You just have too many people.  If you want to get any gaming done you need a smaller group.  Some people can game with 8.  But they have specific structures.  And specific people.   From the sounds of it many of your players won't succeed in a group that size.  They won't invest the discipline required.

What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Things that help:

- Simpler systems, though that isn't absolutely required, I think some of the MIT SGS Champions games had more than 8 players in a session...

- People who are willing to be non-disruptive when they don't have the spotlight, pay attention if it's important, and if not important, pay enough attention that they can pop out of their navel gazing and immediately pay attention or respond as necessary (they old "Fred, wake up, roll a d20 to attack" has worked in the past).

- Longer than 4 hour game sessions (with a 4 hour game session each of 8 players must average 30 minutes of spotlight time that is shared between their dialogue and taking action and the GM).

- Players who are happy to be Fred whose major contribution is rolling dice when it's his turn to swing (so he commands at most a few minutes of spotlight time out of each hour of play. Believe it or not, such players existed back in those days. These days, those folks may be content with computer games.

- We didn't have cell phones back then...

My first session outside my small circle of friends was at one of MIT's Summercons. My friend who had invited me had lined up 16 players to play in my game by the time I got registered, assigned a table, and made my way to my table. Somehow I pulled it off, everyone had fun, and a couple of the MIT SGS members took me aside at the end, complimented me on how I ran things, and invited me to join the club (as a 16 year old). I also had a college Fantasy Hero campaign that hit 10+ players in a session regularly until I split it.

Now there were also large campaigns that had way more than 8 players, but they didn't all play in the same session. Some of the MIT SGS D&D campaigns had probably 20 players circulating among them.

Frank

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Well, those huge OD&D groups had a Caller, have you considered that option?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013728Well, those huge OD&D groups had a Caller, have you considered that option?

Yes I have, though I don't really understand how it works, because: 1) people still have to debate, 2) how do you reconcile a player deciding OOC with their PC not necessarily being someone the other PCs would follow and squaring it with the game fiction, 3) what happens when the caller says X, but 30% of the group wants Z? Do they just have to go along with it? It kind of feels metagamey then like they're being forced to go along just because it is a game. But on the other hand, you gotta do what you gotta do. It is not that different than everyone voting and then the majority getting its way; the problems that arise are that the people who got overruled only unenthusiastically go along with it. Like, let's say a Fighter didn't want to fight these orcs, but now they're fighting them. Instead of doing his job and holding the front lines he might just be the first to run away when something goes bad and ensure everyone else gets swarmed.

That or people not being able to agree who should be in charge since they might not trust either of the two big arguers as leading them, but meanwhile everyone else is too passive to command everyone.

Ahh...

1. The players all have to be on board with making a large group work.  The first rule of large groups is that, "Thou shall not waste time."  It's up to the group as a whole to decide what is worth spending time upon, and what is not--but then stick to that decision, or if it isn't working, change the decision.  If everyone is having fun doing X or talking about Y or shopping for Z, then by definition in a game, it isn't wasting time.  If some people are not having fun with the activities happening, then at least their time is being wasted.  

2. A key issue is how you avoid wasting time.  You don't entirely avoid things that at least some people enjoy, but if it bores others at the table, get on with it.  There is no reason why many in game discussions need take more than a few minutes.  Frequently, five minutes will do.  If it turns into a fun discussion with everyone or nearly everyone involved, sure go on for 30 minutes or even an hour or more.  Someone really wants to shop?  OK, you've got 3 minutes to interact with the store owner about buying that new whetstone.  If something more engaging arises out of the conversation, that's not part of the limit.  At a fundamental level, this is simple courtesy, the same way a person should not button-hole a stranger at a game store talking about their character for 15 minutes.  (Oh wait, I think I see part of the problem here. )

3. There needs to be some small amount of "control time" spent on managing and analyzing things, so that issues that are wasting time are nipped in the bud.  This is the job of everyone in the room, not just the GM.  Given the current problems in your group, I'd spend 5 minutes per session just on that.  Once it gets under control, 2 minutes a month might be enough.    

4. Develop a system for telling people when to get on with it, that must be honored and enforced.  You'll have to experiment, because unfortunately, one size most definitely does not fit all.  Ideally, it is something that can't be ignored, but also doesn't break off the current activity immediately.  I like an egg timer flipped over to give 3 minutes to finish whatever is currently happening.  Once the timer is flipped, someone in the party has to take charge and move on, or the GM does whatever is necessary to advance the action.  If the party can't agree who is in charge or what to do, hit them easy the first time then escalate sharply each time in a session the problem repeats.  This should be all explained in advance.  You can use any method that works to manage the notice/timer, but there should be a delay between the notice and the action.  Once the group agrees on how this will work, you can't back down.  If they waste time repeatedly, all options are on the table, including assaults from random monsters of overwhelming force that send them running for their lives or cut down where they stand.  If the group is unhappy with how this is working, it's up to them to suggest modifications to the procedure that work but they find more satisfactory.  Random monsters is just the start.  I put this under the heading of, "And then something bad happens."  That can be weather, NPC initiated events, anything you can think up.  They need not be immediate, either, though it's nicer to a group working out the kinks in the process to use immediate ones at first.  But don't underestimate the sheer threat of uncertainty.  The timer beeps as it expires.  "Oh, well I guess that's started then.  OK, so what do you do now?"  

