I'm facing what most people don't think is a problem - too many decent reliable players interested in one campaign - underground. The problem is to know how big or small the group should be, given a certain group size.

To my mind, this is a matter of the sorts of people you have in your group. If you have three quiet players, that's too small, and you can add two active players, and things will go well. But if you have three active players, and add another two...? Chaos? Thrilling drama? Or what? I think time matters here. If you have some group which meets on Sundays from 11am till 11pm, then you can have a larger group than if you meet on Tuesdays from 7pm till 11pm. The longer session will be more relaxed, and players will be more tolerant of long periods of waiting while the other people have their turn; a shorter session has more pressure on it, and players may be overeager to jump in, lest they miss out on any action for the whole session, and have to wait until next week!

My current group has got players as follows,

• Mad Magyar, active, talkative, more Hack than Thesp, indifferent to rules
• Tyberious Funk, thoughtful, borderline active-reactive, more Thesp than Hack, rules-whore but not rules-lawyer
• Vox, active, impulsive, quite Thespy, never read a complete rules book in her life.
• Rugged Indoorsman, used to be passive but now reactive generally and active if everyone else is quiet, Thespy but "less is more" sort of roleplayer, coming up with an occasional few significant ideas rather than heaps of little ones all the time.

For a fifth, we have a few candidates. None of them are Annoying Gamers in any way, they're pleasant to be with - but all of them are active.

Our group will meet once a week, nominally from 7pm till 11:30pm; in practice, dinner and chat are had from 7:00-7:45, about 10:30pm Vox says, "are we gonna finish soon?" and things slow down and then get wrapped up by 11:10pm. Allowing for 15-20 minutes to get into the swing of things once we actually put the dinner plates away and pick up our dice, the actual gaming is 3 hours. Counting the GM, that's just 36 minutes each - not a lot. You might think that a fifth player, taking it down to 30, isn't a big difference. But often it is.

If there are a couple of active players who want 1hr30' each, and some reactive or quieter players who are happy with 15 minutes, then that balances and works out fine. But if you've four active players wanting an hour each, and you have just three...! :eek:

I think it's good for people to have the thing be a bit less than what they want. That's the principle in a la carte cooking - make the meals 85-90% what you think will fill up the customer. If you make it 100+%, they leave feeling stuffed and unwell, and don't come back. If you drop it down to 70% or less, they leave feeling ripped off. What you want to do is to give them a meal which just satisfies them, but leaves them wanting more, saying, "it's so delicious, I'd lilke to have more, but I know I can't really fit it in." So they leave the restaurant with the memory that they wanted to have more.

It's good to do that in roleplaying, too. That's why I don't do 12 hour sessions - I want to leave them feeling a big hungry, not stuffed and ill. But I'm wondering if five active players over three hours is like when you go to a restaurant and get the tiny meal on the vast white plate.

What do you lot reckon?

Quote from: JimBobOzBut I'm wondering if five active players over three hours is like when you go to a restaurant and get the tiny meal on the vast white plate.

What do you lot reckon?

I've already expressed this in another thread but here goes again. I set the bar at:

Minimum session time 2 hours for one or two players (not including GM).
Add one hour minimum per player after that.

I've found that this rule works for me. We generally don't have a satisfying session unless we have one hour per player.

I reckon you just cashed in some kind of RPG lotto ticket.  The IH game I ran last summer (so far away now...) had two very active players, one who would get talkative if you nudged him a couple times a session and one who had to be actively included (though he was fun when he got going).

Thinking about it, the personality types mapped somewhat like the group you describe.

I enjoyed the hell out of our games, though I would begin to feel lost if I had to deal with a table full of players as energetic as my two big talkers...  As it was, though, I had a sense that their attention-seeking was like a shark: it grew to fit the environment.  If the other two had been as talkative, I feel there would have been some head-butting before territorial rights were established and the game would have gone on.

The idea of portioning screentime never occurred to me in play.  The metric I used was one of "stuff done".  So long as each player got to do his shtick in a meaningful fashion, it seemed that everyone was happy when we boxed up the books.

Quote from: fonkaygarryI reckon you just cashed in some kind of RPG lotto ticket.  

I didn't win the lottery, it wasn't luck - it was effort. I deliberately set out to meet and game with lots of different people. I'll game with anyone at least once who invites me. I didn't set up, but help run and promote, gamecircle.org, and through that meet lots of gamers at a loose end without a group. So I make an effort to know lots of gamers. This also means that even if I don't want to or can't game with a particular person, or they with me, I can point them to another group, instead. It's not luck or talent, but effort.

Quote from: fonkaygarryThe IH game I ran last summer (so far away now...) had two very active players, one who would get talkative if you nudged him a couple times a session and one who had to be actively included (though he was fun when he got going).

Well, it's the gamecircle.org idea, you see. If you just grab four or five random people, and stick close by them for years and years on end, then you have fun, but things can stagnate and fizzle. People get used to their roles, one guy is always the leader, another guy is always the quiet guy in the corner, etc.

