Do you have any advice on how to run games with larger groups? I plan to run a few games with about 8-10 people. We're going to be playing Dark Heresy, Shadowrun, & CoC. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>>47693595
Our group has mostly played d&d (4e & 5e), & I have experience running d&d for 3-4 people.
Probably not the answer you wana hear, but...
Don't.
Seriously, after about 5 players, it becomes nearly impossible to keep everyone relevant and engaged with the plot, let alone keep gameplay progressing fast enough to keep it from it being a tedious slog where everyone sorta loses interest and stops paying attention until their own turn comes up.
>>47693699
I was thinking about breaking them into 2 groups. The only problem with that would be schedualing, but I guess it would be better?
Prep opponents and key NPCs ahead of time and have them somewhere they are quickly accessible. Track and number everything during combat, to keep things moving. Use mooks (low HP opponents who are there for effect). Round monsters stats off, ignore time consuming abilities, if they're nearly dead make them really dead. If a monster is unconscious don't bother with stabilization rolls (for example) fudge things away dramatically to save time, keeping the fight flowing is more important. Let the person who is next in initiative order know they're up next. Encourage PC to PC in-character conversation that doesn't involve your attention. Help embower shier players to make decisions and lead.
I know people who've done it, but for the sort of game I enjoy large groups have always seemed unworkable. The largest I'm comfortable with is six players, and even then I prefer five, with four players and a GM being my preferred sweet spot.
>>47693595
Answer honestly depends on the people involved. Some people can play in games that large. My experience is that you will end up with at least one of the following:
- guy who doesn't actually know anything about the game being played
- guy not paying attention to anything that doesn't involve him
- guy who just keeps talking when it's time for one-on-one rp
- guy who wants it to be his show
Obviously your mileage may vary. We had 9 or 10 people in my group at one point, and it became really boring for everyone involved when it came to damn near anything game-related.
Splitting them into 2 groups SHOULD be okay, but I can't imagine running Shadowrun for 5 people and keeping track of everyone
>>47693595
Are you sure the eight ten will show to every game? The most probable thing is that you get 5-6 every day. You can have a pool of characters that solve the problem of the week while the rest are awol. Like the potato excuses they use in TNG to not have Troi on the ship the only time she would be useful.
>>47693903
That is a good point. A couple of them are notorious for bailing, but because these are all supposed to be one-offs, it shouldn't be such a problem.
Do two smaller groups. It'll make scheduling less of a hassle trying to get 8-10 people together for one day, make the table much more manageable, and give you more plot to link up and build with.
If you have to do 8-10, make them organize themselves. Have a caller, its a thing from old D&D where someone would be basically incharge of the huge party, and would decide simple shit like combat formations and miscellaneous junk that could take an hour for 10 people to get their shit together on as a group. Be mercyless, there's 8-10 of them so killing a few isn't as big a deal. Have a few backup character sheets handy for the player so they can get back in at the next best opportunity. Be authoritative, make the world and tell it like it is, the more you pander the longer things will take as everyone tries to get their opinions in.
good luck
>>47693699
Completely true:
I find 3 or 4 players ideal but not always possible
The group will need to be split or managed by a secondary GM/organizer to be enjoyable
>>47693595
Split into two groups of four or five, get a co-GM, have the two groups eventually cross paths, heresy ensues.
