[Discussion/Advice] Challenges/Solutions for gaming with 7+ Players

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Rich H

Rich H

Twat.
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
7,985
Hi folks. Looking for a bit of discussion, brain storming, etc ideas around the best ways to game for 7 players.

I volunteer for a group of young (at least to me) adults in their 20s and early 30s who all have autistic traits but I've not noticed anything particularly acute in their behaviours in the 5 months or so I've been GMing for them. We play face-to-face on every other Monday (once every two weeks) for about 3 hours. Currently I'm GMing Mutant Year Zero and they are loving it (actually the best group I've played with and I was going to quit the hobby so they've saved me more than I've entertained/help them, I'm sure!) but I'm starting to mull over what I could do next.

I think I've, sorta, fluked it with Mutant Year Zero but I'm concerned about what game(s) work best for such a large group. We went with this initial option because it was just the one they all liked the sound of... For me, much of the games I have are optimal at 4 or 5 players and beyond increasing the number of opponents in a combat etc, which won't work for certain games, I'm looking for advice on how to make the size of the group of PCs a feature rather than a problem. With hindsight/retrospectively, I think the Sandbox nature of MYZ really helps and the lack of a pre-defined - there are mysteries too that players can engage with if they want (eg, the location of Eden). Also, there are enough roles (read classes) in the game to allow for those 7 PCs to all fulfill a niche but with overlap in combat skills for instance.

It isn't an option to have two smaller groups and have someone else GM the other group - they want to game together - and usually they are all pretty reliable with few dropouts - I know, amazing isn't it! And just to be clear, I want to avoid running D&D. Even though they've only played 5th edition, I don't want to play another edition with them when there are other, even just fantasy games, out there.

So, has anyone else come across this issue/challenge and how have you handled it for those games and has it varied depending on the type of game - eg, combat-heavy, exploration, investigative, sandbox rather than other modes of play, would you reduce competency for each PC so they have to work together and/or so they aren't going to get overlap due to player size, etc? Are any genres specifically suited to the larger group - I'm thinking maybe a 'crew' of PCs like Cyberpunk (not the system though)? Also, are there any systems, whatever genre, that work well for this group size? Anything else?

Any advice or experiences would be really helpful as they may provoke ideas, etc even if the initial comment isn't taken wholly on board.

Thanks in advance and happy to chat further.
 
Last edited:
I once ran a Shadowrun campaign for a dozen people, a fit of madness I'll never repeat. But I did learn one thing: GM organization is vital, as is a structure to moving around the group, ensuring everyone has appropriate face-time. It's too easy for people to get lost in a large group setting, as not everyone feels comfortable putting themselves forward. As a GM, you must consciously focus on each player in turn, drawing out the wallflowers.

Games with highly structured resolutions are also beneficial because they provide another reason to move through the group methodically. Shadowrun has a rigid initiative system, so engaging each person as their number comes up is a great excuse. I can't imagine trying to handle combat that's more freeform.

As much as I hate to say it, a game like D&D post-3e works best for large groups because it demands rigid adherence to its turn-based structure. I wouldn't say I like playing D&D anymore, but I also keep my group sizes to four or fewer these days.

Hopefully, I've said something worthwhile.
 
In combat the toughest thing with large groups is just keeping it clipping along at a decent pace.

Get rid of any kind of initiative system: just sorting out the initiative order takes too long, but it also makes it tougher to track who is going next and so people are less prepared for their turns in general. I'd just pick a random player to go first and then go round clockwise from there.

Or, if you're prepared to diverge more from conventional initiative, make them all declare what they're doing in that fashion and then resolve the actions in whatever order makes more sense. For any PCs making simple attacks tell them all to make their attack roles (and, if the system has separate damage rolls, roll that at the same time) and then resolve them afterwards, so they're ready with the numbers you need as soon as you turn to them. Don't let them change their actions based on what happens. They declare at the start, everyone gets resolved at once. You deal with the NPCs. Next round.

Oh, and speaking of NPCs, don't resolve any interactions between NPCs on the players' side and NPCs on the other side mechanically; just update the players narratively on what happens.
 
My public game has 7 seats. I use The Black Hack for it, largely because the entire rulebook is 20 pages. I would probably have a hard time running something more mechanically complex for a group that size. The Black Hack is based on D&D, though, so if you're avoiding D&D it may not be the system for you.
 
Great opinions and shared experiences so far, thanks.

What would you say about genres and styles of play?

