Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a friend of mine is running a Deathwatch game. Unfortunately The venue he chose was the FLGS which meant that our 2nd session had a bunch of people who just happened to be there make a character and expect to play. His 2nd mistake was allowing them to play. now we have group that's too big- a couple of which are clueless mouth breathers.

So my question is how do you get rid of too many players? Arbitrary death is probably out of the question.

Well you MAN UP, deal with it and show them how to play properly to make it fun.

Run another game?

split the group? or deal with it OOC, and just tell the people that there are too many players for the game to run properly, and that X were here first.

mabye run another game with the others, if they show some potental.

i had to do this with a player that was just one too many... and very anoying to boot.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:So a friend of mine is running a Deathwatch game. Unfortunately The venue he chose was the FLGS which meant that our 2nd session had a bunch of people who just happened to be there make a character and expect to play. His 2nd mistake was allowing them to play. now we have group that's too big- a couple of which are clueless mouth breathers.

So my question is how do you get rid of too many players? Arbitrary death is probably out of the question.

I guess the first question is how many people has the group ballooned to? For most rpg's,I usually find that 1 GM and 5-6 players works best,and I generally don't like running anything larger than 10 players,unless it's a LARP or something like that.

The good news for you is that gamers that jump into a game pretty much by happenstance,ie:Hang at the FLGS and decide to jump in on someone else's game for entertainment,tend to be notoriously unreliable. I would expect several of those people to either never show up again,or just show up sporadically when they have nothing better to do.

As a player,though,there's really not a whole lot that you can do to get rid of the extras. You can talk with your GM about it,and maybe bring some of the other "originals" in on the conversation and see if they feel the same way. You could maybe suggest that your GM split the group and run one campaign with you and the original group,and then run another campaign with the new blood he brought in. Your other options are pretty much grin and bear it or drop the game.

Whatever1 wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:So a friend of mine is running a Deathwatch game. Unfortunately The venue he chose was the FLGS which meant that our 2nd session had a bunch of people who just happened to be there make a character and expect to play. His 2nd mistake was allowing them to play. now we have group that's too big- a couple of which are clueless mouth breathers.

So my question is how do you get rid of too many players? Arbitrary death is probably out of the question.

I guess the first question is how many people has the group ballooned to? For most rpg's,I usually find that 1 GM and 5-6 players works best,and I generally don't like running anything larger than 10 players,unless it's a LARP or something like that.

The good news for you is that gamers that jump into a game pretty much by happenstance,ie:Hang at the FLGS and decide to jump in on someone else's game for entertainment,tend to be notoriously unreliable. I would expect several of those people to either never show up again,or just show up sporadically when they have nothing better to do.

As a player,though,there's really not a whole lot that you can do to get rid of the extras. You can talk with your GM about it,and maybe bring some of the other "originals" in on the conversation and see if they feel the same way. You could maybe suggest that your GM split the group and run one campaign with you and the original group,and then run another campaign with the new blood he brought in. Your other options are pretty much grin and bear it or drop the game.

The group has 8 plus the GM. It seems at that point there's a lot less role playing and a lot more waiting your turn and a lot of side conversations that distract from the game.

We did lose one of the random players (otherwise it would be 9) which was nice since he was clueless. unfortunately the other mouth breather and the rules lawyer have no life and will therefore be there every time.

The GM doesn't want a group this big. We thought that there was going to be a rogue trader game last weekend at the same time which would take some of the players away but it either didn't happen or happened at another time so we thought we were going to have the original 4 plus maybe 1. When he found out they were all there to play he was not pleased. I don't think 2 games is a possibility as that would be a pretty hefty time commitment for him considering the current game has been taking 3-4 hours per week.

Any other ideas?

See Ahtman.

You have a few legal, though less fun, routs available.

Split the group: This is the least confrontational. But also the least likely to happen, as your GM will need to do double work.

Train the FNGs: Slightly more confrontational as you have to let them know they are doing something wrong in the first place. Though you still have to the number problem.

