One day we woke up and found our gaming group to have eight people. Seven players is a bit large, so we decided to run with two GMs. (we rotate, round robin). This lowers the number of players, and also makes a large group easier to handle. But now, we added another player (former player returned to the group). Even with two GMs, combat took forever (forever + 1, compared to normal SR).

What we've been doing, is the primary GM runs things, and the secondary GM helps out with mundane tasks like dice rolling. I don't think this saves us enough time, and doesn't give the secondary enough to do. What I wanted to see (I haven't had my turn as GM yet), is have one GM oversee things, and the second GM play the opposition. Either NPCs, in roleplaying situations, or the bad guys, in combat. But even this only speeds things up a little. Combat becomes more efficient, but you still have to wait your turn to act. And we don't have just twice the number of PCs as some groups, we also have twice the number of opponents.

Now I'm thinking that we're going to have to break combat into two groups. Maybe divide the action by physical location, or by physical-versus-astral. Two groups, each doing their own battle, probably syncing at the end of each turn, in cae of overlap.

What do you think? Have you had this sort of problem, and do you have any suggestions?

To make it go faster have 2 players or npcs roll at once but have 1 Gm do 1 and the other 1, and do it like it where to seprate games. thats the best i got .

Do a lot more cinematic descriptions rather than dice rolling. If you know the player is going to hit then just describe the action rather than making them roll (use buying successes). Not every bullet has to be tracked. Miniatures may help just to keep track of everyone, the area, etc.

You can also just track the fact once an opponent is wounded and begins to get wound penalties they are down. Ignore wounds of less than 3P if the players cause more than 4P or greater or 6S or greater in a single attack the opponent is down. You do abstract armor by assuming every 3 points of armor and body automatically reduce the damage by 1. This applies only to the basic NPCs. Prime shadowrunners would be handled under the normal system.

Lets say the players have 12 dice in combat
their opponents have 5 armor and 4 body
Assume the players get 3 successes to hit
the opponents get 3 successes to defend against the damage
Heavy pistol with -1AP gives 5p damage the opponent goes down
If they use a submachine gun you get 5S which means the opponent stays up. It will encourage burst fire in this case to take the opponents down.

I've played in several groups of about 6-7 players (Though not in SR, under another system) and found that some ground rules really helped speed up the slower things like combat:
1. Don't leave the table. If you leave and you're character needs to do something, he'll suddenly have a brain fart and just stand there doing nothing.
2. Plan what you are going to do in advance. When your turn comes up, you should have the dice you need to roll in hand, ready to take a few off if the GM applies modifiers you didn't account for (A good idea is to say "I'm doing X, which is my normal DP of Y minus 1 for this and minus 2 for that." and when the GM says "Okay, sounds good." you roll.) If players feel they are being pressured to act too quickly, remind them that their characters only have fractions of a second to make all these tactical decisions.
3. Idle chatter should be kept to a minimum. This one can be hard to deal with, as the odd topics that you get onto while playing a game are half the fun. If there is idle chatter, make sure to keep it quiet so as not to disrupt the others or be hard to hear over, and keep your mind on the game so that you don't break rule 2 because you missed the fact that Sam got killed or everyone else retreated.

Edit: 2 tends to be the biggest time sink (Aided and abetted by 3 and slightly by 1 as people come back in time for their turn, but have no idea what happened while they were gone), and so I've had my larger group actually go to a stop-watch time limit on turns. Oh, and amendment to rule 2: Know the rules for what you are going to do in advance. The game truly comes to a halt when the person who's turn it is waits until it is their turn (Having just sat around doing nothing for 10 minutes) to open up the book and start looking for the rules on wrestling someone and choking them.

Personally I don't think the secondary GM thing tends to work out all that well, because the advantage of two GMs is theoretically that they can both be doing something at the same time, but when you have two GMs, only one tends to be actually doing anything at a time (The group can't be listening to two people at once after all). What usually happens is simply that GM1 tells GM2 to do something, then GM1 watches GM2 do that something, and so in the end all you really get is wasted time while GM1 tells GM2 to do something.

Multiple simultaneous objectives. Divide the party and have a GM handle each group. Bring both groups together sometimes, and trade out players to build a team effective for each part of the mission, but in general, don't keep all 8 guys in the same place. All that overlap and there'll be more than just a slowdown, there'll be Ego Friction.

