Is there always room for one more?
Recently I began a new campaign with an established group. The RPG, Star Wars: Rise of the Empire, is one that I wasn’t familiar with and the mechanics were a hard read at first. The group consisted of four players, a size that I liked because it seemed to be the default assumption for the published adventures and allowed for the players to cover all the bases without stepping on each other. Also, I have little time to modify or write adventures so it was important to me to be able to run adventures as-written. Finally, I know the four players very well and I understand their chemistry with each other. In spite of my trepidation running a system no one knew and with little prep time, I felt fairly comfortable going into the first session.
When I pitched the game, I only had the Free RPG Day adventure in my hands. I asked another friend to borrow his copy until mine arrived in the mail. This friend, we’ll call him Red, played with the group on alternate Fridays (my group rotates campaigns every other week; I’m only involved with one of them). Red’s a big Star Wars fan and, as soon as he learned I was running a game, basically invited himself into the group. I now had 5 players.
In truth, I’d left the door ajar for him. He’d been on the other end of a closed campaign of mine (long story), and I didn’t want to shut him out again. I rationalized that one extra player wouldn’t unbalance things that much, and he could pick up the slack if someone missed a session. With 5 players ready, we spent a session making characters and then I went home. Due to a scheduling reshuffle I was going to start the adventure in a week’s time.
The day after the character creation session, Red sprang another surprise on me. He wanted Blue to join the game. Blue used to be a member of the group, but left over frustrations with the group. Red thought this would be a good time to mend fences, and canvassed the group to allow Blue to join.
I had three big issues. First, a six player group could be unwieldy for the published adventures, and the last time I tried to modify a four-PC published campaign for 6 PCs it was nothing but headaches. Second, Blue had a reputation for “munchkinism” and I wasn’t sure I wanted to deal with that, especially since I’d never played with Blue before. Finally, I didn’t relish the idea of old wounds being ripped open in front of me.
On the other hand, friends both inside and outside the group fell more in the “let Blue join” camp under the banner of “the more the merrier.” If I could accommodate 5, then 6 shouldn’t be a problem. If the game had to suffer for it, then it was more important to mend bridges and let a friend join the game. Also, one player mentioned that since Blue was part of the group, even though he walked away for a while, he should be able to return.
So what say you? Is it okay to have a ceiling on players or should it always be “the more the merrier?” Does it matter if the PCs aren’t challenged because the conflicts are more easily overcome? Would your opinion of Blue’s entry into the group change if he hadn’t previously been part of the group? Would your opinion change if you were crafting your own material rather than running published adventures?
I’ve found there’s definitely an upper bound to what’s good. I had a Vampire group that I started to recruit for; I wanted five players to achieve a certain dynamic. The recruiting of the first four players went fine, but then there was some screwup with two candidates for the last spot both agreeing at the same time, so I had six players. A significant while later, I added a guy who was basically part of that friend group but who’d been left out so far, but who was one of my best friends.
Let me tell you, seven players is not so good for Vampire. You run into overlap in PCs’ powers, making it harder for people to find their niche.
There’s no time to focus on everyone’s individual plots, but individual character development is very important in White Wolf games.
Group “leadership”, or at least having group talks about what to do with the current situation, were tricky as well; some of the players are a bit more withdrawn, but those are also the better planners. The loud, impulsive people tended to dominate. Although I tried varying seating arrangements and asking people to speak up more or to give more space to others, you can go only so far in making people go against their nature.
I’ve played some D&D/Pathfinder with these people as well. Getting them up to speed on the system took a bit of work, but I think that in general the group dynamic and size was less troublesome. Combat can be a bit long-winded for individual players, although I often used many weaker monsters so that everyone could deal with a few of them and feel useful.
Just recently I finally bit the bullet and decided to split the group in two. This was a very awkward moment; everyone agreed about the necessity, but divvying up who goes into which group was tricky. I sat everyone down, including an eight player, and laid down a list of twenty different campaigns I’d be interested in running, then had them sort themselves into two groups. In the end, one of them went on to play the sequel to the Vampire campaign (moving to a different city, keeping some of the PCs), and I’m now setting up an Eclipse Phase campaign with the others and the new guy.
—
It matters what game you play, who you are yourself, and who you’re playing with.
Games like White Wolf’s, that focus on individual plots, are lousy for large groups. There’s just no time for all that individual stuff. Team-focused games like D&D do much better, as long as the party has a consensus about what they’re after. I’ve played for years in a seven-player D&D game.
That game though, had a very strong GM. He was older, more experienced, and had a natural sway over us, making it easier to keep everyone on track.
