A few questions for GM'S

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

1) How many players would you concider to be too many?

2) When in a group of people, do you like single game campaigns, or open ended when everyone runs something sooner or later?

3) Have you ever gotten intimidated by running a game with 9 players?

MY ANSWERS:

1) 4 or fewer is good for me.
2) Single game (preferred) Multi games if they run a good while.
3) Yes, I just bailed out of a group cause it was too large. It was a multi-game also.

 

[weasel_fierce]

1) How many players would you concider to be too many?

2) When in a group of people, do you like single game campaigns, or open ended when everyone runs something sooner or later?

3) Have you ever gotten intimidated by running a game with 9 players?

MY ANSWERS:

1) 4 or fewer is good for me.
2) Single game (preferred) Multi games if they run a good while.
3) Yes, I just bailed out of a group cause it was too large. It was a multi-game also.

I think 4 is the optimal for most games.

We switch around a lot but Im universally the GM

And yeah, 9 ? I'd run a wargame instead of an RPG. No chance for much character interaction in such a mob

 

[zozotroll]

I like 4-6. But, most of my GMing carreeer I have been in the army, where to have 4 show you need 6-9 in the game. Twice I have had that blow up and 17 players showed up. Not a recommended number.

No matter what I seem to be GM, so we go with something till it burns out.

 

[Halfbat]

1) I find 4-6 players plus a GM works best but with the right scenarios (not meant as a plug, but ...) you can work with 2-3 very well. 7+ frequently ends up with one or two people getting or seeing less of the game, almost in any system and with any GM (and I include myself!). I have run some d20 Conan for a while with 7 regular players which went _reasonably_ well (now down to 6 with others asking to join, though!).

2) Difficult to answer the question. We run a number of campaigns, each GM'd by a different person across different systems (or several systems for me). We tend to keep them going, as we all prefer the character building, but sometimes they run out of steam for a while. From time to time I run one-offs or short campaigns of one or two gaming sessions for various systems (Ranks of Bronze homebrew, RQ, d20, MT) just for a change but we tend to play some board games if things go belly-up with organisation (a good standby, btw).

3) 9 players? I wouldn't find it intimidating but I'm pretty sure that several players would feel really left out, so I'd try and avoid it.

 

[Cleombrotus]

1) Five players is optimum for me, odd numbers are always best, regardless.

2) I prefer one long game to multiple campaigns, but the reality for me is that I need breaks in running games or they start to become stale. I will play in anyone's game, but I'm a demanding player, so the game better be good. At the moment I alternate GM'ing with one other player.

3) The most I've run recently was eight and it went quite well but only because it was a drawn out combat where everyone was interested in what other people were doing. I wouldn't want that group for a whole campaign. Like most things, if you've done the prep it's pretty easy. I wouldn't want to run that many off the cuff. I would certainly never run it by choice, only circumstance.

Best game to play when rpg's wear a little thin and you need a break: Illuminati.

 

[Scut Farkas]

1: More than 5 becomes unruly unless the game is specifically geared for more and done so for the entire duration (if a campaign). One shots you can be more flexible with.

2: I tend to GM mostly but have recently fallen into a situation in which I run RQ every other Friday while one of my players runs Castles & Crusades the other alternating Fridays. It seems a bit fantasy overkill, but they are two very different approaches to it.

3: 9 players would suck for me. If they all wanted to game that badly then I'd probably rotate weeks with two different sets of players (basically two different campaigns following similar storylines so that the homework isn't too much more).

 

[TRose]

Max 6 most of times. I had fun games with just one.
As to switching off Gm can be a problem if not on same page. After all what do you do if some Gm gives all your players nuclear hand grenades or suddenly they are all outlawed by the local prince and your next adventure had them working for him?
For 9 I would only do it for special occasions and make it almost a total combat mission or such

 

[Ssendam]

1) I aim for a group of 4-6 players, so 7+ would be too many HOWEVER it does depend on the players themselves, the type of campaign you are running and the game system.

For D&D I think you can get away with more players and ran a game with 9 players for D&D once that was a real blast. We were playing a straight module though which wasn't a dungeon bash, but was quite fast and furious.

Nowadays I prefer to write lots into my campaigns that appeals to specific players and when you do that a smaller number of players is better.

As for Runequest ... I think a group of 4 is probably ideal.

2) I'm not sure what you mean, but by way of an answer the type of campaign I prefer is a continuous one where one GM will take the characters from starting out to dizzy heights. We swop the GM role by engaging in different games.

3) Only Gm'd for 9 once and it went well as i said, BUT for RQM I would think that was too much.

Stay frosty

 

[Mage]

1) How many players would you concider to be too many?

