Handling Large Parties - Part 3 - The Solutions

For my last two posts I have been discussion the issues involved with having a large player base. In Part 1, I discussed the maths behind having more players, and pointed out how exponentially time slips away when you have more players sticking around the table. In Part 2, I discussed the issues involved with having multiple conflicting player types at the table, and how those issues are exacerbated when large groups of players are involved.

For the final post in the series, Part 3, I will be discussing the four solutions that I eventually decided upon being feasible, and I will go into the Pros and Cons of each, and finally will reveal the solution that me and my players came to.

This, in fact, brings me to my first and biggest point.

Talk to Your Players

Whilst writing this series, and struggling with the issues, I decided that I would arrange a general meeting of my entire RPG group, spanning several campaigns. Most of the players had all played together in at least one of my campaigns, so everyone, bar the new blood, knew each other from an in-game perspective, as well as an out-of-game perspective.

It was a Round Table Discussion, but unlike you've ever seen before...

At this meeting, which I tried to make as informal, yet organised as possible, I expressed each of the following ideas/solutions, and then the group took it in turns to talk about each solution and why they liked/disliked each one. We then voted, myself included, and we came to a mutually agreeable solution. Not everyone was insanely happy with the solution we did come to, but at least everyone understood it, or was given the chance to understand it.

Anyway, onto the solutions.

The Solutions Themselves

Solution #1: The GMPC

Normally mention of a GMPC is cause for pitchforks to be grabbed and a lynch mob to be rallied - but this system is slightly different, and was actually originally given to me as a comment for [[Part 1]] of this series by another roleplayer in the community. The idea is that the GM informs one or more players in the campaign about several campaign secrets, and fills them in on lots of information, enough so that they can essentially run specific scenes throughout a session (or more, if needs be).

GMPC: In the party, yet knowing what's coming next...

Basically, they are a mini-GM, but they also have a character in the game that takes a back seat, but is there to guide the players. I like to think of this role as the First Mate to the GM as Captain of a ship. The GMPC acts as an intermediary between GM and players, and has the ability to run some of the players through a situation with little to no supervision form the GM.

This system allows the group to divide up during play (as groups of any size invariably and should do) and run a combat encounter, or a social encounter, whilst the GM is handling the main action. That way, those players involved in the side action aren't sat there bored out of their brains whilst the main action unfolds, and the GM doesn't have to break the entire session into 'turns'.

This system, though, does require an incredibly amount of communication and trust between GM and GMPC/s. The GMPC/s have to be subservient to the GM, otherwise continuity and cohesion issues will arise, and will result in a break down of the game. Furthermore, the GMPC/s have to be given enough authority and freedom that they themselves aren't hard done by (and they still have fun) and also so that those players who are running under them don't feel like they're getting a 'lesser' form of the game.

Solution #2: Run Multiple Games

Now, this one is kind of straight forward, and will be instantly dismissed by most groups (as it was with mine), but I felt it was important enough to mention, and as such will mention it here as well. It is always possible to divide a group into two different groups, and run two different games.

Two herds of cats can't be any harder to wrangle than one, surely?!

However, this system is wrought with problems off the bat. If the GM doesn't have time for two, there is no way it can happen. Even if the GM does, it will invariably mean that both campaigns are less involved than one would ever be, and that neither are filled with the same level of planning as one big game is.

Further, if you have a tight-knit group, and you divide it into two, then there can be some social awkwardness. Do people choose to play a campaign based on what it is, or who is in it? Do people still have time to hang out in the real world as much, or have as much to talk about when they're not sharing weekly forays into a fantasy world? (You wouldn't think these would be issues, but they are.)

But, then again, this system can work wonders for a group that can handle it. The GM gets to experiment with different games, and has the option of trialling something with one group, and rehashing it for another. The groups get a chance to trade interesting stories about their adventures, and compare campaigns. And so on.

Solution #3: The Players as Rivals

The third solution and the fourth are based on a similar premise that I will get out of the way now: both involve a single campaign with multiple groups running in it at the same time.

Gary Oak, you've destroyed the validity of the word "Rival"...