And also different; I was a player, not a GM. Among my friends here, I’m fairly dominant. It’s not something I attempt consciously, but in these things I tend to take a “first among equals” leader role, often aided by my remembering even plot points from long ago and my PCs being good at staying alive. So this large group had someone keeping it going somewhere instead of floundering. I got overruled on the direction from time to time, but then I adjusted.
—
So, is there an upper bound? Maybe. Depends on things like I wrote before; what if any applies to your situation?
The purpose of an RPG is for everyone at the table to have fun. THIS INCLUDES THE GM. That means, if adding an extra player makes you uncomfortable, or in ANY WAY detracts from your fun, you have every right to say no.
I think the problem is that players tend to underestimate how much work goes into GMing. They don’t realize that adding “just one more” could cause an exponential increase in the GM’s work load. It’s one more person to juggle the spotlight; it’s one more person with a set of powers to take into account for balance; it’s one more person you need to come up with plot hooks for, or at least tailor existing plot hooks to.
The GM should always have the right to veto the addition of a new player. After all, the decision has a proportionally much larger impact on the GM than on the players.
And if the players complain, point out one simple fact: If a GM is not having fun, whether to being overworked or being out of his comfort zone, then the entire game suffers, which decreases everyone else’s fun as well.
Can you imagine running a game or managing a campaign for 40 players?
“The more the merrier†seems rather false to me.
I think the maximum group-size depents on the stlye of game that you want to play. If you want to have fun with combat-heavy adventures and/or dungeoncrawling, then the group can consist how many players you can keep track of.
But if you want to focus on individuel plots and roleplaying the characters then the group should be no larger then 4 players.
It depends on your gaming style. The more players, the less space the GM should take. If you want to guide them through your story, keep it to a low number of players. To have many players takes mostly to plan on how to activate them. Perhaps sometimes dividing them into groups around the table. Your duty as a game master would instead be to keep things going. To give enough information that all the storylines are moving forward. To cut between the groups so that each group doesn’t have to wait for another or, even better, play out things simultaneously.
If you can lean back and let the others do the talking, possibly jump in now and then to say something, then you know that you got the hang of it. You can do this with less people too, but it works better with eight people or more. The more minds, the better.
I started a Pathfinder campaign for my daughter. After 3 years of play, we stopped that campaign and started a new Pathfinder adventure path. At that point, one of my players asked if his son could join. I could not say no. The rest of my group did not protest enough. It was quite controversial at the the start.
We have run into the problem that combat tends to drag on with 7 players. To adjust I have had to abandon the initiative system. I assume all my players rolled 10 on initiative and force them to sit in that order around the table. That way everyone knows when it is their turn.
I beef up some encounters to balance the challenges, but the game is less about the combats and more about the story.
For now, we are in a good place and everything seems to be the working for the most part. After we finish though, I will have to break up the group.
Pathfinder was the game that gave me trouble with 6 players, likely because it was a 3.5 adventure path, so I had to “Pathfinder-ize” the baddies (in most cases going with max hit points) while beefing up their numbers.
This is of course based on what I have to go on from your article, so if it’s WAY off base, my apologies:
I want to set aside the issue you’ve actually asked about and say that if I had to pick a “one too many” player to axe it wouldn’t be Blue, it would be Red.
If Red wanted in the game in the first place, he should have asked , not “basically invited himself into the group”. I’ve had that happen before and it’s the height of rude behavior.
Then to top that off, knowing it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, he invites another player known to have conflict with the group and goes behind your back to discuss it with everyone else first so as to put you in a weaker position to say no to his inclusion.
So minimally I would have a talk with Red and tell him that his recent behavior is unappreciated and that if he wants in on a game or wants his friend included that the proper course of action is to ask first, not to pull these sort of shenanigans. Frankly, unless he’s 14 he ought to know that without you saying as much, but we all know how normal social behavior can break down in the magical confines of the gaming circle.
I agree with this. Red seems to be pushing for what he wants out of the game over what the group wants is best for the game. I think talking to Red and then shutting out Blue may be for the best. If Blue really wants to rejoin the group, stressing out the current GM is not the best way to do this.
Matt and Razjah,
Without getting personal, you two are very close to filling the gaps in my scenario!
More the merrier? Complete crap.
There are ranges of players (like 1-4, 3-5, 3-6, etc) that can be best for certain game systems. Generally pushing the numbers outside that range slow the game down, make giving players enough spotlight time more difficult, and makes challenging the party appropriately more difficult. Oh, slower combats are also a huge deal.
The larger groups often have more conflicts within the party. It also leads to roles being doubled up on, which can make some players feel like they are contributing to the game less than others who don’t have duplicated roles.
I think this is a common dilemma . I cap my games at 6 PCs. After completing two campaigns over the course of three years, I decided that I would prefer to lower the number of PCs down to five. This was for many of the various reasons previously stated.
