I began GM'ing a new campaign last month with the Beyond the Rim adventure book. I love how narrative the Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPG is, but a couple (one in particular) from the group of five players does not. I've been trying to keep folks engaged and happy as much as possible because, after all, if the players are having fun the session is a success. The problem is, half my group wants a completely different play style from the other half. When I get into conversational points in the adventure, some players tune out and even start walking around the room looking for other things to do. If I cut the conversations short and expedite the story telling, the other half of the group is disappointed.

My question is: how do I balance making sure everyone is getting what they want out of the game without taking away from the parts of the session that some people enjoy?

I realize this is an extremely loaded question, but I'd love to hear from others' experiences with similar group makeups!

One half wants to role play and one doesn't. It's a role playing game. Pretty much a self answering question I think.

That was constructive.

Any insight beyond that? I'd rather teach them the potential of what a role playing game can be or is. I think it may be that they just don't know the potential of what they can do, or that they don't have to be so passive during the role playing sections. Is there a way that I can get them more active in these sections?

A Party of 3 always engaged players would be much better than what you have now... perhaps the others should play X-Wing in another room?

If your looking for solutions that don't involve downsizing i can give a couple of ideas:

1. Occasionally treat social encounters like combat encounters. Using social skills to "Attack" the opponents, dealing strain damage. The excitement could draw in the dungeon crawl crowd.

2. Competitive skill checks can increase the tension but keep the story interesting, the opposing characters have a set difficulty to roll against, the first to a certain number of successes wins.

3. Ensure the non combatant PC's have tasks to achieve during combat, tasks other than "i hit with my holdout blaster, but that NPC soaks it all"

4. Have encounters with multiple simultaneous objectives to achieve. perhaps the Face is trying to Negotiate with a Crime boss while the Gun Bunny or Melee Monster are out back keeping some goons from interrupting. or the safe needs cracking, but the Imps are on their way and need to be 'Delayed'

5. Tell them to pull their heads in, everyone is there for a fun game and they are spoiling everyones fun. they may be 'bored' because they think their character isn't good at this stuff so why listen. after they get up and walk off, suddenly turn to them and say something to make their character the centre of attention, in a situation thats definitely out of their wheel house.

The sooner they realise that every character in this game can do everything the better for everyone.

can you please give us a rundown of the PC's and each corresponding players preference (Combat or RP/Social)?

The problem is, half my group wants a completely different play style from the other half. When I get into conversational points in the adventure, some players tune out and even start walking around the room looking for other things to do.

Regardless of how you move forward, this behavior just isn't cool. I'm all about compromise and making my players happy as a GM, but if I had players that did this to me... I'd find a tactful way of disinviting them from the game. I could help brainstorm solutions with you, but this behavior causes me not to give a ****. You'd be better off without them. My guess is they'll just cause more problems down the road with their (intentional or unintentional) selfishness and passive aggressive behavior.

Ok, *sigh*...

I'd say finish whatever adventure you're currently running. Hopefully that only takes you another session or two. When your current adventure is finished, take a break and poll your group before you start the next adventure. Maybe you even take a week or two off to do this. Talk to your group about the type of game they want to experience. Vote on it if necessary. Set expectations. When you have your answer, you can respectfully ask if any of your players aren't interested in playing that type of game. If so, they can leave until they decide if/when they want back into the group. Let them know they're welcome back. No hard feelings. Be clear that you're not removing anybody from the group, but instead setting expectations and allowing potential players to make an informed decision about their future participation. However, if they stay, no more "walking around and finding something else to do".

Unfortunately, a compromise here in the long run is just going to leave everyone unhappy. That would be really unfortunate since it sounds like you have a majority of players really enjoying your game. So, I say tactfully nip this in the bud and move forward with a great game.

Thanks, Richard!

Here's a rundown of the group:

A smuggler pilot that was once an ace podracer. He lost big in a race that another one of the PCs was betting on him to lose. When it was thought he threw the race, he went into a life of exile along with the gambler. The face of the group.

A smuggler/gambler, with a penchant for beating the odds. He has a long history with the pilot above, although they don't always get along due to their troubled past.

A droid grenadier that is obsessed with explosives. When the smugglers listed above won their ship in a game of chance, the droid was thrown in as a "gift". Little did they know, he was more a curse upon their freighter. One of the players that is more interested in combat only.

A chadra fan slicer with a history with the Empire. She made a bit of a name for herself by pulling off some big hacking jobs, but dug too deep to the point where she caught some Imperial attention. While trying to lay low from the Empire, she was saved by a wookie in a local cantina. When the wookie was detained, the chadra fan sprung him out of jail, thus furthering their need to stay on the run and thus join the other PCs.

A wookie marauder with a life debt to the chadra fan listed above. Obsessed with keeping her safe at all times. The other player only interested in combat.

Hope that helps give you a better idea of the group dynamic I'm working with!

That was constructive.

