Ask The GMs: Many Hands, Mild Insanity: Large Groups Revisited
As I explained the last time I looked at large groups, I have only limited experience in the area, so this was one topic for which I definitely wanted to source a broader opinion base. The question at hand: If you are “fortunate” enough to have a large group of players, which games could you – and which games shouldn’t you – play? |
|
![]() |
“How to GM for a Large Group? Over the past few years I’ve found myself in the position of GMing for what I would consider to be a fairly large group, seven players with an occasional eighth tagging along. I’ve been finding it tough to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of time in the spotlight. How would you recommend keeping everyone interested in the game and do you feel there are specific campaign types that are particularly suited (or unsuited) to larger groups?” (edited for clarity) |
A bull-pit discussion this weekend while we were eating lunch and waiting to start play produced a consensus that there were three types of difficulty, one of which Phil himself has already partially identified:
The answer below is going to consider each of these subjects to at least some extent and render what assistance and guidance we can, but the last subject is how we are interpreting Phil’s question about “campaign types” and hence will receive the bulk of the attention. |
Mechanical Difficulties and Rules Traumas
If every rules dialogue were isolated to PC and Target, the effort required to GM a larger group would increase as the square of a multiple of the number of players. It’s never that simple, and so the increase is even greater.
There was a strong consensus that regardless of the genre issue, a rules-light approach was definitely to be recommended, especially in terms of the combat mechanics. There is a past article at Campaign Mastery entirely dedicated to the general principles of the subject – The Application Of Time and Motion to RPG Game Mechanics – so I won’t go into it in any detail here and now.
As a rule of thumb: multiply the number of steps to resolve a round of combat by the number of rounds a combat usually lasts, multiply that by the average time required to complete each of those steps, and multiply that by the total of both PCs and NPCs involved, and you soon get an idea of the extent of the problem.
Let’s say the number of steps is 1 (movement) plus 4 (attack resolution) plus 2 (damage calculation) plus 2 (damage resolution) plus 1 (who acts next) = 13 – about right for D&D 3.x and Pathfinder; that each step requires an average of 5 seconds; that the number of rounds is 3; and that there are equal numbers of PCs and NPCs. With a party of 5 – the largest group that I would be comfortable GMing with the unadulterated rules system – that gives 13 x 5 x 3 x (5+5) = 1950 seconds = 32.5 minutes. That’s the absolute minimum time that the typical combat would require to complete. More likely, it will take two, three, or even four times that, because our estimated time doesn’t make sufficient allowance for communications between players and GM. So let’s pick the middle of those and call it 97.5 minutes.
Now add two more PCs to the mix and recalculate: 13 x 5 x 3 x (7+7) = 2730 seconds (optimum), x 3 (for communications & inefficiency) = 8,190 seconds = 136.5 minutes.
The more closely you look at these numbers, and the meaning behind the calculations, the worse things get. With additional players, there will be increased noise and a reduction in efficiency of communications. With an increase in players there will be an increase in the variety of PCs, resulting in more need to periodically access the rules (amongst other effects that I’ll get to, later). Our x3 is more likely to be a x3.5 or even x4. And suddenly an hour-and-a-half becomes 3 hours – from the addition of two players.
What other game processes are similarly affected? Skill checks are the next most obvious. Ultra-detailed, ultra-complicated skill systems should be avoided, or so some of us thought; but there was a substantial counter-argument that larger skill-sets provided greater capacity for variety in PCs without undue diversity in power levels.
In a nutshell: rules-light is your friend, at least under the circumstances described by Phil.
Metagame Difficulties
Everything is exponentially harder for the GM to prepare for, simply because the PCs can deal with more things at once and are likely to have greater varieties of expertise. Simply describing where each of the PCs is takes (at least) 40% longer with two extra players! More shortcuts in game prep are going to be required simply because every task in that game prep takes longer to complete.
