Hi,

As some of you may remember from some of my earlier posts on these forums I have a reasonably large DH group, but I have some fairly inconsistant attendence to the weekly sessions so out of our group oof 11 we normally get between 6 and 9. On sunday I organised are game as usual and after about 20mins of sending the text message out to the whole group I realised we were in for something of a session as ALL ELEVEN people replied that they would be attending. Needless to say this was something of a shock, but I knew it was likely to happen at some point so I ran with it.

The next think that struck me (about 30 seconds later) is that although we are playing DH (with rank 10/11characters) I am currently running Lure of the Expanse from Rogue Trader and the Fortelling was about to happen, followed by all the back-stabbing an event like this causes.

In any case I decided to just go for it and deal with the curve balls as they arrived.

I'll spare you the blow-by-blow account (and all the spoilers that would entail) but I will say this, I think I've found the upper limit not of the DH rule system BUT of the Gm to player ratio. I could really have done with an assisstant GM for this session to deal with the small setup scenes that have to be done but eat a lot of GM time with only a few players involved, but I've never worked with a group this big before so I guess I will have to put that down to experience.

So a few questions to you all;

1) Has anyone run a single GM DH session with more players?

2) Does anyone have any experience with a 'GM's assistant'?

3) Was I mad to try DH with this many people?

Looking forward to seeing some responces to this one.

Surak

Surak said:

1) No

2) Yes, done it a few times when we had extra players suddenly, usually it's just one player who's inimately familiar with the systems to help run combat.

3) Yes, yes you were.

Split it up in two or preferably three player groups. playing with 11 people is just sheer madness and can only be detrimental to the game experience. 3-5 is the goldilocks zone. if you're with 9, split it up in a group of 4 and a group of 5. if you're with eleven, I'd recommend 3-3-4 because with 6 players chaos ensues and nobody can say anything decent anymore, combat takes days, moody GM descriptions get lost in the mad howling and gibberish of the players.

3 Players can give a very in-depth rpg experience focussed on the players, 4 players is the most balanced setup in terms of combat efficiency and versatility, 5 players is on the edge of being manageable while still retaining some decent character interaction. From 6 players onwards it more like playing a boardless boardgame with too much interference going on between the players and the session quickly erodes into just rolling dice...

Surak said:

Nope, not DH or anything else, for that matter. Although I've been part of a D&D game that had upwards of ten players (GM included.)

I suppose I've also been a part of a few LARPs in my day, the best of which had 90+ players and ran for a good ten years. I'm not sure if you want to count LARPing though, as it is a fundamentally different kind of role-playing that's geared specifically to large player bases.

Surak said:

I ran a Wraith: the Oblivion game once where I employed an assistant GM to role-play all the shadows of the PCs. That was less an issue of managing players and more an issue of how I feel Wraith should be run, though.

I would say that the most important factor to consider when using an assistant is to make sure that you and he (she) agree on the basic principles of how the story should be run. You should both be prepared to say no (or yes) to the same basic twinkery questions, since if you do really need an assisant, you won't always have the opportunity to confer with them on all rules questions. (That's sort of the point of getting an assistant in the first place.)

Surak said:

Absolutely. =P

My personal limit is 5 players plus myself as GM. Any more than that and I don't feel I can give every player the appropriate amount of attention (nor command the appropriate amount of attention from them, as Meph suggested.)

All that said, I have been digging into the concept of sandbox-style RPGs lately, and one of the ideas I have floating around in my head is essentially an MMO-PnP-RPG. ie: having 2 or 3 "parties" of players, ranging up to 5 players each, and running each group on a different night in a shared world where everything is already set up and waiting for them. The world reacts organically to their shenanigans. I haven't quite figured out how to deal with them bumping into each other though. It would require an insane amount of prep before I could even begin running such a beast, of course, so it remains to be seen if I will ever get around to actually doing this.

For answering all your questions:

1.- I am playing a campaign with 11 people , counting myself, and it is possible, but you need to be very fast and direct, so time is not wasted just for clarifying rules or because everyone wants to talk at the same time, try to keep things working on the run, i mean, involve all the players, but if they are slowing all and creating too much noise, try to make them busy , and also put some rules, sometimes it is good to make them speak by order, so everyone can have their chance, of course, with flexibility. Also try to make them go in groups, so when is their turn, they play together, try to keep them togheter, and also to show them that togheter they can survive and alone they will persih.

