Hi Guys.

I'm a brand new GM, I have 5 PCs who've run through Escape from Mos Shuuta and The Long Arm of the Hutt, and now I have an additional sixth person who want to join.

Now this last person is a good friend of mine and a good player, however I feel that having six PCs might slow the game down, especially in combat.

I have in the past experienced that games with too many players slow it down and bore people during combat (if you are first in combat, you have to wait for all other players + NPCs to fight before you do something again), and I don't want that to happen here. Of course, I try to get the whole table involved in interpreting bountiful advantages, which would alleviate some of the inactivity.

A second problem might of course be: finding the time that works for seven people. If I manage to finish a story in one session, I can easily weave in and out PCs if some PCs cannot come. However what if we are in the middle of doing something (ending a session while infiltrating a Star Destroyer), how should I go about switching PCs? In the past I had a GM that simply stated "You remembered the events of last week wrong, you weren't traveling with John, it was Jack all along!", which I really don't like.

So what I'm trying to say with this thread, do you guys have any suggestions on how to handle a large (six) amount of PCs? I want everyone to have fun, if just one player is bored then I have failed.

Cheers

I can't speak to EotE specifically, but in my experience, 4-6 PCs is the ideal range. Big enough that you can still play if 1-2 people can't make it, but without being too cumbersome. This is coming from a GM who has run campaigns with 1 player and 20 players (that one was crazy!).

To me, it's about knowing your PCs and giving them what they want. I find that some PCs want to be "stars" and get a lot of attention, while others are content to hang out for much of the session as long as they get "one cool scene." You also need to know how the mix lays out for folks who love combat vs folks who love puzzles vs folks who love deep character immersion, etc.

Without knowing your PCs, my default suggestions are:

1) Give every player at least once chance to shine per session

2) Make sure they don't step on one another's toes too much

This last one can be tough in some games, but try to figure out what's important to the character and focus on that. For example, I have one PCs who is a two-gun gunslinger. What's important to him about the character's abilities is the "John Woo-ness" of it, so while I let other PCs build effective gunmen, I have always made no bones about 'I'm sorry, you can't have two guns. That would step on Ed's character too much."

It can help if a) the PCs discuss their character ideas together, or b) new PCs understand that the older guys get a little seniority.

On group size and combat: One thing to remember is that the Star Wars movies often excel when the group is NOT together, especially when there are multiple cool things going on at once. I know it's counter-intuitive to RPGing, but when I GM Star Wars, I make active attempt to split the party (the fact that I have PCs who've known each other for years and are cool with watching one another shine DOES help...). Of course, this doesn't work if any single encounter drags on for too long, or if the focus isn't distributed fairly evenly, but I find that it's often cooler for the PCs to take on challenges in smaller groups.

Remember, there's no scene in Star Wars where Han, Leia, Chewie, Lando and the droids all gang up and help Vader take on Luke. Star Wars is about epic-ness, and everyone fighting the stormtroopers is one thing, but everyone fighting your personal nemesis can be weak tea.

If you're worried about folks getting enough attention, EotE gives you a perfectly reasonable way to shift focus from player to player: Obligation. As long as all the players buy into it. I think it could actually be a pretty exciting thing, knowing that if your number comes up, it's going to be your chance to really shine...

Scheduling and players dropping in and out is an age-old problem that groups of every size need to deal with. I have always found the GM "hand-wave to be perfectly acceptable, although a few thoughts on it:

1) The default for my group is that all the PCs are together unless there are extenuating circumstances (eg, a player who knows they won't be available for a few sessions). The mutual agreement is that if a player does not show, their character will either be controlled by another player (usually approved via e-mail when planning) or will "fade into the background." The play can rest assured that the PC won't be seriously injured or changed in any permanent way, but MAY be stunned, injured, or captured for the session, at the GM's discretion. (Again, this has been essentially agreed to by the group, so there are no surprises).

