Struggling with a Group

[Brennan Taylor]

I've read a lot of tales of woe regarding various individuals' gaming groups on this list, and thought I might share my own.

I am GM for a pretty large group, total of about 7 or 8 players on nights everyone can show. This group has struggled for over two years now. We all got together via Access Denied, a web based player-hookup database. Anyway, since it was sight unseen, we all got together for dinner first to discuss game play, and decided that we would try several different games and settle on the one we liked best. The GM role drifted a bit, then settled on me. We had gone from game to game, and lost a couple of players, then gained a couple more, before it settled out a bit (this after about a year of random play). One of the players was starting to get seriously annoyed with the round-robin style, and was sick of making new characters all the time.

We settled on a Legend of the Five Rings game, since one of the players was a really die-hard fan of the game. The fan had run a few sessions of it, but it was not well-received and the rest of the group was really soured on it, but I offered to run and most everyone (with one exception) decided to give it another go. This went OK, running for roughly six months, but the one player who sat out was the wife of another player, and I felt some pressure from the husband to switch to a game his wife was willing to play. In addition, the fan never showed up, and the husband felt his wife was sitting out in order to accomodate the desires of a guy who never came to the sessions anyway.

The group decided to start playing one of my home-brews, Mortal Coil (a modern-day supernatural game). We made up some initial characters, and began the sessions. After about three sessions it was clear that it wasn't working. We switched to a new venue for the game, changed its focus a bit, and began all over again. Now, it seems like this is collapsing again, and I feel that there is some in-group tension related to style of play that is causing this.

We have a fairly strict Gamist player, who views success as relative to his characters strength and ability in the game. He also has a tendency to be extremely competitive toward other players, but this hasn't been a major problem, just a source of annoyance. Two of the players create elaborate backstories and hooks for their characters and then won't take any action in the game (one of them, when invited in-game to join a scene, actually said "I don't see any reason my character should be there"). We also have two a sort of game orbiters who play in a laid-back style but always step up in important scenes, and two very character-driven players who are constantly engaging in the scenes and trying to work the scenario in ways that explore the character's personality, strengths, and weaknesses. I love gaming with these two, and they were certainly driving the majority of play.

As a GM, I have been moving away from the standard adventure-plot scenarios that used to drive my game story. I used to write out fairly detailed scenarios with a pretty linear outline. Lately, I have been writing detailed setup scenes that drift into vagueness the farther along they go. This is because I have shifted some of the plot driving burden to my players, and in other groups my players been quite good at taking the initial scenario and driving it forward. Good games are a lot of give and take between me and the players, with the players taking a great deal of initiative and running with all of the elements I lay before them. This group, on the other hand, seems to requires a strong and steady hand through the whole scenario, with lots of clear clues and guidance about which way to go. Not everyone in the group is satisfied with this, however, and I know one guy feels as if he's being railroaded when I run in this style. Other players, however, will not take any action without my direct guidance, and I feel there is a serious disconnect with possibly multiple styles of play in the group. I'm afraid this game is falling apart again, and I want to try to rescue it before everyone throws up their hands. Switching games was a weak attempt at a cure, but since I don't think the problem lies in the system, this hasn't worked.

Any thoughts?

[Eric J.]

Man... That's a lot of players.  It's almost a struggle to comprehend the web that you're describing.  As with most problems, I think that everyone needs to understand what everyone else wants out of the game, then work around it.  If you have 6-8 players with what sounds like different motives, I think you should split it up into 2 (or three!) groups.

It may just be me, but I have this rule.  2 can be good in some situations.  3 is usually optimal for me.  4 is good.  5 is tollerable.  6 is impossible.  With 7-8, I don't see how you can give each player an appropriate amount of time ingame, much less direct the game to their priorities.

