I have a dilemma. All of my friends are interested in playing pathfonder with me as GM, and id love to have them all. Problem is, i have 8 friends that want to play, and i only want to have a group of about 3-5. Its fun to have everyone involved but the game gets broke. No one gets enough exp or gold, and it takes wayy to long to get things done. The way i see it i have two options. I could tell some people that they are not allowed to play,leading to hurt friends and negative feelings abound. The second option: i could make a roster, saying that only so and so can play this session and then the others would get dibs on the next session. That would avoid the hurt feelings but, lead to unbalanced exp totals, and confusion on whats going on campaign wise. I dont want to let all 8 people play, and i dont want to lose friends.
Does the paizo community have any advice on this matter?
I have this exact dilemma. Will post when I get home.
I think the best answer is to take the group, split it into 2 4 person groups, and run each half as often as you would the one game. Rotating people in and out of the same game would be problematic for all sorts of reasons, not the least of them being the division of xp and treasure. But keeping a coherent story would be a problem, roleplay opportunities or dramatic moments might be missed, it just isnt a good idea.
Assuming everyone is equally devoted to the game and wants to play, split them into 2 groups.
Looks like just the right amount for two groups.
You've already answered your own question. Your options are:
1. Play with 8 PCs in one group. As you said, "the game gets broke".
2. Play with 4 PCs in two different groups. This takes twice as much of your time. Do you have the time for it?
3. Play with 4 PCs in two different groups but someone else DMs the other group. Could get weird since everybody wants you to DM but just announce that you want to be a player in one group and find a way to figure out who plays in which groups.
4. Hurt the feelings of some of your friends. Maybe hold a lottery. Most importantly, when you accept bribes, don't let anyone else find out; that really hurts their feelings...
Yeah, you could go some weird alternate routes, like pick two of your friends to be DM assistants and play a single group with 6 PCs. Your assistants run the monsters and NPCs and you just handle rules and story. It's weird and some of the group might not like that idea and you might not have any volunteers for DM assistant, but it might work.
Ausk, I see others have posted pretty much what I am about too, if it's feasible, and you are comfortable (as well as ABLE) to do so ... GM (2) separate Pathfinder games.
I'd recommend only a couple of things (from my own experience of having done this same thing) ... don't have the game nights be back-to-back ... give yourself a little "time and space" to prepare the 2nd game.
And, unless you feel that you can, I'd recommend not GMing (2) Adventure Paths (unless, again, you feel like you can handle it).
Everyone has posted pretty much what I did, if somewhat differently, so I'm not "adding" anything to the dilemma you're experiencing. ;)
Good luck with whatever you choose.
~Dean
|
Obviously, split the group into two teams. Alternate which team is on each session. Run Society Scenarios (along with following the rules for creation, etc.). Create the events online and report them. This way all nine of you get credit. You for GM which raises your rating and them for getting a good feel for the game without feeling like they are missing out on a bigger campaign.
Just my 2 cp.
I run every Friday night and we have two campaigns. Three of the players play in both games and four (two and two) play in just one of the two games so I have 5 players at the table out of 7 friends. I could easily add one more to each game and we would be fine.
We used to play one week on, one week off so you would have two weeks between the games. It was always an issue with the ones who did not play both games to figure out what week it was. It was always an issue with the players in both games to remember what was going on due to the break.
So we switched it to game 1 runs week 1 & 2 of the month and game 2 runs week 3 & 4 of the month. Then we just decide what game to play the fifth Friday and any holidays. This works out great and every one can schedule way out in advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with KainPen; it's not just easier to find a group of 4, it's faster, more involved, more fun, and easier to create good group chemistry. When I went to high school, back in the stone age, we regularly played groups of 8 (and in 50 minute blocks, thanks lunch period). It was enough to throw me off D&D for 3 or 4 years.