2) Sometimes, there IS an odd circumstances where maybe a character that an upcoming strategy will rely on can't be available, or the guy who was supposed to be gone for three sessions suddenly shows up. Our group will usually address an appropriate ret-con via e-mail, hoping to save as much play-time as possible. I like to let the PCs have some control. For example, I might be like, "Okay, Dan can't make it. I know the plan you came up with last time relied on his stealth, so do you want to come up with a new plan? Dan, are you okay if someone else plays Sakar? Or I can adjust things slightly so he's off on his own helping you guys remotely, so he'll be out of action for the session but you won't be impaired. What do you think?"

3) If it's important for a particular player to be there, schedule around them first, or re-adjust the plot. If the Luke player can't be there for the fight with Vader, you've got an odd situation.

With respect to scheduling, in my younger days, I found that a set time (every Tuesday at 7) worked best. Everyone know when it was happening, and if you couldn't be there, it was on you. Now that most of my players are married and a few of us have kids, it's harder, and we usually schedule one or two days a month via a complicated e-mail discussion. (We switch GMs in our group, and one of my fellow GMs has recently started sending out e-vites once we pick a day so people don't forget).

Good luck!

My perfect group is between 3-5 players. 6 is doable and my gaming group (if all is present) is 6 players + me. Sometimes we have an occasional guest appearance, and that can potentially bring the group up to 7 players (very rare though).

Even though we have a big pool of players not everyone can make it every time (usually every sunday). We are all around 40ish and many have families and other obligations. In practice this means on most gaming sessions i have between 3 and 5 players which is ideal.

6+ players slows things down. Especially combat, but also other things. It tends to leave the players unfocused and fiddle with other things like their smartphones or start conversations with eachother about non game related topics. Usually when they arent the focus of the current situation.

Its doable, but it requires a bit more work from the GM. However often i feel these sessions arent as rewarding to me because i feel i couldnt quite draw the players into the story the way i like.

When it comes to organizing your players. Well lets face it, having 7 people show up every time is just not going to happen. I try to end a session at a place where i have a plausible reason for why a player is missing next session. Like onboard their starship. Then i can say that this or that character decides its best if he stays behind and watch the ship (or some other explanation) while the others sort out the current story. Sometimes this is not possible and the character thats not there for that session is so involved in the story that you cant proceed without him. In that case you may have to cancel the session or if possible send the rest on a side quest until next time.

We use a private facebook group to organize our sessions. Seems to work pretty well. I put up a message about a planned gaming session and requests that all respond if they can come or if they cant. Its equally important to know if people cant come. If 3 players say they can attend its usually game on.

Enjoy

I think there are a lot of variables to consider...GM and player skill, system, personal schedules, etc. ... but 4-6 is the sweet spot. I ran a 6 player Shadowrun game recently, and honestly it was a lot of hard work for many reasons. It didn't feel right. I'm running 4 for all of my games now and it's perfect for me.

As long as you keep the action going, 6 player characters is fine. 7 is too much, and 8 is ridiculous. This I have learned from personal, evaluated experience

You could enourage them to each pick a Career and Characteristic to focus on, and that way they will feel very completed as a party with no one stepping on the others' toes.

Six people for the beginner box I think is okay, because it's a one-shot deal and you get people interested. But six people for a recurring campaign to incluxe yourself for seven? Don't count on it.

The scheduling alone would be a nightmare. Since this person is your friend though, perhaps you could discuss the issue with him and see if he would be willing to wait until someone potentially dropped out, or act as a fill person?

Six people for the beginner box I think is okay, because it's a one-shot deal and you get people interested. But six people for a recurring campaign to incluxe yourself for seven? Don't count on it.

The scheduling alone would be a nightmare. Since this person is your friend though, perhaps you could discuss the issue with him and see if he would be willing to wait until someone potentially dropped out, or act as a fill person?

It all depends on your players. I've run maybe half a dozen campaigns lasting 25 sessions or more with 6+ players. sure, you can't count on everyone being there for every session, but in the right group, you'll get most of them, most of the time.