Spotlight Time
Similarly, every PC will receive considerably less spotlight time. With a group of 5, the spotlight gets divided about 7 ways: one share to each PC, one share to the group collectively, and one share to the GM. Add an extra two players, and the share drops to a ninth. Any inefficiencies in transitioning the spotlight get worse as well.
The best solution to this particular problem is to stop giving the spotlight to single PCs and start giving it to pairs and small groups. These can simply be thrown together by chance, or according to some rota system, or according to the nature of the challenge, or by character class (if there is such a thing in the game system in question) – whatever seems appropriate. Excuses for buddying up may sometimes seem contrived, but that’s better than the alternative.
The Generic Resort
I would also recommend adopting a more generic approach to many of the routine situations dealt with at the game table. Instead of getting each character to make ‘perception’ or ‘spot’ checks, for example, tell ALL of them the target to be achieved – then deal with all those who succeeded as a group.
This gets all the players resolving questions of game mechanics simultaneously as much as possible, speeding up play for everyone – and making more time for the ‘spotlight’ passages of play.
Systemic Difficulties
As a general rule of thumb, the more diverse the capabilities of the group of PCs, the larger the problems that the GM will have in challenging the party. Some genres create extreme diversity in the group, and those are the ones that become especially problematic with increasing numbers of players.
More players also inevitably magnify any problems with power levels, simply because there are more characters of extreme power.
Those are the two primary considerations that have shaped the following analysis of genres, bolstered here and there by points already made.
Cyberpunk / Modern Dystopia / Post-Apocalyptic
As a genre, Cyberpunk can be either a perfect fit for a large group or a total nightmare. To a large extent, this is the result of problems that afflict the genre regardless of number of players – the need to adventure in two (or more) different realities (cyberspace and the meat-world) simultaneously, for example. A larger group simply makes it more likely that you will trip over this problem if it exists at all within your specific campaign.
The same holds true of the other named genres within this group. If cyberspace is a headache, it will be a bigger headache with a large group.
Another item to watch out for is the level of available cyber-enhancement, which can lead to diversity & power-level problems. If Cyber-enhancement is relatively minimal, this genre can work quite well with larger groups.
Cyberpunk
So what then of Cyberpunk as a game system with large groups? Experience of this genre amongst the convened GMs was relatively light. I have been in two different Cyberpunk campaigns with 8-10 players. Both were short-lived, and in one case that was specifically because the referee found preparing for such a large group to be too stressful, particularly trying to cope with the problems described above. The other was an unqualified success because the GM split the party into smaller groups, experiencing independent but intertwining plotlines all flowing from a single triggering event. I learned a lot from him :) It also helped that he had the game system memorized, and understood it up, down, backwards, and sideways. In the first campaign that I mentioned, this wasn’t the case, something that added substantially to the problems experienced by the GM.
Fantasy Games
As a general rule of thumb, the higher the fantasy subgenre, the less successful it is with large groups. The entire group agreed with that premise immediately, and each of us had a war-story to contribute that backed it up.
Pathfinder / D&D 3.x & older
This is the standard against which all genres and systems are measured. Whenever a relative statement has been made without context being made clear, this is what we are comparing with. Unfortunately, we also all agreed that neither Pathfinder nor it’s antecedents were particularly well-suited to large groups, although the size of the threshold into impracticality varied with actual system. These game systems suffer from just about every problem that’s been identified in this article.
4th & 5th ed D&D
There was a general consensus that the streamlining of rules and better game balance that were features of these incarnations of the D&D concept made them far more suitable for larger groups. There can still be problems at higher character levels, but it was felt that when this was experienced, it was a sign that it was time to end that particular campaign and start another.
Lord Of The Rings RPG
The primary requirement for success with this RPG, released in the wake of the movies, is for the GM to be an expert in the writings of Tolkien and hence in the mythology of Middle-Earth, while the players should have at least a passing familiarity with the subject. Given that, it was felt by those who knew the system that this game would scale very well to a larger group. There was also a lot of material published by I.C.E. for an earlier RPG based on Tolkien – it can be hard to find, these days, but is definitely worth tracking down if you decide to go down this route.