One good play is to have your action guys work a distraction and extraction side of things while the other more meticulous set of guys moves in on the primary objective under the previous team's cover.

But, you can totally work this with 2 GMs. And having GM on GM NPC interaction adds flavor to your games.

I'm at 6 in the saturday group I GM. My biggest challenge is when I need to focus on one PC (the Technomancer or one of the mages). If you take to long when dealing with them you may end up with Karoline mentioned. The key is to keep people engaged. Remember every PC has a commlink, so talking amongst each other sould be encouraged.

That's a big group. I've been thinking about taking a poll here to see how large the average Shadowrun group is. It's odd. I've run D&D (2nd Edition, Dark Sun) table with 8 players and it made perfect sense. Yeah, the average combat round took a while... but we were young and playing a few times a week so we didn't really notice the slow progress. In the game it made sense enough to me... a small tribe of ex-slaves struggling to survive and even prosper in a harsh world. Shadowrun though... it's always felt like a small group game to me. I'm actually getting ready to start a campaign with just 2 players. One loves to play tech-wary magicians. The other loves the street sams. I'm trying to convince that one to dig into hacking a little and play with agents/drones as well.

I love the idea of a second GM. I think, if you work out the details, having the group split between the two for combat would add a real sense of chaos to large firefights. That might be neat. It also lets you "split the party" to go two direction with some ease. Having the second GM able to run matrix/astral runs with individuals while the rest of the group carries on sounds useful too.

Twice as many people means half as big a take. When a game is based on crime for cash, then there's a real push to keep things as lightweight as you can manage.

To make it go faster have 2 players or npcs roll at once but have 1 Gm do 1 and the other 1, and do it like it where to seprate games.
We're veterans, so the GM may tell several of us to go ahead and make our rolls. Then he just asks for the results. It goes pretty quickly, sometimes. "I got three hits on the guy on the left. Damage 6 plus net, AP neg 1". GM rolls, "you missed. Next?"

Omenowl, I don't think that will work very well with our group. We're very meticulous with our die rolling and results. And particularly right now. Our latest battle was with our big guns against armored vehicles. It was a close call on whether we'd be able to penetrate armor. I think there are groups that would enjoy that. Sometimes we tend to make judgment calls on battles between spirits.

2. Plan what you are going to do in advance.
We started having players declare their actions at the start of the pass. And if you can't answer in a reasonable time, you have no declaration. With a -2 penalty if you change action. Once you know what you're going to do, you tend to spend your wait-time figuring exactly how it's going to work, and how many dice you have.

3. Idle chatter should be kept to a minimum.
This is tough, because the game got kinda boring, while we were waiting for our turns.

in the end all you really get is wasted time while GM1 tells GM2 to do something.
Yes, that's kind of a problem, as I mentioned, up top. I do think we've saved some time, though. Just not as much as I'd like. It does help that GM2 makes all the die rolls while GM1 is trying to figure out what's going on.

Multiple simultaneous objectives.
I like that we're able to do this, if the need arises, but I don't think we'll be doing it much. Right now, our team is on the defensive, so splitting up makes us more vulnerable. And our friction will probably be caused by the different teams getting different karma awards.

Remember every PC has a commlink, so talking amongst each other should be encouraged.
Talking is a problem for us, since we usually end up having tactical discussions between actions.

I've been thinking about taking a poll here to see how large the average Shadowrun group is.
We've been playing for a lot of years. The group size has changed between five people and ten, but I think this is the biggest we've ever been.

having the group split between the two for combat would add a real sense of chaos to large firefights.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. I like that. Although, with so many people, I was already having trouble keeping track of what was going on.

Twice as many people means half as big a take.
We're a merc team. Twice as many people means twice the firepower, and bigger jobs. Which means more money... divided by more people.

Thanks for the tips! Anything else?

You can streamline this by giving the GM a quick factsheet. I have an index card for every character (including NPCs) with the following:



All you need to give me is the Net Hits.



The surest sign that you have too many players.



Mine is 12, but we're special. If someone wants to run, they ping everyone else. If you have critical mass, you run with whoever shows up. Every run has been 5 or 6 PCs.

That should be looked as a good thing. Everyone is engaged, and taking part in the combat.

