I'm in a frustrating situation /tg/: a while ago I agreed to trying DMing for a group of friends. We're doing DnD since this is the first tabletop we've really tried, but the main problem is there's anywhere up to 9 people at the table at any given time, and since they're all old friends I can't convince them to make separate groups or boot anyone. Even in spite of having to simultaneously learn the rules myself and scale up, the real problem is the lack of courtesy at the table: people are constantly talking over each other, slowly raising the volume and wasting time. It's also not uncommon for them to throw multiple questions at once, and while simple "just checking" questions would be fine, some people lie between not having read the rules as much and just not having any common sense (just last session I got asked if survival was used for searching rooms.) If they weren't my friends I would've given up by now, but in this case I have to ask if there's any way to moderate noise without seeming like an asshole. A talking stick is starting to seem like a decent choice but I'd like something that doesn't make me seem like a disgruntled teacher or an angry mum. Where do you draw the line between "we're having fun" and "I'm dealing with uni students that scream like primary schoolers?"
Talking stick is fine I think.
It does send the message of "I'm done with your shit and I'm gonna treat you like kids for a while" but that, if these people are actually not just pieces of shit, should be enough to make them realize their behaviour is pretty unacceptable for what they're doing.
>>43801491
Nine people is too many. If you really can't get them to split try this:
Appoint an assistant DM. They can distract the other people and discuss mechanics with them and stuff while you handle four or five of them at at time. Try to split the party in social encounters. Put a turn timer on them so that combat progresses faster.
Just some thoughts.
>>43801491
HOW THE FUCK DID YOU THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO START OFF IN AN UNFAMILIAR SYSTEM WITH NINE FUCKING PLAYERS!?
Like, there's your problem right there, Jesus fuck. Start with three people and work your way up to five. Nobody runs nine people and stays sane unless they all approach tabletop like an order of benedictine monks.
Can you cut down your group size? Take out the most serious players and run them in a small group? Would your friends understand if you told them all that nine people is too many to deal with when you're still learning the system yourself? Would they understand if you picked your favorites and perhaps promised to run them in groups of three when each group has completed a short campaign? Don't run multiple campaigns, however, that's not a good thing for a beginner.
>>43801491
No good GM runs a game with 9 people, even if they ARE familiar with the system.
Cut your group down to 2-4 players. Make everyone who's not in the group leave. It's this or don't play at all.
>>43801491
>the main problem is there's anywhere up to 9 people at the table
Yes it is. Don't run a game with that many people. I don't care what your excuses are. Do something else.
I'm not as conservative as some in this thread, but like, only games that are fucking ground up specifically made for large numbers of players can handle even like, 7 players.
6 players is the limit to what a normal GM with a normal system can handle without it going to shit but you'll still have a better time with 5 players, and in turn have a better time than that with 4 players.
9 players... jesus. I'm stunned that THEY haven't taken the fucking initiative and left or split off into a separate group.
YOU HAVE TWO WHOLE GAMING GROUPS.
>>43801491
We got a lot of mileage out of that googly eye thread.
>>43802309
>>43801774
>>43801600
The main problem is that OP is a gigantic pushover who caves in to unreasonable demands and thus attracts people who make unreasonable demands and pushes away people who just want to talk at a normal volume.
>>43801491
With 9 people as old friends, it's not game time. It's social time. Trying to tell everyone it's not social time makes you an asshole and you descend into 'catch 22' hell.
Ignoring all other suggestions in this thread, I would make up bullshit homebrew rules since there is absolutely no way to get everyone on board with learning rules. Particularly because everyone else is too busy bullshitting and talking to eachother because it's social time. The game was just an excuse to go somewhere.
Or just play a board game. Similar problems will still happen just more manageable.
Literally play anything besides 9 player DnD UNLESS they all know the rules.
I once had a friend DM a 14 player game for a few sessions. The only reason it worked is because everyone knew the game rules inside out and got shit done. IE: Game time and not social time.
>>43801491
Nine fucking people ho-lee fuck OP.
Agreeing to this in the first place is what really fucked you in the ass, and the only way out is to really show some initiative. If you really want to make this session work, I'd suggest weeding out the people that want to be there from the people that are just being distractions. Even though "all of you get the fuck out" seems like a solution sometimes, it's possible that it's just one or two chucklefucks that are distracting the rest of the table.
So I'd say ask around and see what people think of the actual session / campaign so you can get a feel for who wants to stay and who's just there to be a shit. If you figure it out that way, great, you know who to ban. If no one gives a shit, you can cancel and find people that actually want to game. If everyone seems like they want to stay there, then watch the group interactions carefully to see if there's one person in particular that tends to start the bullshit.