> It depends on the age and maturity and your ability to pace and control a game. I have a group of nine teenagers to college students who are quite mature and take the game seriously, and who are regulars at my local club.

Then there is another group of about 4 rpg only players (the above wargame as well) and I find them nearly impossible to deal with. They are lackadaisical, and spent two sesssions going through the Haunting scenario for Cthhulhu and have spent two 3 hour sessions creating characters for rune quest and still are not finished.

2) When in a group of people, do you like single game campaigns, or open ended when everyone runs something sooner or later?

> Single game campaigns.

3) Have you ever gotten intimidated by running a game with 9 players?

> God no! Then again it was gming. Depending on the gm it can be heaven or hell.

 

[The BoogerMan]

1. In my personal opinion 3 to 5 players works pretty well - while 6 or more starts to give me a headache (though, as mentioned earlier by other posters, this certainly can be effected by the players themselves).

2. In theory, I like ongoing campaigns where everyone gets a chance to run… but it rarely works out that way in my group. This has a lot to do with the different game system and genre preferences within my group.

For example: while I will pretty much play anything, there are some systems I just can’t stand to run – like d20. There are just too many concepts and conventions within the d20 system that grate on my nerves. I’ll play it, but I’ll be damned if I’ll run a game using it (and even playing it, I prefer that it stay within the confines of its D&D origins).

So, what generally happens is that I’ll run for a while, then someone else will do a one-off, and then I’ll run again.

3. I personally think that 9 or more players is just too much. While I haven't ran a group that big myself, I did play in one about that size and it wasn’t that much fun. You would certainly have to be on the ball, along with good prep work before hand, and even then I think it would be more work than fun.

 

[gamesmeister]

9 players is probably more suited to a Play-by-Forum game, where everyone can join in and that number of players means once you get a reasonable number of replies you can (as the GM) move the game forward, without waiting for everyone to respond.

 

[RosenMcStern]

1) So many people that you cannot remember each one's name is too many for me. Which is really, really a lot of people. I think 4 is the perfect number, for 3 is the mimimum and one can always miss the session at the last minute.

2) I never co-gmed anything but a simple scenario, but I am playing in a long-running (10 yrs), co-gmed campaign and it is fun, despite the troubles. So I am for switching GMs, as long as there is some coordination.

3) The first time I GMed a group of 8, 15 years ago, it was me who had summoned the mega-session, by joining two 4-player campaigns which had been carefully planned so as to converge to that moment. And it was a big success [imagine iron-clad broos scuttling the battlefield, catapults shooting zombie-making payloads all around, all sort of undead dinosaurs eating poor Orlanthi, the Grazelands on the verge of being annihilated, and then the last lone dragonewt hero, accompanied by dwarfs & trolls, reaching the Source of All Evil and screaming "Ok, I swing my Utuma at this Delecti bastard, Damage Resistance or no Damage Resistance!" - and then rolling a critical - a RQ3 critical - this I call a Successful Game].

So no, I am not intimidated by running a 9-player game. Nor I was when I was 15 years younger.

 

[Vadrus]

1) How many players would you concider to be too many?

Hmm, our weekly group is currenty 7 or 8 people each week so I don't really worry about a group being too big.

2) When in a group of people, do you like single game campaigns, or open ended when everyone runs something sooner or later?

Single campaigns, though a rare few restart after a time and carry on from where they left off

3) Have you ever gotten intimidated by running a game with 9 players?

No, at it's peak a few years ago my current group had 12 players most weeks during my RQ3 campaigns so I don't worry about large groups.

Many years ago when I was in the sixth form I used to runCall of Cthulhu in the common room at lunch times, people kept coming up and joining in, I have to admit it got a bit silly by the time we had 30+ players. Biggest TPK I've ever seen was when they surrounded the old mansion where the summoning ritual was taking place and decided to gun down the monster instead of stopping the ritual! Not the smartest of moves!


Vadrus

 

[havercake lad]

1) How many players would you concider to be too many?

2) When in a group of people, do you like single game campaigns, or open ended when everyone runs something sooner or later?

3) Have you ever gotten intimidated by running a game with 9 players?

MY ANSWERS:

1) 4 or fewer is good for me.
2) Single game (preferred) Multi games if they run a good while.
3) Yes, I just bailed out of a group cause it was too large. It was a multi-game also.

1) Four is ideal for me too though I can I am generally happy enough to accomodate six. After four players even numbers seem better as players can team up in couples.

2) Its best if comfortable /proficent GMs get a long run. The club I'm in accomodates this ethos. Each academic year we split into gaming groups and each GM runs a campaign over the three terms. The holidays, GM absences etc give other players the chance to run enough one-shots etc .

3) Would only run one-shot ,tournament style games with pre-gens for large groups. Possibly bastardizing down till its more a boardgame/wargame.

348