2.- I dont have experience with a GM assistant, some poeple say that it is good, but i believe that it work as long as the assistant know that he cant overstep your role, for example, maybe you are a very rules oriented GM , and he isnt, maybe he is more merciful, so in a dangerous situation, maybe he will go further and save the characters and make things easy, and maybe you will not agree, or maybe he will lead the story to another place, a place you dindt wanted.

I have experience with player colaboration, though. In a large group, i usually give some responsability to different players, so things go more smoothly.

Right now one is taking care of the initiative, and damage in combat, other is in charge of the drawings and art, other of the music , other of keeping the noise and out of character chat in check, sometimes i designated somebody for searching in the book meanwhile i keep narrating, etc

Also a good tip that i need to try is to keep a clock or sand clock, for cheking the time during combat turns, so people dont lose too much time thinking what to do, in a way is even more realistic, as the turns in combat usually represent 3 to 4 seconds in real time.

3,- No , you are not crazy, but remember, if you have a bigger group, also you need to play with their character personalities, as in any human group, sometimes they will fight themselves and kill each others, thats why you need to try to keep them united, but dont force it, if they want to killl themselves, let them, they will see the consecuences later, when they face something that was supposed to be challenged by all of them together.

And also, the challenges you put to them , should be equally big or at least more dangerous.

Hopes it help

Thanks for the responces people,

I'm glad to hear that im not the only one who runs rp's at this sort of scale, and im also glad that i'm not going sane all of a sudden

As for a few of your suggestions.......

Splitting this group is going to be next to impossible - in game they are currently split between 3 different groups, but this is a very flexible split with people crossing groups multiple times during a session.

On the subject of timers - me glancing at my stop-watch has been known to cause fear and panic, and not just in combat either. I have been known to pick a real-world time an event ill happen during a session, start the stop-watch, and then make a big how of NOT telling them i've started a clock.

On multiple groups in the same 'world' - I'm actually running 2 DH groups at the moment, both in the same story arc with the potential for the groups meeting later - which will cause schitzophrenia(sp?) as there is an overlap of players between the groups, but I did warn them.......

By the sounds of it I may have to experiment with the GM assistant idea, we have a couple of other GM's in the group who would probably be able to assist - now I just have to convince them.....

All in all thanks again for the input - purhaps we can turn this thread into something of a resourece on how to coupe with DH with a large group.

Surak

1.) I haven't run it, but i was part of a 23 players in a group. Only works if you have more expirienced plaers, and even then you'll have to put some rules up. But it's quiet interesting how the group formed itself into different smaller groups for tasks.

2.) A GM assistent is a good idea if he and the GM can work well together, planning ahead and clear up how much everyone can do is a good idea. Head a GM and his assistent trying to make a campaign, it went horrible from the start, no one knew what was going on and so much death could have been prevented. Also had a really good pair who where able to run everything smoothly, worked great, so if you want an assistent (or more than one) make sure you two get along with your ideas, in the end it's trial and error.

3.) No, but then again people call me insane, so i wouldn't trust my judgement. If you already have expirience with all of them, they know each other and they sometimes played together it usually works well if no one starts a fight or a discussion, but those usually work themselves out in our group, and adds some spice to the characters.

I apolagies for any mistakes of my writing up front, i'm from Germany and english isn't my main lanuage.

1) no double digits seems to be the limit at which one GM can hold a group together.....and that is only with lots of leg work being done

2) yes.....when getting into a group this large it is very helpful to have another voice on the side of the storyteller.....Also having 2 GMs can make from some awesome back and forth NPC to player interactions.

3) It all depends on how you look at it....i'm pretty sure that most would say yes you are crazy for trying to handle a group that large. However as I said before if you had the time to flesh out everything in advance, and where counting on everyone to be there then one GM may be able to handle it. You also have to take in what type of players are you dealing with.. ....and that is where some real problems can come about.