The guys would love to play Call of Cthulhu for instance but (a) would that work for 7 players plus a GM and (b) I think tonewise it wouldn't land - they are a bit excitable and often don't play things straight/serious. Not a problem for Mutant Year Zero as I think it can do comic book brutal but not realistic pretty well, or at least it has for the 10 or 12 sessions we've been doing it, but I do think for horror games or games like The One Ring that could be an issue.

Do you also think a game would need to be a sandbox or at least partially sandboxy? Again MYZ fits in this space but a lot of my other games don't lend themselves to that or I struggle to envisage that with what I have.
 
Rich H said:
Hi folks. Looking for a bit of discussion, brain storming, etc ideas around the best ways to game for 7 players.

I volunteer for a group of young (at least to me) adults in their 20s and early 30s who all have autistic traits but I've not noticed anything particularly acute in their behaviours in the 5 months or so I've been GMing for them. We play face-to-face on every other Monday (once every two weeks) for about 3 hours. Currently I'm GMing Mutant Year Zero and they are loving it (actually the best group I've played with and I was going to quit the hobby so they've saved me more than I've entertained/help them, I'm sure!) but I'm starting to mull over what I could do next.

I think I've, sorta, fluked it with Mutant Year Zero but I'm concerned about what game(s) work best for such a large group. We went with this initial option because it was just the one they all liked the sound of... For me, much of the games I have are optimal at 4 or 5 players and beyond increasing the number of opponents in a combat etc, which won't work for certain games, I'm looking for advice on how to make the size of the group of PCs a feature rather than a problem. With hindsight/retrospectively, I think the Sandbox nature of MYZ really helps and the lack of a pre-defined - there are mysteries too that players can engage with if they want (eg, the location of Eden). Also, there are enough roles (read classes) in the game to allow for those 7 PCs to all fulfill a niche but with overlap in combat skills for instance.

It isn't an option to have two smaller groups and have someone else GM the other group - they want to game together - and usually they are all pretty reliable with few dropouts - I know, amazing isn't it! And just to be clear, I want to avoid running D&D. Even though they've only played 5th edition, I don't want to play another edition with them when there are other, even just fantasy games, out there.

So, has anyone else come across this issue/challenge and how have you handled it for those games and has it varied depending on the type of game - eg, combat-heavy, exploration, investigative, sandbox rather than other modes of play, would you reduce competency for each PC so they have to work together and/or so they aren't going to get overlap due to player size, etc? Are any genres specifically suited to the larger group - I'm thinking maybe a 'crew' of PCs like Cyberpunk (not the system though)? Also, are there any systems, whatever genre, that work well for this group size? Anything else?

Any advice or experiences would be really helpful as they may provoke ideas, etc even if the initial comment isn't taken wholly on board.

Thanks in advance and happy to chat further.
Click to expand...
I've ran a game or two for big groups. On some campaigns, including one of my favourites, "China 1664", we usually had 6+ players, going up to 9, IIRC.

So I can confidently state that size of the group is an illusion, it's all about how well the Referee wields it...:grin:
(OK, I couldn't resist the pun:thumbsup:).


More seriously, my favourite trick you might use was "combining in-game training, side quests, meticulous (ha!) time-tracking and assigning NPCs".
Yes, I let them split the party. In fact, I encourage it.
In-game training is great. Depending on your preferences, it might be the main way to earn XP. This way, a couple of PCs are always "training away" while others are on "side quests" (easy to do in a sandbox).
So what do the players do?
They help you. Assign them an NPC to play. Tell them goals of the NPC, let them join the negotiations.
Once, a player who was really "getting it", made the whole party, including his own character, gather together to find the funds for the bribe he'd asked as an NPC. An NPC which, as I told him, would have agreed to the relatively minor request for a lot less. IIRC, I told him minimum price, and said "but he wouldn't mind getting 10 times as much".
So the player asked for 25 times as much, and they settled on 20 times his minimum price...:devil:
In the meantime, I was negotiating another arrangement with other PCs. Timing is everything:shade:.
 
Rich H said:
The guys would love to play Call of Cthulhu for instance but (a) would that work for 7 players plus a GM and (b) I think tonewise it wouldn't land - they are a bit excitable and often don't play things straight/serious.
Click to expand...

I haven't played it myself, but have you considered Pulp Cthulhu? It sounds like it might work.
 
Rich H said:
What would you say about genres and styles of play?

