GMing for large groups

9 is way, way too fucking many.

For me, 4 players is the sweetspot, 5 is tolerable, 6 is a stretch. Anything more than that is an impossible clusterfuck where it's impossible to really give individual PCs any focus or attention.

>>52043402
Feels bad man, dont want to let everyone down and start kicking people out. But with 9 people i know some of them will be let down anyway, even though this is what the players wanted. You have any tips?

>>52043467
Play with 4 one week and 5 the other.

>>52043489
Splitting the group isnt an option here unfortunately

>>52043502
Yes, it is.
Unless the 9 are a gang and threatened to kill you and your family. Then I'd accept it's not an option.

>>52043517
We are just busy people, we only really all have time for one session a week. Sure i could just start kicking people out but thats not something i really want to start doing with my mates.

>>52043569
The solution is simple. Ask for a second DM from your group of nine, and get started with 2 GMs running 2 groups of 4. Hell, you could even help the other guy and run in the same setting, and even have a few mashup sessions.

>>52043385
I once attempted to run a game for 10 people that knew nothing of the game. They all insisted on making their own character rather than having premades ready to go, it took hours, the game quickly petered out, and by the end everyone was just playing guitar hero or looking at their phone. Everyone is gonna have a boring experience and may even put them off playing rpgs in the future.

>>52043569
Actually glue the party together so they don't split and be prepared for actual hours for a single combat encounter. Divide everything's CR by half at the very least for all the actions against it.

>>52043612
We've all been playing for a little while and i dont think that it will put any of us off hopefully. I DMed a group of 6 last week and they loved it and apparwntly i did a good job. Did you find it just hard to dm in general for that many people or was it just a case of turns taking too long and loss of interest?

Have them all play ettins. That way you only have 5 characters to deal with.

File: 1486580012851.jpg (215KB, 1280x880px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1280x880px

>>52043622
Cheers bro, actual solid advice that i will definitely use. Splitting up shouldnt be a problem, they scare easy and a bad experiance in a previous game has caused a general dislike of that tactic in this group.

If you are forced to stick with 9 players, my advice from having run oversized groups in the past is that any subtlety is out the window, treat the party like a steamroller driven by a toddler when planning anything around them.

File: C6IbXmfUYAAA2w3.jpg (57KB, 510x680px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 510x680px

>>52043660
Fucking glorious. Unfortunately a little late for that incredible idea but I promise i will actually do that for the next campaign

>>52043402
It depends on the circumstances, but for a standard game, 4 players is probably best, followed by 3. I find 5 players to be doable, but a bit frustrating; it takes too long to go around the table, and people seem to be twice as distractable as when there are 4 players.

I would not, under ordinary circumstances, choose to play with 6 people. I could run a very light system, with the adventure, itself, taking into account the numbers of players, but I wouldn't just drop 6 players into a regular game. Fuck 7 players.

As far as 2 players, or even 1, with the right people and the right style of game mastering, it's perfectly doable, and some of the most fun I've had has been with this few people. But it's really important that you have a good dynamic. But for a regular game, I find the ideal range to be 3-4 players.

>>52043385
>running a 5e campaign for 9 people on wednesday.
I don't see how that could possibly be anything but really fucking irritating. I swore I'd never run a game for 7 players again.

>>52043385
There are 2 problems with big groups:
1) Spotlight. If you don't want players to wait for an hour for their opportunity to act, you have to suffice with minimal amount of roleplaying (less dialogues and descriptions, more rolling dice). Ask players "What does your character want to accomplish" and resolve it in one roll instead of processing their actions step by step.
2) Remembering PCs and their quirks. It's easy to forget some important detail of some character when having 5+ of them. Make a cheat sheet "Player /PC name/PC description in one sentence/PC portrait". You can also use it for keeping track of whose turn to act it is outside of battle.

>>52043789
>I don't see how that could possibly be anything but really fucking irritating. I swore I'd never run a game for 7 players again.
To follow up on this, however, since it's obviously something you're going to do...

Is getting somebody to help you DM an option? They could run the monsters, if nothing else.

Regardless, I'd definitely recruit a "caller". Old school D&D encouraged the use of a caller, who would basically act as an intemediary between the DM and the players. The players would tell the caller what they were doing, and the caller would tell the DM. So essentially, the caller organized the chaos of large groups of people so that the DM didn't need to deal with it. Now, you wouldn't have to go strictly by it, but having a player who was tasked with making sure the other players all had their ducks in a row could be very helpful. And if you trust him, maybe he could even oversee some of the rolls the players made, when you were doing other things and it wasn't vital that you be involved.

>>52043789
>I don't see how that could possibly be anything but really fucking irritating.

Unfortunately this is what my my players and I dont think they seem to understand that having to wait upwards of 15 minutes for a turn in combat is a very real possibility

>>52043827
>If you don't want players to wait for an hour for their opportunity to act, you have to suffice with minimal amount of roleplaying
I'd add to that the fact that you don't want to linger on any player's turn. So I'd implement some sort of "speak quickly or your turn gets skipped/delayed". With that many people, you don't have time to wait while somebody ponders his options. They should know what they want to do by the time their turn comes.

Oh, and you might want to do team initiative. All of one side goes, then all of the other. The players can go in whatever order they want... primarily in the order in which they're ready to go (speak first; act first). That'll definitely save some time.

>>52043385
Talk them in to playing 2e instead. It was made for larger groups and runs more smoothly without the more advanced tactical considerations of the later games, like squares and AoO's and shit.

