How many players do you think are too many for a SR game? Last night I played in one with 8 players and the DM. The party was a full mage, a shaman wanted to do a little bit of everything (hacking and physical combat included), a drake with a bow, a infiltration specialist with a sniper rifle, a combat monster dwarf, a technomancer, a night one street sam, and a well-connected troll sammy. The group hadn't been more than 6 (which too me is unwieldly, but workable for SR) in previous days, so when I walked in the door to the game session, I was a wee-bit overwhelmed.
The session was really bogged down with people trying to talk over each other and get the spotlight. Between the dwarfs constant attempts to kill people for no reason and drinking to the shamans 'androgyny', a lot of time was lost with people trying to make everyone laugh with their antics. Granted, a lot of the issue was the fact that 4 of the players are relatively new players to RPG's in general.
Normally, I would probably have left the game or didn't return, but I don't have another option for gaming (my previous group had a falling out due to personality issues from some of the players).
Full Version: Too many people
Yeah 9 people is too much for one group. At that point I'd personally rather split it and have two different games (one with 5 and one with 4), assuming at least one other person out of the 8 players is willing to DM. I've played in groups that size before (not with Shadowrun, but other tabletops) and it's always a mess. Lately I've been playing in groups with DM+2-4 players almost exclusively.
4-5 ist perfekt
3 or 6 might be possible too ,but less or more than that is bad fot the Joy&Fun of everyone
a one-on-one (1 Player, 1 GM) is somethimg different though
HougH!
Medicineman
3 or 6 might be possible too ,but less or more than that is bad fot the Joy&Fun of everyone
a one-on-one (1 Player, 1 GM) is somethimg different though
HougH!
Medicineman
I'm with Seerow on this one. Would be better to split the group up so everyone gets time rather than having to fight through a mess.
Personally I feel 4 is the magic number. More than that it gets really unwieldy especially when half the group are murder hobos or talkers.
Personally I feel 4 is the magic number. More than that it gets really unwieldy especially when half the group are murder hobos or talkers.
Two will often need an adapted adventure, but can be good if you can get a "buddy movie" feeling.
Three can be nice, especially if you want a lot of roleplay
Four is the best.
Five can be done, but is starting to get crowded and difficult to be able to let everyone shine.
I refuse to GM with more players.
But it can also get crowded with few players: when mages have many spirits and riggers have many drones, and all of them have many IP.
Three can be nice, especially if you want a lot of roleplay
Four is the best.
Five can be done, but is starting to get crowded and difficult to be able to let everyone shine.
I refuse to GM with more players.
But it can also get crowded with few players: when mages have many spirits and riggers have many drones, and all of them have many IP.
It also depends on your group dynamics and how often you are doing it. I have GMd for 10 players at one convention table. Everyone had fun and it was a one-time thing. I was exhausted at the end of it.
4-6 is a good number in my book. When I have sustained groups with more than that, I will grab a co-GM who can tackle one on one issues like astral recon or hacking, and either give a broad stroke outline to them or go with what they make up and integrate it into my plan.
4-6 is a good number in my book. When I have sustained groups with more than that, I will grab a co-GM who can tackle one on one issues like astral recon or hacking, and either give a broad stroke outline to them or go with what they make up and integrate it into my plan.
Murder hobos...I like that term...
4 sounds accurate to me. Someone for the Matrix, the Astral Plane, and 2 bodies in the physical.
4 sounds accurate to me. Someone for the Matrix, the Astral Plane, and 2 bodies in the physical.
I'd go with a smaller number for a game as complex as SR, where a few rounds of combat takes exponentially longer the more people you start adding.
Games with simpler mechanics are better suited for 5+, like AD&D, where there isn't alot of stuff like: i roll attack, then I spend karma, he rolls dodge. Then body, then karma. Then I shoot him again, I roll attack..and so on.
Games with simpler mechanics are better suited for 5+, like AD&D, where there isn't alot of stuff like: i roll attack, then I spend karma, he rolls dodge. Then body, then karma. Then I shoot him again, I roll attack..and so on.
Durng the last 25+ years I, as GM, had to deal with the following numbers of players:
- One player: Never tried that exept for short intermezzos during a session when someone did something on his own and the rest of the gang shouldn't instantly get all info. I guess I would have a hard time to play a whole session / run under this condition
- Two players: I did that just two or three times. Didn't find it satisfying since too many things had to be solved by hired NPCs / connections ... which left me with doing most of the story telling
- Three players: Happens once in a while. Allows much room for individual roleplay, but still has the tendancy of NPCs doing too many things in order to accomplish the goal when dealing with "conventional" run scenarios.