The biggest group I played in was over two dozen, for a monthly campaign that ran for three or four years. This was at an RPG store in NYC. The group had started large and kept getting bigger, until the point that it split into two groups with two GMs (it was actually pretty cool -- the PC group was split into two competing teams with the same objective, and the GMs swapped, so each group had one GM "there" and the other "on the way back"). We certainly didn't have the same 24 players every month, but there was a core group of maybe 8 at each table that was there 90% of the time.

The largest group I GM'd was a little smaller (but still 20+), and was a mixing of two or three different groups I played with. It was a limited run thing (6-8 sessions) and was insane. All the PCs were actually together only once during the game -- I actually GMed at three different tables in one of my buddy's giant basements. Madness, but fun madness. And I think everyone actually showed up for every session!

Thanks for all the input people, very much appreciate it.

I'm going to give it a go ahead and let all six players join, and then try to take it from there while using some of the suggestions you have given.

One thing I have found that works really well with larger groups like 6 players is to split them up in the course of stories. Its tough to remember to give a specific person out of six people attention, or ensure that in a session each player gets to strutt his stuff. But when you split them up and force them to focus on different problems, you actually limit their resources either story and so they end up having to make do with who they have with them which may not always be ideal, resulting in people having to substitute and improvise.

For example have one group fighting a space battle, while another is infiltrating a camp (kind of like Jedi). The guys in space might have the best pilot with them, perhaps the engineer and the Fringer while on the ground they have the bounty hunter, perhaps a Hired Gun and Smuggler Thief. Players will try to plan ahead and think about what they might need where. Then turn the tables on them and throw unexpected challenges. For example the guys in space might get boarded and have to fight inside their ship corridors while the guys on the ground end up in a vehicle combat or some sort of hostile negotiation.

I find that sort of thing works really well in groups and the nice thing is that during the session, half the group is on deck while the other is chilling so they can hang back and watch things unfold for the other sider. What I like to do is completely disallow advice from one group to the next, so that they really are on their own. So the group not acting has to painfully watch them make mistakes under pressure. Its actually really fun.

gwek's got a valid point, in that it all depends on the players.

I've played in groups of up to eight players where things moved very quickly, and played in games of only four (three players, 1 GM) because one of those three players habitually wasn't paying attention and kept hemming and hawing about what he was going to do in combat.

I would say let prospective player #6 sit in on a game as a one-shot deal, just make it clear that you're not really comfortable with 6 players, but you're willing to give him a chance to see how it goes. if it turns out that he adds energy and fun to the table and helps keep things moving while not causing an extra burden for you as the GM, then let him stay. But if you honestly do find it taxing to keep track of six players, simply tell him that right now you're going to stick with five, but as soon as there's an opening, he's in.

The Sunday Skype game I play in is capped at 5 players because that's what the GM is comfortable with. I know there were quite a few more folks that also wanted to play, but the GM set his limit at 5, with the proviso that he might include a 6th depending on how things go, with those other players being on a waiting list.

Every group is different, and every GM is different. I know GMs that can handle 8 with no problem, and I know GMs that start to choke when you have more than 4.

It's not that one is better than another, either. Some people run very personal games, and that breaks down the farther from 3 players you go. Others are very plot focused, which can generally handle more PCs.

Try it out, but if it doesn't work don't treat it as a personal failure or anything.

I have six players, when they all turn up, in my EotE game. We haven't had any trouble yet with the system running slowly, even in combat. We've played about 5 sessions so far, 2 hours on a Wednesday evening, and we will be starting adventure 4 this week.

Generally we play Savage Worlds, EotE seems even quicker than that!

My online PbP game is presently being run with six players. It's certainly doable, especially in an online environment; can't say with authority how such a number pans out at a table-top campaign, though...

I run a game with 8 players, and it's been going really well so far. As other people have mentioned, I think it largely depends on the players to make this work.

With this many players, my group packs a whallop, so I have to scale encounters accordingly to make things interesting. The result of this however is that the mechanic and doctor in my group would get insta-killed if they didn't stay out of the way when the lasers start flying, but those players are aware of this. I try to have things for them to do while the heavy-hitters are in the thick of it (e.g. I let them go cage the baby rancor they were sent to steal while the momma rancor was busy with the rest of the party).