| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So i got myself to starting a new group that consists of 8 people who has either no xp to seasoned veteran at playing tabletop rpgs. The dilemma obviously is the group's size but no one wants to step up as DM to take half the group into another game. At least not yet. We are all new to each other and have played two sessions, going on our third. We even have two more people wanting in the game, but good times so far. I want to take them to an AP but with so many i will definitely burn out early on the game. I suggested we have half the group play the heroes and the other half plays the NPCs exclusively. Has anyone ever tried this method since no one else wants to DM? Hate to lose all the new recruits to the hobby but then again don't want to step on the veterans' toes. The co-DM ideas popped up in discussions but no one wants to volunteer themselves out openly. Been in games where we had rotating DMs before so the concept is not new to me. Thoughts and ideas welcomed. Thanks and my apologies in advanced for the wall of text.
This is a difficult situation. Whenever I start a new game I always get too many people trying to join, and many times have simply had to say no.
Co-DMing or separate games are definitely the best options. I know you've tried, but keep at it.
I vote against people playing NPCs. From what I've seen, only experienced players can really put aside their own involvement for a greater storyline focusing on other characters. I think you'll find people taking exotic actions for NPCs and not taking their roles seriously at all. Perhaps your veteran players can handle it, but it'll still suck doing it exclusively.
Paragraphs can help reduce walls of text.
If you're new and you have 8 players, then I recommend one of two possibilities:
1. Split the group. If someone else is willing to GM half the group, great. You get a more manageable group, and can move forward from there.
2. Enlist the help of the veterans. The veterans in the group should know more about how to play, how to keep the game going smoothly, stuff like that. If they're willing to shoulder some of the burden, typically by assisting the new players during play and streamlining the flow of combat by making sure people are ready with actions and the like.
If you do #2, I don't recommend an AP. I also don't recommend splitting into PCs and NPCs for the group.
However, here's one possibility: Split the PCs into two groups, and switch the action between them. However, instead of having the non-active group sitting around waiting for their turn, that's when you give them NPCs. So everyone gets to both play PCs and NPCs. Essentially, you still have two adventuring parties acting in the same world, but the players always have something to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the best solution is likely to go with two groups, but you can still have both groups adventure through the same AP. You can do this one of two ways, either set them up as competing adventuring groups (with a little bit of work, you could likely even convert the AP such that one group gets to be a "bad guy" group that is helping to stop the "good guy" group. You still get to use the AP as written for the most part for the "good guys", and may only need subtle changes for the "bad guys". The key is, you run each group on different days. If you are meeting weekly currently, you simply have each group meet every other week.
The fun part of this idea is that you can still have the occasional session where you run all 8 players at the same time. The "party" needs to enter the dungeon to recover the MacGuffin? Great, both parties find out about at the same time, but learn of different entrances. Obviously this requires you to bounce back and forth between parties until they both inevitably meet up along the way. This can be done with one group playing the npcs for the other group and vice versa, or you can just take advantage of the relatively quick nature of PF combat.
The other option is to simply run the same AP twice with the groups alternating sessions. This really doesn't add much work to you as the GM -- only an additional set of notes really, and keeps the group sizes manageable. In fact, this might actually involve less work than running a group of 8 would if you are using an AP. With the AP you'll absolutely be reworking encounters already in order to make them challenging.
I suppose there is a third option of just "grin and bear it" but honestly, the workload on you as the GM is only going to get worse in that event. I tend to think the end result will also be less enjoyable for the players as it will be that much harder to incorporate each of their back stories, personalities, etc. into the overall story. Or put another way, every time you toss a player a bone, be it a side quest or a mention of a nemesis, etc., you are "ignoring" 7 other players. Then trying to tie 8 different sets of motivations together is almost certainly going to result in a less vibrant world.
Just my 2 coppers though.
Thanks everyone who put in their time to chime in. I've thrown the bait and it seems two players might bite to become DMs. Time will only tell if the group actually splits in two, maybe three since more people are interested in joining. We're ending one module so i can bear this last upcoming session.
Again, thanks for the words of wisdom all! There are quite a few gems mentioned here and i will relay them to the group. Now if only i can roll a good diplomacy check!
Ive only run large games. As a late comer to a established gaming group, when there normal gm went on hiatus i took charge and ran a game. It was Serpents Skull. Like the naive gm i was i allowed all races all classes and as a kicker we did 4d6 reroll 1s drop lowest roll 5 sets and keep one AND hero points (Next game is 3d6 in order ;)) So we have some powerplayers. These people had been playing DND for a decade. But we are having a blast.
You will know quickly who values roleplaying and who kinda likes the hack and slashy bits with a small amount of roleplaying. This is a GOOD thing believe it or not. The hack and slashy people will balance out the talky ones and you can move forward at an agreeable pace.
Combat will take ages. These people are veterans. They know what provokes, what sort of action the class abilities they are. They have tomes of rule knowledge between the ears. Combats still take time. Just get used to this and utilize some sort of ondeck system. Player A is up and B your next.
Balancing combats are the largest headaches as a gm for parties this big. Never under any circumstances ever plan epic 1 v Party boss encounters. They will utterly stomp it into the ground and you will feel flattened. I know this. I have felt it. Instead mooks with maximized hitpoints. Sure some can take them out in a round but most may need 2. This is also why encounters are long. Extra combatants. Maximize hps. Apply Advanced Templates and add class levels for particular encounters will keep the challenge up. Action economy has to be equalized to an extent.
Never ever ever utilize hero points in a large party. They will ruin your initiative tracker. They will steamroll opponents. And they will never die. Not that that should be a goal of yours but you should at least have the threat lurking.
To all the naysayers saying run multiple games? EH. It can be done. Dont be discouraged. And honestly if you are homebrewing a world i imagine it will be even easier since rather then converting the 15pb 4 player ap into a (tries to do maths.. fails miserably) 35ish point buy power fest.