[Problem] Too Many Players: Who Gets to Play?

[el-remmen]

I hope those of you you have the opposite problem I am about to describe don't hate me too much and consider that a surfeit can be as bad a lack.

Here is the story:

My "Out of the Frying Pan" campaign (see sig) had six solid players, but about three years into it we lost three players to moves out of town, and in time we went back up to five with some late replacements.

Somewhere in that time my friend Sean started up another Aquerra campaign, which had some overlapping players, but a couple of different ones, too - but unfortunately, between work, marriage and a new child he could not continue to run the game, so it fell by the wayside, but our pool of players got larger.

When OOTFP campaign ended in January of 2006, I announced I was going take a break of up to six months to decompress and prepare a new campaign, and that campaign would be running Mutants & Masterminds - though I never had the intention to run it as long as our typical D&D campaigns (3 to 5 years). I also announced, that I did not want to run M&M for more than 5 people (aside from me), as I was not as familiar with the rules, and also wanted to try to emphasize the personal life side of comic book superheroes as the fighting action - which would be easier with fewer players.

At that point we had 8 possible players, 5 from "Out of the Frying Pan" and 3 from Sean's game (including Sean himself). One of these players was immediately eliminated when he declared that he did not have the attention span for gaming anymore, and bowed out before it ever became an issue. That left 2 extra players. I was stressing about choosing, and so I asked for volunteers to bow out - and two came forward. As reward for unselfishness, I promised these two players a reserved spot in my next campaign, which would definitely be D&D. At the time of their volunteering they did not know they would be getting a guaranteed spot in the next game, nor did they know for sure how long M&M would last.

Well, the M&M game never really took off the way I expected for myself. The players are having fun, and I am having some fun - but my heart began to yearn for D&D once more - especially since I started doing some hardcore homebrewing for Aquerra again (see wiki link in sig). I announced that I would continue to run M&M every other week as I continued to prepare for what has become known as "The Second Son of Second Son" campaign, but that the new campaign would likely be starting some time this coming January.

However, once again we have a pool of eight players (as one of the ones that moved away will be returning before this game gets underway and has not gotten a chance to game since playing Jeremy Northrop in the OOTFP game) and I really don't want to run for more than 6.

Five or six are the perfect numbers for me. Seven is a stretch and for any prolonged period of time grows tiring, and eight is right out.

So again, we are in a position where two players have to bow out (while two have reserved spots).

In attempt to take the onus of choosing from me, the players have decided to see if they can hammer out among themselves an equitable means of figuring out who gets to play. And so there has been a long string of emails about the issue.

So, assuming that everything else is equal, you like all the players and you're all friends and scheduling is open to everyone, how would you go about deciding who plays and who doesn't? Also assume that either no one else wants to run a game and/or that all the players would rather be in a game I run than in someone else's.

Some of the suggestions that have come up:

- The suggestion that I run two groups of four on alternate fortnights (meaning each group plays one a month) was thrown onto the table, but I think that would nearly double my work (even if it doesn't double the sessions) and no one seemed crazy about playing half as often.

- A round-robin type game where if someone's PC dies, they are replaced by another player from outside the game. The two "reserved" players would be exempt from this for a time equal to the length of the M&M game.

- Run for 8 people and have Sean act as a kind of co-DM to help smooth things along. The two of us considered this, but I think he is more excited about playing than running - and honestly, I am not sure a co-DM actually lessens any work.

- Survivor Style voting off the Island. Where each player lists his ideal make-up of the group in secret ballot and I tally the votes and come up with the group that way.

- A Roll-off!

- I, as DM, simply play the bad guy and make the choice (though the player discuss began in order to save me that onerous task).

So, in all my years on ENworld, I have seen lots of problems posted on the boards, but never this one. How would you handle it? What is your take on the suggestions? Do you have any others?

 

[Crothian]

How about a group of 8 that only 6 people show up to a week? Each advenbture two people sit out on and if you do a lot using message boards or e-mail ytou can have them ofdf doing other things that advancve the plots of the game. Each adventure though you have a different pair of people doing something else.

 

[Thurbane]

In my personal opinion, there is rarely such a thing as too many players. Back in the days of 1E, I was in a game that often involved up to 10 players.

I actually find the whole 3.X premise of 4 characters being the "ideal" number a little odd.

Having said that, if you find 8 players to be simply too many, you might want to consider a rotating roster, or perhaps 1 or 2 players might still play, but run NPCs and monsters in battles to help lift the DM load...

 

[Olaf the Stout]

That's a bit of a tough one. It's good that your in a position where you have so many people that want to play in your game. At least you know you must be doing something right as a GM. On the other hand, this is one of the situations where I normally go, "It sucks to be you!" and move on.