If they're all just acting stupid, chances are you've just got a table full of two year olds and it's not going to work no matter how hard you try.
>>43802425
>>43802309
>>43801774
>Not being able to handle 8 or more players.
Plebs.
>>43801600
>unless they all approach tabletop like an order of benedictine monks.
you mean like celibate neckbeards?
>>43803088
Nobody's saying that running with 8 or more people is impossible, or can't be fun.
People are saying that in most situations, especially those like what the OP described, it's incredibly fucking unpleasant.
It's not impossible to run a marathon while your ass is on fire, but why the fuck would you when you can put it out at literally any time?
>>43801491
>>43802942
I know a guy who runs/ran a game with 9 or so players, but as far as I can tell it was more dungeon-running and somewhat linear stuff over anything player-driven or hugely open. So that's your middle ground between board game and full on RPG, although I will say that guy is quite an experienced DM.
Honestly, I would go the board game route and turn it into social time. From there if you really want to RPG, then start up a niche setting/system that you know only a few of those 9 will be interested in. Don't start with babby's first RPG, as contradictory as that sounds, because as you've seen with an RPG system like DnD people will not learn it, and will just socialise all over it. Pick something with some proper meat to it, that they will have to learn in order to play.
I run a game with 9 people, and I also did it at the beginning of my DM career. Its difficult but not impossible.
First of all, for fucks sake OP, learn your own system. The worst times are when you ask everyone for a moment for you to check your rulebook. You do that and people will start chatting with each other while you check and then you waste more time getting people to focus again. If you want this to work, you need to be a well oiled machine. Instantly know your shit, no checking notes, when someone asks you a question, fire off an answer and move on. Don't give your players time to converse with each other.
Secondly, if a player starts asking you a question while you're talking to another player, tell them to wait a moment. Do not let your players talk over each other, its a waste of time and no one will get what they want and just encourages them to do it more. No need to have a talking stick, just make sure they know that there's a waiting order to ask a question and eventually they'll learn to hold it till you're free. This goes back to advice 1 where you have to be able to rattle off answers in quick succession.
Try to avoid combat encounters. Waiting for your turn in combat is what causes people the most to tune out and start chatting. If you must have combat, make sure people know when their turn is coming up and tell them to think about their move beforehand. Use the 10 second rule where you'll skip them if they take too long.
Overall, don't fear using a firm tone with them. Just say at the beginning "guys I got a lot of great stuff prepared so I wanna see if we can run through this quickly and efficiently." Most people will understand. Good luck OP.
>>43801491
>up to 9 people at the table at any given time
You are crazy. Find something else to do with all those friends.
>>43801491
You can get a cheapie gavel for like $10-$20 and rap it to get everybody's attention without having to try to yell over them.
>>43801596
Old school D&D used the idea of a caller, essentially a player who would manage the rest and make sure that everybody had their shit in order.
>>43802425
I pretty much agree with this. The optimal number of players for most games is probably 4, with 3 being the next best. 5 is starting to push it, and can be a real hassle if you don't have the right kind of players for it. I'll play with 6 people if I get backed into a corner somehow, but I'm going to be looking for a way out the entire time. Fuck 7. Double fuck 8. Triple fuck 9.
>>43801519
I think you meant a beating stick.
>>43801491
Get one of them to act as a helping GM.
I once was involved in a one shot adventure with 6 players. I was bored half the time and started to have fun with the guy next to me. Our characters were the Stan and Pan of the group, and we had a much better time this way.
Never again though.
Problem
>up to 9 people at the table
Solution
>make separate groups or boot
You're fucked
>I can't convince them to make separate groups or boot anyone
Conlusion
If you're hell bent on buggering yourself with a chainsaw, at least have the courtesy not to come begging us for sympathy when you're shitting blood.
>>43801491
If a talking stick is a stick you use to beat anyone who talks over you, I'm all for the idea. Otherwise no. Split your group.
>>43804184
>>43804668
One beating stick may not be enough for 9 players. Do you need a feet to dual wield sticks?
Just carry a big stick.
>>43804744
Was for >>43804678
>>43804678
No, you need a hands to dual wield
>>43804678
>Do you need a feet to dual wield sticks?
You only need that for quad-wielding.
I joined into a game that already had ten or eleven players who has played together for a decade already, so I became assistant dm. That worked OK (it was a lot smoother than only one dm), but ultimately we split into two groups/two games. We handled social time by breaking really enough every night to share a beer and a smoke with the whole group, and by changing up the dm's and players every 3 or 4 months. This gave everyone a chance to play with everyone else, try out different systems, and keep the perma-dm from having s breakdown.
So wait for someone to lose their shit during a game (and it will happen eventually), then suggest splitting up.
