|
Going for 6 & 4 splits sounds like a logical way to divide players considering scenario design.
To me, keeping as fewer players from playing OOST would be a priority one. If a couple/group are looking to play together, then hopefully they had the good sense to make sure their characters are within a level of each other.
Party balance seems like the best way to divide players from there, but it may also be worth considering player experience, making sure any newer players are mixed with those stronger rules knowledge.
Also shout outs to BNW and Geek Sudoku.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
You're using Warhorn? Encourage people to use Warhorn's feature to input your class/combat role/level.
Then aim for putting people in-tier as much as possible and hopefully making 6/6/4 tables; that way you hopefully get the best version of 4/6 player adjustments for every table.
Another option is to not schedule one "Warhorn session" with 3 GMs, but 3 sessions in the same time slot with the same scenario, but one GM each. Then people can form tables naturally in Warhorn instead of you having to place them.
|
You're going to have some people drop out and some people drop in, so why bother planning before you know?Not planning on saying "you, you, you and you on that table" a week before the game, etc.
But trying to gather input on HOW to do it when we're setting up the tables that day, or even that hour. When we have our "final list". When we have to make the decisions, what guidelines do we follow, and why? What insight does other people who have been here before have. What have other people done in the past that worked well, and what worked not so well...
How do YOU split up 14, 15 or 16 people into 3 tables?
I split them up as evenly as possible. 2 tables of 5, and one table of (4/5/6). I try to keep friends/groups together and personality conflicts seperate, and if I can, try to get everyone into the same subtier to minimize out of tier drama.
If you have only 12 players and 3 judges, do you split the players into two tables and ask one of the judges to "sit one out"? (Find another table to go sit at as a player, or enjoy a "free slot", or what?) If you do only sit 2 tables, is there an established method for who judges (ask for a volunteer, or senior/junior guy sits out or what)?
At a con, I'd ask the judges if they want 3 tables of 4, or 2 tables of 6. Let them figure it out between themselves. It may be that this is one GMs only slot GMing, and they wants the race boon or whatever. It may be that one GM really wants to take a nap so they would love to have the slot off. No sense arbitrating something when the judges could figure it out themselves and let you know. After they figure out how many tables there are going to be, that's when it's back to you to figure out table arrangements.
|
|
Nosig, some of the split will depend on the season, to me.
If it is a season 0-3, I would more likely sit tables of 5 (so 15 would be 5-5-5).
If 4+, I would fill tables of four, then make those tables 6 when er possible (6-6-4), since many times the five player table is toughest.
She you didn't tell us though was subtier splits. This is actually more important to me then pure numbers. If there are folks between tiers, etc., that could make a better table of 5. The whole friends thing is tricky, since as organizers we need to make the best table, which sometimes m and splitting groups.
|
|
Why the even splits? doesn't that create "harder" tables? Or is that the intention?You're going to have some people drop out and some people drop in, so why bother planning before you know?Not planning on saying "you, you, you and you on that table" a week before the game, etc.
But trying to gather input on HOW to do it when we're setting up the tables that day, or even that hour. When we have our "final list". When we have to make the decisions, what guidelines do we follow, and why? What insight does other people who have been here before have. What have other people done in the past that worked well, and what worked not so well...
How do YOU split up 14, 15 or 16 people into 3 tables?
I split them up as evenly as possible. 2 tables of 5, and one table of (4/5/6). I try to keep friends/groups together and personality conflicts seperate, and if I can, try to get everyone into the same subtier to minimize out of tier drama.
It may be the area where I play, but both GMing and playing, I've never noticed a significant increase in difficulty on a 5 player table. If that is the case in your area, then definitely go for the maximum number of 4 or 6 player tables as possible.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
There problems with splitting into more than one "Warhorn session". One judge gets all the sign-ups and one get's few (or none). Then the question arises if it is a problem with the judge, or a the fact that everyone is just signing up on the first one they see.