The guys would love to play Call of Cthulhu for instance but (a) would that work for 7 players plus a GM and (b) I think tonewise it wouldn't land - they are a bit excitable and often don't play things straight/serious. Not a problem for Mutant Year Zero as I think it can do comic book brutal but not realistic pretty well, or at least it has for the 10 or 12 sessions we've been doing it, but I do think for horror games or games like The One Ring that could be an issue.
Click to expand...
I've not played a lot of Call of Cthulhu for years, so take my advice with a big grain of salt. In some ways I think it can work well with larger groups, because it is--or can be--a game where it is useful to have a bunch of different specialists. So a group can have a occultists, scientists, physicians, historians, linguists, law-enforcement types, muscle, and maybe some socialite characters. The flip side is that it can often lead to splitting the group--these characters are off to the library, those to talk to their contacts in government, others to hang out in some social setting (bars, the opera, whatever fits) to gather information. If players aren't cool with sitting back for a while while the other sub-group does their thing, that can be an issue.
 
Dr Jack said:
I haven't played it myself, but have you considered Pulp Cthulhu? It sounds like it might work.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I haven't, no. Will give it a look. It was only one thing they mentioned and more because they really wanted to play a CoC game so if Pulp C deviates from that then it may not be scratching their itch.
 
Rich H said:
Hmmm, I haven't, no. Will give it a look. It was only one thing they mentioned and more because they really wanted to play a CoC game so if Pulp C deviates from that then it may not be scratching their itch.
Click to expand...
Well, it is a CofC supplement. They'd still be fighting the Mythos, but in the 1930s and with a higher chance of surviving and getting things done.
 
Lofgeornost said:
Well, it is a CofC supplement. They'd still be fighting the Mythos, but in the 1930s and with a higher chance of surviving and getting things done.
Click to expand...

Survival and 'getting things done' isn't really the issue, its more about group sizes and what genres and play styles work for it better than others along with systems/mechanics too. Although that system bit, for me, is less important unless it directly impacts play style - ie, it has a slow resolution or convoluted play set. So, your suggestion of having a bunch of specialists for CoC is something I find more useful than switching to a pulp version of it. But I do acknowledge though that I did mention that CoC wouldn't land, tonally. I just think its a case of them wanting to play classic CoC but don't really realise they just aren't a good fit and that isn't just a group size dynamic at play there.
 
Last edited:
System is obviously really important, but I don't think it has to be super simple and abstract in all respects; it just needs to have a very fast playing combat system. If you dig D&D, then B/X, OSE, etc. would fit the bill. An old indie darling like Prince Valiant or one of its many imitators would be good. Any game with significant moving parts or tactical decision making in combat is a bad fit.

Games that promote competition between and interaction among players is also very good, as this bypasses the dreaded dynamic of each player waiting passively until they get a chance to interact with the DM. En Garde! is my prototypical example of this sort of game where players play with other players as much as they talk to the DM.

Finally, games that impose an explicit set of social relationships and roles on PC's really streamlines everyone's decision making and gets them to do things that re-enforce each other rather than all running around like chickens with their heads cut off. E.g., a military unit sort of game like BEL.
 
Declaration Phase and Determinative Initiative: House rule if you have to, but use a system where characters have the same initiative value every round (maybe or maybe not adjusted by what they're doing) and start each round with everyone declaring their action in order from slowest to fastest, then resolve them in order from fastest to slowest.

Active Umpiring: When the players are discussing what to do, either in-character or out-of-character, periodically ask one of the quieter players what their character thinks or wants to do.

Motivations: The party gets three (3) major goals that only change at the beginning of new story arcs. Each PC gets two (2) major goals and one (1) major universal fear. The umpire and each player gets a cheat sheet with all of these goals/fears on it. This can be based on "backstory", or it can simply replace it.

My entire umpire style has formed around running sandboxes for large tables. The key is to get the players to be as proactive as possible, to get the players interacting with each other as much as possible, to reduce your own role as much as possible to simply adjudicating the results of their actions. Reducing your workload allows you to put more effort into being reactive and responsive; increasing your players' workload increases their engagement and satisfaction with the game.
 
I've run Star Wars and Vampire: Dark Ages and Conspiracy X campaigns with upwards of a dozen players. Go round the room deosil or widdershins (to taste) and ask what people are doing. Give them a five count (in your head, i'm assuming you don't need to move your lips or use your fingers). If the entire room scrambles to talk over that person's actions, go for a fag, roll a joint, or whatever. If the rest of the room doesn't get involved and they take longer than a slow five count to tell you what they want to do, boom, move on.