- Four players: Solid situation with no inherent drawbacks
- Five players: My personal favorite, since it allows for having sam, face, decker, rigger and a dedicated magic user
- Six players: Doable, but requires some self-restraint by all players, particularly in terms of not going OOC / talking when currently not being in the spotlight
- Twelve players: Personal record as single GM, that I'll never try to do again. The players had their fun (and helped me with good discipline), but in the end I was totally worn out and we had to take larger breaks than usual within the session.
- Fifteen players: Did that with a second GM as part of an multi-level run with three groups of five players working on interlinked runs at the same time. Since we lacked a third GM (the person originally tasked for that dropped out due to illness shortly before we started), we constantly had to juggle between the groups and unfortunatley I had designed two of the interlinked parts of the run in a way that two of the groups could end up pitted against each other ... and you might guess it: This particular situation came along and then I faced the grave situation of players going against each other - not because of personal problems between the players, but simply because the situation didn't give room for anything else. Luckily none of the player characters ended up in permanent death, but it was devestating enough for one group to make the players rightfully mad at me for a short period.
I prefer 5; 3 tends to not have enogh skillsets, 4 works but feels light and 6 works in a convention setting but bogs down in home gaames. 7+ players get board not being in the spotlight, combat takes forever... I've had some limited experance of limiting all th players to making caricters with a cap of 2 IP so that one person doen't hog all the combats (icap the NPCs to for fairness) but this tends to anger the MinMaxers.
I did this once in another, simpler, game system. It was an IC glactic scavanger hunt. Worked great.
QUOTE
8.Fifteen players: Did that with a second GM as part of an multi-level run with three groups of five players working on interlinked runs at the same time. Since we lacked a third GM (the person originally tasked for that dropped out due to illness shortly before we started), we constantly had to juggle between the groups and unfortunatley I had designed two of the interlinked parts of the run in a way that two of the groups could end up pitted against each other ... and you might guess it: This particular situation came along and then I faced the grave situation of players going against each other - not because of personal problems between the players, but simply because the situation didn't give room for anything else. Luckily none of the player characters ended up in permanent death, but it was devestating enough for one group to make the players rightfully mad at me for a short period.
I did this once in another, simpler, game system. It was an IC glactic scavanger hunt. Worked great.
I am going to agree with 4 - 5 being the sweet spot in TT gaming. As a GM, I've done more than 5 and I hate it. As a player, anything more than 5 (or 6) gets too noisy, too distracting, and rarely stays focused on the game.
-Temperance
-Temperance
My current group has a grand total of 7 players, with one playing two different characters, and another player thinking about doing the same thing. Granted, these two are heavy into the roleplaying aspect of their characters, and want the extra challenge of having more than one character to RP (although one of them I get the feeling that he's just getting bored of his regular character and wants to switch to a different one without outright killing their other character).
And yeah, it can get REALLY bad if some of players are vying for spotlight time, and others aren't really getting involved or don't really bother to speak up.
What's also the kicker is that quite a few players in my group all have varying schedules outside of the game, so it's very difficult to get everyone together for one game anyways, and hence why I've got players doubling up on characters.
What's also the kicker is that half of them don't even bother to read the rulebook, and are falling back on "It's the GM's job to explain EVERYTHING". And as such, combat gets halted because they either try to do something that isn't possible to do in the middle of combat, or they keep forgetting/don't know what actions uses what type of action.
And yeah, it can get REALLY bad if some of players are vying for spotlight time, and others aren't really getting involved or don't really bother to speak up.
What's also the kicker is that quite a few players in my group all have varying schedules outside of the game, so it's very difficult to get everyone together for one game anyways, and hence why I've got players doubling up on characters.
What's also the kicker is that half of them don't even bother to read the rulebook, and are falling back on "It's the GM's job to explain EVERYTHING". And as such, combat gets halted because they either try to do something that isn't possible to do in the middle of combat, or they keep forgetting/don't know what actions uses what type of action.
Personally, I prefer a playerbase of at least 20 unique, active players, though growing that up to 30, or 40 can add some nice dynamics provided you have the staff support to handle that many players.
But then again, that's in the context of a MUSH/MUX.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
But then again, that's in the context of a MUSH/MUX.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
You give them so much time to figure out what they are trying and what to roll, and when that time expires their turn is over and you move on.
