Running RPG for larger groups

original post in Russian

translated by Google Translate with some editing from the author's part

A few days ago, I was approached about running a game at an event. The first pitfall immediately became apparent: there would be seven players. On the one hand, many of us have run (and still do) D&D with six players, especially in game stores. On the other hand, tabletop roleplaying games *as a process* start to fall apart at the seams when there are more than four players. So what can be done in this situation? Is it possible to run a game that's both manageable and enjoyable for all participants? It's possible. It wouldn't be perfect. But it can be good. Just be prepared for the GM's workload to be enormous.

Disclaimer: I'm writing this article primarily to organize my thoughts on the matter. Everything you read below is theoretical. If you have experience running games for large groups at a level beyond "well, we had fun," please feel free to share!

Option Zero: polite refusal

I'll be honest: I think this option is the most reasonable. You don't have to rack your brains for a dubious outcome. Are you hired for an event? You're free to decline. The FLGS admin asks if someone who showed up for a cancelled game can join yours? No need to make up excuses; the answer, "I can't handle it," is honest and understandable. The player brought along their partner "to try it out" and didn't warn you? That's their problem, not yours. Is this your first game? Especially don't rush into it; it won't end well.

This option is called zero because the rest of the article becomes irrelevant. :)

Option one: a second GM

You can run the same game for two different groups simultaneously, so they can share their impressions of how certain events played out. You can organize a mini epic game, where the events at one table influence the second one; you can even pit groups against each other and offer players the option to switch to a different GM, if desired. A co-GM format can also work, with one GM responsible for the roleplaying portion of the game and the other for the mechanics. The downsides are obvious: you need a second GM.

Option two: splitting the group

This is roughly the same as the previous point, except the two halves of the table take turns playing. This format is highly controversial, as the half not currently participating risks either pestering the other half with advice and ideas, or banter, or immersing themselves in their phones and ignoring the game. On the other hand, the "out of focus" group can use this time to take a break and go get some refreshments for themselves and for you.

And, of course, such a game is unlikely to fit into four hours if you want to play anything more than a couple of scenes per group.

Option three: run your game as usual and suffer

I don't know you or your players, so perhaps you have your own methods, especially with a stable group where everyone knows and respects each other. Then I can only be happy for you! :)

Otherwise, read everything I'm saying below twice. Or thrice. It should help.

Preparation and running

You won't have time to think. Seven, eight, or even more pairs of eyes are watching you. You'll need a perfect understanding of the mechanics of the chosen game (or an understanding of how to resolve a situation on the fly). This isn't a game where you can close your eyes for a minute, come up with something, and then tell it. Clear rules, a linear plot, timing, and a sense of spotlight are your friends.

An adventure should be prepared in advance. Improvising with eight people, unless they're professionals, will likely be torture for everyone involved. You should have clear scenes: an obstacle here, a combat scene there, a short mystery or investigation there, and so on. It's helpful to write down the names and notable features of NPCs you encounter in the game. Of course, enemy stat blocks (and in this game you'll have them) should also be ready, without having to flip through the monster guide from page 60 to 249 and back.

If you don't think the adventure is written for preschoolers, rewrite it. The more people there are, the greater the chance that at least one person will misunderstand you. And if they're loud enough, they might lead the whole group down with them. You should be able to work with that during a regular game, but, as mentioned above, improvisation isn't your friend at sessions like this one.

If you're leading a one shot session, you won't have time for any tavern introductions or similar nonsense. It's better to give two groups two situations at once. Then you can bring them together at a common point, and then separate them again. Rinse and repeat.

You also have the moderation role. You'll have to curb any off-game conversations, because with so many participants, any banter will derail the game. Players, therefore, must be prepared to stop the moment you give the signal.

To avoid fussing over initiative, give each player the opportunity to do something within the queue. Simply choose an order—say, clockwise—and stick to it. By the second or third round of playing like this, players should catch on. This won't fix the problem of too-loud and too-quiet players, but it will at least make it a little more manageable.

A pinch of metagame will also help. A typical rogue wants to split from the group? "You're already split up, let's not split up any further, or we won't have time" is a normal reaction. "You can try to do something individually to save time in the game, but I'm still alone" is also a normal reaction.

What should I play?

Honestly? I don't know. There's a list of games on Reddit, but I'm seeing every one of these for the first time. All I can say is that D&D isn't suitable unless you're playing a multi-table game—you'll be stuck playing the same combat encounter forever, even with timers and simultaneous hit and damage rolls. Powered by the Apocalypse, Forged in the Dark, Fate—I doubt it. Then again, even with improvisation, it can work in a two-table game if you agree with the other GM on the key points of your scenario, and the rest is up to the players (we did this in our Band of Blades epic last year). Otherwise, you'll get confused about the aspects, clocks will run out too fast (which, while seemingly a plus, is actually anti-climactic), or the game will derail into totally something different with three people rolling 6- in a row.

I think lite rules games should work, especially if players are new or at least inexperienced with computer RPGs and, therefore, won't expect maps, mines, tiles, tactics, health points, and so on. This way, they shouldn't suffer from analysis paralysis or mechanical difficulties; rolls will be resolved quickly, and the next player's turn will start immediately. In this case, you can experiment with character sheets to present information in some different way. With more complex games, this might help, but not as much, and ultimately it won't make much of a difference.

In conclusion

You probably don't need this, especially if you're not a professional GM. For a good game, this format requires preparation on your part and discipline on the players' one. And it's likely that none of the participants will enjoy the process as much as they would with four players, when they can delve deeper into the rules and the narrative, when more spotlight is shared with each player, and when they can get a little off-topic and exchange a few words without fear of being shushed by the GM.