Conan
This RPG never set the world on fire, but in many ways it is the perfect solution to the problem. Low fantasy, with Magic essentially restricted to evil NPCs – few in number and easily powerful enough with flunky support to pose a challenge for even a large group of PCs.
Tunnels & Trolls
If you want a rules-light fantasy system, it’s hard to look past this iconic veteran. It occupies a middle ground somewhere between Lord Of The Rings / Conan and D&D and that makes it a great compromise.
Horror Games
The more players you have, the more work you create when you split up the party, which is a staple of the genre. On the other hand, characters in horror-genre games tend to be relatively uniform in their capabilities, with just enough diversity to make them individual, so some of the major problems experienced by other genres don’t apply here.
Call Of Cthulhu
The great-granddaddy of the genre is Call Of Cthulhu, and it’s the only entrant that any of us had any experience in with groups large enough to qualify as relevant to this discussion. That experience can be summed up: it all depends on the quality of the GM. Brilliant exponents of the genre can cope with large groups as easily, or even more easily, as with small; average or worse GMs would find their problems magnified by an increase in numbers.
Mystery & Detective Games
While a number of the GMs participating in the discussion were fans of the genre, none of us had ever actually played any games that fall under this umbrella. All our experience came from representations of the style in other genres – a mystery in D&D or in Cyberpunk or in a Pulp campaign or whatever.
The general feeling on the basis of this experience was that increased players magnified existing problems with the genre beyond the point at which they could be wallpapered over, but that this effect could be overcome using the “small groups instead of individuals” approach described earlier as a solution to the spotlight-time issue.
Consider a mystery in which each PC gets one clue to the solution, which they then have to put together in order to progress their investigation; a mystery with seven or eight pieces is a lot more complicated than one with four or five. Quite possibly, so much so that the mystery is elevated beyond the capacity of ordinary people to solve – and solving mysteries by die roll is never satisfying.
It was also thought that the comments made earlier in reference to both Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu about the quality of the GM might also apply here – but that the need was for the players to be equally-gifted. For the right group, then, this might be a viable choice, but for most, a compromise would be necessary; the simplest such compromise being in the form of dealing with subgroups instead of individuals as a means of simplifying the puzzles being presented.
Pirate/Swashbuckling Games
These games seem like a natural fit for a larger group, at least at first glance – but there is a problem. They rely on each PC regularly getting his “moment”, and these are harder to arrange for large groups. This is an amplified form of the spotlight problem that a brilliant GM might be able to overcome, but anything less would be forced into formulaic approaches that were certain to yield the required ‘spotlight moments’ – and hence would limit the longevity of any campaign.
7th Sea
The only real game with which any of us had experienced in this genre was 7th Sea, and that under only the one GM (who does a pretty good job of it, despite wanting to be a player of the game more than a GM). That experience also pointed out a second problem – every increase in the number of players increases the number of ways in which they can interact, i.e. the number of combinations. Inevitably, with increasing numbers, it becomes impossible for any given PC to interact with each of the other PCs as individuals in any given adventure. The players of each PC will thus gravitate their interactions towards those other PCs with whom the interactions are more satisfying or rewarding, while ignoring those which don’t yield the same level of reward. The inevitable result is the formation of little cliques and sub-groups amongst the PCs, which can fracture the campaign when two of these cliques disagree.
It seemed inevitable that, as a result, any large group of players would shed them in twos and threes (probably over seemingly-unrelated issues) until it achieved more manageable dimensions, and that was certainly the experience in all three 7th Sea campaigns that we had experienced, collectively. Ian Mackinder, the GM in question, might have something to add on this topic in the comments (he was not amongst the GMs discussing it).
Pulp Games
The Pulp genre would seem to be a natural fit for a large group, capable of supporting sufficient diversity to create a large group of individuals while constraining that diversity enough to make the group manageable.