I don't really expect that to happen, because if you try to sign up as player #7 you'd get waitlisted. A clear sign you should move over to a table that still has open seats.
Also, you need to resist paranoia when signups aren't going totally evenly, that happens all the time and often doesn't mean anything. If you don't have any other indicators that people have issues with a particular GM (like people complaining, or him regularly having trouble getting players) then it's probably just randomness.
Right now we are working hard at getting people to just use Warhorn - getting them to use Warhorn's feature to input class/combat role/level is the next step. Also we have problems with someone who signed up early, but the PC they signed up with leveled (sometimes more than once) before the game. Or they are like me, with multiple possible PCs and are waiting to see what everyone else signs up with (which means I often sign up in mid tier, as a "Generalist").
Over here putting in your level early is a way to try to nudge a table towards the level you'd prefer to play; for example if three people are already signed up to play the low tier, that's a sign to someone with a high-level PC that he should take a look at the muster going on at the other table. It doesn't stop every problem, but it helps a little bit.
|
|
Example follows:
On Saturday afternoon at PirateCon next week, one of the scenarios we're offering is 3-14 Death by Pie.
When we lock Warhorn ~the Monday before the convention we work on mustering out all the tables so that they can be posted during the prior slot so that once people finish their Saturday morning slots they can go look where we post the tables and see where they are going to be.
The front desk also has a copy of this, so that they can muster walk-ins when available.
Lets say we have the following 16 registrations:
Alice - Cleric 5
Bob - ? ?
Carl Kittycat - ??
Doug Kittycat - Rogue 3
Eli - ? 5
Frank Watson - Barbarian 3
Gretchen Watson - ? 7
Hillary Watson - Something Occulty 3
Iggy - ? 7
Jack - ? 4
Kimberley - Viglante 7
Larry - Vigilante 3
Martha (TT) - Oracle 5
Norris (TT) - Druid 4
Ophelia - Something Occulty 6
Paris - ? 5
Step 1: Unless heard otherwise put everybody with the same last name togther. When we have players that want to play with each other but don't have the same name we ask them to add a note to their names in warhorn, like the TT above.
So We've got:
Table 1:
Carl Kittycat - ??
Doug Kittycat - Rogue 3
Martha (TT) - Oracle 5
Norris (TT) - Druid 4
Lets add our TTs here as well
Table 2:
Gretchen Watson - ? 7
Hillary Watson - Something Occulty 3
Next I'm going to work from the top down, and see about a high tier table, since it's generally much easier and more appropriate to muster walk-ins to lower level tables.
Lets see...
Table 3:
Kimberley - Viglante 7
Iggy - ? 7
Ophelia - Something Occulty 6
Paris - ? 5
Eli - ? 5
Alice - Cleric 5
Alright, that table looks good.
Lets actually combine our 1 and 2 tables above.
Table 1:
Carl Kittycat - ??
Doug Kittycat - Rogue 3
Martha (TT) - Oracle 5
Norris (TT) - Druid 4
Gretchen Watson - ? 7
Hillary Watson - Something Occulty 3
Leaves us Table 2:
Bob - ? ?
Jack - ? 4
Larry - Vigilante 3
Norris - Druid 4
We're left with 2 slots for walk-ins at the same table (better than 1 slot each in 2 tables.
---
If there were some easy swaps to help make the tables look more balanced between roles I might do it, but the above looks fine. This all happens behind the scenes before the convention so we can just post it during the prior slot and have things go smoothly.
The above randomness probably has more information than average, but basically we'll muster people with information where it makes sense, and then muster people without information wherever they will fit.
You're of course welcome to play whatever character you want when you get to the table, happens if people accidentally level, or leave a character behind or think the table needs a cleric. The info just helps us muster you where you want to go.
---
In brief I'm not sure this is actually that helpful. We do all the mustering we can for our conventions ahead of time, so we just have to deal with the walk-ins come game time. I've seen other types of mustering and it can be pretty nightmarish.