How many is too many?

[Justin in Oz]

Sheesh, 7 players is a lot for BW.

I have started a new thread from this part of Liminal Game thread exchange. Mainly because this stuck in my mind. It seemed good netiqutte beacuse this is not what the original thread was about. I am not sure if this thread should be here or somewhere else. Feel free to move the thread if this is the case.

What did you mean by this statement? The 7 players mentioned in the original thread, included me the GM. I said that as part of getting off the Hlidskjalf of "I can negate any rule in the universe" stance of trad roleplays. If you only count "players" there are 6. We play whenever at least 4 of the six show up. More often than not we have a full house. We play fortnightly (that is every two weeks for those outside of the former and decayed British Empire.) on a Thursday.

6 players has not seemed too many for other games. If this is so for BW, why did you write "The Gift" and "The Heist". Are large numbers of players only good for short one offs? Does BW go critical mass and explode or melt down through the floor with large numbers of people? Can only the twin forces of exhaustion and caffine present in massive levels at a game con hold it all together? Or should we just not try these kind of things at home? Are there particular problems I can expect when 18+ beliefs (6 players x 3 beliefs each) rub together with friction (GM)? Any pre-warning would be welcome.

I am asking you to explain yourself. Anyone else who feels like they have anything to contibute is more than welcome. If you understand the workings of Luke's mind all the better. If you don't, then any comments on running "large" BW sessions would hit the spot.

[johnstone]

Try this thread:

http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3491

[Drozdal]

6 players has not seemed too many for other games. If this is so for BW, why did you write "The Gift" and "The Heist". Are large numbers of players only good for short one offs?

This is really good question. The Gift, Heist, Inheritance ect. are our con scenarios. As you probably know point of a "con game" is significantly different from your "ol' regular weekly game". At the con we have to have "one-shot" type of scenario that will run for about 4 to 8 hours (including rules explenations), host as many players as possible (for exposure sake), have to have one significant starting conflict (that will suck the players right in) and the (pre generated) PC's with beliefs in conflict with each other.


Does BW go critical mass and explode or melt down through the floor with large numbers of people? Can only the twin forces of exhaustion and caffine present in massive levels at a game con hold it all together? Or should we just not try these kind of things at home? Are there particular problems I can expect when 18+ beliefs (6 players x 3 beliefs each) rub together with friction (GM)? Any pre-warning would be welcome.

You totally nailed it! Having more than let's say 4 or 5 characters will be extremly taxing on the GM. Keeping track of 12 to 15 beliefs and engaging those in play without overlooking any of the prticipants while managing the screen time and engaging everyone on the same level can be mind-blowingly hard. And when something gets really hard on GM, he will start overlooking things and making mistakes and you are probalby well aware what happens when those things start yo happen at the table.

Also, what johnstone said.

[ThisIsVictor]

My experience with seven players is that it works, just not very well. Or not as well as it would with less players.

Play is not going to be as focused as with a smaller group. The more people you have, the more things are happening. I think this is just a fact. You can get around this with really focused Beliefs, but then you have a con game.

I've found my self relying on the players to chase their Beliefs, instead of me pushing them. If a player doesn't do something to go after their Beliefs, they don't get any screen time that session.

With seven players, I can't do Fights!. They would take to long and be too crazy for me to run if everyone was involved. And if only two people are involved, it's no fun for the others. DoWs seem a lot better at engaging the attention on the nonparticipating players.

I also push for die rolls really quickly. Anytime any conflict comes up, I make people roll or DoW as soon as everyone knows what the conflict is about. This keeps the game from stalling out. (This is a good rule of thumb all the time, but even more important with a large number.)

--Victor

[luke]

Good advice from Victor!

-L

[John Anderson]

My experience with seven players is that it works, just not very well. Or not as well as it would with less players.

Play is not going to be as focused as with a smaller group. The more people you have, the more things are happening. I think this is just a fact. You can get around this with really focused Beliefs, but then you have a con game.

I've found my self relying on the players to chase their Beliefs, instead of me pushing them. If a player doesn't do something to go after their Beliefs, they don't get any screen time that session.

With seven players, I can't do Fights!. They would take to long and be too crazy for me to run if everyone was involved. And if only two people are involved, it's no fun for the others. DoWs seem a lot better at engaging the attention on the nonparticipating players.

I also push for die rolls really quickly. Anytime any conflict comes up, I make people roll or DoW as soon as everyone knows what the conflict is about. This keeps the game from stalling out. (This is a good rule of thumb all the time, but even more important with a large number.)

--Victor

I agree with everything that Victor's written. In my four-part game (which was finished, but I've simply not had the time to write up) I had six players and found that ensuring everyone had 'screen time' was quite tiring. As Victor wrote, I had to rely on the players to chase their Beliefs, instead of me pushing them, something which wasn't ideal with a group new to BW.

By rapidly going round the table and asking each player in turn their intent for the scene, it kept things moving quite briskly, and worked well most of the time. It was during DOW and Fight!, where not everyone was present, that things slowed dramatically (a combination of my inexperience and the awareness that others were not involved and losing attention). This was using bloody versus tests for all minor physical conflicts and DOW for all social conflict. Also, the gang just weren't used to being able to leap in with suggestions when their character wasn't in the scene.

In hindsight I would redo the game with perhaps four at the most, at least until I was a lot more up to speed with the BW system. As Vincent commented, it would have provided a far tighter game and more screen time for those involved. It would have also allowed me to push more player control of beliefs.

I'm planning a Burning Wheel Black Company game at the moment as one-offs with tightly focused beliefs and relationships tied to a single goal and only two or three players. The very valuable experience gained from my first game is proving invaluable in writing up and burning the figures of note for this game.
John

[ThisIsVictor]

Last session I had one of the players wanted to DoWs a NPC. I couldn't think of any good things for the NPC to say, so I handed the character off to a player. Everyone loved it and had a great time watching the Duel. For some reason, player vs. player conflict is much more engaging then player vs. GM.

This also works with Fights!, though I've only seen it done in a game with two players, not the seven I have.

--Victor

[Jake Norwood]

In our last game (pending writeup) I had the Players play out a DoW between two NPC Lords. They PCs's fates were somewhat embroiled in the mess, but it was fun because they got to play with the rules and stay engaged without risking their characters on the spot...plus they got to take turns deciding what the different parties said to each other.

Jake