I've been asked to DM for the 6-7th graders at work and I was contemplating just having an open admission policy.

The question is, how many are too many?

I have 3 regulars with 2 on and off comers, so 5 total. 2 of them being passive players made it easier, but if I had to cater to the needs of 5 players/characters at the same time would be a bit difficult for me.

When I GMed for the first time there were 3 players. The second session, everyone brought friends and suddenly we were 8, which was utter chaos.

Nowadays, I usually GM for 3-4 players, sometimes 5, which is still doable, but might get more tricky, depending on the players. Beyond that, it gets hard to give every player their deserved spotlight in my opinion.

First: Getting a bunch of 6th-7th graders to play role-playing games is phenomenal! I applaud you.

How many are too many?

It all depends on the plans for your story. I've GM'd tabletop role-playing for 8 characters before and there's not much time for actual "role-playing". A round of dice rolls can take quite a bit of time (especially with each person trying to figure out how to spend advantage/successes) so any combat takes an extended amount of time. However, for a large group of 6-7 graders most of them will probably enjoy the dice rolls over actual role-playing (there are outliers, but in large groups the dice are usually the entertainment). If the majority of your kids prefer the roleplaying aspect then you deserve much respect. Advice: don't plan too much as anything will take a long time to accomplish.

It also depends on your time constraints. How long are the sessions and how many sessions a week to you get to run? It is entirely possible for the opening scene of the EotE box set (one Gammorrean per PC in a bar) to take up an entire 50-minute class if you have a lot of players.

I remember hearing John Wick say that he runs a group with more people that want to play than he has space for at the table. So he limits the number of actual players to five and whenever a player's character dies that player gets traded for one of the players that have been waiting. That seems a bit extreme for 6th graders (as well as death being unlikely in EotE) but maybe some other type of round robin playing can be implemented?

It depends.... How good are you at multi-tasking? I've GM'd groups of as many as 10 players... It's challenging to make sure everyone stays engaged when the numbers get up beyond 5 or 6. Also, the party tends to split due to the fact that there are overlaps in skills, so they can do multiple things at the same time.

Running combat with 10 players is a -chore- as, due to the action economy, the party pretty much destroys anything that doesn't have at least half the actions they do. Consider this: in a party of 10 PCs, due to poor rolls, it's possible the BBEG will need to absorb 10 shots before they even get to act once... It tends to cause pain, which is another reason I try to split large parties.

I think 3-4 is my optimal group size, and I am not comfortable with more than 6 players.

But if I had to, I would go with Corg Ironside's suggestion of a round robin style of GMing. Split the group up into more manageable sizes and rotate each weak. After a while, you'll have some players lose interest and drop out. As this happens you might want to consolidate groups as you go.

My first session as a GM was last night. We were to have 6 PCs but one dropped out and is not likely to be regular. We had 5 and everyone seemed like they were having a good time. One player was a bit distracted throughout the night but I doubt that is likely to happen on a regular basis.

Next Sunday I am to start up with another group of 6 PCs. Planning to run the same campaign with them to make it a little easier on myself.

Recently? I DMed a party of ten high level PCs against the tarrasque for my 50th birthday.

In the wayback, I ran a group of a dozen+ in a Twilight 2000 game in college.

Normally, I think six is more than enough. I'm happier with four.

Six players is my maximum for comfortable GM.

I've gm'ed for 8 at time thankfully that group was split down into 2 groups quickly.

I've done 7, but it gets a little cluttered quick and bogs down I think, even when peeps are cooperative. 4 or 5 is best I think.

ran 13 in a Rolemaster game years ago.

I try not to let it go over 8 anymore.

ran 13 in a Rolemaster game years ago.

I try not to let it go over 8 anymore.

I think it depends a great deal on the game. Some games are fine with more players, whereas other games are better with fewer.

IMO, the FFG SWRP games tend to have a sweet spot at 4-5 players. Less than that isn’t necessarily a problem, but you might need to make some adjustments to help fill in some gaps. More than that, I believe that you tend to run into situations where the game starts bogging down.

IMO, YMMV, etc….

7 for me, playing Pathfinder through Roll20. I think the online component makes large groups actually worse, because side conversations are virtually impossible, so the temptation to be completely distracted is so great that coherence suffers. Heck, when I was a playing through Roll20, I used to set up my computer in the basement gym and, in combat, mute mic on off turns and work out.

12, though split into separate teams for the bulk of the adventure. I have 5 adventure modules and 1 large encounter designed for groups of 10+ players. If you have a co-GM handy, give one of the following a try .

The Quarantine Quandary (Halloween adventure)

Twelve Faces of Fear

Without a Trace

A Day at the Beach (lighthearted)

Trust Fall

Last Stand at Taris

In general, I find 4-6 to be the best size for a regular group, although with kids, going slightly higher (7-8) might be a little easier. Beyond the logistics of keeping everyone involved, consider the difficulties of just getting everyone to show up and sit down. My current group as 4 players + me, and coordinating our schedules can be a nightmare!

The largest group I ever GM'd was about a dozen, during a winter break from college, where I merged both my college group (most of who were taking a class over winter break) with my "at home" group. It was really like a miniseries, with multiple intersecting story lines. All characters were in the same city, but all had different agendas, so I was actually GMing at 3-4 different "tables" and rotating between small groups that would cross paths and interact. I think the entire group was together only for the final of 5 or 6 sessions.