This option supposes that there are two rivalling groups that are contending for the same great prize, but are fundamentally unable to defeat each other. They cannot harm each other, only compete. This could be that they're all members of the same company, just different divisions (like L.A.P.D. vs F.B.I.) or they are being watched by some governing body that would be very unhappy were they to kill each other. Yet, there is still competition. Whoever solves an issue first gets the rewards, and then gets the fame/money/whatever.

This system requires a lot of out-of-game communication, as well as a lot of trust between GM and players, and players and other players. We don't want players to take the actions of rival characters to heart, and we don't want anyone feeling like one group is being favoured by the GM.

And yet, this could lead to a situation of friends talking on the weekend about how they've been going and bragging to each other in a rival-like way. It could breed a beautiful campaign. Or it could breed resentment.

Furthermore, it invariably means either each group plays only one in every two session, or the GM runs a second session a week... This might not work for some schedules.

Solution #4: The West Marches

If you're unfamiliar with The West Marches, please head on over to ars ludi and read through at least the first page describing it (there are 5 posts in total, and they're all good, but only the first is pertinent to understanding).

West Marches is approximately this awesome...

In brief, the idea is to have a pool of players, and to run two sessions per week. Players decide which session they're in, and can only choose one per week. Then, each week, each player is playing with a previously organised collection of players from the player pool.

This has the benefit of keeping up the social connections between all the players, as well as enforcing contact and "story swapping" between sessions. Players benefit from sharing information, and can do so with much greater ease. 

However, there is a much greater risk of segregation in this system. Bullying is possible (without people even realising it) and players who are naturally more inclined to one play style will consistently play with others of their same style, until such a time when dedicated factions have almost formed in the group. This can result in hurt feelings, etc, etc. It, again, requires the GM to put more time into the game due to more sessions.

But, then again, West Marches is so damn cool!

The Solution We Chose

In the end, after much debate and discussion and serious thought, me and my group came to the consensus that Solution #1 benefited us the most. We're a pretty close group, and there are many within I would trust to act in the GMPC roll. Further, we all have pretty hectic schedules, and we only reliably have one day a week to play, so the other options would be a stretch.

Yeap, Gandalf won.

However, in the end, the biggest deciding factor for me was that we're all friends, and playing RPGs together has made our group so close-knit and amazing that dividing ourselves up would be a massive blow. Sure, we'd still all be friends, but we wouldn't laugh and cry together as the blows fall.

WFRP, for us, will be a hard act to follow. But we certainly wont be following it by splitting up. Only by sticking together will we recreate the same sort of magic that lived in that campaign, and I really look forward to spreading that to our new players.

Sure, we've grown massive, and we threaten to continue to grow, but some of my players are ready for the next step into becoming GMs, and I feel that Solution #1 gives us the chance to both play together and to nurture new GM talents.

I hope my insights and solutions will be able to help you in a similar issue, or just to help you think about your own group in a new way.

Keep having fun, and we'll be getting back to our regular programming soon.

Handling Large Parties - Part 2 - Conflicting Player Types

Following on from my last post, I am now going to discuss differing player types, and how having lots of players can exacerbate player-type conflicts that may already exist. Get ready for lots of political jokes...

The Variables

For this study, I am going to be using a 2-axis scale, using the variables Loud vs Quiet and Solitary vs Social. Let me just define those for you now, and quickly outline the pros and cons of each.

Loud

The Loud end of the Loud vs Quiet axis is, obviously, for players who are louder at the table than others. This end is for players who tend to lead discussions and, by virtue of this, grow into leadership roles within the group.

Loud players are good for a party because they represent a rallying point for ideas, and they are often able to push Quiet players out of their bubbles, but they can be troublesome because they can overshadow a Quiet player. 

Furthermore, multiple Loud players leads to a Parliament Stagnation, a situation where multiple people are yelling about their view points, yet not actually listening to the other side so as to allow any chance for them to be dissuaded from their ideas.

With leaders like these, we can't be far off World Peace, right?!

Quiet

The Quiet end of the Loud vs Quiet axis is for players who tend to speak up less, and who are more happy to watch events unfold and react after the fact, instead of asserting their views early. This isn't to say that they never speak up, but they are rarely the ones to whip a group into shape before the shit hits the fan.

