Too many players?

[GCMorris]

I started off with nobody wanting to play. Then I had two, then three, then four, then six. Now I have nine people interested in playing. I'm a bit overwhelmed. I feel like a butt if I tell someone they can't play after I had asked them to (several said no initially but now want to). Is nine too many to handle?

[bluesguy]

That would be too many for me to handle.  I have run as many as seven people relatively successfully.  It is very hard and if you want to run any separate story lines it is very hard to do.

 

I would recommend breaking up the group and run two different groups.  Use a common campaign world and keep the characters separated.  You can build some interesting adventures where they all come together for a a really big event (in the comics when the Avengers and Fantastic Four would team up or the X-Men and Avengers would team up).

[Doc Democracy]

This is an intensely personal judgement.  In all games I find 4-5 to be the sweet spot, enough to spark ideas and character interaction, not so many that any one person is out the spotlight for too long or that it is difficult to find your niche.

 

Doc

[eepjr24]

I am with Doc. 6 is the max I can do well. Beyond that people start to feel bored or left out.

 

- E

[Netzilla]

How many is too many is entirely dependent on your comfort level as a GM.  Our group is a little on the large size with 6-8 players plus GM typically showing up.  I would not go higher than 8 as I find that pretty well at my limit.  If you have to turn people away, simply be polite about it and explain the real reason why.  However, if you've got time for 2 game nights, I'll echo bluesguy's advice about forming 2 different groups with the occasional crossover event.

[Scott Anderson]

The SPD chart is the limiting factor for me.  How can you get through even a minute of combat per night with 6 or more people?  With D&D, I can do 10 but HERO is more like 4 or 5

[Christopher R Taylor]

Six was the most I could handle comfortably.  When I had too many, and was young, I'd run two alternating games.  The best one was when I had one group the junior team and one group the main, high powered team.  The big guys handled stuff like Godzilla attacking Chicago, while the little guys did street crime stuff.  They meshed really well, investigating with the street level and then the big guys handling the threat they uncovered.

[Surrealone]

Umm ... 9 can be done fairly readily if one group plays the villains while another group plays the heroes.  Park them in separate rooms and work back/forth between them!

[womble]

If you asked them and they said no, it's not being a jerk to tell them, "Sorry, the table's full now. But if anyone drops out, I'll give you a call!" So don't let that push you into running a group larger than you are comfortable with. I'd suggest starting on the low side, and inviting some of the ones who're late to the table one at a time to increase the cast if you think another body will fit.

[GCMorris]

Thanks folks. I think I'll try Bluesguy's approach. I think I can work a 6 and a 4 tag team and bring them together for big event, I have one more person who will play. . Though at my age two gaming nights per week will be as hard on me as running one big group

[Ndreare]

In any game system I find more than 4 players to be obnoxious. When I was younger I loved it when I had nine people at the table, but now days it is just to much.

 

If you want to have time for everybody to participate you will have to tell some of the people that initially accepted, sorry but the table filled up when you were unavailable. 

 

PS: This is of course all 100% opinion as everyone has their own style, but mine focuses less on combat and more on out of combat scenarios.

[Christopher R Taylor]

When I ran a space marines adventure I had a rotating list of players, if someone died off, the top person on the list got rotated in as a replacement.  The campaign didn't progress very far though, which was too bad, it seemed like an interesting concept I never got to play out to see how it would work.

[GCMorris]

I'm secretly hoping someone will step up and GM so I can play too

[Doc Democracy]

A big pool with a shared universe and three GMs rotating is a good set-up.   Needs someone to coordinate though.

 

My first cut would be the ones who initially said no, I can legitimately say to them that I would have loved for them to be in the game but when they said no, I asked someone else who said yes.

 

I like my players to be enthusiastic...

[robertperry904@glbb.jp]

I say give it a try. Some will drop out, just as a matter of cause. The rest will stick it out until the ME time everyone wants, starts to bog the game down.

 

But regardless, if you think you can do it then give it a try.

 

I will say one thing though, unless you have a structured game that doesn't allow a lot of side quests, or endless shopping, then you better be able to control everyone. I got lucky, or maybe there's another word for it, but I had the chance to run a long 12 player campaign. It was a Super Powered game and it was very structured around the group fleeing, hiding, and reacting. So there was not much chance for side quests and shopping. In the end though the group lasted about 4 months before the excess numbers started to show. So if you want to try, then do so. Me I don't think I would do it again unless I had the same group and situation again.

[Netzilla]

A lot also depends on how long your game sessions are and how polite everyone is.  If you're only playing for 4 hours, giving 8+ people equal attention is rough.  Likewise, if you have one or two players who will try to dominate the spotlight (no mater how long your session).  My group plays 8 hours every 2 weeks (4 to midnight every other Saturday) and everyone is polite about sharing spotlight time.  So, 8 players is workable.  With shorter sessions I want fewer players.  My limit for a 4-hour con slot is 6 (but that's dealing with simplified scenario geared towards system newbies).

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

I used to run games with, believe it or not, 12 players! Yeah, it didn't turn out too well for me. Too many people in a swords and sorcery game wanting to play swords! I have reduced my play size to 7-8 people. It works better. I think 9 might be OK, but 11-12 (or further if you want a KYS kit) is too much.

[GCMorris]

Back in the day I didn't allow much shopping but I did schedule times between certain adventures to tweak and spend xp.

