@wandererbill

I played (in Dwimmermount, ironically!) in a 12 player (+ DM so 13 participants total) group. It was awful. One of those players later played in another campaign where I was the DM and we had 10 players + DM. (It was very random how many would show so sometimes 10 people showed up and sometimes two! That was not great!)

As DM I can have fun with any group size (maybe 1–5 is best—four players + DM is really nice) but as a player I prefer 2–3 other players.

I’ve been thinking about bigger pools lately but with some sort of algorithm for selecting 4, 3, 5, 2 or 1 players per session (in that order). So if we have six players signed up a particular week who had indicated they wanted to play one session each, it’d become two days of 3 each. If there were six people four of whom had indicated one session, two of whom’d had indicated two sessions, we could do two four-player sessions that week and so on. Not everybody would get their wishes every time but the scheduling algo would try to be fair and consistent♥

I just haven’t really solved this particular math riddle. Some Condorcet nerds are free to chime in because I believe it’s a similar field although not really the same thing. We’re not looking for the One Best Day, we’re looking for “a schedule that best fits a set of constraints”—hey, sort of like typesetting / box-flowing algorithms now that I think of it! Maybe that could be the ticket…

People would rate every day zero to five stars + indicate how many times they would wanna play that week.

(Maybe if they could also indicate (anonymously) which people they’d wanna play with some how. I don’t know if recurring, fixed parties is the best or if mingling & mixing is best.)

Then the bot would in its li’l robot head try out all combinations and the one schedule that best fit all the constraints would get selected.

Uh… I feel dumb now because I’ve been struggling with this problem formulation for a year and now just describing it here on Fedi led me to a (possible?) partial solution. Rubber ducky you’re the one♥🐦

@wandererbill The awful part was 13 loud&bolsterous peeps in the same super tiny room

@Sandra
my seat limit for IRL play is 10 players and 6 for online gaming.

More than that is just too much, altough I had one 12 players session where the players actually started to applaud, when we finished ...

@Sandra
... right now, I post the dates for each upcoming session and players can sign up on a first come first serve basis.

@wandererbill I have a problem now where the less enfranchised players are falling behind and I am speculating that that makes them even less motivated to participate more. This isn’t something that they’ve said, just speculation

@Sandra right, I know what you're talking about.

Whenever I notice this happening, I offer a new scenario, or some side quest to those players.

I actually like this a lot, since it adds complexity to the campaign.

@wandererbill I did that and one of them were like “I want to be with the cool characters” so I unified the groups which in hindsight was a mistake

@Sandra yeah, how knows, they might have become the coolest characters in their own right.

I tell my players openly, that I'm looking for diverging plotlines that might eventually get in conflict or converge again. They're also free to join the various factions in the campaign world. I think that's what (old school) campaign play is all about.

@wandererbill It’s moot now because the “cool” characters died today♥ ‘cause all the cool kids they seem to get it

@wandererbill One of my fave games, Hillfolk, is built for larger groups but you still need a good space for it. Maybe a larpy sitch

@wandererbill I have DM'd for large groups at conventions (14+) but realisticly I like to keep it to 6-8 players around the table for most games ... and normally about 4 or 5 for Call of Cthulhu

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Tabletop Social

We are an inclusive Mastodon community for everything tabletop (and more).