Since I have managed to develop a few of my players into DH/DW GMs in their own right it does give you a few options for those big hard to manage scenes. If some of the characters are not present in a scene I have handed their player some NPCs to play, both to keep them interested and to (hopefully) minimize cross-talk. For simple combat calculations I am happy to allow them to help determining their results, at least as far as things can be handled from the player-side of the screen. "This guy takes 3 bullet hits, 8 body, 12 body, 9 right arm, pen 1." doesn't seem like much, but it can really help speed up combat scenes.

Not sure what advice I can offer on the totally volatile player base... Not knowing what player/character mix to expect each session would drive me bonkers! Well, unless I was running RPGA or Pathfinder Society "Living" games where head count is more important than consistency. More than 6 players seems to be the real "bog" point in RPGs though, at least the ones that are not "light on rules"--- Years ago I used to run a very popular Cybergen game at the local game conventions (several players attended just to play in it, I discovered) so there was alot of social pressure to allow extra players. I averaged around 8 players and it ran reasonably well, but a 4 hour time slot was exhausting to run. Fortunately that particular game is heavy roleplaying and fairly light on game mechanics so resolving tasks and conflicts went pretty swiftly. On the flipside, games like the Battletech RPG are not a good choice for a large group since a player might "go make a pizza" while waiting for their turn.

I've never run a DH game that large but have a Vampire: The Masquarade game for 15 players, that was incredible, fortunately for me i have mostly experienced players and was familiar with the setting. They mostly spent the night arguing with each other, and blaming one another for the incident that a NPC had cuase but they all like for different reasons. The gaming session lasted 8 hours.

Mad for trying, no, now you know that it's a load of work and will take large amounts of prep to do again. I've not used an assistant when GM'ing and would want to either, I do find having experienced players help if combat does break out especially if their no involved.

it could be worse you could be running DH for all 11 players as 2 seperate cadre's that work for different Inquistor's that don't like each other, and the only time you get all 11 together if for the end of story fight, weather that's against a big bad or each other is always interesting.

Yeah, I'd say you were kinda mad Largest group I ever DM/GMed for was 14 people for a D&D game. Was interesting to say the least.

1) Has anyone run a single GM DH session with more players?

In DH I've run no more than 9 players (so far), although in V:tM I once ran a group of 12, and AD&D 2ED I once ran a group on regular basis of 14 (although I was stationed in Germany in 1981 at that point... no one else knew HOW to run a game, or were willing to admit to it in any event).

2) Does anyone have any experience with a 'GM's assistant'?

I have on occasion used them, but not for some time now as I have found they generally are more trouble than they are worth, unless you have a clear cut purpose for what they are doing, and they can keep themselves to doing just those things that you need.

3) Was I mad to try DH with this many people?

I think someone already said yes, so I don't think that I need to. But if you're not having problems occasionally with getting too large a group that would tell me that your game isn't that popular? So when you have to periodically deal with a lot of people, just be sure you know your module you're running well, as sudden surprises can add to the stress levels quickly.

One thing: If you have that many people, why not try to get someone in the group to split off into another sister group? This can work well if you have a large location, like a game store (which is where I run 90% of my games these days). And if that group loses players, you can absorb them back at any point.

In response to the OP

1) Not Dark Heresy no, but I can feel your pain. I run two different games, one pnp proper and another over the interwebz - each of which has rather variable player numbers. One session of the pnp game I found myself with ten players completely out of the blue! (We normally for the pnp have 6-8, and for the internet game 4-5).

One note having longer sessions I find does alleviate this sometimes, as we can find a rhythm and go with it. One thing I also do to speed it up, is not rolling seperately for all enemies on aspects of the game such as initiative or tests (For instance is a psyker uses one of the abilties that requires a willpower test let's say from all my mooks, if my mooks all have the same willpower to speed the game along they all roll that one test). Don't know if that helps at all however.

2) GM's Assistants can be a wonderful idea, especially for split parties. The best choice is usually the one most familiar with the rules, as at least in my experiance pnp wise the 'longest' aspect of a game. My advice is you may wish to create pre-generated encouters and have your assistant roll for them or just control enemies if the party temporaily splits. As an example, four players go down one hallway to hold off the enemy reinforcements while five players go further in the hallway to fight and destroy X (X being enemy, generator, signaling device to a stealthed ship anything really.)