Any insight beyond that? I'd rather teach them the potential of what a role playing game can be or is. I think it may be that they just don't know the potential of what they can do, or that they don't have to be so passive during the role playing sections. Is there a way that I can get them more active in these sections?

You sound like you're doing your part. Players have a responsibility to engage. Not to mention a grown adult wouldn't get up and walk away like you're describing, that's just plain rude. I don't think it's a GMs job to teach manners and civility, and if they aren't interested enough to even be polite I'm not sure you should bother.

As an example: I have a Player who isn't the most outspoken in the group. During one campaign he was playing a Trollslayer (WFRP 3ed). They needed to deal with a gang who was running an extortion racket, a simple bash the door down, knock out 5 or 6 gang members, then have a little chat with the boss. Well the slayer walks straight up to the back door and tries to sneak a look inside, fails miserably and is confronted with 3 thugs. the social character stepped in and proceeded to make a mighty Deception check, booking an immediate meeting with the boss! well they walk upstairs and negotiations go badly. the weapons are being drawn and our resident slayer pipes up with "Hey, I could try and intimidate him..." of course he got 2 Sigmar's Comets (Triumphs) and they had their own little gang to do their dirty work...

Point is, give them a carrot and see if they run with it, the more the PC is involved in the action hopefully the more the Player is engaged too.

Make it in their interest to get involved?

For example ask the droid player who is going to fix him if the only mechanic (I am assuming they have one?) is either incapacitated, killed or captured?

As for the wookie marauder character does he have any surviving family or friends he wants to make sure are okay?

How much character background have they provided?

The droid might be extricably linked to their ship?

Whoever owned both may have had their own means to control both droid and ship, maybe they intend to regain "ownership" of both at some point?

Perhaps the limit of that control is they can shut the droid down maybe leave them with no memories about what transpired whilst they were deactivated, would that inspire them to get more involved to discover what's going on?

It would be scary enough to discover someone breached their ship, but what if they wake up in cells with their ship gone and their only free PC being that droid?

Who owned that ship before them?

Was it like TFA where Han lost the Millennium Falcon and it past through various owners before they locate it again?

Maybe it holds the key to a treasure they're unaware of being hired to search a few ruins unaware their patron needs their ship to access the vault and they're not planning on sharing!

You really need to run a train heist with that group!

Data Server is being transported, it has files valuable to the Party or an associate.

They need to fly along side the train, most jump aboard, pilot stays aboard ship.

Grenadeer needs to open up the tin can

Gambler and Marauder need to protect the Slicer

Slicer needs to get in and get the info.

Combat is the distraction to the main plot.

Another great encounter (or even series) would be the Marauder getting into illegal Dueling rings.

The Pilot and Slicer need to get info on opponents, the gambler gambles, and that droid... Distraction?

I love this topic. Our group is VERY diverse. We had a very bumpy first couole of months. Some of ua had never met before, some left. It had actually become part of the dynamic in each session to expect strain from the GM for our hostility toward each other. It was one of the more ingenious ways he found to get us to work together. Now we have built some trust and rank to our PC personal obligations. Ultimately leading us toward a more focused objective and even team work. It sucked but it defiantly gave us a comment goal, nothing sucks like permanent strain and melee battles with your own group members.

That is a really extreme case but it worked for us. Plus it has led to some good story arcs. We found often times we can be more effective from alternate angles.

In on of our earlier sessions we split up and my character managed to meet a crime boss while the other half of our party robbed an adversary of his. Ultimately building a lot of repore with this boss who has been a great contact since then. Sometimes you need to play to your strengths even if you have to do it alone.

Perhaps split the party in half.

For those combat oriented players let them start a new campaign as hired guns in which all they ever have to do is shoot people. While every bit of GMing advice ever seems to defy this, if that is what your players want, that is what they should get.

For the rest of your players, continue as normal without those who don't like to roleplay.

A tough position to be in, sorry.

First? I would straight out talk to the problem children. Lay out the expectations of the group, that the engine is designed to be narrative and interactive, and while there will be plenty of combat, the group also has fun doing the social interaction too. Ask them to try and participate more, tell them that wandering around is being disruptive and inconsiderate to the others.

"I enjoy your company, but you are messing up the fun for the others. If the non-combat scenes are too much for you to handle, then perhaps it would be best for both you and us if you found something else to do on Saturday nights."

If they are willing to try and behave, then go out of your way to build some games around them. Dont exclude the others, mind you - just incorporate elements from their backstory into the game. The Bad Guy for the story turns out to be the wookiees old owner when he was a slave. The droid is kidnapped liberated by the Droid Free Rights Movement. Get some story hooks into them and see if that turns them around.

If a player walks away I would suggest either removing them from the game for the session whether they're in combat or not; or having their character also walk away, and maybe the person they're speaking with considers that rude, and maybe it hits the fan because of the perceived insult of turning their back in such a fashion.

I'd like to throw it out there that I like to get up and move around from the table when I play - that in and of itself doesn't seem to be a disrespectful thing in my mind if I remain engaged.

