Group Size

[Joel Rios]

After last session, some of us stayed behind to discuss how the game
played out.

Everyone said they had a good time and that calling out the next
person 'on deck' helped. However, we all generally felt that it could
use some speeding up. Colin, always mindful of player's enjoyment of
the session asked for feedback on his DMing and none of us could
really come up with anything he could have done better or faster.
It's just the size of the group.

IMO the only fully-effective solution to this problem is to reduced
party size. Let me clarify. We've already demonstrated the ablitiy
to make a game happen with a lot of players, and I am not opposed to
continueing just as we are, but we need to honestly ask ourselves if
we are having as much fun as we want/expect.

That brings us to something we've talked about before: splitting into
two groups. We could do this, but in order for it to work, I think
they simply have to become two wholly individual gaming groups. Colin
astutely pointed out that if we were to try to play together, it could
lead to people wanting to bounce around between the campaigns when
they see something 'cool' happening in the other game. It is hard
enough to DM as-is, once you add in another DM you have to 'compete'
with, then you're just asking for trouble.

Josh, Dan, Chris, Jay, Colin, Jes, Jesse, Marc, Joel, Chelsea. 10
players. That is enough for 2 groups. I think we should do it.

This all sounds just peachy, but we all know that players sometimes
show up, and other times don't. This could lead to having groups
unable to play. I think there is an easy solution to that too: On any
weekend that either group cannot play because of no-shows, they will
always be welcome in the other group. We can make that a 'policy'. I
don't think anyone would mind an occasional, slightly
larger-than-average group. Knowing that every single week it is going
to be a monster group is a little different.

In a couple months we can look at the attendance and see if this is
working out or not. I'm willing to admit that there may be a whole
new set of problems this can create, so if you guys have any concerns,
let's talk about them. Maybe I'm over-simplifying things.

Another little thing to remember is that there are travel issues as
well. Having an eastside and a northwestside group might be welcomed
by some.

There has always been a core of steady players who generally game on
the northwest side of town, so maybe some of us new guys could relieve
some of the burden on them by starting up another group on the
eastside.

What do you guys think?

[Jay.Mc...@gmail.com]

I think that could totally work if we were pretty sure that of the 10
people playing most of them were coming often enough to make a group
work. 5 players work, 4 are a little rough, 3 is unplayable (dm and 2
pc's, even with a DMpc this is a challenge). If in that instance the
short group wants to run with the other group, we may have some of the
same problems creep up, with the DM not being able to be prepared for
the size group.

Second issue is that at least colin, jesse, dan and i are all pretty
committed to this game world. I do not want to speak for them, but if
we split, I would want to play with the group that keeps this main
campagin going. Both groups could do this, of course, but that would
mean splitting the DM's (unless someone else wants to volunteer to
DM).

Lastly, I have only been gaming for about 2 1/2 years, all of that
time I have been playing with Josh and Dan. I like those guys. The
closest thing to friends that I have in Tucson. As much as splitting
up appeals, it would logically split some of us up. I like playing
with everyone, you are all friends, and I don't want to not see you
again because we don't game anymore. We could make plans to still get
together, blah blah blah, but I tried starting something like that in
December and the response was underwhelming.

I see the problem, and I see the solution you propose as a good one,
but I don't know if I like it until we sit down and hash some things
out.

I was not there for the discussion, so this is just my uninformed
opinion.

Jay

[Daniel Thayer]

  I think this is a good idea, but see it as needing a group consensus. I have also noticed (and this is just an observation, not a criticism) that there are some of us who either have too little time or not as much interest to respond to things such as these in the forum posts. We may have to wait to hash this out until our next session (better yet, the next session Jay can attend). I too agree with what Jay said about campaign continuity and wanting to stick with the group that started it. And yes, I too feel close to many of our players and would be reticent to 'not play with them'.

  In the end it is just a game, and we have always maintained a "the more the merrier" philosophy... which is good. However, we all attend this game with the expectation of a certain experience (which varies from player to player). If said expectation is not met, then the experience is seen as lacking on some level. i.e. - a reduction of funness ;). Everyone likes to have 'their moment' in the spot-light, and non-sequitur conversation is a happy mainstay of every session. Where large groups are concerned, this tends to be a problem and those expectations get increasingly harder to meet. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.

  Given that, I see two ways to go. Either we find a way to make cross-talk & inconstant members work for the group (and the story) somehow, or we seriously consider Joel's idea. Either way, we should focus (and I'm sure I am preaching to the choir here) on everyone's potential for maximum fun in whatever we decide.