But with the "game circle" idea, you have twenty or so people you're happy to game with, and put together a group for one closed-ended campaign. After that thing ends, the people go on to a new campaign, run by themselves or someone else, and you game with some different people. That lets everyone develop different gaming styles and ideas.

So for example, Rugged Indoorsman in our group, between the loudness of Vox and of Xypho, he was kept pretty quiet. Then after that campaign ended, he and Vox went off and ran their own game group. In that group were two people who were entirely new to roleplaying, and were pretty passive. So Rugged Indoorsman stepped up to fill the quietness with his own noise. The passive or reactive player became more active. Now he's coming back to game with me again, he'll be more confident and talkative, won't wait for a silence before he speaks.

Old Tyberious Funk was quiet in that original group, too. Then with the next campaign, he was with two quiet guys. So he, too, stepped up to fill the silence, and became more active.

So as people are circulating around playing with different people, they develop as players, and instead of playing in just one style, they learn different styles in response to the different people with different ideas they play with. The loud ones learn to quiet down sometimes, and the quiet ones to speak up. The combat wombats learn to negotiate, and vice versa and so on.

Quote from: fonkaygarryAs it was, though, I had a sense that their attention-seeking was like a shark: it grew to fit the environment.  If the other two had been as talkative, I feel there would have been some head-butting before territorial rights were established and the game would have gone on.

Haha, group storming, I love it!

Quote from: fonkaygarryThe idea of portioning screentime never occurred to me in play.  The metric I used was one of "stuff done".  So long as each player got to do his shtick in a meaningful fashion, it seemed that everyone was happy when we boxed up the books.

That's basically how I do it, too. I was just talking about "screentime" in minutes to make things clear, that if you have a couple of demanding players then there might not be enough time for anyone else. Session-by-session, though, I just eyeball things. It's not perfect, but... Dunno what else you could do, use a chess clock? :eek:

Quote from: Consonant DudeMinimum session time 2 hours for one or two players (not including GM).
Add one hour minimum per player after that.

I've found that this rule works for me. We generally don't have a satisfying session unless we have one hour per player.

My instinct tells me you're right.

That would mean my group should have three players, and four would be pushing it. Forget about five! Hmmmm....

I'd have to say that it kind of depends. If everybody is interested in each others' characters, three hours for five players can go quite well (then the question is how you get everybody's interest). If you're playing really intensely, three hours may be as much as you can take (then the question is how you get that sort of intensity).

My gaming group is 5 right now (4 players plus me the GM), and we play weekly, 7:30 PM to 10:30 or 11.

I've brought it up a couple of times over the past year we've been together; "Is three hours really long enough..?"

It turns out, yes, yes it is. And one guy actually drives (almost) an hour to get here, and again to go back, so maybe he's really thinking 4.5 hours.

We are a bit organized. We have worked out some standards and stuff. Like where we buy pizza from, who calls, etc. What happens to your PC if you are absent (we agree to pretend he isn't there, actually, and then simply phase him back into the action upon the players return).

ON (rare) occaision, we have run overtime by about 30 minutes, and gone all the way to 11pm, but this is always by choice. If we're reaching 10:20 or so, and a big encounter is juuust about ready to rock, I'll stop and ask people if they want to go for it tonight or wait til next week. Since we play on Thursdays and many of the people I game with work quite early (I get up at 4:30 AM), the vote has to be unanimous. Otherwise that's a rough Friday morning to get up to.

So we established this vote thingy.

By agreement and tradition-- every session ends in an experience award phase. The game stops and we do XP. This is not negotiable, really, because one time I nearly forgot when we ran late, and everyone made sure it still happened. As it turns out, that last 10-20 minutes where we count up the XP, really does put a cap on the evening very nicely. So I recommend doing something like that- some kind of normalized structure. The point is, people recognize when that phase happens and they go from interacting in the game to chatting about the session as it has ended.

(Maybe your game of choice doesn't do XP, but whatever it is, some kind of wrap up that takes place out of the game would probably be the same thing).  

And all of that.

So yeah, I like the 3 hour slot.

I certainly can see that if you have some structure to your sessions, you can handle more players. Also, someone on my LJ was saying how their group, the characters were members of an official team, so that team structure, with each character having their own role, that structure let them have six players without trouble.

I think my current players are a bit anarchist, though, when it comes to a game session. I just can't imagine them having any structure. I mean, they can't even manage to get the guy with the thief and scouting skills to go first, they always send the big warrior first then wonder why they get ambushed. And then the brash and offensive guy is the one who does the talking to the NPCs, while the dipomatic and intelligent one watches on quietly. Structure? These guys? Never! :eek:

Quote from: droogIf everybody is interested in each others' characters, three hours for five players can go quite well (then the question is how you get everybody's interest).

Who on earth is interested in someone else's character??  