>>52043886
Never thought of that before, ill definitely consider it. Got quite a few trusty players in the group thankfully

>>52043908

>Upwards of 15 minutes

With a 9 person group, more like half an hour, if not an hour.

>>52043827
>) Remembering PCs and their quirks. It's easy to forget some important detail of some character when having 5+ of them. Make a cheat sheet "Player /PC name/PC description in one sentence/PC portrait". You can also use it for keeping track of whose turn to act it is outside of battle.
Thanks bro, thats some good advice. Im spending so much time trying to balance everything else and adjust shit that i would totally have forgotten something like that

>>52043949
Thats probably alot more realistic. I was just trying to be hopeful

>>52043908
All the normal goblins (or whatever) in a fight (barring a leader or something) have the exact same number of hit points and, of course, AC. This standardization means that everybody knows what they're dealing with, and they can do more on their own without as much oversight from you (particularly if you have another player who can oversee things and "validate" rolls and such).

If you wanted to make hit points more manageable, you could do them in groups of 5. Everybody does +2 damage, and you divide the damage inflicted by 5, rounding down. That's how many of these groups... let's call them "wounds"... are inflicted. This means that sometimes, if you roll low, you won't do any measurable damage, but overall, things will average out to the same amount of damage inflicted. And instead of having to deal with 20 separate hit points for 8 different monsters with one at 18, another at 17, another at 15 and so forth, it's just 4 wounds for each monster, with any hit either being a significant chunk or not worth recording. You could even use poker chips to signify them.

>>52043945
In fact, when a combat breaks up into different pockets of people fighting (or *could* break up into different pockets of people fighting), you could assign one pocket to be run by your helper, while you run another. It doesn't even really matter if you exactly coordinate time with each other, going the same number of rounds, etc.

Simplify initiative. Use old-school D&D "each side rolls a d6. Highest side goes first" and go around the table to have everyone declare actions. Don't Molly coddle them, throw big encounters at them, there are plenty of people to help injured people out. Have them move in a group, typically with one person declaring major room changes and such. And in general, once per room, go around the table and ask each person if they want to do anything, leave it down to a single action or one ability check before moving on to the next page. Anybody whose not paying atension? Wake them up with a surprise critical hit or unexpected surprise round attack.

File: thegang.png (337KB, 1644x851px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1644x851px

>>52043385

In the same boat. I did a campaign with 8 players for 5e and about to restart it this Saturday (same homebrew world, but different area and characters)

A trick I discovered is to make individual problems but with group solutions.
>fire sorceress' pet pseudodragon gets killed
>make it clear that resurrection might be possible if they go to the feywilds, but there are rumours of increasing dangers there
>tie in main plot with the fey warlock's personal quest peppered in

Make stuff group activities but important to individuals within the group. Rotate individuals focused on. Tie-in to main quest.

Oh and improv the fuck out of everything and abandon all hope for a always serious campaign. There's always at least one goofball. Have a "paintball"/"beach" quest on hand to lay off the pressure.

Also, I abuse of short rests and long rests as real-life "pauses" so people can grab beer and cigs and stretch their legs. Absolute life-safer.

(People tend to drop out anyway, my group ended up being 5 regulars and 3 reoccurring cast)

Pic related. The "regulars".

>>52043385
With a group of that size and busy schedules, have you considered doing a West Marches game?
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/

Good luck OP, I've DMd for 5 before with out much difficulty.
I would caution you about putting too much time and effort into writing the story around back stories.
Can't tell you how many times I've written a specific plot point for a PC and have them miss that session.
Expect to be frustrated by people on their phones not paying attention.
Don't be afraid to grab back a hold of the reigns when shit inevitably get out of control

Be prepared, print out your stuff so you never touch a rulebook. make someone else look up
rules when there is a question.
Make a ruling on a thing and say you will review it after the game and do it differently next time if you were wrong.
I have run 10 people, it worked, but was way too much work for me. 4 is great, 5 is ok, 6 tops.
Cap a new game at 5, and only allow a great player to be Number 6.

#1 Ban electronics from the table. allow reference pdfs if you must, and a drawing tablet is ok.
the flaky butterflies will leave, or they will actually pay attention.

# 2 Ban Electronics.

>>52043385
Don't do it faggot.

You don't have to say yes to every cunt that wants to join your game.

>>52044024
If all 9 players and you are experienced in 5e and are paying attention, along with a battle map to move people around, a round of combat can probably take 15 minutes.

Realistically you're looking at at least a half hour a round.

I've been DMing for a group of teenagers at a local library, and I've teamed up with the other DM on occasion for large group combat, and it took us an hour to do two rounds of combat against one big for that had Legendary Actions before they killed it, and we ran over our expected end time by a good 10-15 minutes.

File: 20170228_211855.jpg (3MB, 4608x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x2592px

>>52050760
OP here, yeah we are domewhat experianced and generally we just worked with theatre of the mind style combat. However i made this to help us. Whiteboard and grid tape so im hoping this well keep combat clean and organised

>>52047231
I'm setting up a WoD living world if anyones up for it.
Just finishing place and plot writeups, maps to upload and such and so forth.

https://deepharbour.obsidianportal.com/

>>52043385
Biggest group I've ever GMed for was 8. I never want to go through that again.
If you have really good players, a large group is fine. But nobody has good enough players for 9 unless you are named Matt Mercer and have professionals to play with.

>>52052458
Were your players in 8 player campaign pretty good or was just a shit show from day 1?