Should my group break up?

[Henry]

Amber Benson: Did I do something bad?
Me: No, not at all!
Amber: Did you do something bad?
Me: Not yet!

Small sidetrack for Cor Azer: If you are still reading this, I'm dying to know the story behind this quote.

 

[scourger]

It's been my experience that game groups suffer a natural attrition. Our group had 7 members this time last year. Now, we have 5. We're all friends, some for many years. So, there is little desire to recruit new players. Plus, 2 of the 3 guys I considered for joining our group are moving away and the third has received a lukewarm reception at best.

So, my advice to you is to just wait and see what develops. Talking it out as suggested is a good thing to do, but I wouldn't make any hasty decisions if I were in your position.

 

[sparxmith]

Here is a thought I have been toying with let me know what everyone thinks.

Has anyone tried the concept of an assistant DM to help with combat and other technical issues that arise during the game that way the main DM can focus on the story. My optimal set up would have 2 assistants with the primary DM watching both battles to keep things running smoothly. It would also be useful with NPC interactions and when the party splits to check different areas.

Just a thought I have not tried it as of yet.

Actually, in my haste to write last night I forgot to mention that we've tried that. IMC, I have an Asst. DM who looks up all the rules, spells, durations, for me so that I'm not wasting time flipping pages. He also handles initiative. It does make the game run more smoothly, but I'm still dissatisfied.


Thanx for the input,

Sparxmith

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Don't let the game suffer so you can have all your friends there.

I'm of an opposite mind. To heck with the game if all your friends are there and you're having fun. Like Henry says, having fun is what's important.

Now if some of you are not having fun because the game isn't moving along as much as you'd like, then sure, consider splitting. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm currently in a 7+ man gaming group, where two of the players are very young (the sons of another player and the DM). So sometimes the game slows down. And while I might ordinarily prefer a more focused game, this one is more than enough fun each and every week. If the same can be said of your game, then don't worry about it. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[RogueRonin]

I was in a nearly identical situation about three years back. We had a really big group (10-12 players and 2 DMs) and things were getting too chaotic. We eventually decided that splitting up would be best, so the other DM and myself created a campaign in which the two groups worked independently towards roughly the same goal. We were lucky enough to have a large enough playing area to accommodate two separate groups at one time. The two groups crossed paths every once in a while, usually in role-playing situations rather than combat. It worked out pretty well for a while, but eventually the two groups went their separate ways. I still DM my half of the group to this day, and we are all still friends out of game. Your group seems perfectly suited to this because of the different playing styles. The only method we could think of to split our group was by the class that each player was running at the time, so we didn’t end up with three rogues and a bard or something. At any rate, I hope whatever you guys decide to do turns out well. The breaking up of a group isn’t the end of the world.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm of an opposite mind. To heck with the game if all your friends are there and you're having fun. Like Henry says, having fun is what's important.

I get a little fed up of this sort of thing, as it gets banded about perhaps a little too much. The game is just as important as seeing your friends, or why are you bothering?
If the game has become unweildy due to having 8 or 9 players, then you are not enjoying it and something needs to be done about it.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Be careful what you wish for.

It 1 point in time, I had a gaming group that consisted of well up to 10+ people. However, people grow up & apart, & the group pretty much fell to pieces (& continued to fall to pieces, after a few attempts to build things up again). Gaming for me has suffered severely since those days.

Ideally, I'd recommend finding a middle ground. Implement things that everyone can agree on (rules and setting-wise), and run the games that way. Also, if you switch genres (from fantasy to supers or sci-fi), why not see about switching game systems as well (or, at least use d20 with different in-game options/house rules). It's only been 6 months--time has a way to change people, attitudes, and opinions. It could be possible that the D&D-only crowd may tire of it, and want to play another game for a while.

As for established vs. homebrew, I'd say it'd be wise to see what likes/dislikes about these two. Also, do the ones who favor established settings all like the same established settings? Do they all like Greyhawk, for example, or do some like Greyhawk, some like Forgotten Realms more, one or 2 like Eberron, 1 person really likes Dark Sun or Planescape, etc? How strict to the canon do pro-established-setting players want to be? (Very close to canon in game & books? Not close at all? Use only stuff in the rulebooks but not in books/comics/computer games/etc.?) Along the same lines, to the ones who like homebrews like the same sort of homebrew, or are there differences there (low vs. high magic, cinematic vs. gritty, core rules vs. new supplements/unique creations, etc.)?

If the group stays together, I'd suggest going with a middle ground approach. Use a variant, "What If?" version of an established campaign setting; perhaps the world has become low-magic after a massive event, but with a few secret locales filled with high-magic areas (that aren't able to spread out & cover the rest of the world). Stick with D&D for this, but if the group tires of this game, switch to another genre using another system.

Hope this helps some (if any).

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I run a group with 8 players. I understand the frustration with slow combat etc. I do not think forcing the group to split up over some of the differences you mentioned is a good idea - as long as you can find a way to keep everyone having fun. If some people want to play other game types, then see if you can get eveyone to agree on a certain amount of time on one system, then switch to another for a while. If some people have no interest in a certain system and want to skip for a while, be sure to keep in contact so they can return as soon as you switch to something they like. I think the friendships are more important, but I would also have to say, don't let one person hold the group hostage just to keep everyone playing.

How often do you manage to play? I know getting a group that large together can be a schedule nightmare.

 

[TwilightWhisper]

Id most definately say no. The reason behind this is that (for me at least) friends make the campaign MUCH more enjoyable, even if you dont like whats going on, whether it be high/low magic or home brew. Friends make the game IMHO

I agree. Given the fact that you guys are such good friends (depending on the size of the place where you guys play) run two seperate campaigns at the same place. This can also be fairly interesting considering that you guys can have occasional crossovers, which can be used to thicken plots. This would require the two DM's to occasionally work together (perhaps even in a joint campaign, allowing the DM who is wanting to use his homebrew as a staging point for planes hopping, add-ons for modules, or even as two seperate teams trying to complete the same goal). This is a concept that I have wanted to use for quite awhile. Whatever your decision is, I wish you luck and remember to always part with your friends on good terms (if that be the case).

 

[maddman75]

Personally I'd split the group up. If you can find the time, preferably into three. One into low magic/gritty, one into standard/high magic (one of those two the homebrew) and a third for other games. Don't have the assumption that you guys are going to stop being friends or whatnot, with three groups most people could play in two of them. That would be the best option IMO. Keep the comradre, but everyone gets to play the kind of game they prefer.

That assumes though that everyone has time for more gaming.