The Slew of Massive-Party Pathfinder Games

is it just me, or have nearly all the pathfinder games lately been looking for a ridonk amount of players? every time i go to lfg, i'm spotting games with 6 people, looking for like 4+ more. i just don't see how this is playable: i've been in games that large, and they're invariably train wrecks as some or all of the following problems arise: A: the stronger roleplayers vastly overshadow the weaker ones, making them essentially non-entities in the game aside from during combat, B: the combats drag on and on and on because of the oversaturation of players (and the quantity of monsters needed to provide any kind of challenge for them). C: no-shows become an even worse problem than usual, with people dropping in and out non-stop. D: the DM can't give every party member equal focus, which, along with A, leaves at least half the party feeling irrelevant. E: people keep talking over each other, or there's lots of inner-party conflict. F: due to the enormous party size, the maps have to be really large to accommodate them, otherwise everyone gets caught up in a choke resulting in several rounds (or even encounters) where half the party is stuck sitting around twiddling their thumbs or pulling out their "just in case" ranged weapons that they can't really use, and trying to plink the enemies over the fighters' heads while eating all the penalties this incurs.  G: god help you if someone decides to play a summoner. i understand if you're running different parties through the same campaign or something (though, if you're doing that, why not just make separate campaign pages?), but otherwise i just fail to see how anyone could stand to play a game with this many players. in my experience, 6 is the most a group should ever have (excluding the DM), and even with that many problems like these start cropping up. it's frustrating, because i've had to drop out of a bunch of campaigns because i got tired of sitting around waiting on 7 or 8 other people to take their turns, or finish talking, having to sit around entire sessions doing essentially nothing while the DM entertains what few of us he can. i mean, if you can run a game that large and keep the entire party consistently entertained, more power to you, but i have yet to see the DM who can honestly handle that much chaos. everyone i've seen attempt it has bitten off WAY more than they can chew, and their games have either imploded or they finally gave up and downsized to a reasonable amount of players.

A lot of this comes from not wanting to turn down people, particularly those new to the Hobby. One possible solution would be to have a "Looking for Party" system, similar to Looking for Group, but for willing GMs who might be open to taking on a party of about half that size, and then encouraging them to split into two games. Otherwise, you're preaching to the choir here.  But it takes both GMs who can say no, and players who can look and decide for themselves not to apply for a game with 6+ players in it.

Agree. Perhaps they are experienced and have the ability to control the group. Perhaps they're new and don't understand the awful game breaking mire that is caused by large tables be corralled by an inexperienced or under prepared DM. A: Strong role-player's are in my experience are often overshadowed by the meta-gamers, rule benders or immature game derailers. Shy or inexperienced players do typically sit in the shadows until it's their initiative. B: An experienced DM will know that adding more monsters is not the correct way to challenge a large party. It is adding higher CR's that have sound combat strategies. More monsters = more turns, slower rounds and larger headaches. C: Agree. D: Meh... Yeah. E: Crowd control is part of being a DM. F: Depends on the system being played. Role20 is basically a digital chessex battlemat, so making maps that fit your game is actually quite simple. G: Don't let people play summoners.

It's half of what steve said about the lack of no from gm's (who'll later comment about burnout after trying to deal with a group of "but why am i here") a quarter of them that know 2-3 of  them are only in it for a session or two and use it for padding,a fifth who break into 2-3 other smaller groups and just recycle material if they are masochists who like back to back games, and a twentieth that just keep the extra people in reserve (which is killing it before it starts in my opinion, even in a group of strangers having dude set an expiration date on you kinda blows for the morale point). I prefer smaller groups myself when I'm gming. Mood, Tone, and all that is easier to set with isolated groups and it also amps up the challenge.

I still don't see the issue with summonors. Again having played one they are nothign entirely special (and i do tend toward optimized builds sometimes). They are strong early on but come late game around 10-20 they tend to get very left behind.