Quiet players are good for a party because they are usually more contemplative, quietly working on an issue, listening to the GM, and solving problems before presenting them to the group. Additionally, they are generally more accepting of leadership roles within the group, allowing for smooth movement. However, they can be troublesome in that they have a tendency to hold back useful feedback for the group and GM, meaning that they can become discontented, or cause others to become discontented during play because of their inaction.

Multiple Quiet players often leads to the Stalin Lack-of-Initiative, where in everyone is too afraid to say anything to break the silence, resulting in Loud players dominating play when they have no more right to than the Quiet players.

"It seems like we should attack the Orks from the south..."

Solitary

The Solitary end of the Solitary vs Social axis represents players who are happier playing their "own game", following side-quests and generally acting on their own during a session, instead of travelling or conferring with the party as a whole.

Solitary players are good because they can help the GM build suspense by revealing secrets to one character (but saying them aloud to the table), causing some players to squirm with the fun-frustration of In-Character vs Out-of-Character information. They also help explore extra parts of the world, and allow the other players to see sections that they otherwise wouldn't have under the main game. They can be difficult, however, due to the fact that time spent on Solitary players is obviously time spent on only one player, leaving everyone else twiddling their thumbs.

Multiple Solitary players leads to a Stooge Paradox, of everyone running in multiple directions, resulting in the side-quests getting more screen time collectively than the main quest. Naturally, this slows down play considerably with so many split parties that you may as well be running multiple games.

Not sure if photo of TV show or Player Characters...

Social

The Social end of the Solitary vs Social axis is for players who are happiest when discussing tactics and events with other players, and following along with the group's agenda, rather than any individual goals.

Social players are good because they get the main quest line rolling, and maintain group unity and direction. They can cause problems, however, because they tend to prefer discussion above action, leading to slower sessions.

Multiple Solitary players leads to a United Nations of Inactivity, where everyone discusses situations ad infinitum, and never actually accomplishes anything. This obviously has the downfall that nothing ends up getting done, in the end.

GMing for 9 people doesn't seem so bad when looking at this...

My Group

Now that I have outlined the variables, it's time to look at the main topic - my ridiculously sized group.

I have filled out my players on the axis listed above, and I received the following graph:

As you can see, due to the large amount of players, I have a pretty even split between the four variables. One would think this is a good idea, but one would be wrong. An even split is good when you have 4 players, because one can fit in each niche, but having more than 1 in each niche causes problems. 

Lets have a look at the specific interactions, shall we?

Multiple Loud players results in often the 3 loudest dominating discussions, with the other 5-6 quieter players either not saying anything or forming factions behind the 3 - this causing division within the group, as well as boredom for the unheard Quiet players. This also means that often very good ideas coming from the Social/Quiet players are never enforced, and the Social/Loud players tend to bring discussions to a stand still with neither side gaining ground or convincing each other. It is a debate where neither side is listening to the other...

Multiple Solitary players results in more than half of a games session being taken up by side-stuff, like Side-Quests and book keeping, etc. It also means that I literally cannot remember the last session where the party wasn't split at least 3 ways. This means either each group does not much in a session, or favourites are played, and that is never fun for anyone involved.

Now, neither camp would be a bad thing if there were only a few of them. An ideal group will have at least one person that fits into every corner of the graph, but the above does not represent ideal... Therefore, something needs to be fixed. And that's the topic for next time.

Play more games!!! NOW!

Handling Large Parties - Part 1 - The Math

This article, and the ones that come after it in this series, concern an issue I have been battling with for a while now, and it has recently come to light again in an ugly way. I have too many players. Specifically, I now have 11 players - 9 of which are in every game I run.

Many of you will have just choked on your coffee/spat at the screen/summoned the Great Devourer to do away for me for such flippant expression of "too many people like my game", but it is causing serious problems. The biggest of which is that some players aren't getting the chance to talk much at all during sessions, as they are drowned out by the conflagration of noise which is my player base, or they're being left with massive expanses of time whilst others are doing their thing. But, this is far from the only problem...

So, this is going to be a pretty technical post. I need to work the math out on this one so I can address it properly. Bear with me, and if you have ANY advice, please let me know (I'm dying here, man).

Also, please note that I am not complaining about my group!I do in fact love them all :) Just, these are the issues that a GM must deal with, and this is the best medium I have to get them out in the air!