Large groups are miserable unless you already have a) a very cohesive group and b) total system mastery. Grapple builds are bad enough when you're only wasting 4 people's time because you didn't look up the grapple rules, for instance. Unless you actually want to run a huge game, don't get pressured into it. 2 games, either both DMed by you or not is the best solution. I second running PFS modules so you can take the time you'd invest in prep and spend it running the second group instead. Do it for PFS credit, or not, not a big deal either way.
+1 don't get caught taking bribes.
Definitely agree with splitting the groups. We run on Sundays and Mondays, with 4 players on Sunday and 7(!) on Monday. We usually get a LOT more accomplished on Sundays.
Honestly, I'd like to add one more game night so we can split the monday players again, or convince one of our Monday only players to switch to Sunday.
It's pretty hard to tell someone they can't play in a game though.
|
Split the party. Probably the first time that made sense ;)
I suggest running two games in locations far enough away from eachother so they don't interfere. This has its benefits:
perhaps game 1 hears rumors of a particularly spectacular event far away (events occurring in game 2), you won't even need to make stuff up.
And, if you need an extra encounter in group 2, pick one from group 1 that you already prepared for one of their sessions. Just change the names of things/people/creatures so they fit in group 2's game. e.g. No one will know if you changed the goblin to a kobold.
Ask Lumiere for advice. Her gaming group is like a micro-nation at this point!
And here I'm... Struggling to even have enough players... I have 3 consistent players... And a couple others who appear every other blue moon...
:(
Spilt or tought it out and run it as large group. I have 8 PC in my group. And it run fine but, I have been GM RPG since 1983. It realy depends on your skill level as gm and your comfort level. I maen you get alot more lean way as GM in large group. Yes you will have to run bigger fights that take longer with more monster. That not a bad thing. It let you tell bigger or larger epic tales. Look at comic books FF is 4 folks or you typcal party while most Xmen books have 7 or 8 team members.
I was referring to only the "or you can write an 8 man adventure" bit. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Probably a bad idea for a full roster of rookies. (sidenote: running the same adventure once for each group would be a lot of good practice)
Thanks for the blast of nostalgia. Now I'm missing my college group.
The problem with the group and me included is that we are all new to tabletop RPG's.
|
|
My personal optimum is a group with GM and 7 players. Not because I like gaming with 7 players at the table, but because I find that it takes that many to get 4-5 to show up. Your experience may be different and it depends a lot on where your players are in life; I tend to game primarily with adults in their 30s-40s.
A group I did this with for 4 years had only 1 night that I can remember where all 7 players showed. For one night, we can put up with that. :)
Right now, split the group.
Start now pawning off as much of the work as possible. rotate the jobs assigned to the players: A gets the mapping duties, Bis responsible for logging all the loot and challenges, C gets to be the rules adjudicator, D is the one in charge of running Initiative, E and F alternate running the combats. Once I stopped being anal and gave the drudgery of the mechanics to the players, my life got so much easier. I can easily run 9 players when I'm on the ball, but most of the time I only see 6-7 on the table.
Run something with little to no long term goals, and few repercussions - with the entire group. Having 8 rolls who want to be in a game is no assurance that you will have 8 reliable players in a month or two. I would bet you money that at least two turn out to be flakes or fair weather gamers. Can you handle 6 players? When you feel good about who is in the group invite the reliable ones to play in a new campaign.
Invite all 8 over for pizza/insert favorite easy food here, and tell them what you did us. The particularly salient points:
-- You are feeling overwhelmed
-- You enjoy playing with everyone and do not want anyone to feel excluded
-- People's PCs are not getting adequate rewards for their effort, so you imagine this is also getting frustrating for them
-- You want to find a way to enable everyone to play without anyone feeling left out, and without you feeling overwhelmed, and are looking for suggestions.
They likely have their own thoughts and suggestions. Many of them may also in fact agree that the situation is not working as is and will be sympathetic. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them didn't say, "Thank god you brought this up" or something to that effect.