Since that generally very helpful I suppose I had better suggest something a little more constructive. Firstly are you friends with any of the players outside of the game? All of them or are some gaming only acquaintances? If some of them are people that you only know through gaming then you could say to them, "Sorry, but if I have to choose between gaming with you or my friends then they win out. I can give you a call if someone drops out though." Not exactly fun to do but you may not have a choice.

I know that this may be a similar solution to the first one that you proposed but you could run 2 games but stagger then apart more. i.e. you run one game for 3 months then switch to the other game with 2 players sitting out of one game and another 2 sitting out of the other. This may mean that the players could play in another game in the time that they are "sitting out" of yours.

I know that you specifically ruled against this one but what about if you asked if someone else to run a game. The players could even rotate GM's if you want. Not the ideal answer but you may not be able to find one.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We're running with 9 right now, but I can understand that it may simply be too much at a given time...

Some thinking out of the box:

Introduce a new kind of Gestalt PC: PCs that can't share the same space...when one exists, another is shunted into an alternate dimension to cool his heels. Think of the original Captain Marvel and Rick Jones (from Marvel Comics) or DC's Firestorm. Yes, I know those are superheroes, but there's no reason it can't work for a FRPG- in effect, its also what happens with the Incredible Hulk and the character that inspired him...Dr. Jeckyl & Mr. Hyde.

In a similar vein, introduce PCs with split personalities. 2 players share a PC, but each player plays him their own way. If you want, the switch could even occur in session at random, so one instant, you have a guy playing a Barbarian wading into battle...and the next, you have a Sorcerer trying to escape it! Advantage: Everyone gets to show up with a chance to play...and truly nutty situations could arise.

Combine the Co-DM concept with the alternating groups concept. Split the group, with each DM running a seperate group within the same campaign world. This could be done in such a way as to lead to head-to-head conflict between the 2 parties if/when they meet, or run tournament style, with each party trying to accumulate victory points.

Set a party size, and choose the players at random. Those not chosen to play PCs get assigned a number, and get to assist the DM and play key NPCs...until the PCs die. Then the person with the number 1 gets to fill the first vacancy, the person with the number 2 gets to fill the second vacancy, etc., while the owners of the D(eceased)PCs become NPC players. In this style of campaign, "raising" should be kept to a minimum.

 

[el-remmen]

I should probably say that as those who read my story hour know, I run a very detail-oriented little "down-time" type game, where it is uncommon for time to be sped up more than a day or three at a time, and it can take four to eight sessions to finish one "adventure", and this is the style every one of these players likes - so solutions with multiple characters being switched up regularly probably won't work.

As for suggestions with people sticking around to play NPCs and monsters, I don't think anyone would find that fun for too long, and having more people there than we need always seems like more of a distraction than a help.

As for friendship, they are are all "friends" I met through gaming, some are also among my oldest friends from back in the day, or ex-college housemates, and others are more recent friends, but still people I have known for three or four years, and five or six in other cases.

I guess it would be possible to choose by "oldest friends first" - but I think the players are keen on finding their own solution, even if that solution is ultimately that *I* decide.

 

[DarkKestral]

Why not go the route of "he/she who asked to play and made a confirmed commitment to me first gets to play?" One of the advantages of that route is that in most cases, it won't slight good friends, as it's relatively impartial. It also takes some onus off of you, and gives it back to the players. It also follows from the idea that the two guys who showed interest but bowed out got reserved spots somewhat easily.

 

[Len]

I guess it would be possible to choose by "oldest friends first"

I recommend ranking the players in this order and going down the list until the table is full:
1. Stewardesses.
2. People who have paid substantial bribes.
3. People you like, most to least.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Crothian's suggestion sounds best to me. Think of it like a TV show with a large main cast - not every character is in every episode (session or adventure), but they all get a roughly equal share of time. Since you like a detail-oriented campaign this might even be easier for you to pull off.

Throw in some "extracircular" get togethers over something like Descent or Runebound, possibly hosted by one of the other players, and you even get the full social effect too.

 

[Stormborn]

Contest of champions: one session, preferablly and extended one, have the players put through the paces in the form of a PC contest. Start with two teams of four and present them with a challange. At the end of each contest the players fill out a very small poll about how they felt each other player contributed to the final outcome. Points are awarded. Shuffle the players next round until in the end everyone has played at least once with everyone else. Determine who performed "best" and they get a slot then go down from there until you get to about six players. The other two are alternates who get to play when one of the starting PCs dies, no ressurections.

Or have players come up with PCs that fit the four traditional party roles and let people decide who fills what role best through play testing a few encounters in manner similar to the above. The best four get slots. Those four then get to rank the other four as "best additions to the party" The best two get slots, the other two are alternates for the future.

All of which is very subjective. Probablly the thing that would be easiest is for you to determine a campaign arc or prolonged adventure of six to eight sessions. Roll d20s at the same time and in the same place with everyone watching, best six get to play that arc. Next arc do it again. No one can complain of any favoritism or unfairness, and they know that they will likely get to play again in a few weeks or months.