It Takes Forever To Do Anything

First up is a simple one. The more players you have, the more time it takes to do everything in the game. This, at first, wouldn't seem like much of an issue, but lets break it down a little bit with some maths. We'll split an RPG session into 2 actions: Discussion and Combat.

I will be taking some liberties here. I am considering an "Average Group" to be 4 players and 1 GM, all of whom are friends who get along well. The times I am giving are very rough estimates, taken from play examples I have witnessed or run.

I am also classing an Average Game Session to be 3.5 hours long, as that is how long my games go for, and have always gone for. Honestly, I can't see a game going for any less having any content, but that's just me.

Discussion

Now, most RPGs have a level of Discussion - players need to plan out situations before they explore them. This is a good thing, as it gets the players thinking about the game and asking questions. Lets suggest that an average group needs to discuss things with the GM for 10 minutes first, and then gives 5 minutes to each player to work out their ideas (or more accurately, for everyone to chime in).

That means, with an Average Group, a Discussion about an event that the GM throws at the PCs will take 30 minutes. Therefore, the GM can safely give his players 7 things to worry about during an Average Game Session with no Combat involved, going from event to event.

Now, with a group of 9 consistent players, a Discussion lasts for approximately 55 minutes, allowing for 3 full events to occur before Combat is factored into the the mess. This is nearly a full third of an Average Game Session where nothing actually happens, beyond player discussion.

Combat

Combat takes even longer. Suggesting that the average turn per character is about 1.5 minutes (including planning, rolling, notation, etc), and that the Average Combat goes for 4 rounds, during which every character, including the enemies (for safe bet, I have made the enemies equal the players in number, to challenge everyone) gets one turn, then we have some startling numbers.

The Average Group takes 12 minutes per Round, and therefore 48 minutes per Combat. This means there is room for 4 full Combat scenes in an Average Game Session before Discussions are concerned.

With a group of 9 players, however, it takes 27 minutes per Round, and 108 minutes per Combat. This means that a GM can only run 1 full combat scene during an Average Game Session, before Discussions are concerned.

This also means that, with a group this size, it could arguably be 25+ minutes between PC actions. This means that a player has a LOT of time in which to get bored...

A Whole Session

If we combine Discussions and Combat to make for a fully rounded session, with at least 1 of each, we get the following numbers:

The Average Group can have 3 Combats and 2 Discussions (favouring Combat), or 3 Discussions and 2 Combats (favouring Discussions). Both situations leave for 6 minutes of downtime and wiggle room, which isn't much, but it means either 1 Combat or 1 Discussion can be planned as less important, and able to be cut if time isn't allowing.

However, a group of 9 players can have a maximum of 1 Discussion and 1 Combat. There is never a chance for more Combat, but they can drop the Combat in favour of 2 extra Discussions. Doing the former grants 47 minutes of downtime, which is a good amount to muck around in and have fun, and doing the latter grants 45 minutes.

Matching To A Campaign

Most Adventures are written following a 3 Act structure, which include at least 1 Discussion and a Combat in the 1st Act, 2 Discussions and a Combat in the 2nd Act, and a Combat in the 3rd Act, then an Average Group will take 1-2 sessions to complete an Adventure. A group of 9 players, however, would take 3+.

And if your Campaign is set up of 3 arcs of 3 Adventures each, then an Average Group will take 9-18 Sessions, and a group of 9 will take 27 at the smallest possible scale. If you're playing weekly, then this isn't too much of a problem, but what group in the history of groups has ever been able to avoid some kind of hiccups to their weekly games?

Conclusion

A group of 9 players, as opposed to an Average Group, will spend significantly longer doing anything, and a large amount of that time will be spent waiting for your turn to come around... This is a MAJOR issue.

Honestly, I don't see much in the way of a solution to this - there simply isn't another way to make time go slower, or speed a situation up at all. Perhaps I could work on something for players to do during another player's turn? Or collaborative character turns? I'm not really sure.

Next in this series will deal with Conflicting Player Types.

If you have any ideas, please tell me in the comments below. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is battling this or a similar issue, so you'd be helping a LOT of people! Cheers :)

Grand Concept Documents

I've always enjoyed the idea of a unified campaign - one where, before play starts, the GM and players both understand what the game is about, and the general flow of how it will work session-to-session. However, I have always relied on implied notions of what a campaign should be, which often leads to a situation where everyone is confused about what they're supposed to be doing.