I was once running a group that was only 6 players large--which is a "big" group for a roleplaying group but certainly considered within "normal" limits--but nonetheless I was feeling very overwhelmed. I was a new GM, it was a large group FOR ME, and it included some very strong, often conflicting personalities. Making matters worse, the party had a tendency to split itself which made things even more frustrating because I felt like I was actually running two campaigns in one session. I talked to the players about it, and it turned out--gee, they were also aware I was struggling, because actually, when the GM is struggling, it's often obvious. We didn't split the group at that time, but the players agreed to tone down certain distractions and not split the party as much, and those who were experienced GMs gave me some good advice. At a decent stopping point in the story arc, two players backed out, in part because they had other stuff they needed to devote more time to, but they also knew it would help out in the long run, and they would get to play with me again some other time. I never had to ask anyone to leave. It worked out. But the absolutely essential key to it all was communication.
If you DO continue to play with a large group, or even a smaller group and this is happening -- if you feel XP rewards are too low or treasure rewards are too low... increase them. You're the GM, you can do that. :) (Personally, I find it easier to reward party XP rather than individual XP, and just let everyone know when they level.) Also, bear in mind with an 8 person party, their Average Party Level (APL) is the actual level of the party +1 or even +2 because the group is so big. For example, if they are all 4th level characters, their APL should actually be 5-6. The average encounter they have should be around CR 5-6. And that in turn should result in them getting more XP and treasure. That's something to bear in mind regardless of group. If you're running a module or AP, you can always add an extra monster or two or a few extra pieces of treasure to round things out.
I want to point this out because some new GMs miss the whole APL thing, and it can be an important thing to take note of.
I agree your main issue is that your group is just too big though, and the first step to finding a solution that makes everyone happy is to talk to them about it and ask them what would make them happy.
Good luck. :)
|
|
On the APL thing: if increasing challenges for a large group, particularly a group of players new to the game, look at more low level opponents rather than using it as a rationale for a higher threat opponent. Higher threat opponents in this situation typically do a lot more damage and you'll see unnecessary deaths.
I have done 2 groups of 4 and GM both before. I had it alternating every Saturday. It turned out great. But I had them going through the same adventure path. That made it a lot easier to manage cause you already know, and have things prepared from last week.
Wilbur, how was the first group's experience different from the first? Surely one moved along more quickly than the other. It sounds like a very interesting experience.
|
Once, back in college, we had a group of twelve. I got the idea to anoint one of the players as a 'co-GM'. We were running something similar to an adventure path, with lots of branching side plots. I tasked the co-GM with taking part of the party on one of these side plots each week. The actual group makeup would vary from week to week, and we would often bring the large group together for 'text box' style plot presentations. Then they'd split again and we'd continue.
It was great fun, but still a lot of work. Probably less than two completely independent campaigns, but more work than running the same AP on two different nights of the week.
Ausk, I'll give a little suggestion that I don't think I saw mentioned (I have to admit that my patience is greatly decreased due to a long day and I didn't read all of the posts thoroughly): split the group into two four-player teams and assign them conflicting "in-world" missions (e.g. group 1=Pathfinders, group 2=Aspis Consortium) and have them actively try to foil one another. (Not directly, though-that'll take all 8 in one place!)
With my suggestion in mind, I have to tell you that I understand the overwhelmed feeling. I've gotten it from a three-player group; I guess I just wasn't ready, at the time. Obviously, this approach capitalizes on the large numbers at the potential cost of your sanity. Too much? Alternate weeks (or months, or however long you go between sessions).
Just a suggestion. If you don't like it, my feelings won't get hurt.
Ciaran I stopped at the same point. At that time I could only play 4 to 6 hours each Saturday. I usually stop durring the Parts sepperation in the adventure paths. And if a single Part is too short then I just include the next Part. And it was fun to see the first group coming to the game store and say stuff like "your not gunna like this part" or other phrases.
Especially if you're new to PPRPGs I would split the group into two groups with two DMs (maybe if you're not plannning to run a campaign, rotating DMs).
So everyone will see both sides of the table. Also for beginners big groups are complicated as they tend to become rollplay instead of roleplay ;)