Don't ask for a roll every time someone tries something. Apply the letter of the rules only when everyone in the room is going to be engaged in the outcome. Otherwise, apply the spirit, and move on.

If people complain about the way you're running the game, tell them to fuck off and find a game with fewer players or tell one of the players on either side to have a word. Worked a charm for me, though i probably wouldn't try to run such a stressful menage a douze these days.
 
Mork Borg and Pirate Borg came immediately to mind as games that could handle a bunch of players. Fast system resolution, and the gonzo stuff might fit with your group?

A more serious fantasy game that should handle it is Forbidden Lands. You may already have it, since you've got MYZ. I've not run FL, but what I've read of the books and people's gaming experience with it says it can be pretty dangerous, which is helped by more players. It also has the "building the stronghold" vibe that MYZ has, if your PC's are into that.
 
bleys21 said:
Mork Borg and Pirate Borg came immediately to mind as games that could handle a bunch of players. Fast system resolution, and the gonzo stuff might fit with your group?

A more serious fantasy game that should handle it is Forbidden Lands. You may already have it, since you've got MYZ. I've not run FL, but what I've read of the books and people's gaming experience with it says it can be pretty dangerous, which is helped by more players. It also has the "building the stronghold" vibe that MYZ has, if your PC's are into that.
Click to expand...

I was thinking Pirate Borg could be possible. Mork Borg can go taking a running jump - really dislike that game - just a triumph of form over function. Not my thing at all. Pirates though... yeah, I think they'd like it and the PB book and supporting material is far easier to read and get into than MB.

I do have Forbidden Lands, yes, and they also like the look of Dragonbane too. I would like to run a fantasy game with them to demonstrate how there are better options than D&D5e out there so it is an option and does have similar design elements to MYZ.

Others games I'm mulling over are:

1) Numenera - I know this doesn't get a lot of love but I think it'd land pretty well with the group, however I think it sits a little bit too much in the MYZ space. I realise it isn't a true post apocalypse setting like MYZ but it has that explore, old tech, weird feel to it. I dunno, would like to do it but maybe that's further down the line. The system would really work for a large group which is why its on my list.

2) The Sprawl or some similar cyberpunk style game - going with a crew and sandbox approach. Think that would work for them and be a switch from things.

3) Elite Dangerous by way of Cepheus Engine/2d6 system - again a sandbox approach with maybe a little direction. Love the idea of a group with fighter spacecraft plus a larger vessel. Elite allows that out of the box.

4) Rifts Savage Worlds - could be fun and has that gonzo/comic book feel that I think the players would gel with.

5) Vaesen - again has similarities to MYZ with the core mechanic and base of ops. Perhaps gives them a less-dark and more fairy tale horror experience over something like Call of Cthulhu. But, again, investigation and horror feel more like small group affairs.

Nothing is really jumping out at me though. Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
JAMUMU said:
I've run Star Wars and Vampire: Dark Ages and Conspiracy X campaigns with upwards of a dozen players. Go round the room deosil or widdershins (to taste) and ask what people are doing. Give them a five count (in your head, i'm assuming you don't need to move your lips or use your fingers). If the entire room scrambles to talk over that person's actions, go for a fag, roll a joint, or whatever. If the rest of the room doesn't get involved and they take longer than a slow five count to tell you what they want to do, boom, move on.

Don't ask for a roll every time someone tries something. Apply the letter of the rules only when everyone in the room is going to be engaged in the outcome. Otherwise, apply the spirit, and move on.

If people complain about the way you're running the game, tell them to fuck off and find a game with fewer players or tell one of the players on either side to have a word. Worked a charm for me, though i probably wouldn't try to run such a stressful menage a douze these days.
Click to expand...

That just isn't an option. It isn't my style anyway but, like I said in my opening post, this is voluteer work I'm doing with autistic adults. Even though they are brilliant at managing themselves, putting undue stress on them would not be cool or welcomed.
 
Rich H said:
3) Elite Dangerous by way of Cepheus Engine/2d6 system - again a sandbox approach with maybe a little direction. Love the idea of a group with fighter spacecraft plus a larger vessel. Elite allows that out of the box.

5) Vaesen - again has similarities to MYZ with the core mechanic and base of ops. Perhaps gives them a less-dark and more fairy tale horror experience over something like Call of Cthulhu. But, again, investigation and horror feel more like small group affairs.
Click to expand...
These two look like good options to me...but then I'd like to play them, so maybe I'm projecting, so take this with a grain of salt:shade:!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top