Not any more.

I've come up with a very simple template document for GMs to fill out before players generate characters, that should help in guide the entire party towards its intended play-style.

Please note that this doesn't mean railroading, or forcing people to play a game other than how they want to - this is about getting a thematically consistent player base before play begins, so no one makes a wise-cracking Vampire Ninja for your Historical Rome game... This is about laying out some guidelines so that your players have somewhere to look for their character, instead of running head-first into a crowd with a crossbar, playing the first thing they hit.

Grand Concept Documents

As you should all know, I love showy titles, and this is no different. With the GCD, you will be presented with five points, each of which should be answered in no more than 2 sentences. I will outline and explain each one below. But please remember, these GCDs are made for the players eyes, so don't write spoilers in them!

I will go through and fill the GCD out for my current in-planning campaign, Marienburg: Sold Down the River, so you can get an idea of how it should be filled out.

Campaign Name

Here you want to give the campaign an evocative title. It should be something that instantly captivates and inspires a certain type of focus for the group. Think of it in terms of a TV show - Buffy the Vampire Slayer is obviously about a Vampire Slayer called Buffy, Supernatural is obviously about supernatural things.

That's not slaying, and you damn well know it...

I chose Marienburg: Sold Down the River for three reasons - firstly, it is the name of the source book which was originally written for Marienburg, so it is instantly relevant. Secondly, whilst I am using the 1st edition source book, the game is being run for 2nd edition players who have never known 1st edition, so it is a call back to the hobby's past. And thirdly, it instantly ingrains in the players' minds that the campaign is about the city of Marienburg, and about Money.

Campaign Tag-Line

Here you want to give the campaign a snappy sub-title - something that sums up the tone of the campaign, and gives it a nice ring. It should foreshadow the big events in the campaign, and constantly keep the players guessing as to its relevance, whilst simultaneously showing its head throughout. Think in terms of Star Trek, with "Space, the Final Frontier". Hearing that straight up tells us that the main characters are going to be going to new worlds and exploring what hasn't been explored before. We know the sorts of stories that will be told.

Or maybe it's about sweet dance moves?

I chose to go with "When everything is for sale, what is your Honour worth?". This perfectly foreshadows the tricky decisions that the players will have to make, and reinforces the cut-throat nature of Marienburg, and the campaign's focus on money. The players KNOW that at some point, they will have to make the choice between their integrity, and their next meal...

What Is The Campaign Question

As I have discussed before, I believe every campaign should have a Question that it answers - like a good Sci-Fi novel. This can be anything, but it should be something that you've never attempted to answer before hand. Consider Asimov's robots, bound by three laws which make them our slaves. What happens when a Robot breaks the rules? I can't really direct you in how you should choose this question - it just has to be something that you want to explore, and that your players want to explore.

My next campaign: What if Isaac Asimov was 8x the size of the Earth?!

For M:SDtR, I chose to go with the question: What if the PCs aren't heroes, just regular Joes trying to make it in the world? This question completely changes the regular flow of an RPG - instead of high adventure on the seas, or delving through dungeons for glittering gold, we have PCs taking the dirty "adventurer" jobs because that's all they can get, and they simply need to eat. PCs will be motivated by money, not from a power-gaming, +10 Sword getting point of view, but from a lust for a dry roof over their head, and a warm meal in their stomach.

Who Are The PCs

Here you should briefly explain what the general idea behind the party as a whole is. This doesn't mean, what classes, races, etc are available, but more the concept behind them. Consider Firefly, where the heroes aren't heroes as such, but Space Cowboy/Pirates. Simple enough. You can go into more detail, such as with Star Wars and say Rebel Heroes fighting the Evil Empire, each emphasising an aspect of the Hero's Journey Archetypes.

Maybe they are heroes... Big damn heroes.

I went with Vagabonds and Ne'er-Do-Wells who need a Fresh Start. Each character has a clear in: they pissed someone off and need to flee to Marienburg, or they've run up a list of debts and need a quick copper to settle them, or they're chasing adventure, running from a boring farmer's life. However, it doesn't restrict the party options - from this they could be anything from Rat Catchers, to Thugs, to Watchmen, to Smugglers. In fact, I hope they are all of these things - Marienburg would suit them nicely!