Ditch them: To be honest this is what I endorse. Skip a week, change the time, move the location. Many ways to get rid of these folks.

Tell these D-bags that they jumped in on a game that was not meant for them. It's an donkey-cave thing to do and they need to back off.

Split the group would definatly be my method of choice, its what we do at my FLGS. But then we seem to be one of the few places with no shortages of DM's

Alternatly just ask them to leave, explain the situation to them, and most people will get the hint.

your GM needs to man up and simply talk to the people he doesn't want in the campaign. if there are too many, he needs to simply say that they were welcome for that first game but the group is too unwieldly at that size for a full campaign. if he keeps letting them play, the excuse becomes quite hollow and they will (rightfully so) take offense that they are simply not liked and much gamestore drama will occur. waiting and hoping the issue resolves itself is NOT the right course of action.

^^ What he said.

He needs to be polite about it, and firm.

A Moderator wrote:Let's not spam the thread with amusing but off topic pictures

How many people is too many?

H.B.M.C. wrote:How many people is too many?

however many the GM and party members feel is too many. there isn't a set number that is right for anyone. i personally had to make special rules for my old d&d 3.x campaign when all 7 players actually showed up (on average, we'd have 1-2 people who couldn't make it for the weekly campaign). to keep things moving (especially during combat) so that people didn't feel like they did something and then waited an hour for it to happen again, i said all PC companions (followers, minions, animal companions, familiars, etc) were gone for those games or simply did a static effect (like staying in the same square as the character and attacking only the same target for smaller companions). i'd say my personal cutoff is seven with a sweet spot of 5. the OP said his current group is 8 and unwieldy. i've met people who PREFERRED groups of 8-10 for tabletop rpgs.

Yes I know that.

I'm asking how many is too many in the context of the OP's post.

Apparently not the amount present as his friend, the apparent DM let everyone play.

I agree if its becoming that big of an issue you need to get the group together and talk to the hangers on. If they want to play deathwatch so bad they can start their own campaign.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:

Whatever1 wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:So a friend of mine is running a Deathwatch game. Unfortunately The venue he chose was the FLGS which meant that our 2nd session had a bunch of people who just happened to be there make a character and expect to play. His 2nd mistake was allowing them to play. now we have group that's too big- a couple of which are clueless mouth breathers.

So my question is how do you get rid of too many players? Arbitrary death is probably out of the question.

I guess the first question is how many people has the group ballooned to? For most rpg's,I usually find that 1 GM and 5-6 players works best,and I generally don't like running anything larger than 10 players,unless it's a LARP or something like that.

The good news for you is that gamers that jump into a game pretty much by happenstance,ie:Hang at the FLGS and decide to jump in on someone else's game for entertainment,tend to be notoriously unreliable. I would expect several of those people to either never show up again,or just show up sporadically when they have nothing better to do.

As a player,though,there's really not a whole lot that you can do to get rid of the extras. You can talk with your GM about it,and maybe bring some of the other "originals" in on the conversation and see if they feel the same way. You could maybe suggest that your GM split the group and run one campaign with you and the original group,and then run another campaign with the new blood he brought in. Your other options are pretty much grin and bear it or drop the game.

The group has 8 plus the GM. It seems at that point there's a lot less role playing and a lot more waiting your turn and a lot of side conversations that distract from the game.

We did lose one of the random players (otherwise it would be 9) which was nice since he was clueless. unfortunately the other mouth breather and the rules lawyer have no life and will therefore be there every time.

The GM doesn't want a group this big. We thought that there was going to be a rogue trader game last weekend at the same time which would take some of the players away but it either didn't happen or happened at another time so we thought we were going to have the original 4 plus maybe 1. When he found out they were all there to play he was not pleased. I don't think 2 games is a possibility as that would be a pretty hefty time commitment for him considering the current game has been taking 3-4 hours per week.

Any other ideas?

