So, I'm running this D&D game. It's... totally non-standard for me. For one thing, I can't really say that the group is my group. I only really know two of the seven players well, and have only had prior gaming experience with one of the seven. For another, there are now SEVEN players, although it started with four. I'm used to running for groups of 3-4. Third, the average group age is about seventeen and a half. I turn 16 in a week.

So anyway, the original four are Wade (who I know and game with elsewhere), Derek (who I know), and Patrick and Lon (who are friends of Derek). In the second session we added David--another friend of Derek's--and Hullace, Patrick's girlfriend. This was Hullace's first RPG session.

Now, Hullace's has made it clear that she will win this game. She's a good player, caught onto the rules rather quickly despite playing a spellcaster, got the ethos of the exercise quick as a snap. To her, everything in the session is a minigame. A microcosm that she can, by doing better than her SO Patrick, win. The Quintessential Gamist.

Then, yesterday, for the third session, we added Robert, who went to the school that Wade, Derek and I attend last year but this year left for a science-and-math heavy boarding school. This will be Robert's first gaming session. He, too, decided to play a sorcerer. As David didn't show today, and Lon was also playing a Sorc, then that made half the party sorcerers, but hey, what the hell, right? Robert's approach to the game was about as different to Hullace's as you can get. Whenever I asked him for actions, he'd immediately step into author stance. When he noticed the vague look of horror on the faces of the others the first time he did this, he faltered, but continued at my behest. His character came set with motivations and goals that drove the game on the course he wanted. The Quintessential Narrativist.

Of everyone else in the group, Wade is most definitely hard-core Gamist (although he's not much for resource management--he likes seeing how his character builds stack up against the opposition). Derek, Patrick, and Lon I don't really have a read on, and David less so, but I know that their style of play was rather different before they asked me to GM. I'll get to experience it first hand in a few weeks, at any rate, which should give me a better idea of it. But despite all this, the game has been all smooth sailing thus far, and looks to continue to be to its conclusion in about 3 or 4 more sessions.

--Jeff

It's really interested when players (who've never heard so much of the theory) seem to describe or reflect what they want in such clear terms. (Like when a friend of mine complained about the game I was GMing, that there was no real standards for goal achievement, no set rules for competition, etc. Indeed, he was a Gamist in love with Hackmaster, while I was just getting over being a railroader in a rather minimalist system.)

This sounds great - esp. given that you're holding up with so many players! Man, popularity is a bitch... Have you had much in the way of coherence issues?

It's always risky introducing new players, especially brand new players, into already established gaming groups. Most new players seem intimidated by the familiarity that already exists between the other players and, if the group isn't careful, can serve to drive new players away instead of pull them in. It's also tricky to deal with out of game romances during extended game play. I can't remember the number of times I've seen games fall apart because two of the players broke up.

I'm impressed at your success.

BTW, if half your players are sorcerers, you should look into the Unearthed Arcana book. It's got some great guidelines for customizing charecter classes for greater variety.