I decided that I wanted to run a set adventure path that was really designed for 4-5 PCs. With the addition of a 6th, I realized that it was going to add to my GM workload. Despite that, I added the extra person. Fortunately, this did not happen the way it did in article. All of the people who played approached me. When it came to the sixth person, a few people in the group let me know that a former player was returning to the area, so I had time to make a decision before he even approached me. When he did, it came in the form of a request and only if everyone in the group was okay with it.
During the campaign, the biggest challenges I faced were the amount of overlap between character types, difficulties getting the spotlight on everyone equally, and maintaining balance between the party and encounters.
I consider myself lucky that there are always more people who want to join the games I run than I have room for, but I still realize that I need to keep a cap. Once you exceed the right balance, the experience is diluted and less fun for everyone. Sure, you get to hang out with a bigger bunch of friends (hopefully), but if that makes for a boring and lack luster campaign, what’s the point?
I won’t be using an AP for my next campaign, so I’ll be able to once again tailor it better to the individual PCs. I will be writing it with 5-6 PCs from the outset. I also plan on experimenting with other game systems and running some one or two session adventures for people who aren’t in the long running campaign.
Joining the chorus, here. DireBadger is right on when he says larger groups are good for team-oriented games (OD&D), but if you want to give your players personal story time to chew the scenery and wax poetic, less is more. I’ve run games for very large groups (12+) and even the fastest systems bog down to a game of multiple choice. My personal preference is 5-6 players for most games. Probably no more than 4 for a horror game.
The GM should be the only one to be entitled to decide a ceiling to the number of people playing in his campaigns. Not because the player’s opinion on group size is not important, but because the GM is the one that’s going to carry the extra burden, and she/he knows better her/his on limits, while for the other players no extra commitment is involved.
This kind of attitude in players is selfish, and typical of people that have never GMed (and neither plan to).
On the other hand, the players have full rights to disagree to add new players to the group if they feel the increased number (or the specific persons) would lower their enjoyement of the game.
I set a hard limit of five on most games I run. I can be coaxed to six, but the bar for it is unbelievably high and would require the GREATEST PITCH EVER.
I don’t think there’s honestly any problem with setting a bar either, since as the GM, you can honestly say how much work you can/are willing to take on. After all, you’re the player doing the most work here. And you are a player as well, don’t forget that.
I had a similar experience with my crew when I started my very first Shadowrun campaign. Having never GMed, I wanted to start off small with four players and put a group together.
Of the four I asked, one asked if her fiance could join. I didn’t know the guy at the time, but she asked politely one-on-one and I agreed, putting us at five. It turned out to be a great choice as he was an experienced GM himself and he’s been a great player.
On our first game day, another player showed up with one of our friends, ‘just to watch’. I probably should have said something then, but he didn’t ask if she could come watch, he just showed up with her. At the end of the session he turned to her, asked if she thought the game had looked fun, then turned to me and asked if she could join. In front of her and everyone else without ever talking with me about it even once before hand.
I allowed it, but it was definitely not as smooth of an addition. As players go, she is not as strong of a player and naturally less involved such that I have to go out of my way to setup scenes and get her involved, but having to balance six players makes that exceedingly difficult.
This also set a nasty precedent in that, a few weeks later, another player did the same thing and brought his brother by, ‘just to watch’ without asking before hand. Again, I should have probably said something then, but I was at least ready when the question came at the end and prevented the group from growing out of control.
While four to five would have been a great number starting out, and the sessions where a player or two have been missing has reinforced that as my preferred number, I’ve found six is my ideal maximum number. I tried a short experiment with eight players in a combat focused D&D mini-campaign that worked ok, but I wouldn’t want to do it long term.
That said, I’m much more open to adding additional players beyond what I’d planned for (to a limit) when its approached the right way. Inviting themselves to a group, going behind the GMs back to rally player support before asking, inviting someone to game without getting permission and then asking in front of everyone are all no-go’s for me. If I encounter it again, the player will either get a (private) warning or be removed entirely. There are way more players out there than slots, I’ve found, and I would rather play with people who won’t make my job as GM harder.
To deal with possible trouble players the answer is “provisional period”.
These players have a 4-6 game provisional period to see how they fit with the group. This gives everyone a good amount of time to evaluate how the game has changed and determine if things are a go for the new player. I usually explain this as a safety net to make sure that games go smoothly, since there are many different play styles.
For oversized groups in general (assuming no trouble players), I’ve found that they usually fix themselves through self-selection. Some people find other things to do with their time or give up due to not enough time in the spotlight.
Running for oversized groups involves telling players that “we’re gonna do this Lost style” and focus intensely on a couple of you per session. Everyone will participate, but we expect for A, B, and C PCs to be spotlight tonight. It also involves cheating on hit points—monsters get way more to compensate for the shear number of PC attacks.