That kind of attitude is almost required for combat with several folks around the table, in any game.
That kind of attitude is almost required for combat with several folks around the table, in any game.
I think the maximum should be 7. after that it gets so crazy and twisted its just.. eh.
QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 14 2013, 03:43 PM) 
But then again, that's in the context of a MUSH/MUX.
Do you participate in a Shadowrun MUSH/MUX? Would you mind sharing it?
Wow. I have 2 gaming groups that I play with. One on Wednesday Nights has 6 players with 1 GM and One on Saturday Night with 12 players with 1 GM. Both games run smoothly enough, altho the 12 player game difficulty is increased as a Johnson isn't going to hire a 12 man team for a small job.
QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Jun 14 2013, 08:02 PM)
Do you participate in a Shadowrun MUSH/MUX? Would you mind sharing it?
It's under development for 5th edition, but sure. When I found out that the Build Point system was being replaced by a Priority System is necessitated gutting Chargen and recoding it. That said, from a code perspective, the Priority System is easier to implement. So from a final delivery date, it's probably a wash.
Here's the splat we threw up elsewhere when it was originally conceived:
[ Spoiler ]
Chargen is about 35% coded at this time. Primary grid skeleton has been @dug, but lacks @descs, and specific hang-outs. Theme files still need to be written. But given that code is always the problem with getting a MUSH off the ground, we're feeling good about putting this together.
Also, this will be a MUSH in the strictest sense. No, silly coded mobs running around dropping phat lewt. If you're familar w/ the SR: MU*s of yesteryear, imagine Seattle, Detroit, Denver, or London (Okay, or SR: Germany too, for the sake of completeness) and you won't be too far off.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
EDIT: For anyone scratching their head at the acronym 'MUSH', think multi-Gamemaster 24/7 table-top game. Entirely text based, online.
QUOTE (White Buffalo @ Jun 14 2013, 08:08 PM)
I did this once in another, simpler, game system. It was an IC glactic scavanger hunt. Worked great.
I guess it would have worked better, if the very premise of the game had been that the players can end up in a direct confrontation amongst themselves. Would have made it easier for the players to accept that their characters could be hurt, possibly in something that they could consider as a "What if" episode instead of their normal character continuity.
In general I do like the idea of multi-level runs ... they're just so damn hard to organize.
QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 14 2013, 02:20 PM)
It's under development for 5th edition, but sure. When I found out that the Build Point system was being replaced by a Priority System is necessitated gutting Chargen and recoding it. That said, from a code perspective, the Priority System is easier to implement. So from a final delivery date, it's probably a wash.
Here's the splat we threw up elsewhere when it was originally conceived:
Chargen is about 35% coded at this time. Primary grid skeleton has been @dug, but lacks @descs, and specific hang-outs. Theme files still need to be written. But given that code is always the problem with getting a MUSH off the ground, we're feeling good about putting this together.
Also, this will be a MUSH in the strictest sense. No, silly coded mobs running around dropping phat lewt. If you're familar w/ the SR: MU*s of yesteryear, imagine Seattle, Detroit, Denver, or London (Okay, or SR: Germany too, for the sake of completeness) and you won't be too far off.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
EDIT: For anyone scratching their head at the acronym 'MUSH', think multi-Gamemaster 24/7 table-top game. Entirely text based, online.
Here's the splat we threw up elsewhere when it was originally conceived:
[ Spoiler ]
Chargen is about 35% coded at this time. Primary grid skeleton has been @dug, but lacks @descs, and specific hang-outs. Theme files still need to be written. But given that code is always the problem with getting a MUSH off the ground, we're feeling good about putting this together.
Also, this will be a MUSH in the strictest sense. No, silly coded mobs running around dropping phat lewt. If you're familar w/ the SR: MU*s of yesteryear, imagine Seattle, Detroit, Denver, or London (Okay, or SR: Germany too, for the sake of completeness) and you won't be too far off.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
EDIT: For anyone scratching their head at the acronym 'MUSH', think multi-Gamemaster 24/7 table-top game. Entirely text based, online.
If I could get a tenth of the time back I spent on the Seattle/Denver MUXs, I'd have enough time to be come a master pianist. With my feet.
For the OP, 4 or 5 seems pretty good usually. Especially when everyone's got a round of skills and abilities to cover just about every area. Never done 3 myself.
Did an adventure with 2 players once, which kind of bombed as both were more combat oriented characters and they ended up failing the mission (they refused to hire outside help). Made a personal decision to never have such a small group again.