The largest group I've played in was 20+... but that was only for a session or two. This was at an RPG store in NYC that ran regular games. Eventually, the group got so large that the GM came up with a storyline that split us into two "teams" --- and forced us to compete against one another! I wound up getting to be the leader of the, ahem, less savory team, which was a ton of fun.

I've peaked at 8 players, and have had as few as 1. I'd say the sweet spot is 4-6, like a lot of others above; going higher than that isn't necessarily advisable, but if you've got the right blend of players (and are willing to be firm about people getting distracted, since more people = more distractions) than more than 6 can work out quite nicely.

When the group got more interest and could have gone above 8 I actually just split the newcomers off and formed a second group, which did the trick for all involved. So if you get too much interest, consider giving that a try (provided your schedule allows, of course).

7 have been my lucky number for Star Wars d6, Star Wars Saga, DnD and Pathfinder (I have not attempted to run a party this large in FFG yet). And to be honest it worked for us because it was a family group who grew together and we played for almost a decade together, so my group worked seamlessly together...

For starting GMs I would recommend smaller groups until you feel more comfortable with the rules.

Edge specifically puts a bit of a limit on the Party Size due to Obligation. At 6+ Players, each player starts with 5 Obligation. So, 20 is a max before you start with 100 Obligation. Of course, that becomes 10 Players if they all take the +5 Obligation. Then again, FFG Star Wars RPG does seem to fit right around 5-6, with up to 8 starting to slog it down (especially if all from the same game line).

The largest group I've ever ran has been in con games. I've run three games that had around 20; a RiIFTS and two Dead Reign games. The big change was I couldn't run them with the rules as is, because there would be too much slow down, so you have to be willing to open things up (and toss some rules). In a con game, you can do this. In a campaign, you can not.

Once upon a time, I ran a 3.5 D&D game that had 11 players. That got to be more than a hassle. The modules I was running was geared for a smaller group, meaning that XPs were less than a trickle for everyone. That, and anyone who rolled badly on initiative would often find that combat was done by the time their turn came around. 4-5 players is what I would personally call a 'good' size for a group. If you have more players that want to join your august company, there would be two ways to handle it. First, have an A and B group. Run them on alternate weeks, so you aren't burning yourself out by trying to run two groups in one week. The other option is Dead Man's Boots. That one tends to get a little harsh, and people can get more than a little irked because they want to play, and Steve just won't die, dammit!!

Once upon a time, I ran a 3.5 D&D game that had 11 players. That got to be more than a hassle. The modules I was running was geared for a smaller group, meaning that XPs were less than a trickle for everyone. That, and anyone who rolled badly on initiative would often find that combat was done by the time their turn came around. 4-5 players is what I would personally call a 'good' size for a group. If you have more players that want to join your august company, there would be two ways to handle it. First, have an A and B group. Run them on alternate weeks, so you aren't burning yourself out by trying to run two groups in one week. The other option is Dead Man's Boots. That one tends to get a little harsh, and people can get more than a little irked because they want to play, and Steve just won't die, dammit!!

Well, the problem is that I'm already running a group with "juniors" (classes 4-5) every other week, and I'll be running this group of "seniors" (6-7's) on the other weeks.

I'll be running only on tuesdays as those are the only days I can fit it into my shedule (and as much as I love playing RPG's, I'm sure as hell not going to do it for free at work with the kids)

I'm currently running a group with 6 players. It's also my first ever group, and we've played 4 nights (the first night only had 4 players, and 2 more decided to join after). We play on Skype.

I'm finding that with so many players it's difficult to make sure they each have something to do, if they don't want to just shoot blasters at stormtroopers. But so far, everyone seems to be having fun.

7 for me, playing Pathfinder through Roll20. I think the online component makes large groups actually worse, because side conversations are virtually impossible, so the temptation to be completely distracted is so great that coherence suffers. Heck, when I was a playing through Roll20, I used to set up my computer in the basement gym and, in combat, mute mic on off turns and work out.

I would disagree that side conversations are "virtually" impossible.

In-fact, they are Virtually possible. My group uses Vent for voice chat, and it is possible to communicate between each other using private chat windows.

My players do use these.

As easy a in person? maybe not...

But actually less distracting from the game as they aren't talking over the voice of the gm.

i've never run big groups, 6 is themaximum number of players i've ever had at the table at once. i doubt i'd enjoy more.

with kids i guess smaller groups are necessary. as a gm you have to keep a closer eye on child players, especially if they are inexperienced. keeping them engaged is more important with kids.

i would definitely not run for more than 6 children.

Biggest? Pushing 20 back in the day. Nowadays I get verklempt if I have more than 4.

i've never run big groups, 6 is themaximum number of players i've ever had at the table at once. i doubt i'd enjoy more.

with kids i guess smaller groups are necessary. as a gm you have to keep a closer eye on child players, especially if they are inexperienced. keeping them engaged is more important with kids.

i would definitely not run for more than 6 children.

Well, it turns out the Junior club group will be 6 kids and me as a GM... so that's something I'll have to work on.