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

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Run the game with seven players and enlist one as co-GM.

 

[D'karr]

It's time for Thunderdome.

8 players enter... 6 players leave...

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think the "ensemble cast" option is the best. You get to manage no more than 6 players, and nobody gets left out. Rotate characters in and out. I know that it hurts continuity a bit, but which is more important? Having happy friends or preserving continuity of your world?

I am impressed that the players have taken it upon themselves to try and make the decision. That's admirable, and I'm guessing all 8 are a good group of folks and in the end will understand whatever decision you make.

If it helps, I'd really like to play in your game! But, I realize you have too many players, so I'll voluntarily bow out. Do I get a cookie?

 

[Ulrik]

-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.

I like this option a lot. It also allows you to mold the party, at least in some ways, to the campaign.

If the characters are submitted anonymously, it should prevent any hard feelings.

 

[bento]

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.

I built an RPG/DMing system for a local university gaming group this way. Every time the group gets too big (for me anything more than six), I get one of the players to start DMing that group. So far we now have three groups (16 players) adventuring in the same area. Eventually we may bring the parties together for a big all-day event.

To those of you poo-pooing about too many players, yes, there is such a thing. As a DM you want to make sure everyone gets a chance to shine, and too many players interferes with everyone's enjoyment. Why not split the group and up the fun!

 

[Emirikol]

We keep 7 player roster in our group. I've never seen a date where everyone has all shown up. Having too many is better than having too few.

jh

 

[el-remmen]

We keep 7 player roster in our group. I've never seen a date where everyone has all shown up. Having too many is better than having too few.

jh

Yeah, i am not down with that, personally.

I'd rather have 4 that show up consistantly than 6 where one or two are frequently missing. In fact, we have a standing rule that if two can't make it, we cancel the game - and during crucial events if even one can't make it we cancel/re-schedule (assuming we know about it in advance).

 

[monboesen]

I'd rather have 4 that show up consistantly than 6 where one or two are frequently missing. In fact, we have a standing rule that if two can't make it, we cancel the game - and during crucial events if even one can't make it we cancel/re-schedule (assuming we know about it in advance).

In that case why not choose the six who are most consistent in showing up?

That leads to the fewest cancelled game nights (always frustrating) and should be a point that the two who don't get to play can understand and accept without to much hassle.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I'm not a fan of kicking people out based on some quasi-competitive mechanism. I don't know the social dynamics of your group (and it's not clear from your post how many of your prospective players are casual acquaintances or friends), but I know that if I were in your place, I'd prefer to keep things inclusive. It is a game, after all!

My suggestion would be that if any of your prospective players are casual acquaintances or pick-up players, you say that the group's too big and limit it to just close friends. That's something that people can understand pretty well.

OTOH, if your group doesn't break down quite that way, I'd go with the following methods in order of preference:

1) Anyone else want to run a game? Rather than you running two groups of four each, see if there's another DM in the area who might like to run a game. Then you spin off 4 players to him and keep 4 yourself. Everyone's happy, and you can game just as often.

2) Reward consistency. If there are players with a poor record of showing up, those guys don't get to play in this round. Explain that it's not a slam against them, but that you'd rather run a group of 6 all of who show up than a rotating bunch of 4-8 players.

3) Large group + co-DM. While it's clear that you've got serious DM-ing experience, I have to say that you may be underestimating the time benefit of having a co-DM. I've done it before for large groups (8-12), and it works great. IMX, narration and campaign structure are not tasks that vary in difficulty with the size of the group; running combats and NPC interactions (uses of "processing power," as Dave Noonan put it a while back), are. A co-DM takes care of this stuff right quick. It does sound like your friend Sean may not want to do this; otherwise, I'd suggest this one as Option #1.

 

[el-remmen]

Well, thanks everyone for your suggestions. . .

They went with the Survivor-style vote, choosing alternates as well to take open spots, should they become available.

The votes have been cast and those involved have been notified. . . So we have ourselves a gaming group of 6.