More than 4 at the table...

[Lidgar]

It might help if you explained the problems you are experiencing with a group that size. Hard to help solve a problem which hasn't been revealed!

Thanks everyone for all the good suggestions and advise. Some of those elements we have been doing (like a weekend getaway of playing a couple of times a year), and others we may try. I should also note that we regularly rotate the DM duties every 6 - 10 sessions or so. I am one of about four regular DM's.

Rules fatigue seems to be the primary issue. This is a pretty tactical/min-max style group, but even for some of those "hardcore" tactical players, rules complexity is seeming to overtake the game table at times. I think we are all at a point where we want to go a little more rules light - but a system that allows some of the tactical elements.

I really appreciate however the tips provided above that are more system independent - such as rotating the spotlight on players. I think sometimes as DM's we (the group of 4) tended to get too encounter focused - what encounters make for interesting combats. Making sure you bring bring the story elements to a specific PC is good advice, and probably something we used to do more often in the 1e and 2e days. That or it's just nostalgia talking again...

 

[amerigoV]

Rules fatigue seems to be the primary issue. This is a pretty tactical/min-max style group, but even for some of those "hardcore" tactical players, rules complexity is seeming to overtake the game table at times. I think we are all at a point where we want to go a little more rules light - but a system that allows some of the tactical elements.

I'll second Savage Worlds. Read through this document about the development of the system. It hits the items you are talking about.

http://www.peginc.com/Downloads/SWEX/MakingofSW.pdf

SW is not really rules light, it is rules elegant. The system allows the GM to keep focused on the table and really keep things moving (for example, he is not wasting time subtracting 3 hp off miscellaneous skeleton #5 - the thing is either fighting, shaken, or out of the fight). There are plenty of tactical and build options for the players (thus not truly rules light). Also for the GM, it is just plain stupid easy to make enemies on the fly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you want a rules light system with quick combat. 1E or 2E (or even plain D&D) might be easier to manage (depending on what optional rules you use). I think with 7 players it is going to get bogged down a bit regardless.

My experience is combat is what really bogs things down. If you have 7 players you anything more than 2 rounds (IMO) is going to be kind of boring as everyone waits their turn to go. You could just have the GM design encounters so they aren't really meant to go beyond one or two rounds. You could also have fewer combats per session. Another possibility is to enforce a time limit on each person's turn. Things like deciding what spell to cast, or taking too much time to move and attack can really slow things down. Giving people just 10-20 seconds to announce their intentions during combat can speed things up a bit.

 

[Lidgar]

I think with 7 players it is going to get bogged down a bit regardless.

Yes, having 7-8 players means a lot of waiting between turns during combat. But I think we are OK with that - it is the price we are willing to pay to continue on in a large group.

I do think trying a more "rules-light" system might help - but again, just looking for suggestions on what other large groups have done to keep players engaged at the table. What RPG's you play, DM styles or tips, house rules, etc.

Based on our experience, many of the more popular RPG's (4e, Pathfinder) seem to target groups of 5 or 6 total (1 DM and 4 or 5 players). Not saying they don't work fine with larger groups in the hands of an experienced DM, just that they really shine with (relatively speaking) smaller groups. As an aside - has anyone seen any current RPG's that specifically target larger groups (say 8-9)?

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Larger groups can be problematic

In my experience, with every version 1-4 and all the various hybrids out there, is the larger the group, the less dominate players actually get less rp time than they would with a smaller group. The golden number I always shoot for is 5, 5 players. It always works out to be the magic number, the most awesome adventures, the greatest role play, the perfect mix of personalities and think power for issues they are facing. Less and the problem solving aspect starts to fall off, and more, even 1-2 more, things get bogged down.

Rounds of Combat: They get long, really long. You have their characters with their special abilities, spells, skills, rolls - you have the NPCs they are controlling, you have all of the NPCs, Monsters and other outside of the party control factors - it adds up, especially if we're talking 8+ players.

Role Play: The more dominant, extroverted and simply better players will still be just that, and they will command the majority of time from the DM, whereas the less apt, more intoverted and submissive player will quickly start to feel on the short end of the stick - even moreso in a bigger group. No one wants to simply cheer on someone else all the time, they to have a say and do something too.

Opinions are like....: I have found with a bigger group, there are more personailities, and it ALWAYS seems to end up with more inter-party conflict, the one thing I detest most in the campaigns I run. Differing opinions are normal, and should be a part of any role playing game, yet, when those differences of opinion between only a few of the players become the dominating factor for everyone else at the table - to the point that nothing else gets done during the entire gamin session... well, with a smaller group, less friction. Of course the DM should take actions to squash these conflicts when they become troublesome - to the point they adversely impact the enjoyment of everyone else present, yet, the perpetrators will vigorously argue they are "only playing their characters". I end these by introducing a few not so random, random encounters. After the third band of Dire Fiendish Fae-Touched Werebear Berserkers in a row, they start to get the message. Problem is, I don't like having to go to the Dire Fiendish Fae-Touched Werebear Berserkers at all.

 

[Jdvn1]

I think 4e is pretty easy with a group of that size (I've done 7-8 people before), but I'm guessing if you play Pathfinder, you probably don't want to play 4e.

Also, I've done World Tree RPG with 7, and even as much as... I think 10 or 12?

Based on experience, I think 4e is more amenable to large groups than World Tree RPG, but I'd say that how well the games work with large groups is at least partially a function of the efficacy of the GM and players.

I like the Gamma World idea--I can see that working well with a large group.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

7 players, 3 henchmen, an animal companion, a dog, and a hawk, and one dm. Biggest problem is there's never enough Pizza to go around. We play 1E.