Quote from: JimBobOzI think my current players are a bit anarchist, though, when it comes to a game session. I just can't imagine them having any structure. I mean, they can't even manage to get the guy with the thief and scouting skills to go first, they always send the big warrior first then wonder why they get ambushed. And then the brash and offensive guy is the one who does the talking to the NPCs, while the dipomatic and intelligent one watches on quietly. Structure? These guys? Never! :eek:

I don't think the issue is a lack of structure.  It's about matching character types, with player personality types and the style of the campaign.  

In the example you cited above, the campaign started with two players.  The passive, quiet guy decided to play the talking, diplomatic, bardish character.  The active player decided to play the brash warrior.  If the campaign had turned out to be combat intensive, having the active player push his warrior character to the front of every conflict would have worked nicely.  But instead, the game turned out to be political.  And we had the oafish lout doing his best at diplomacy and often failing dismally (but very humorously).

Now, you would argue that we, as the players, made the campaign into a political, intrigue-based game by our actions.  And you'd be right - partially.  But as the GM, you could have potentially steered the game in a slightly different direction.  Some subtle, but firm nudges in particular directions.  Of course, that wasn't necessary in a campaign with only two (and later three) players.  But I think it would be more important in a game with five players.  

For the next game, I'd try and identify who is most likely to be the active players and encourage them to create characters with abilities that will most suit the style of the game.  Let (or coerce) the passive players to create characters with the secondary abilities - ie, the abilities that are useful, but more in a behind-the-scenes kinda way.  This would, hopefully, make the group a bit more cohesive and therefore successful.  Limited game time is then spent more efficiently, actually progressing the plot further.

Unless of course you want a Paranoia style game, which is mostly madness and mayhem and players fucking up.  

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIn the example you cited above, the campaign started with two players.  The passive, quiet guy decided to play the talking, diplomatic, bardish character.  The active player decided to play the brash warrior.  

Actually, I was mixing examples. I was thinking of Tiwesdaeg 1, where the warrior-character/active-player always went first, while the scout-character/passive-player stayed behind. My next sentence was about Tiwesdaeg 2, where the warrior-character/active-player combined with the diplomat-character/reactive-player, for amusing results.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNow, you would argue that we, as the players, made the campaign into a political, intrigue-based game by our actions.  And you'd be right - partially.  But as the GM, you could have potentially steered the game in a slightly different direction.  Some subtle, but firm nudges in particular directions.

That's true, but it's a difficult thing. That subtle nudging can easily become railroading, especially if you have more retiring players. Extremely active players will perceive "subtle nudging" - well, they won't perceive it, they'll ignore it. Extremely reactive players will perceive "subtle nudging" as a railroad. The majority in the middle will vary.

I'm starting to think a GM needs a degree in psychology to be able to do this stuff perfectly - to be able to perceive the particular responses of players to the particular stuff the GM and other players have tossed out there, and adat the game accordingly. It's like tuning a guitar at the same time as playing it - it can be done, but it's not easy.

Quote from: Tyberious FUnkFor the next game, I'd try and identify who is most likely to be the active players and encourage them to create characters with abilities that will most suit the style of the game.  Let (or coerce) the passive players to create characters with the secondary abilities - ie, the abilities that are useful, but more in a behind-the-scenes kinda way.  This would, hopefully, make the group a bit more cohesive and therefore successful.  Limited game time is then spent more efficiently, actually progressing the plot further.

That's a good plan. So far I've been a reactive GM - let the players choose their character's abilities, then build a campaign in response to that. You're suggesting a more active GM - tell them to adapt their characters to the campaign. Of course a middle way is possible. I've done something like that in the past, "okay, in this campaign someone will need skill X, someone else will need skill Y," etc. But I let the players choose who'd take what.

It's a bit difficult to do that at this stage for the current campaign mentioned in the OP. What I might do is to make it quite easy for characters to pick up new skills. The I can suggest things which fit both player and character, in the way you've suggested.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkFor the next game, I'd try and identify who is most likely to be the active players and encourage them to create characters with abilities that will most suit the style of the game.  Let (or coerce) the passive players to create characters with the secondary abilities - ie, the abilities that are useful, but more in a behind-the-scenes kinda way.  This would, hopefully, make the group a bit more cohesive and therefore successful.  Limited game time is then spent more efficiently, actually progressing the plot further.

Actually, on thinking about it a bit, this is entirely wrong

It's a way of getting the active players to be more active, and the quiet players to be more quiet. That's not good. Games are more fun when everyone participates - not equally, but participates.

So I'd say the opposite - the active players should take retiring sorts of skills (research, medical), and the quieter players, more forward types of skills (combat, diplomacy). The active players don't need their characters to have the skills in order for them to participate in the game - they'll be active no matter what. The quieter players need those forward skills to encourage them to step forward a bit.

Yes, it the active players take the forward skills for their characters, and the quiet players, the retiring skills, then the character-group will be efficient and well-organised. But who gives a shit about that? I care about the player-group, about how the players are doing.

You spoke persuasively, but once I thought about it, I realised you were wrong, wrong, wrong!