Hero System – The Adventurer’s Club Campaign
Certainly, we’ve had as many as nine or ten players at once in the Adventurer’s Club campaign. We ran into the familiar problems of spotlight time and rules overload, especially during combat sequences, but for the most part, it worked just fine. However, those problems were sufficient to weaken the appeal to the players enough that they drifted off, one by one; with each departure, it became possible to focus more and more on those who remained until an equilibrium (four-to-five players) was achieved.
There is an additional caveat: Some character concepts / archetypes are more demanding of screen time than others – a gadget-oriented character, for example. If you are already close to the limit, or simply insist on sharing the spotlight evenly, these character types simply don’t work as well as anyone would like. The more players you have, the more likely it is that one or more will select such archetypes, a problem that will be compounded by the reduced screen time share that they will get. Both players and GM should be actively vigilant in looking for this problem and replacing a character if necessary.
Sci-Fi & Space Opera Games
This genre can be problematic regardless of the number of players, but such inherent difficulties can be exacerbated with increasing player numbers. At the same time, there is generally a standard of equality across a range of PCs within these genres that makes them potentially successful with large groups.
A little thought shows that – as with several other examples – it all depends on the quality of the GM; but many of the strengths required to be successful with a large group within this genre are different to those of other genres. This should actually lend hope to any GMs in a similar position to Phil (Remember him? He asked the original question.) It means that if you try something and it doesn’t work, changing genres might be a solution by calling upon different GMing strengths and minimizing GM weaknesses.
There are some games that I would never even attempt to GM; I know that my mind doesn’t work properly to make a success of them. Cyberpunk, Horror, Westerns – these don’t fit me. There was a time when I would have included Pulp in that list, but my co-GM brings a wealth of genre expertise to the table and through mutual discussion, we have both gained a stronger understanding of the genre.
I mention this because it’s a possible solution to all Phil’s problems – pick a genre to which a rules system he knows can apply, and in which he lacks the necessary expertise, and make one of his players who has the necessary knowledge a co-GM. This does three things:
- It reduces the number of PCs, increasing the spotlight time for each;
- It increases the GMing capacity at the game table, further increasing the spotlight time for each PC;
- It increases the range of genres which can be applied to the group.
Original Traveller
I’ve experienced a large group of players in original Traveller campaigns a couple of times. In one, the GM was hopelessly out of his depth and the game was a total flop; in the other two, both with the aforementioned Ian Mackinder as GM it was a great experience (even if my characters ultimately killed both campaigns and led to his banning me from playing those species ever again in one of his games – a Newt and a Hyver, respectively). So I know that Original Traveller can work with a large group if the GM is up to the job. None of the gathered GMs had ever played subsequent versions of the system, so we can’t speak to their suitability.
Star Trek
Ian also ran a couple of campaigns using the Star Trek RPG (from FASA, I believe). These both had enough players to qualify as a large group, from memory, and were both excellent. To be honest, I enjoyed the traditional ST campaign, the “Axenar” campaign, more than the Klingons campaign, but for Ian (and some of the other players) it was the other way around. But it shows that if you can resolve the inevitable spotlighting issues that come with designated ship functions amongst a bridge crew, a large-group campaign of this subgenre and game system can work.
Paranoia
A good Paranoia campaign requires the right players and the right GM, and if you’ve got both, it’s a case of ‘the more the merrier’. Paranoia for a large group should, first and foremost, be a comedic farce, so you need someone with a keen sense of humor and players who are willing to play into that humor, either as contributors or as knowing straight-men. One campaign that has survived in legend since it was played back in the mid-to-late-80s killed all six of one player’s clones before the group even got to the briefing – and had the entire group rolling on the floor with laughter. So there’s absolutely no doubt that under the right circumstances, Paranoia can work.
Spy & Secret Agent Games
At first glance, this genre seems ideally suited to a large group. There are no huge power-level problems, and the skill-set from one character to another will be largely the same, as will the combat effectiveness. But there are three large problems that only grow bigger with increasing numbers.