Once you've broken it down, decide upon a game and go for it.  You can have two parties with two GMs or you can GM both.  It really just depends on eveyone's schedule and what you want.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Ian Charvill]

You seem to be saying that you have a group of eight different players who want different things from the gamins session.  In addition you're indicating that these differing desires are causing games to collapse, and that as a result of this that no one is really having any fun.

Assuming that's an accurate summary, I'd like to ask a couple of questions:

Have you said directly to your gaming group what you've posted above to us?  In other words, have you had a group discussion about the problems you're perceiving with the same kind of candour and expressiveness that you're demonstrating here?

If the answer to the above is 'no', then could you imagine having that kind of discussion with them future?  And if not with all of them then with some of them?

I suspect that the answers to these questions will go a long way in terms of people giving grounded, valid responses to your post.

[Mike Holmes]

Good points, Ian.

Brennan, have you considered breaking up into smaller groups? You might be able to take one messy group and make it into two really cool ones. Doubling your play opportuninties simultaneously.

Mike

[Brennan Taylor]

Have you said directly to your gaming group what you've posted above to us?  In other words, have you had a group discussion about the problems you're perceiving with the same kind of candour and expressiveness that you're demonstrating here?

If the answer to the above is 'no', then could you imagine having that kind of discussion with them future?  And if not with all of them then with some of them?

We've had a few discussions, but I think they have skirted the issue. I hadn't really gotten down to the actual issues until I wrote this post and really thought about what was going on. A lot of the problems had been shifted to system, when I really think it is a group dynamic problem.

I am not sure how comfortable I am having a discussion here. It's probably just social anxiety, but I also feel like I have let the group down on some level. I think some of them would be open to a discussion like this, but others might not. Several members are at an advanced state of exasperation, and I think they might leave the group if things don't go their way.

Splitting the group is an idea, and I will definitely consider it. I still haven't really decided what to do.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Brennan,

I often use a music/band analogy when thinking about these issues. Is it really functional to have "everyone" in the one band? Is the group-unity in the absence of any other qualifiers really something worth preserving?

And secondarily, does one person work hard to keep everyone together because they equate a person's continued membership in the group with that person's approval?

My other point is that "discussion" is a two-sided coin. By which I mean, it can serve as a fog over issues that people don't want to discuss, but will act upon anyway. You can go 'round and 'round forever discussing vague stuff. Some folks on the Forge swear by discussions like this; I tend to simply say "Hey Bob and Jill, let's blow this joint and play that game we were talking about, see you Tuesday," and leave the folks I'm not enjoying playing with behind. A mileage/situation issue, for sure.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

I proabably belong to the swear by discussion contingent.  That said, if you can't even see yourself having the discussion, at least not with all of them, Ron's advice probably stands.

My personal advice, would be try to have the discussion, even if you don't have high hopes for it.  People can surprise you sometimes.  If it doesn't work out, well that gives you something to base your decisions on.

[garapata]

Sounds like you have a group which if not approached on the issue soon enough, may start having the troubles mine did.

Hope you resolve it soon.

As of mine, I've decided to try playing with others first.
Cool the head so to speak.

[garapata]

Sounds like you have a group which if not approached on the issue soon enough, may start having the troubles mine did.

Hope you resolve it soon.

As of mine, I've decided to try playing with others first.
Cool the head so to speak.

[dragon_of_colour]

My 2c worth: Have the discussion with the players, but be prepared to make tough decisions as a result. Chances are (from what you have written) you don't get on with all of them. This is not a fault on your part, simply an incompatibility in playing styles. 7-8 players IMHO is a nightmare, particularly when all of them are clamouring for attention and have very different playing styles. It also leaves the GM feeling like he lets players down, because while you're dealing with players 1-4, chances are players 5 & 6 are bored and telling jokes, and player 7 is sound asleep. But I digress. Point is, 4 players (or whatever your optimum) with similar playing styles (that you are comfortable with) are going to need a lot less babying along than your current crowd.
Right now sounds like you're trying to 'Feed the Five Thousand'.
YMMV as always...