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

[rvalle]

Our DM had the same problem. He only wanted to run for 6 players at a time but we had 8-9 players.

Since not everyone could show up each week he kept track of who did make it. If a week came along that had more then 6 players the person that had played the least got the chair.

I don't remember how we picked players to start. First come, first chair or just let people know there were too many and one would bow out maybe.

rv

 

[Crothian]

Have a lottery. Players can buy as many tickets as they want, money goes to new books or minis or whatever for the group.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Here's a way that might seem kind of arbitrary and expensive, but it'd solve your problem nonetheless.

Take all of your prospective gamers up in a helicopter. Fly the helicopter out over the ocean, over a lake, or some other relatively large body of water. Tie each one to a rock. Put a blindfold on yourself. Push each player out of the helicopter. Remove the blindfold and jump into the water after them. Whicever ones you manage to save get to be your players. Those you don't save... well... best not to think about it too much.

or... you could make a simulacrum of yourself... Of course, he'd only be half as good at DMing...

Later
silver

 

[deltadave]

How about asking one of them to take up DM duties in addition to you?

 

[Nyaricus]

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?

Actually, this occured to me last yeah. In the end I decided on the following system, which you proposed:

- 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.

Do you know what's actually the nice thing about this? In the end, it's not about which of your friends/fellow gamers are least liked and who don't get to show up, but in fact who's most liked out of the group. There shouldn't be hard feelings in this, because everyone who going to show up are going to be the ones which the majority agree wiht deserve to be playing. It's a group agreeance, determined by majority.

I beleive you should do the following, with the above in mind. Have those two spots open to those two players who you promised would get a spot. Then, have a vote on who gets to fill the other 3 or 4 seats at your table.

So, you have 8 players, and each person should make a list numbered 1 to 7 on who they'd like to see be at the table with them. Top 3 or 4 people get to show up, the rest will get a chance next game.

Stuff like this is tough; in the end, it is going to be on the DMs shoulders (which sucks) but the system above (which your players and I have proposed) is likely the most democratic way of doing things.

Hope that helps, and good luck

cheers,
--N

 

[Set]

Having one of them co-GM and run some NPCs or handle certain aspects for you (looking up rules to deal with player questions, confirming what a spell or monster ability does, etc) sounds like a good idea. The 'player' gets to play an assortment of character types, which a diehard roleplayer may well enjoy *more* than playing a single character of their own.

Further, you can have them design a character, and just artificially advance it along with the party, so that if that player does end up rotating into an open player seat, their character is 'all caught up' and ready to join the action, and not penalized for doing the co-GM thing. (Ideally, said NPC already would exist in-game and be known to the party, but have specific story-reasons for not being able to adventure with the party, allowing a built-in rationale for the new party-member joining up. Perhaps the character is part of a competing group that ends up dying do some event that the player group ends up being pulled into when the 'last survivor' comes to ask their help avenging his own 'party.')

In my experience, having someone to 'sanity check' encounters and scenarios is always a good thing, since sometimes an idea that sounded really obvious in my head is completely ludicrous to my players and they will never think of, or vice-versa, my 'so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel' plan will turn out to be utterly transparent to a five-year old...


The other option is to blindfold them and give them wooden boards with nails in them. Those who survive get to play. Sort of d20 Darwinism.

 

[arscott]

Some random observations:

-have you considered running a table of 8 players. In my experience, running a large table is more exhausting, but it's also less actual work--more players means more time spent in discussion with the rest of the party (which is pretty much break time for the GM), and more characters means combats and the like take longer (which means you have less planning to do before each session).

-I run a game with seven players, but usually at least one person can't make it. Since I let their characters advance even when they're not present, there's no special encouragement to show up for every session, and the table remains fairly manageable. If you think that one or two players might be absent each session, this is the way to go.

-If that's not going to work, then consider a more scheduled approach. Just have each character sit out an adventure every so often.

-If you wan't these people to stay friends, then the survivor option is a bad idea. Because whoever loses is basically getting told "Sorry, we don't like to play with you". That's gonna cause a lot of resentment (and probably a bit of guilt among the winners).

-Jekell and Hyde is an even worse Idea than survivor. My friend was in a Con Game where this happened, and it worked out horribly. If something is enough to wreck a four hour con game, it's definately got to be avoided for a long-term campaign.

-What about some sort of tryout opportunity? Have each player make a character complete with game stats, background, and whatever else you feel is important. Then pick the six characters that you feel best fit with the tone and theme of the campaign.

 

[wedgeski]

Oh no! I've got too many players for my game! My wallet's too small for my fifties, and my diamond shoes are too tight!



Honestly I think this is what we would call a 'high class problem' but I do sympathise. I'm not comfortable with the whole secret ballot thing. That just feels wrong. In turn I think you've hit on the *only* thing that will do the job and not put you in the difficult position of having to choose between your friends, which is to let them do the choosing for you. And I wouldn't accept the "We've decided you should choose!" option either. That would be a cop-out on their part. This has to be something decided between themselves.

And respect to you for running a game of D&D which people are legitimately fighting for a place in.

 

[Gold Roger]

That's a tough one.

When I had the same problem, I was lucky that one of the people wanted to try his hands at DMing anyway, so we simply split.

I know how much your games rely on consistency, which makes most solution not really good.

I think a reserve system, where two players are on the waiting list in case someone dies or has to drop out. The problem is who should those two are. If we say those that didn't get to game for a longer time now (the two on the waiting list and Jeremies player) have a sure place, we have half your group.

My suggestion is to wait for now. It's still some months till January. In that time things may happen and one or two more may very well have to bow out/have a change in schedule.

 

[delericho]

Start with 8 PCs. The first two to die are then out of the game.

For added fun, insist everyone name their characters "Black Leaf"

Seriously, I would consider carefully whether I couldn't manage to run the game with 8 players. Because otherwise, you're stuck looking for the least-bad way to cut the group down. If it's absolutely not possible, then I would recommend putting the names into a hat and having a blind draw for the available slots. That's probably the best way to avoid hard feelings.