The first is the credibility problem. False identities for a group are a lot harder to arrange. Mission Impossible succeeds by avoiding this problem and dividing the team; for large amounts of the time, individual team members have nothing to do, it’s all about positioning them to be in the right place to contribute to the solution of the problem when the time comes. And that’s the only large-group example of the genre that comes to mind; every other example is small-scale.
The second is the problem already discussed under the mystery genre – missions with seven, eight, or more, moving parts are a LOT more complicated than those with three or four. In fact, the sheer scale of them becomes a credibility problem after a while.
The third and final issue is the lowest common denominator. There’s inevitably a lot of stealth and infiltration involved in this genre, and the skill of a group at doing these thing is always that of the least-skilled member. The larger the group, the more checks that have to be made in order for the entire group to succeed – increasing the odds that at least one will fail. If you want to work out the maths, you can actually adjust the risks that one of them will fail, in order to take this into account – but most GMs won’t even recognize the need to do so.
Top Secret
I’ve run a couple of Top Secret modules adapted to a different set of rules, and read over the Top Secret rules system once or twice (a long time ago). For the most part, they are strictly limited in number of participants, but there’s nothing in the rules system itself that would be prohibitive to running a large group if the genre issues could be overcome. That, however, is a very large ‘If’.
Hero System
I’ve also run a super-spies campaign using a variant on the Hero System. The group wasn’t large – five players, later four – and it was amazing how much better and more interactive the adventures became with that reduction. Extrapolating backwards only confirms all the concerns voiced earlier in this section – despite initial appearances, this genre would be seriously handicapped by a large group.
Postscript: All the above having been said, It occurred to me while reviewing this article for the Blogdex that there is one large-group example that might yield dividends and even a campaign/game model for adventurous GMs: The “Oceans” series of movies. Sure, they are usually considered to be “Heist” movies, but the approach is very much a super-spies one, and so are the problems that have to be overcome. Just thought that was worth mentioning!
Steampunk Games
I know there are a number of fans of this genre out there, but none of the participating GMs had ever played a game in it, let alone run one, and never mind the group size. Based on what little we know, it should be suitable for larger groups provided that the game system doesn’t get in the way.
Superhero Games
The superhero genre, on the other hand, is one that we all knew well, in fact that was what we had gathered to play on this particular day. I have been running my superhero campaign or its sequels (with a break or two in between) since 1981. I’ve had as many as ten players and as few as two in that time, and I can state that every possible problem with group size is applicable to most superhero campaigns. There is a limited exception for really big, “Cosmic” campaigns, though – if the GM is experienced enough, has planned ahead enough, and is good enough. Game system remains a critical decision.
Hero System
Most of my genre experience is from refereeing a variant on the Hero System. It works really well with small groups (three or four), begins to struggle with moderately-large groups (five or six) and becomes really cumbersome with any more; the optimum solution is to compromise the game system, as I explained in Superhero combat on steroids – pt 1 of 2: Taking the initiative with the Hero System and part 2, Moving with a purpose. In fact, even smaller groups benefit from the change to a D&D/Pathfinder-style initiative-and-turn system. I certainly would not attempt to use the Hero System for a large group without making such a rules change – having experienced the benefits first-hand.
Icons experiences
A rules-lite alternative that Ian Gray strongly recommended was Icons. He reports that it only takes about a minute to generate an enemy NPC, which means that he can construct them as he needs them. I’m not sure how appropriate the game system is for high-powered campaigns, but from all reports, it works very well at lower power levels – and if you aren’t used to GMing large groups or high-powered superheros, going for a lower power level definitely makes sense to me.
GURPS Supers
I’ve also played in one GURPS Supers campaign with a high player count, and can state that if the GM knows that system backwards and forwards, front-to-back and back again, it can work perfectly well – with only the usual spotlight issues.