ANother thought would be when a PC's IP comes up, give them 10 seconds to declare it to keep things rolling. I've seen this done in large <Insert name of the game that causes cancer here> games before.

Tracking PCS: A map and perhaps minatures would help during the combats. Despite a GM's best efforts, combat situational awareness is best shown rather than described. Especially when a large number of combatants are involved. Also use cards with PCs name to track the initiative order.

It seems like a good thing, but (1) it's not realistic to allow back-and-forth exchanges in the split seconds between actions in a pass, and (2) it slows things down. I like to look at it as a challenge to get a point across in as few words a possible. That sort of challenge keeps one engaged.


Ten seconds times eight players is way too long for a pass. It's really more like two or three seconds; more for a newbie.


That's a good idea. This particular gaming session, we were playing on a whiteboard table. The map was drawn on it, and we also mark initiative scores, so a GM knows who's acting when. For a while, the GM was marking NPC's and damage tracks. And even when it's not a very big group, I always prefer to have a map drawn. No matter how hard you try, you can never get everyone on the same page, using descriptions alone.

Actually, I think that would slow things down, making the GM look at the card. If I give him the damage code, he doesn't even have to look.


That's why I'm asking for help.


We had seven players (plus two GMs). One, we hadn't seen since summer. Two more are 50/50 on any given night. So we usually had 5 or 6, too. And then we invited one more. And then everyone showed up on the same night. The perfect storm!

good advice all the way around.

Personally, I would just send the whole group out into the back yard and arm them with broom sticks. first 6 through the door get to play.

Whatever works best for you. I arrange the cards by Initiative roll when everyone rolls their Initiative, so I've got the cards in one hand and roll dice with the other.

Wow. I have 3 players, plus 1 virtual via Skype+webcam, and I had to come up with some ways to speed it up!
I salute your ambition!
1 thing I have stolen from Aaron Pavao is the triangle method of tracking damage for my NPCs.
Also, I have created a dice rolling spreadsheet that means I don't have to roll a fistful of dice every few seconds, instead I just hit F5 in Excel/Open Office. I haven't yet added the "2s add to glitch" conditions yet, as there hasn't been a need to yet, but it would be nice for "rushing the job" extended tests. This sheet had been the biggest boon so far as timesavers go. I will try to post a link later, but I haven't done that before.
My biggest problem is one of my players wants to argue the rules, despite the fact he doesn't actually read them. He wants to argue the game designers' decisions and how they aren't "realistic". It has become more of an annoyance for the other players, so trying to keep everyone happy has become a real balancing act.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BxgFFm1KQZ...mN2Rk&hl=en

I also included the handy Spirit sheet, which helps when a PC summons one.

We were playing on a whiteboard table, and the GM had listed the opposition on it, with the triangles for damage tracks. It was a good way to get an idea of how many bad guys were still standing, without having to ask the GM all the time.

We've got one of those players too. He doesn't do it all the time, but it gets annoying fast, when he does. We just have to tell him that we have to get on with things, and we'll discuss it at the end of the night.

I wonder what (if anything) our current spirit mage is using to keep track of his spirits.

A lot of battles are rolling when the outcome is known. At a certain point it doesn't matter if you do 10P or 15P the opponent is going down, or if you are rolling 20 dice to hit. That is when you hand wave and do verbal descriptions. Dice rolling should be used when the outcome has a high chance of failure or the effect is the difference between marginal and catastrophic (IE does it penetrate or not). THe problem I found is when people are doing more rolling that actually furthering the story.

At the end of the day a GM should determine if a roll is necessary and if it is then roll it, but if it is just to roll dice then skip the roll and move along with the story.

All good ideas here.

I don't have a second GM but I have players who are SR GMs for other groups who help out at the table.

Another thing, if a player wants to roll dice, I have another player witness the roll to prevent cheating.

If a player can't tell me what he wants to do within 10 seconds of me asking, he loses his action. I have one player in particular who is notorious for holding up the group in this fashion and let me tell you he loses a lot of actions for failing this one.

Honestly, I run up to 8 players at most (usually 4-6) and the worst issue I have is idle chatter. Idle chatter is what causes 90% of the hold ups in games (unless you're playing D&D 3.5 in which case rules arguments, typically involving AoO, will soak up 90% of the time).

- J.