/steps off his soap box
Dan

--
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
-Albert Einstein

[Joel Rios]

All good points. Anyone else have any thoughts to share?

[Jay.Mc...@gmail.com]

I think in order for this discussion to go anywhere we need som
concrete information, some facts, and some proposals.

There are 10 of us, how would we be split? geographically?
seniority? like picking baseball teams in elementary school? if you
are in favor of this, what are your proposed groups and why?

We have 5 places we can play (that I know of):
Colin and Chelsea's
Jesse's
Josh's
Joel's Clubhouse
My house

That does not seem like a limiting factor, how about DM's? We have
had 3 people take turns DMing in the main campaign:
Jesse
Colin
Me

Each group should have at least one person willing to DM. How about
supplies?
Colin has a small battlemat and some minis, along with most of our
random 4e supplies.
Josh has a battlemat and minis
Joel has a battlemat and minis
Jesse has some paper and other supplies
Dan has a board
I have minis

Obviously Colin and Chelsea would prefer being in the same group, as
would Jessica and Jesse.

With all that out there, are there any proposals? Any other
limiting factors that you can think of? This is the hard part, put
your balls on the table and post how you would split the group.

Jay

On Apr 6, 2:30 pm, Joel Rios <jrio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All good points.  Anyone else have any thoughts to share?
>

[Joel Rios]

I think our best bet as far as actually making decisions and planning
stuff, is to do what both you and Dan suggested, which is to wait
until we are all together again.

With emails, there is too much potential for something to be misread
and then offend someone, despite good intentions. Especially if we get
into suggesting what group we think a player should or should not play
in.

I figured I'd just toss the idea out there, get people thinking about
it and see if anyone even cared to pursue the it. From what I gather,
both of you (Dan and Jay) at minimum consider the idea worth more
discussion, even if you aren't outright in favor of it until you hear
more from the other players. Am I right to assume this?

[Daniel Thayer]

 Yes, I do think we should talk about it in person more (again, preferably when Jay/everyone can be there for the conversation - or at least a majority of the members). I have some alternate ideas I would also like to throw out at the next session as well.

[marc....@gmail.com]

I'm new to your group, so in some ways I don't have much to contribute
here... However, after being in a game a couple years ago in 3.5 for
about a year or so, that was rather large... I just want to comment
that it does seem that the game mechanics of D&D, this version
included, gets bogged down during encounter mechanics. Frankly every
RPG I know of that's r/t with dice and charachter sheets presents this
problem with a large group.

Someone mentioned that we could have two parties in the same world
that might interact with eachother in a vague sense... Perhaps,
instead.. the two parties could be quite dynamic and have a lot to do
with each other, including updates shared between GM's and some
exchange of charachters depending on role playing... I think the
answer to this problem is to get 2 DM's to figure out a story that can
have two parties doing different things.. then occassionally... we all
meet up and all players can interact.. and some will go into the
different group because of adventures that interest them.. and quite
naturally can switch back into the other group as needed too.. with
one caviat... that being.. the two groups have to be roughly equal in
size.. so there's got to be a general agreement about that...

I've DM'd before.. and I can see that with a little imagination the 2
DM's can figure out a way to connect even the most disparate stories..
or if they choose, work together to create an integrated campaign...

The only difficulty will arise if one group has a lot of absences....
(shrugs shoulders)... When isn't there some type of challenge???

For what it's worth, I'm really glad to be with you guys.. You all
seem like fun people and I'm looking forward to gaming with y'all.. so
THANKS

C-ya around 12~!

-Marc

On Apr 7, 9:28 pm, Daniel Thayer <arlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Yes, I do think we should talk about it in person more (again, preferably
> when Jay/everyone can be there for the conversation - or at least a majority
> of the members). I have some alternate ideas I would also like to throw out
> at the next session as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Joel Rios <jrio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think our best bet as far as actually making decisions and planning
> > stuff, is to do what both you and Dan suggested, which is to wait
> > until we are all together again.
>
> > With emails, there is too much potential for something to be misread
> > and then offend someone, despite good intentions. Especially if we get
> > into suggesting what group we think a player should or should not play
> > in.
>
> > I figured I'd just toss the idea out there, get people thinking about
> > it and see if anyone even cared to pursue the it.  From what I gather,
> > both of you (Dan and Jay) at minimum consider the idea worth more
> > discussion, even if you aren't outright in favor of it until you hear
> > more from the other players.  Am I right to assume this?
>

> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Jay.McKin...@gmail.com

> "Not everything that can be counted ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joel Rios]

Another good idea.