New Campaign: New Players or Same Group

[DonTadow]

Should a group reform when a new campaign begins?

I have been designing a new campaign that will start in September and want to bring in three old friends who were in a similar campaign with me. This will bring the group # to 8, which is too many for me.

How do you decide who gets in the campaign? Should it be based on chemistry? Randomly? Who shows the most interest (all of them have showed considerable amount of interest in the new campaign) or seniority (which, for me, is not an option because the last player to join is awesome).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I game to hang with friends so I'd just let them all play, and if there were too many for the system I had in mind I'd change the system to something easier to run with that many players. If however you are gaming with people you only hang out with to game with I'd cut those who annoyed me the most.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Tricksy. I'm assuming that you get along well with all prospective players?

I'd probably start by inviting the existing group -- it's harder to ask someone to stop playing so someone else can play than telling someone who isn't playing that the current game is full. I'd describe the proposed campaign in as much detail as I could, and ask the existing group if they were interested. You might get lucky and have one or two for whom the new setting wasn't that appealing.

 

[el-remmen]

i had a similar problem.

Check this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178024

 

[DonTadow]

I game to hang with friends so I'd just let them all play, and if there were too many for the system I had in mind I'd change the system to something easier to run with that many players. If however you are gaming with people you only hang out with to game with I'd cut those who annoyed me the most.

Though i love hanging out with friends, My "DM style" does not support more than 6 players, else I'd be doing a disservice to the players.

Tricksy. I'm assuming that you get along well with all prospective players?

I like everyrone, but the actual question is does everyone in the current group like everyone else. The answer in short is no. However, over the last few months, a couple of players have expressed that one player drains the energy from the group with his metagaming. I tried to tame the problem, which i did, and kinda ignored it. But those players still complain. Things have worked though so it hasn't been a problem.

Recently though, I hate to say it but they are right. We ran a game without one of the players and it was the best game we've played in a long time. So in short, no the group doesn't have chemistry in its current state.

 

[iwatt]

I have been designing a new campaign that will start in September and want to bring in three old friends who were in a similar campaign with me. This will bring the group # to 8, which is too many for me.

Don:

cut the nightmare players in your group. You know, the ones that have you posting about your woes every 2 months

Seriously now, a good way to handle it is to give over the burden to them. Decide how many people you're willing to GM for and tell them to decide amongst themselves how to fill X slots.

 

[the Jester]

I like everyrone, but the actual question is does everyone in the current group like everyone else. The answer in short is no. However, over the last few months, a couple of players have expressed that one player drains the energy from the group with his metagaming. I tried to tame the problem, which i did, and kinda ignored it. But those players still complain. Things have worked though so it hasn't been a problem.

Recently though, I hate to say it but they are right. We ran a game without one of the players and it was the best game we've played in a long time. So in short, no the group doesn't have chemistry in its current state.

Well, sounds like you're down to seven.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I both envy and not envy you: Trying to figure out whether to turn down people and how to go about it is nasty business.

But having so many awesome players to begin with is enviable.

Nothing against the other guys in my group - in fact, I consider them my elite gaming group. It's the one group that's left when I left all others because they weren't worth it (or they dissolved), and the people in the group are the iron that is left after all the dross has been eliminated. They're enthusiastic, they're all great people to play with, they won't cancel a session on a whim, they fit my gaming style.

The only problem I have is that we are so few. It has its advantages, that's sure, but in one of our two games (where one of the players doesn't play because he wanted have some saturdays free for other things), we have to cancel the game whenever even one player can't make it.

I wouldn't want to decide (again) who to tell not to come again (the last time it was easy because the table being too crowded was the least of our issues with him so I was let off the hook last time), but another player would be both welcome and not too much for our Dungeon, or the DMs, to manage, and it would lend us some flexibility.



But back to your problem: It might not be a problem. Have you considered doing two different games, and splitting the group? You could leave the old group and do something else with the new (old) guys. You could try something else, too. Then, according to player tastes, you might get some cross attendance.

Other than that: Get a bigger table

 

[DonTadow]

Well, sounds like you're down to seven.

Yeah, I was going to post its really only seven. Actually, El, that thread you sent me to had some good ideas. I am really leaning towards Crothian's "survivor idea for everyone". I'll do a secret ballot, have everyone identify their top six people. I'll first do the real party and then do my three friends.