Perhaps it is just specific summoner builds such as Master Summoners. One group I was in had a Master Summoner, there was really very little point to the game for the rest of us. His summoned creatures took care of most things.  - Gauss

For several months I ran a 4e game with 7 party members and I don't think it was that slow or even cumbersome but I guess it all depends on the group you are blessed (or cursed) with. Will rp slow down due to having 7 voices? Yeah, a little..some times but it really isn't noticeable in my eyes. Having seven people means there are going to be seven different dynamics potentially happening but honestly like in real life, not every character has an opinion (or perhaps a strong one) on any given subject. Combat isn't all that slow either, is it slower than only 5? Well yeah, that's a given, but as a DM you can take several simple measures to keep the pace going. I've been in large games and have seen how it can be quite languorous but that is due to the DM/GM not keeping his players focused or the players themselves not knowing what the hell they are going to do come their turn as they were playing some other game and not paying attention. That kind of stuff happens in games of all sizes and I personally can't stand it. If you can't give the game your full attention or at least 90% don't f'ing play, simple as that. I digress... With the right management and understanding of combat a 7 person game can run nearly as quickly and smoothly as a 5 or 6 person game. I did it for months, ran 3 and a half hour sessions and the party still managed to get a lot accomplished even when doing dungeon crawls. Like many things, people just aren't used to running larger games or haven't picked up tips. The only way you can get most of that though is through experience, most of which comes from DM/GM-ing in general. But this is merely my opinion so who knows...

Chris G. said: Agree. Perhaps they are experienced and have the ability to control the group. Perhaps they're new and don't understand the awful game breaking mire that is caused by large tables be corralled by an inexperienced or under prepared DM. A: Strong role-player's are in my experience are often overshadowed by the meta-gamers, rule benders or immature game derailers. Shy or inexperienced players do typically sit in the shadows until it's their initiative. i've found this is pretty dependent on the kind of game being run. if it's RP heavy, it's the strong roleplayers and derailers that take over. if it's heavy combat, it's the munchkins, rules lawyers, and meta-gamers. and new players who decided to try full-casting. (i just want to scream at them, LEARN WHAT YOUR SPELLS DO BEFORE THE GAME, and decide what to do during everyone ELSE'S turns).

Gauss said: Perhaps it is just specific summoner builds such as Master Summoners. One group I was in had a Master Summoner, there was really very little point to the game for the rest of us. His summoned creatures took care of most things.  - Gauss it's not the power level of summoners, it's the fact that they're built around summons, which in and of itself slows the game down. summons = more creatures on the field = more turns = slower game. which is why a lot of people disallow them (combined with the fact that, unlike other casters using summons, summoner summons can stick around for a long time). i personally only allow summoners in a group of 4 or less. any more than that and combat will be slow enough without summons. and i try to avoid casting summon spells as wizard in a large group unless i need to or im compensating for the lack of rogues by using my home-made summon monster wand  to set off all the traps. RIP 8 ponies... lolz #craftwandshenanigans swag.

Heartagun said: For several months I ran a 4e game with 7 party members and I don't think it was that slow or even cumbersome but I guess it all depends on the group you are blessed (or cursed) with. Will rp slow down due to having 7 voices? Yeah, a little..some times but it really isn't noticeable in my eyes. Having seven people means there are going to be seven different dynamics potentially happening but honestly like in real life, not every character has an opinion (or perhaps a strong one) on any given subject. Combat isn't all that slow either, is it slower than only 5? Well yeah, that's a given, but as a DM you can take several simple measures to keep the pace going. I've been in large games and have seen how it can be quite languorous but that is due to the DM/GM not keeping his players focused or the players themselves not knowing what the hell they are going to do come their turn as they were playing some other game and not paying attention. That kind of stuff happens in games of all sizes and I personally can't stand it. If you can't give the game your full attention or at least 90% don't f'ing play, simple as that. I digress... With the right management and understanding of combat a 7 person game can run nearly as quickly and smoothly as a 5 or 6 person game. I did it for months, ran 3 and a half hour sessions and the party still managed to get a lot accomplished even when doing dungeon crawls. Like many things, people just aren't used to running larger games or haven't picked up tips. The only way you can get most of that though is through experience, most of which comes from DM/GM-ing in general. But this is merely my opinion so who knows... you ran a 4e game with 7 players and it WASN'T slow? god, one of the reasons i won't touch 4e anymore is how slow the combat feels even with a SMALL party. everything has tons of HP...