Villains & Vigilantes, Marvel Superheroes RPG
But if you really want to try the superhero genre with a large group of players and for some reason Icons doesn’t float your boat, these older systems are just the ticket. I’ve never played them, but have adapted enough modules from both of them to have some sense of the systems. V&V works very well for low-powered supers, while Marvel Superheroes occupies a more intermediate power level.
So you really are spoiled for choice in this genre.
Western Games
As with Steampunk, none of the participating GMs are experienced in this genre at any scale. I couldn’t even name a game system in this genre off the top of my head – I think that the people behind Hackmaster have one called Aces And Eights but I’m not even sure that I have the name right (subsequently verified). I certainly can’t tell you anything about how it will scale with increased player numbers.
Final Thoughts and General Observations
What I found when writing up the proceeds of our discussion on the subject (above) was this general observation: More players amplify any flaws in a game system. Absolutely none of the problems mentioned above are not inherent to the game systems; they simply become so enlarged as a result of this amplification effect that they can no longer be tolerated or ignored. Unless you can find a way to deliberately engineer an alternative, in just the same way that grouping PCs into small groups instead of dealing with them as individuals solves the spotlight problem. That might be done by altering game mechanics, as is the case for the Hero System, or it might be by deliberately designing your campaign to avoid the worst of the issues.
Beyond what’s been reported above, the conversation touched lightly on other issues such as physical space around the table and noise, but most of these have already been dealt with in the previous articles on large groups (My table runneth over (too many players) and Gaming In A Crowd: Some Advice).
In summary: Some compromises will always have to be made to make it practical to game in a large group. Intelligent and thoughtful choices of genre and game system can minimize the degree and nature of those compromises, and can even transform them into assets. It’s always going to be harder with a large group – but it doesn’t have to be any less successful.
About the contributors:
As always, I have to thank my fellow GMs for their time and their insights:
![]() |
Mike: |
![]() |
Blair: |
![]() |
Saxon: |
![]() |
Ian: Over the last couple of years he has been dirtying his hands with game design. He was a contributor to Assassin’s Amulet, the first time his name appeared in the credits of a real, live, RPG supplement. Recently he has taken to GMing more frequently, with more initial success than he was probably expecting (based on his prior experiences). Amongst the other games he now runs, Mike and Blair currently play in his Star Wars Edge Of The Empire Campaign. |
In the next ATGMs: Incorporating Music: The Sounds Of Silence?
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
June 29th, 2016 at 12:17 am
Gidday, Mike.
Regarding player numbers in the ‘7th Sea’ rpg, I never noticed any of the “clique” problem that you suggest. Then again, I was generally very careful to keep Player numbers down to a limit of six players (or maybe seven at the absolute most). But I can see how what you describe could potentially be a thing in a larger group.
Regarding the Star Trek RPG (which indeed was done by FASA), I think one helpful factor (in both campaigns) was that each character’s position on the ship had to be clearly defined beforehand – one Captain, one First Officer, one Medic, etc.. So, as long as there wasn’t any major doubling up on Character specialities, numbers there (as I recall) could even be a little higher.
Anecdotally at least, about six Players seems the maximumn stable number of Players for most rpg. Player experience, IMO, is very important – inexperienced Players need more guidance, so fewer in the group is advisable. For experienced groups (assuming they can keep any Munchkin-ly tendencies in check!), a larger group is certainly possible.
June 29th, 2016 at 5:09 am
You might not have been aware of it, but I certainly noticed the beginnings of the clique problem in the first 7th Sea campaign. But it was certainly helped and alleviated by efforts to give each player their share of the spotlight, and overshadowed by other problems at the time.
I agree regarding the Star Trek campaigns, and even at one point contemplated using it as an example of both a problem and a solution. The assigned position gives everyone a function and that naturally shares the spotlight around (the solution) but can make it difficult to ensure that each player gets to make a meaningful contribution to each adventure. Heck, that’s something that every TV series has struggled with at times.
Your concluding comments are spot-on :)
July 5th, 2016 at 5:17 am
[…] Ask The GMs: Many Hands, Mild Insanity: Large Groups Revisited […]