3) Others have already commented. It can be done I feel especially if you split parties for different combats - which can easily be written into the story usually. One aspect of large parties which is unfortunate is personal attention can be minimized and several people may come to try and fill a niche or have the same class. While having two of something, say guardsmen usually does not interfere with the normal flow of the game if you wind up with three or more it can be hectic. To this end for large parties if your group is high enough, rank 5 or 6 might I endorse the Rogue Trader book which can alleviate the issue a little bit, by allowing navigators and void masters in particular to join up granting additional niches for the players to fill, in addition packages such as the Chaliced Commissariat can greatly assist you (Inquistor's Handbook for that package) to avoid the issue of players seeming to be interchangable in large groups.

Well time for a (quick) update from our group.

We finished our current Dark Heresy Campaign on Sunday after a marathon two and a half years, and the final session included the entire group - composed of; two Inquisitors, an interregator, a desperado, a heirophant, a moritat, an astral knife, a rogue trader, an arch-militant, a commissar, two crusaders (for the same inquisitor).

Needless to say life got a little complex as i was running the session as a solo gm with the entire group (minus the RT) in one place more or less. Surprisingly the seesion ran fairly smoothly once it actually got going (ever tried getting 12 people on-task at 7pm on a sunday? I don't recomend it) but soon the complexity of the end-game situation started kicking in (4 adversary level enemies and 25 daemon host running around a library does tend to make life interesting) and soon the group had fragmented a little, making combat a little easier to control.

I'll save a full de-brief for another tread but it was alot easier to coupe with the high player turnout the second time around, partly because id planned this one in alot more depth, and partly because it was a far more constrained area for the group to operate in. I've also found that the more motivated the group is to move the session forward the better a large group runs, just remember to keep the resident rules lawyer on a tight leash as they are very good at breaking the flow of the game.

Surak

Resident Rules Lawer + Duct Tape = Sorted, and if you get un involved player to do it you can focus on everyone else.

Surak said:

1) I don't know of any.

2) I once played a two GM game in a convention scenario (world of darkness). The GMs ended up conferring regularly so information was passed along. To do it as a campaign, the GMs would have to communicate and plan together extensively I'd imagine and continue doing so for the duration of the campaign. Assumptions could lead to massive divergences in what people think is going on.

3) Possibly? I find six players to be my limit for a manageable game and have gone with four for my new campaign. I've had sessions with 7-8 players from people all showing up at once in campaigns with flexible membership and I found them teethgrindingly annoying to run.

i had various expiriences with "gm assistants" and even "co-gms" and sadly i must admit: it's pretty **** good ^^

i had expiriences in larp games (mostly to have some npc capable of being game referee and supervise different areas of the game) and in various p&p sessions too (wot, cthulhu, cyberpunk...).

having more gms it's risky anyway for all the reasons alredy pointed out but can give a memorable expirience to players if well done. you have to be sure to have played a lot with the other gm, both in his adventures has a player and having been a gm to him, if you two have enough expirience together and know the narrative style of each other you are in for an awesome expirience.

last time i had a multy gm session i and a friend created an horror/thriller adventure using call of cthulhu rules for simplicity, we alternated each other scene by scene usually impersonating always the same npcs during the story trying to act as npc while the other gm was "in charge", we split a lot our group so we could manage to have more scenes running at once and at the end we presented each other a brief summary of what happened to each "party". Changing gm every scene permitted us to imprint different narration styles according to what we wanted to tell and what mood we wanted (every gm is better at something and poor at something else ^^ ), and impersonating always the same npc helped the players with identification and immersion. I'm lucky to have this friend with whom i played for years and we can pretty much even improvise on the work of each other.

anyway you have to create the entire session to be performed by two gms, it's not an easy task, usually it's more easy to have an "npc impersonator" or a "dice roller" helping you.

in the end 11 players are by far too much for a single gm, or you start to split them and at least double the game sessions or you need another gm and probably this wouldn't even be enough to mantain "order" and mood, this is even more true if there's always someone missing creating a puppet character every session ruining a lot of the "willing s uspension of disbelief".

yes you were mad. in fact, you were f***king mad. but i take my hat off to you sir(?) for taking on such a challenge.

also, who says a little madness is a bad thing?