[wolfrunswithfox]

I have run a lot of games at a wide variety of player levels (from 1 to 13).  While games can work at many player counts, how many people are at the table has a huge impact on how the game feels (probably even greater than the system you choose to use).  In my experience:

• Small games (1 - 3 players) are best for focussing on internal conflict and resolving backstories.  These games are great because it's easy to get everyone engaged and there's time to really focus on whatever the players find interesting.  Players need to be ready for a lot of spotlight with characters that have a lot to offer and explore.  This is not the best place for casual players.
• Medium games (4 - 5 players) are best for GM-driven narrative.  These games are great because there's enough variety in your player and character bases that someone's always ready to move the story forward.  Players need to be willing to bite the plot hooks and not bog things down.
• Large games (6+ players) are best for drama between characters.  These games are great because you get to hang out with all your friends and rapidly develop a pool of shared stories.  GM time is the bottleneck in these games; players need to be ready to role-play among themselves without GM interaction and/or enjoy spectating other people's spotlight scenes.

 

To make your group of 9 more managable without turning people away, try some of these ideas:

 

• Recruit one of your nine players to be a GM, then split the group between the two of you.  This can be particularly good if you have a single venue that can host both games.  The last Pathfinder game I ran actually did this - every session we introduced two adventures and the players split themselves into two groups of four to tackle them.
• If noone else is comfortable GMing on their own, recruit a couple of them as assistants.  They can help you out by playing major NPCs, running enemies in combat, and running scenes when the party splits (which a large party inevitably will).  Having tried both, it's a LOT easier to run for 7 players with 2 assistants than it is to run for 9 players with no assistants.  This also gets your assistants some experience on the GM side of the table, which can help them be more comfortable with the idea of running their own games.
• Split your group up and divide your time.  If you have two nights per week to game (and can enjoy running two full games without burning yourself out), great.  Otherwise, you can alternate groups in a once-per-week timeslot.  In either case, you can occasionally run giant "cross-over" events with the whole group (preferably after building up in both games).
• Gear up and just run the big game.  It's a lot of work and will require patience from your players, but it can also be very rewarding when it works well.

 

A couple points to remember whichever approach you take:

• There's nothing inherently wrong with turning people away.  Sometimes its better to run a good game with half your friends than an over-crowded game with all of them.  There are a lot of factors that go into that decision besides game dynamics.
• As you add more players to a game, it becomes more important to make sure everyone is on the same page about what type of game they're signing up for.  Larger games restrict your ability to adapt the style of the game to cater to one or two players that aren't having fun.  In my experience, this is actually the hardest part of getting a large game working well.  People have trouble communicating honestly when they're worried that a "wrong" answer will get them excluded from something.
• Watch yourself for signs of burn-out.  Running large games (or multiple games) can get stressful, and you need to make sure you're having fun as well.

 

Good luck and happy gaming!

[Christopher]

I started off with nobody wanting to play. Then I had two, then three, then four, then six. Now I have nine people interested in playing. I'm a bit overwhelmed. I feel like a butt if I tell someone they can't play after I had asked them to (several said no initially but now want to). Is nine too many to handle?

This judgement is personal. But 9 is too much to handle for any human GM.

For me any players is too much - I simply lack any skill as GM.

 

4-5 is a common figure. However what might be more important is how many players can be missing without the session having to be canceled.

It is better to play a consistent good game for 4 then burn yourself out in one month of bad gaming for 9. But again: The exact figure depends on what you can maintain.

 

You just reached the point where you went in over your head. You have to accept that and move on. Just ask them, maybe somebody was already thinking about leaving anyway but did not ask yet?

[Sean Waters]

9 is fine.  Set them on each other and the game runs itself.

[Boll Weevil]

Tricky as your situation is, I am jealous of your problem. I have not played Champions on the tabletop since the 90's. My advice is to encourage 4-5 of them to move to Cincinnati. I will provide snacks. 

[bigdamnhero]

I'll occasionally run one-shots and convention games for 7-8 players. But for an ongoing home game, I think 5 or 6 is my max. (Our current gaming space only fist 6 of us, including the GM, so there's that.)

 

I'm secretly hoping someone will step up and GM so I can play too

Don't keep it a secret! Tell the other players "We're full now, sorry. I've thought about starting a second group but I don't have the time to write and run two campaigns. Would you be interested in GMing?" If nothing else, you've let them know you're serious about wanting to game with them and not just brushing them off.

[Anaximander]

The size would also depend on who is actually showing up.  If everyone are friends and team players who are careful not to step on each others toes, a large group might not be so bad, but I would want to use some sort of rule of order.  I wouldn't want to go full Robert's, but I would place a lot of importance on keeping things orderly, but for me, I would prefer 4-6 as optimal under most circumstances.

[Wardsman]

I started off with nobody wanting to play. Then I had two, then three, then four, then six. Now I have nine people interested in playing. I'm a bit overwhelmed. I feel like a butt if I tell someone they can't play after I had asked them to (several said no initially but now want to). Is nine too many to handle?

In hero I think speed would limit your game. 9 supers is different than heroics at a speed range of 2-4.

More players the lower the speed limit I would set. 

 

You didn't say what kind of game you were running.

 

With 4 to 5 players and 2 GM's, we found 3 weeks in one campaign then 3 weeks in another worked well.