Max Party Size, how many players can you handle? Options

[lordsah]

So, I'm currently running a game with four players, and history has shown that's a great number to work with. I think I've GM'd a Shadowrun game with as many as six without too many problems. I've run D&D campaigns with as many as 10, but that was too many folks to deal with for a productive game.

Point of the poll/question: I may be starting an SR campaign with seven players. I'm a bit worried that it'll be too many folks to juggle. However, this same group has been pulling off a great D&D campaign for two years now, and is pretty tight-knit. How often do Dumpshockers take on these big groups? Any advice for keeping combat flowing and smooth with that many people (I've found that SR combats are typically slower than D20)?

[Grey]

I prefer 4 players, but usually end up with 5 or 6. I've taken as many as 8, but that didn't last long.

[Ancient History]

Less than twelve; and that had damn well better be a cross-over game.

I prefer three-five.

[Wolfgang]

I prefer about 4 or 5 players, but lately I've been lucky to get 2-3 that are reliable (ah, the cost of adulthood). In D&D I have run very large groups, as large as 15, but they take a lot of work and preparation. Also, if you look at psychological and sociological studies on group dynamics when you have more than 7 people working/playing together they will tend to split into sub groups. If you are the game master and you have 7 players, no problem, 8 people, 2 groups. When you top 7 players I feel you have to keep this in mind, and plan your games with the awareness that your players are going to tend to split up on you one way or another.

[blakkie]

I find 5 a nice number. I find 4 is pushing it, lest someone misses a week. A party of 5 dropped to a party of 4 is a LOT less powerdrop to compensate for than 4 dropped to 3.

However if the players are used to it and have been doing well before, then... *shurg*

[lordsah]

[Kagetenshi]

Eight tends to be the cap I try for, though I've done more. It helps if you have a ringer, a player who's willing to help you out and act as a go-between.

~J

[Digital Heroin]

I prefer around 5 players, but I'll run with more... had an online idea recently which would allow up to 12, still entertaining that thought.

[lordsah]

[John Campbell]

I've found that, with more than five or six players, it's practically impossible to actually get the entire group together at any one time to play the game, anyway, so whether I can handle that many is pretty irrelevant.

[lordsah]

That's why this party is so cool. We all work together, and we get together early in the morning on Tuesday. We get 3 hours of gaming in every week. Everyone makes it every time, unless they are sick.

[The White Dwarf]

I voted 5-6. Ideally 4-6 is what I aim for, but Ive run successive games/campaigns with as many as 10 players and had it come off fine.

Key is to keep everyone involved. Dont spend a long time on one person roleplaying out huge things in a single go. Have someone call a contact, someone else start decking, someone else do astral recon, someone else do a driveby of the site to scope it out, another guy meets a contact etc etc etc.

If someone starts something involved like Decking, dont be afraid to tell them "ok, think about your next move for a sec" and hop to someone else. Dont let anything monopolize your attention.

And if you cant think at whirlwind speed dont even try it. Remember everyone else has less in character time, while you have the same only now it involves more variables.

Hope that helps.

[Dashifen]

I've got eight players right now and I think it's impossible. Firstly, it's hard for me to combat the ideas that eight people can come up with. Therefore, they often walk right through a loophole that I didn't concider and are often faced with litter or no actual oposition from me.

I've run with four and five and it's a much more managable number. I also find that the lower the number of people the less random conversations that crop up because usually all the people are necessary to the completion of the mission. With eight, I often have two or three people that aren't involved right at the moment and they're just having a conversation or doing homework, etc. which is a real hit to the immersion of the game.

Anyway, eight people is hard, more than that and you should split the groups and run bi-weekly or something.

[sidartha]

[ShadowGhost]

Being organized is the key to handling large numbers of players.

I'm currently writing a program for Mac OSX that will allow me to easily handle combat for large numbers of PCs and NPCs, including tracking damage, combat pool, karma, spell pool/defense etc, rolling surprise/initiative/perceiption for any and all NPCs at once, sorting characters by intiative, and calculating TN mods for skills and a few other things.

It'll also import/export NPCs data so I can add/subtract NPCs to even things out for the players.

At that point, large numbers of players won't be any problem.

[ShadowPhoenix]

I like a larger set of players, 6+ is my aim, but I usually end up with 5 or fewer :( mostly because people have obligations, but when you have a party of over 6, each with different skills you can get a really awesome mission performed. couple of gun-bunnies, a physad, a mage, a couple riggers and a decker and you got one hell of a party! especially when the party rallies and actually does some legwork/makes plans of attack, I seem to notice the more people involved in the plan, the better the plan turns out for my players :D

[Dax]

I've been able to handle 8 players relatively well. Pretty much when people start getting into side conversations, I tell them to take it onto Private Messages, so that we can keep the game moving on.

Keep in mind, since I do things on-line it may be a little bit biased.

[Sphynx]

The number of players doesn't matter. 9+ is easy as 4 or 6 for me. Our group has 8 and often a 9th shows up that we just throw in. The key is minimal combat/matrix/rigging and having blueprints, schematics, etc available so players can actually plan. Just, when it gets to combat, hafta make the rolls quick. No chart-looking or allowing players to 2nd guess your decision. ;)

Sphynx

[Firewall]

I can handle 3 or 4 comfortably but I am in a group that hovers at about 8. It is odd, we have a 50-50 split m/f - 3 couples and one of the singles is my little sister. When I started, it was 5m and 4f.

I also GM for a smaller (3 person) group on tuesday, which is much easier.

[Fahr]

I've run for my favorite size (5) and In a rotation on a much larger group (8-11)
the problems I had were keeping the story moving and stopping the prima-dona gamers from keeping the less vocal players in the spotlite.

If one guy wanted to do something alone, I wuld asign a reasonable player to run his at the same time, that way we could keep everything moving.

the subgroups do happen, and the best thing to do is to run with it. make them have to split up, than alternate between the two groups, so they have some planning time.

combat is not going to last long unless there are a lot of baddies, simply put, 8-11 PCs are gonna make short work of anything but an army, or a well laid trap, and they will survive the trap, but with some causulties.

you almost have to deal with them like they are a small army, and only give them jobs that a small army would get. no break and enter for 11 guys, that makes no sence unless the facility is really tight and they don't mind some noise...

it can be done, it can be fun, but smaller groupos are easier.

-Mike R.

[tete]

never more than 12 and only then if i have been running two groups and this is some kind of plot twist where the two meet. Personaly I like to start one on one with each player a few sessions so i can get a feel for how they see their character then slowly into the group an ideal group is from 3-6

[Blackpool]

I just started a game two weeks back with six...I could probably tolerate a seventh without much problem. Things went smooth with six, which is the most I've ever dealt with in any game system so I was surprised. We'll see how it goes this Sunday...

::goes back to planning the game he has to run on said Sunday::