What Are They Doing

Finally, briefly describe what a typical session would be like. Don't go into plot points, but consider this the "TV Writers Guide" of your campaign, and you should reference this when planning. What are the PCs doing, and how are they starting it? The other points should basically write this for you, but it helps to outline it clearly so your players are on the same page as you. Consider the X-Files, each episode, the main characters Hear About Something Strange, Investigate, and Come to a Shaky Conclusion. In this, we know the formula for most episodes. The audience knows that they're going to get mostly investigation and intrigue - not much action.

Why?! It seems everything you come across is terrifying...

I went with Find a Contact, Get a Job, Do Something Underhanded, Get Paid. The players know that the campaign is likely going to be filled with the wrong sort of NPCs - everyone stabbing each other in the back, and trying to get backroom politics done which are so backroom that they're in the alley behind the building. There could be lots of combat, or there could be spying, or thuggery, or whatever. But they also know that their reputation will be very important - if people know you get the job done, they'll give you more jobs. If they know you're likely to stab them in the back, they'll send men to stab you first.

I hope this layout gives you and your players a much more consistent and even campaign! Let me know how it works out for you!

Artist Spotlight: Leesha Hannigan, DoubleJumper

Well, I promised I would do more art shout-outs, so here is the first of the new batch. 

Living in Melbourne, and studying at Qantm, I met some absolutely amazing artists, but by far I've never seen one with the same range as Leesha Hannigan. From stunningly realistic environments, to adorable isometric houses, and Disney-quality characters... Needless to say, when Leesha told me her intention to join Impossible Worlds, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Enough of my rambling - here is the art itself! (Note, the last one is a painting of a nude model, but I would class it SFW. If you have an issue with it, then, grow up... Seriously.)

Damn... All I have to say.

Check out the rest of Leesha's work on her blog, DoubleJump!

Character Profiles - Jorn Hussen

Greetings all!

My apologies for my lack of posts recently. Between looking for work, and Impossible Worlds, I've found far less time than I would like to devote to writing for versamus. However, I have managed to whip something together for you all, in the vein of the old Altdorfer character cards.

I present to you Jorn Hussen, first of my Character Profiles series - a stream of NPCs that I will be creating using the Expanded Character Module produced by the fan-community for WFRP2e.

Feel free to download a copy, tear him apart, feature him as is, or whatever you please.

Enjoy!

100th Post, 15,000 Views - It's a Good Day

Holy crap, it actually happened! WOOOO!

Not only does this post mark the 100th post on versamus, but it also marks the morning of waking up to seeing the view count tipped over 15,000 views for the first time!

Hot damn, that's a lotta views...

Last month, January, was a incredibly successful month for posting, it seems. I near topped my viewing record, which I hope to continue this trend. I replaced two articles on my "5 Most Viewed", both of which were from way back in 2011! And I began posting my own creations on versamus.

I've learned two key things - people like free stuff, and people like art. Therefore, I will be promising more of both in the future! I've been writing a lot of supplements for various games, and I will start posting more than just WFRP stuff. Further, I have been in contact with a few of the amazing artists I know, and they're keen for me to host some of their work!

In other news, Impossible Worlds has started with three teams working concurrently on 2 month-long development cycles. I can't say all that much yet, but once we have some press releases, I will be sure to talk about them here. Some awesome work has already begun, and I am very keen for what comes next!

Still a work in progress, but it is getting there.

Part-Time Gods Season 2 is about to begin - our first session is on the 3rd, and will be played every Monday until it is done (I am looking for 3-4 sessions). I've been toying around with a narrative write-up of the first Season, but I don't know if I'll ever finish it seriously, or if it is just a hobby. If I do make anything of it, however, I'll post about it.

If you think that isn't awesome... Then we have nothing to talk about.

Finally, I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who has read versamus thus far, and whilst I can't promise we'll still be here for the next milestones (200 posts and 25,000 views), I can certainly say that if we are, it'll be because of you guys! I hope, in some way, I've made your games better, or at least given you something to think about.

Cheers, and happy gaming!