I think it's a matter of balance.  People covered a lot of this above too, but: some players really only care about combat.  Others prefer utility roles, and will be the ones doing skill stuff rather than hacky slashy stuff.  Others like doing everything, but don't care to be a leader.   Game style also comes into play.  Some campaigns are simply more suited to a small, tight-nit group, while for others there is room for all to play.  And, of course, as has been mentioned...  people drop, or decide the party isn't right for them.  If you start with a lot, when the attrition kicks in you've still got enough that you can keep going. From the GM side of the table, I try to make sure every...  20 minutes or so?  If somebody hasn't said anything lately, I specifically ask them what they are up to.  Much of the time, they were quite happy observing the rest of the party, but upon rare occasion they simply hadn't realized that they were exactly the right person for the task at hand.  I also try to make it clear to players that they should feel very free to talk to me about what they'd like to see happen in future games - I can't make a fun game if I don't know what they find enjoyable, after all.  And then bounce back and forth to satisfy those with combat lust, those who want a diplomatic mission, etc.

Bill K. said: I think it's a matter of balance.  People covered a lot of this above too, but: some players really only care about combat.  Others prefer utility roles, and will be the ones doing skill stuff rather than hacky slashy stuff.  Others like doing everything, but don't care to be a leader.  i actually got kicked out of my rl group over this, but the other way around. i have to have some degree of roleplay: if it's all combat, i get very bored very quickly. it was a super-small group (3 people, 2 of us playing 2 PCs) and i was playing a bluff-based bard and a simple cleave-based fighter (not even a particularly good one). after a game where we fought a ton of witches i got kicked out because of "differing interests." that is, they got sick of me being super RP-heavy with my bard (who is useless in combat once he runs out of performances) and the alleged op-ness of my fighter (we fought all these witches in super cramped quarters, where my fighter excels) which they considered to be me optimizing.

Nick N. said: Bill K. said: I think it's a matter of balance.  People covered a lot of this above too, but: some players really only care about combat.  Others prefer utility roles, and will be the ones doing skill stuff rather than hacky slashy stuff.  Others like doing everything, but don't care to be a leader.  i actually got kicked out of my rl group over this, but the other way around. i have to have some degree of roleplay: if it's all combat, i get very bored very quickly. it was a super-small group (3 people, 2 of us playing 2 PCs) and i was playing a bluff-based bard and a simple cleave-based fighter (not even a particularly good one). after a game where we fought a ton of witches i got kicked out because of "differing interests." that is, they got sick of me being super RP-heavy with my bard (who is useless in combat once he runs out of performances) and the alleged op-ness of my fighter (we fought all these witches in super cramped quarters, where my fighter excels) which they considered to be me optimizing. You got kicked out for "optimizing?"  Not cheating, just min/maxing and being effective in the situation you were designed for?  Wow, that's.... I'm sorry to hear it, you're better off, IMO, not gaming with people like that.

Steve S. said: Nick N. said: Bill K. said: I think it's a matter of balance.  People covered a lot of this above too, but: some players really only care about combat.  Others prefer utility roles, and will be the ones doing skill stuff rather than hacky slashy stuff.  Others like doing everything, but don't care to be a leader.  i actually got kicked out of my rl group over this, but the other way around. i have to have some degree of roleplay: if it's all combat, i get very bored very quickly. it was a super-small group (3 people, 2 of us playing 2 PCs) and i was playing a bluff-based bard and a simple cleave-based fighter (not even a particularly good one). after a game where we fought a ton of witches i got kicked out because of "differing interests." that is, they got sick of me being super RP-heavy with my bard (who is useless in combat once he runs out of performances) and the alleged op-ness of my fighter (we fought all these witches in super cramped quarters, where my fighter excels) which they considered to be me optimizing. You got kicked out for "optimizing?"  Not cheating, just min/maxing and being effective in the situation you were designed for?  Wow, that's.... I'm sorry to hear it, you're better off, IMO, not gaming with people like that. i didn't even really minmax. i put some points into WIS so his perception wouldn't suck.