8 players is probably too many for a new system,which is what Deathwatch is,where everybody probably doesn't have a great grasp on the rules set. I'm not sure how much experience your group has with DH and/or RT,but even when the group understands the base mechanics,there's still so much that DW characters have and can do,that it's probably pretty daunting.

I supposse the next question is,at what end of the table is play bogging down? Are players taking forever to declare their actions,or is the GM getting bogged down with rules questions? If it's the former,then you may suggest that your GM invest in a timer or a little 30 second-1 minute hourglass. When your turn comes up,the timer starts,and if you haven't declared by the time your time's up,then you lose your turn. Sucks,but you have do to what you have to do to keep the game moving. Another thing that might help is if your GM types out a "cheat sheet" for each of the players with their talents,traits,etc on it so players have an easy reference to how things work without having to flip through the book. If the GM is constantly getting bogged down with rules questions/arguments,then he needs to make his own rulings without consulting the book to keep play moving,then go back and consult the rules when he has time so he knows how it works in the future. The "rules lawyer" won't like that,but your GM is just going to have to tell everybody that that's how it's going to be,and people have a problem with it,then they can feel free to drop the game. When I run a small game,like I'm GM'ing and I have 1-3 players,then I'll take the time to look up every little ruling. However,in large groups like yours,you just can't take the time to do that. The game bogs down,and it's like you said,you spend more time waiting to do something than you do actually doing it. Another question is,how many copies of the DW book does your group have?

Side conversations/table talk are often the result of play bogging down. Players are waiting,and start up side conversations to keep themselves amused while they're waiting. If the GM takes steps to speed play up,and people are still constantly engaging in side conversations,then he should consider taking some of the XP award away from the culprits.

These are just some suggestions,and could help with some of the problems. However,when the GM says that the group is too large,then the #1 biggest problem is that the GM needs to just ask some of the people you added to drop the game. If he/she's unwilling to do that,then make some of the suggestions that I did above. He needs to streamline things to keep the game moving and make sure everybody has fun. Since the GM doesn't have time to split the game group,the only other real option would be for one of the players in the group to start a campaign with the other players...like maybe that "rules lawyer."

You need to act like an adult; if you don't want to play with them, then politely explain that the game isn't working will with so many players and limit who comes in. If you hold an open game and let anyone who shows up play, then you'll get anyone in the game, there's no magic trick for limiting how many people can play without telling them if you hold your game in a public location. I don't know about your gaming store, but I've never seen one that requires RPG groups to just let anyone who shows up play.

Thanks for the tips guys. I'll just have to see how he feels about telling people to hit the road.

Right, so, there's my answer. Eight players.

Yeah, too many. I had 5, and that was more than enough. now I have 4, and that's far more managable.

I'm suprised that so many returned for game 2, you must be doing something right.

Usually there will be enough schedule conflicts to pare down the group to only the most interested players.

One way to deal with so many is to give the party a reason to split itself next time they are all together, with some going to accomplish objective A and the rest going for objective B. Then they will all meet up at X location in the future. With that done, you can easily split the group into seperate game nights and locations without it being your fault. Just beware of the player running two characters who wants to send one to group A and one to group B.

snurl wrote:Usually there will be enough schedule conflicts to pare down the group to only the most interested players.

That or the most annoying people in the area that have no life at all. It takes a special kind of social obliviousness to force your way into a game and those people are typically not fun to game with.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Right, so, there's my answer. Eight players.

Yeah, too many. I had 5, and that was more than enough. now I have 4, and that's far more managable.

lol, he answered your question before you even posted it and you missed it, hence my earlier answer to your question as an explanation.

Grimpost wrote:

snurl wrote:Usually there will be enough schedule conflicts to pare down the group to only the most interested players.

That or the most annoying people in the area that have no life at all. It takes a special kind of social obliviousness to force your way into a game and those people are typically not fun to game with.

Ya it's the cool people who are more likely to have scheduling conflicts. Especially on a saturday. mouth breathers and rules lawyers rarely go on dates.