5. Things like the "caller", the "mapper", rotating "leaders", and other ways of successfully managing a group should be decided upon by the players and enforced collectively by them on each other.  Your job as GM is to advise and assist in this process.  Your stick is that they must communicate a decision to you in some way that is timely and accurate--you don't really care how they go about it as long as it works.  If, for example, they decide on "caller", but then several players constantly argue with the caller on minor decisions, their process is not working.  Players are always free to go against the caller.  That's necessary for the concept to work.  They are not free to do so on ever minor thing with no consequences.  It's up to the players to find another way, or police their own ranks.  

6. Be patient while you work all this out.  You need some time to experiment to find what works, and that means mistakes.  Have a "time out" option when things are not working, to step out of the game, and either come up with a quick work-around or get agreement to push through with the current system for now, even though some players are chafing.  Don't let these time outs go very long.  Again, 5 minutes should usually be more than enough time for everyone to get heard, and a snap work-around selected.  It's up to you to recognize the rare exceptions when stopping everything and hashing things out for an hour is the best course.  Pick wisely.  If you need to do this more than once or twice a year, your basic system is untenable.

Also, same kind of idea from another angle:  It works to say, "We are all here to game.  Anyone that isn't, can stop coming."  Why does that work?  Well, it's a clear line.  It cuts out people that won't honor the line.  

If, for whatever reason, you don't want to draw a line that clear or that strong, the group still needs a line and a way to explain it.  This puts more responsibility on the players.  There must be more give and take.  But not infinite give and take.  The idea of, "We want a mix of gaming and social, that changes focus from hour to hour, person to person," is doable.  But it's also difficult.  You can't enforce the letter of the rules on that one.  So the group must enforce the spirit of it.

I don't worry about people on phones or cracking jokes that aren't disrupting others trying to pay close attention.  My goal in playing RPGs isn't to accomplish something in game, but to have an entertaining time around the table with the players.  If everyone's laughing and having a good time, I don't worry about what progress is or isn't made in the game.

That said, if people are arguing about what to do next and this causes people to tune out because they're put off by the arguing, then it's up to the DM to resolve the situation.  That doesn't mean pick a winner of the argument.  It can be as simple as ignoring those people and taking actions from those who are tuning out, and moving the game forward while leaving arguing characters standing there.  Don't sacrifice a game session to consensus.

I haven't had problems of IRL friends arguing to the point of derailing a D&D session before.  That usually happens between people who have no tie to each other except jointly playing a D&D game, and so is a pissing match.

@ Chaotic.

You have been posting about this enough by now that I atleast know you can't do what you want with the group you have.  

So to answer structures, a leader.  

To answer players- not yours.  


Sorry dude.

Quote from: Headless;1013743@ Chaotic.

You have been posting about this enough by now that I atleast know you can't do what you want with the group you have.  

So to answer structures, a leader.  

To answer players- not yours.  


Sorry dude.

As of last session I threw in the towel on making it work with 8 people and cut the group down to 4. However, I run 2 campaigns with these people, so the other one is still 8.

The first campaign was easy to cut down on since each session was episodic. But the second one has most of the 8 integrated into the plot... it'll be hard to just cut them out and maintain any sort of consistency. I will probably have to wait until the campaign ends and then do it.

By leader, do you mean an OOC leader?

Quotedon't worry about people on phones or cracking jokes that aren't disrupting others trying to pay close attention. My goal in playing RPGs isn't to accomplish something in game, but to have an entertaining time around the table with the players. If everyone's laughing and having a good time, I don't worry about what progress is or isn't made in the game.

I don't normally sweat it either, the problem is when all of the joking and laughing is disrupting the players that are trying to focus on the moment. Sometimes I think, "mAc, why are you making a big deal out of this, everyone is having fun anyway and you're just taking it too seriously," but then I see that some other players clearly are annoyed by it too and they thanked me when I raised it as an issue.

Actually I mean an in character leader.  One that asserts and defends their authority.  Up to the point of executing rebellious player character when they don't obey orders.  

But thats not what your group wants.  So you will not have order.  

Not that ypu need to have order.  But in your case I think you will need to take steps at least that drastic to get it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

A referee with some balls.

"While you were standing around arguing a wandering * roll roll * Spectre showed up.  You are surprised."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013730Yes I have, though I don't really understand how it works, because: 1) people still have to debate, 2) how do you reconcile a player deciding OOC with their PC not necessarily being someone the other PCs would follow and squaring it with the game fiction, 3) what happens when the caller says X, but 30% of the group wants Z? Do they just have to go along with it? .

1) For every ten seconds of debate roll a wandering monster check.  For the second check in a row use two dice.  For the third roll three dice.

2) Play with grownups.

3) See 1.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013752A referee with some balls.

"While you were standing around arguing a wandering * roll roll * Spectre showed up.  You are surprised."

Since at heart this is an out of game problem, it doesn't even require a referee.  One player willing to put a foot down would solve it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013755Since at heart this is an out of game problem, it doesn't even require a referee.  One player willing to put a foot down would solve it.

But the referee has the ability to check for wandering monsters.  After a few times of "While you stand around dithering with your thumbs up your asses, a wandering monster shows up and takes chunks out of you with no reward," either they will start to figure it out, or they are too stupid to bother playing with.