As others have said, a frank discussion is in order. It's clearly affecting the fun of some/all the people at the table.

You lost me at players getting up and going to find something else to do. This really just floored me I am fairly even tempered and will do my best to meet the differing needs of my group but I think I would lose it if one of them got up and went to find something else to do in the middle of my game. It is rude and disrespectful I would rather that player call for a break tell me this wasn't his thing and leave.

There are things you can do to work players with differing play styles. You can add more action scenes or as suggested sometimes treat social occasions as a combat encounter. However at some point you have to look at your group and what they want and you have to look at the stories you want to tell. Neither side of the table should be miserable and sometimes that means thinning the numbers. The suggestions from others above are great and varied.

I still really cannot get over a player getting up to find something else to do that would be the last game of mine he was invited to. Friendships are different just like gaming tables so maybe it is not an issue for you. This to me seems to be the larger problem a role playing game takes a certain amount of buy in from players to work. Those unspoken rules that let us do something that is a cross between monopoly and improve theater. To have someone say if you do not give me what i want every moment of the game I am going to get up and go watch TV just screams problem player to me. I wish you and your table the best of luck.

Even if all of your players were engaged, five players is one too many. If you remove the most problematic player, you've fixed two issues - too many players preventing a sufficient amount of spotlight time and distracting behaviors - with one action. Gently ejecting non-engaged players has improved my games tremendously.

If you would like to discuss broaching that with the dismissed player, I'm happy to share some ideas. I would also recommend reading this 13 year-old article on the Five Geek Social Fallacies if you need some perspective. This is a must read for all social gamers.

Even if all of your players were engaged, five players is one too many.

I find that I must disagree with this statement. I have run Shadowrun games with 9 players, and my current Star Wars game is about to expand to six players plus myself as the GM. Five players, when they are willing to stay involved in the game, is definitely not "one too many". But when you have problem players, even just two players can be "one too many" if that problem player is ruining the story and the game for the other player and the GM.

Even if all of your players were engaged, five players is one too many.

I find that I must disagree with this statement. I have run Shadowrun games with 9 players, and my current Star Wars game is about to expand to six players plus myself as the GM. Five players, when they are willing to stay involved in the game, is definitely not "one too many". But when you have problem players, even just two players can be "one too many" if that problem player is ruining the story and the game for the other player and the GM.

I think everyone has a sweet spot, and that can change with the group and age (I know mine did!)

Even if all of your players were engaged, five players is one too many.

Every GM has a sweet spot for what is the perfect group size for them. Some GMs, like me, can run groups of up to 12 people and have everyone engaged. Other GMs can only run groups of one or two players at best. There is no perfect spot since every GM is different. My counter-advice to the OP GM is to see where they're comfortable at on the size.

Onto the OP, if a player gets up from the table and does other things then they would be given a choice. They can be the party gopher to refill drinks and snacks or they can leave or they can sit at the table like an adult and engage in the game. It just takes a little bit of communication to find out why the player is getting up from the table. If it's because he's bored with the game then amicably part ways and keep them in mind for a future game that would interest them.

If a player walks away I would suggest either removing them from the game for the session whether they're in combat or not; or having their character also walk away, and maybe the person they're speaking with considers that rude, and maybe it hits the fan because of the perceived insult of turning their back in such a fashion.

If thier distracted appearance is really only a perception and they are still following the story then it doesn't need to be addressed in my opinion. However if it does effect other players and the game flow then find a way to incorporate it.

Personally it depends. I find that sessions go at a fairly slow pace so sometimes, especially if it's a scene that is knowledge my character wouldn't be privy to/or it's a chase scene in my very expensive ship that I'm not involved in, and burying myself in a iPad is the only thing that makes every scratch and dent bareable! Xd

That being said, we have 7/8 hour sessions, thus little breaks is necessary and even then I keep up with plot details, it might be that they struggle to engage for find the concept awkward to adapt to. Perhaps these guys need a had in getting used to roleplaying, especially if they have never done it before, with some breaks so they can process it properly.

Some GMs, like me, can run groups of up to 12 people and have everyone engaged.

And if you halve that number, assuming all players are bought in, everyone is twice is engaged as the spotlight is on them twice as often. General GM advice limits players to 4 to 5 as that's the maximum number of ideas or tasks a human being can reliably hold in his head at the same time.

I'm not into One True Way-ism but I'm not going to fight with human psychology either.

Some GMs, like me, can run groups of up to 12 people and have everyone engaged.

And if you halve that number, assuming all players are bought in, everyone is twice is engaged as the spotlight is on them twice as often. General GM advice limits players to 4 to 5 as that's the maximum number of ideas or tasks a human being can reliably hold in his head at the same time.

I'm not into One True Way-ism but I'm not going to fight with human psychology either.

You're using your own experience of the games you've played to base your judgment on. The games I ran with 12 players were marathon games of 6-12 hours, so everyone got the spotlight and they were equally engaged. The breaking down into squads was to make running combat manageable.