Did an adventure with 2 players once, which kind of bombed as both were more combat oriented characters and they ended up failing the mission (they refused to hire outside help). Made a personal decision to never have such a small group again.
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Jun 14 2013, 10:15 PM)
For the OP, 4 or 5 seems pretty good usually. Especially when everyone's got a round of skills and abilities to cover just about every area. Never done 3 myself.
Did an adventure with 2 players once, which kind of bombed as both were more combat oriented characters and they ended up failing the mission (they refused to hire outside help). Made a personal decision to never have such a small group again.
Did an adventure with 2 players once, which kind of bombed as both were more combat oriented characters and they ended up failing the mission (they refused to hire outside help). Made a personal decision to never have such a small group again.
Small groups can work if the players are willing to work together and specifically set out to make broader characters. Giving a little more leeway in character generation can help with that too. I've been involved in a couple of moderately long running campaigns (6 months or so) with two player characters, and they worked out pretty well.
Oh, not saying it can't or won't work. Just takes the right combination of people, and I honestly don't know those in my area who'd fit the bill.
QUOTE (Bigity @ Jun 14 2013, 11:08 PM)
If I could get a tenth of the time back I spent on the Seattle/Denver MUXs, I'd have enough time to be come a master pianist. With my feet.
Haha. Too true.
Never played much on Denver, myself, though I thought Alpha did an excellent job w/ Chargen. Disraeli's SR: London is a pinch better, but he also had the luxury of seeing someone else implement an SR3 Point-Buy system first.
But yes. MUSHing is a 24/7 format. Some people take liberal advantage of that. Your individual mileage may vary.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
I actually meant Detroit, never was on Denver either.
I personally do not like to have a runner group bigger than 6 Players. After that, Shadowrun gets way too unwieldy and difficult to control. Eight players and one GM is way past my comfortable zone....
QUOTE (Bigity @ Jun 15 2013, 04:10 AM)
I actually meant Detroit, never was on Denver either.
Yeah. I didn't care for the over emphasis of Magic on Denver, from a thematic standpoint. (Or over abundance of Elves). Also there was(is) a dizzying number of house rules.
I think, in the end, Detroit was probably my favorite. Naturally Seattle receives honorable mention as the original site, but I always felt that the way they implemented 'Orgs' was a detractor (Exception made for the Neon Blade/Yakuza tie ins). And in fact, Orgs in general seem to dilute a sites focus on shadowrunning.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
I'd say four to five is best for myself.
I'll also say I've seen some amazing game play with 6+ players and two GMs that work well together.
Two GMs also means that one can handle the one on one and the other cam keep the rest of the game going.
Just having a GM free to handle rules questions and ruling while the other pushes the story really makes for a much better game.
Where having two GMs really shines is that a Shadowrun is really well set up for the Big Heist style play where each player has to pull his part of the "job" off separately for the whole thing to work.
The trouble is with one GM, the play grinds to a halt if the GM takes takes one or two players out of the room for their part of the op and you don't get the same level of suspense when it is all happening around the gaming table.
But with two GMs, you can split the party up and not let the rest of the party know what is happening to their teammates.
They have to figure it out while dealing with their part of the run.
Really adds to the suspense and roleplaying.
Shoot you can even use a cellphone or text message to let the other players know that some thing is happening.
Limited information is one of a GM's best tools.
Especially when as the GM, you can stop a player's message to the rest of the team at just the right moment (We have a.... Signal lost - Active jamming.)
I'll also say I've seen some amazing game play with 6+ players and two GMs that work well together.
Two GMs also means that one can handle the one on one and the other cam keep the rest of the game going.
Just having a GM free to handle rules questions and ruling while the other pushes the story really makes for a much better game.
Where having two GMs really shines is that a Shadowrun is really well set up for the Big Heist style play where each player has to pull his part of the "job" off separately for the whole thing to work.
The trouble is with one GM, the play grinds to a halt if the GM takes takes one or two players out of the room for their part of the op and you don't get the same level of suspense when it is all happening around the gaming table.
But with two GMs, you can split the party up and not let the rest of the party know what is happening to their teammates.
They have to figure it out while dealing with their part of the run.
Really adds to the suspense and roleplaying.
Shoot you can even use a cellphone or text message to let the other players know that some thing is happening.
Limited information is one of a GM's best tools.
Especially when as the GM, you can stop a player's message to the rest of the team at just the right moment (We have a.... Signal lost - Active jamming.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.