How to manage players in a big group

Bren · October 21, 2015, 08:58:46 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr;860785First, Natty Bodak and philip, thank you for fielding these questions. For the most part we seem to do things similarly, with minor variations and labels.

Second, I call it Fog of War because it encapsulate the experience of declaring first and then resolving. We have intent but things may not always work out as we intended. It's to simulate that liminal state in combat where our senses are heightened but our perspective of time starts to do screwy things. That and it is quicker to say (and sounds cooler, IMO) than "Declare First, Then Resolve," Initiative.

I tried it out for the session I ran on Monday. It was only one player and one NPC, but it seemed to work OK. I'll try it with the entire group next time we play and see how it goes.

chirine ba kal · October 21, 2015, 10:35:40 PM

Quote from: Phillip;860963That's one reason I say that what constitutes a 'turn' shouldn't be so complex when you've got a large group of players (or even a large set of independently acting units).

I hope I'm not interrupting, but has anyone mentioned the 'combat round'? We used to have eight to ten players at Phil's all the time, and he and Dave would resolve combat by going around the table in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner, picking each player in turn. If the play didn't think of anything to do, they got skipped, and the GM went on to the next person. This 'round' became the formal 'combat round', at least for us, and it seemed to have worked for us for years with large groups. I still use this, and it seems to get the players to shut up and concentrate on the game.

mAcular Chaotic · October 22, 2015, 09:51:59 AM

I was thinking of going around the table or by DEX order for non-combat too when it's a big group. ie, instead of everyone talking freely, have everybody wait their turn and speak up when it's their turn in the lineup, then move on to the next person.

Bren · October 22, 2015, 10:10:58 AM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861212I was thinking of going around the table or by DEX order for non-combat too when it's a big group. ie, instead of everyone talking freely, have everybody wait their turn and speak up when it's their turn in the lineup, then move on to the next person.

That sounds like a really good idea.

mAcular Chaotic · October 22, 2015, 10:14:40 AM

The only problem is, it might be too artificial and regimented. Especially for a conversation.

Phillip · October 22, 2015, 12:51:49 PM

Quote from: chirine ba kal;861174I hope I'm not interrupting, but has anyone mentioned the 'combat round'? We used to have eight to ten players at Phil's all the time, and he and Dave would resolve combat by going around the table in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner, picking each player in turn. If the play didn't think of anything to do, they got skipped, and the GM went on to the next person. This 'round' became the formal 'combat round', at least for us, and it seemed to have worked for us for years with large groups. I still use this, and it seems to get the players to shut up and concentrate on the game.

Yes, I mentioned it, and I reckon I'm not only one.

mAcular Chaotic · October 22, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You guys mean just going around the table in order? I've been using that now. I seat everybody by their DEX at the table and when it's not a super important battle I just use that order instead of rolling initiative, except for monsters.

Bren · October 22, 2015, 01:15:09 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861216The only problem is, it might be too artificial and regimented. Especially for a conversation.

It can. You have to balance taking turns so people don't get ignored with interrupting the flow of a conversation. Most conversations have a natural break every few sentences or so. When you reach a natural break in the conversation you can switch to the next player.

Keep in mind, it's not a rule it's a guideline. You should use your own judgement when to use it. But since you have a large group, it makes sense to use some method to ensure everyone gets a fair chance to have their character do or say something.

Gronan of Simmerya · October 22, 2015, 09:14:20 PM

The biggest key, frankly, is working under the expectation that players are paying attention and skipping over them when they're not. Any system will work.

Opaopajr · October 23, 2015, 12:31:26 PM

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;861346The biggest key, frankly, is working under the expectation that players are paying attention and skipping over them when they're not. Any system will work.

I hearily agree.

It is rewarding those who want to be there and are willing to give respect to the rest of the table. Those who are not interested soon will either catch on or move on. And for those who are shy they really shouldn't be in such a raucous and on point game anyway, as those dynamics will just shove them deeper into their own shell.

As brendan once noted for another subject, quantity is a quality all its own. And that quality is not for every participant.

Elfdart · October 27, 2015, 12:22:53 AM

I've only had to handle a group of more than eight players a few times. When starting out, I simply work around the table clockwise until we become familiar. Once we get settled in, I do the "auction" part where the players are called by their initiative roll. Interrupt another player and you forfeit your actions for that round.

Saplatt · October 27, 2015, 10:04:45 AM

I actually enjoy seeing a lot of cross-talk and encourage it, even in large groups - until I decide enough's enough and then just pick out whoever seems to most have their shit together.

Pretty arbitrary, but it works for me.

Elfdart · October 28, 2015, 09:20:59 PM

Quote from: Saplatt;862021I actually enjoy seeing a lot of cross-talk and encourage it, even in large groups - until I decide enough's enough and then just pick out whoever seems to most have their shit together.

Pretty arbitrary, but it works for me.

I don't mind crosstalk, except when it's time to declare actions.

mAcular Chaotic · October 29, 2015, 02:31:16 AM

Quote from: Saplatt;862021I actually enjoy seeing a lot of cross-talk and encourage it, even in large groups - until I decide enough's enough and then just pick out whoever seems to most have their shit together.

Pretty arbitrary, but it works for me.

The problem is that one player usually ends up just talking over everyone and taking over the discussion, at which point the others don't bother trying to cut in because that player pretty much has everything handled. Then that player basically controls all the other characters.

Or someone will try to RP and say something, but since they get cut off or talked over everybody misses what they said and then they don't bother trying to say it again.

Gronan of Simmerya · October 29, 2015, 09:41:12 AM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;862235The problem is that one player usually ends up just talking over everyone and taking over the discussion, at which point the others don't bother trying to cut in because that player pretty much has everything handled. Then that player basically controls all the other characters.

Or someone will try to RP and say something, but since they get cut off or talked over everybody misses what they said and then they don't bother trying to say it again.

"Everybody shut the fuck up except him!"