But, honestly, you gave the two a chance to join, didn't hear from them, and then extended an offer to other people instead. The onus was on them to accept your offer, and when they didn't, you were entirely in the right to consider that a rejection. That holds true for anything you're trying to organize that isn't a "the more, the merrier" kind of event.
Remember that not everyone will show up. If I want five at the table, and to run every week, then 6-7 players is what you want. If you want to wait until everyone is free, then a smaller number works
|
|
A home game is by definition a private game, whether using PFS material or not.This isn't true. Pathfinder Society is a set of rules that allow for organized play, but a homegame that plays PFS is not obligated to allow other players. Stores are a little different, but even they are not obligated to accept someone.PFS, or private game?
PFS, you are required to do what you can to seat everyone who has not earned hard rejection from inclusion.
Private game, you are free to accept and reject the players that you want to spend your time with. There are ALWAYS social consequences as a result of making these preferences known, of course.
I THINK you are asking about a private game. Do what you need to do for you.
You can have private PFS games. Coordinators are also fully within their rights to disallow someone from attending or participating in public PFS games. As a coordinator, I'm aware of what I can and cannot do.
|
|
There are a myriad of reasons that a coordinator can turn someone away from a public PFS game, one of which is if he/she feels there isn't enough room. The GM is not obligated to receive someone at his table, and if he/she is more comfortable with four players, there is no requirement that we allow a fifth. There are other possible reasons as well, including rudeness, rules-bending, etc.
Just because it's a public game does not mean the coordinator or GMs are obligated to accept someone. It's nice to do so, and I've never turned someone away, but I am certainly able.
I would have no qualms saying "Sorry, this game's full. Have you considered starting up your own campaign? I'm sure some of the guys here would be glad to join, and I could help you out with advice if you want."
The 3.0 game I ran at a game store was horridly 'open' and varied from 4 to a high of 17 (ack!). Home games are better from 4 to 7 IMHO, but currently I can only physically seat 5.
As far as table rules go, cutting out the video games and other distracting behavior is a strong start. Let's make that #1. I think we can add spreading the in-game tasks among the players is a good way to relieve the wear and tear on the GM.
So I have a pathfinder group at my college. I'm the DM. Now last semester, my group consisted of Serious RPer A, Not that great Power Gamer B, The player that sucks C, Person who holds up the game D, and I'm here cause my friends are E.
When school started up again, I mentioned the new campaign and A, B, and C jumped right at it, but D and E didn't, so figuring they didn't want in, I let two experienced players join. Then, they spoke up right when we were about to start playing. So I told them not this time cause I don't want to DM a group of 7 people. Was this wrong? Should I keep them out? Kick out the new players? Just suck it up and DM 7 players?
I don't think you should take D & E. A five player game will be more fun for everyone involved, and it sounds like E isn't that much of a fan anyway. If you offered the game, and D & E didn't accept the offer, they lost their place.
In 2e we used to have a regular game with 9+ players. But that was 2E it was a different system. Our DM insists he would never want to run for more then 4 using Pathfinder. 5 at the very most.
I am just going to say that at the end of my RotRL game i had problems keeping up with 4 characters (and only two of them were casters), having to juggle multiple statblocks and multiple rules for spells, SLAs and abilities was my nightmare that came to life.