Another variable is how often your players can’t make it.
Players with kids and work and life often can’t play as often as they would like.
I’ve had groups with lots of no-shows one week and a groaning table the next. I learned a lot of tactics to quickly change the power of the opposition. Upping defense and hit points makes for a much longer game than upping the offense.
NPCs that roll twice and take the higher value (very easy to do in d100 games, just reverse the 10s and 1s dice and take the better result). That always do max damage. Big guys that get one auto-hit per combat.
For player facing games, just add damage and make the defense roll harder. For example, in Numenera, just add one to the difficulty and you’re done.
—-
To the problem at hand, I think you need to talk to Red, and tell her that you were planning on a 4 person game and now that Blue’s in the picture you’re no longer looking forward to your own game. Maybe once you’ve got the system under your belt you might reconsider. You hope she doesn’t get offended, but you really want to enjoy your campaign and now you find yourself dreading it.
I was all set to write about how different numbers of players are optimal depending on the nature of the game system, your style of game, and the level of attention the players enjoy getting in the game. But then I got to the word “munchkinism”. One munchkin is too much in any game. Unless you want to see your whole game dragged down to Monty Hall adventures.
These days, I find even five is too many. I much prefer two or three in a gaming group, with the focus on more personal stories (even if the implementation has been somewhat rickety in practice).
*Rant Sequence Initiated*
Personally I’ve had to put a hard cap at 5 players. I will never, ever run a game for more than 5 people again.
I too enjoy the individual spotlight time smaller groups afford. I think it goes further than that, though. There’s a certain level of intimacy of story-telling that simply can’t be had in larger groups. As a GM there is so much more focus you bring to the moment, when 7 players isn’t one of the dozens of variables you’re juggling.
For a lighter, one-shot game I’ll allow for 5 players. By lighter I mean both tone and system: something like super-heroes in Fate Accelerated Ed. or a game of Cosmic Patrol.
For a longer campaign, with all the drama, harshness, and character growth I so love, I find 3 players to be perfect. It allows for enough perspectives and input for surprising twists and player-directed play. Yet, there’s still few enough people involved that everyone can get a bit of that laser-focused gamemastering. I’ll accept two or four players as within parameters for great gaming, but not quite ideal.
*Rant Sequence Completed*
I’m a part of “smaller is better”, but it’s more important to acknowledge that if the GM’s not happy, no one’s going to be happy.
Treating red and blue as provisional–letting them know that it’s an experiment to see if the game can handle them, but they might be leaving at the end of the story arc–might be the best way to salvage the situation as it has developed.
I’m a big fan of group caps. The funny part is I never think of it as me not being able to handle it but feeling like more players takes away from spotlight time from the other players. I ran a game for twelve players once. I was entertaining and did my best to engage everyone in the game but when you have that many players you can’t really give everyone the time they deserve.
I think the goal is to figure out the sweet spot for the number of players with the game your running so you can all get what you want out of the game. For Star Wars: EotE I always felt 3 – 5 was the right number.
I have to join the “smaller is better” camp as well. Five Players is my cap. I’ve run games at conventions for 8 people, and they’re not fun for the players. The GM might think they’re doing everyone a big favor by letting them sit in on their game, but as clight101 said, its actually taking fun-times away from other players.
Geek Culture is big on always making sure people feel included, making sure everyone feels like they’re welcome… and I get that, and we’re good people for doing so. But, Perhaps a better way to get “everyone” involved who wants to be involved is to break up into smaller groups so that MORE GAMEMASTERS will step up to the plate. ;^)
I’m a fan of smaller tables. 2-3 is probably where I do best, but I still enjoy running our game of 5 (currently). I’ve run games with as many as 9 on a night, which was utter chaos and probably could have been handled better, but at least I’d prepared and the mechanics of extra members were already accounted for.
That said, I probably wouldn’t deny another player, but might request starting another game instead of adding them to the current one (and hopefully talk another player into GMing it).
I was running a D20 Modern arcana/mobster campaign some months back. It was one of the first campaigns I’d run in a long time and I was trying to introduce some RPG novitiates into the whole role-playing environment.
I started out with my roommate and a couple of our friends. A hanger-on joined in, and then there were four. As the time for the campaign drew closer, we finalized characters and I had a good couple of sessions all planned out. The night of the campaign, though, saw not only my included four show up, but a group of three others (two friends and one of their girlfriends – who, let’s say, is infatuated with kitty-ninja-vampire-princesses). All of them just had to play.
Seven brand-new players on opening night: more chaos than a barrel full of dice-rolling monkeys. I’m just lucky no one though to bring alcohol that night!
The campaign never saw a second session.