But what if there are too many players...?

[A42]

The trick to working with larger groups of players is to give them something to do, preferably something that they can do without much input from you.

I typically only run CoC at conventions; the only time I get to run it at home is when I playtest for my con games. One of my best experiences as Keeper was 2 years ago at Origins. After presenting the initial scene and calling for a few dice rolls, I barely spoke for the next hour. Characters were arguing with each other, trying to come up with plans, etc. I mostly just answered questions like "Are the police here yet?" or "Is there somewhere in the basement we can hide the girl's head?" You know. The usual.

Part of it is going to depend on the players. Some players will jump right in and run with it, others will need a little more coaxing. One of my worst experiences as a GM was 2 years ago at Gencon, my last slot of the con. I only had 3 players for a Buffy event and they were all of the "need a little coaxing" variety. (And I was exhausted and hungover. That didn't help.)

As a player, I played in a CoC game at Gencon about five years ago that was slotted for 8 and ended up with about 12 people. 11 of the 12 people had a blast, in part because we had plenty of things to do and discuss among our sub-groups.

I guess my point (at last!) is that your mileage may vary. Some game/player permutations will work great with a large number of players, some will not. Be prepared to work for it.

[ThothAmon]

To respond to the OP on the points he raised:

(1) I've found over the years that player numbers are less important than player mix and GM attitude. If there are personalities who cannot work together then it doesn't matter whether you have only 2 players or as many as 12 players. It only takes one muppet to spoil the experience for all.

I've responded on these forums a number of times regards GMing with large player numbers. My advice is to talk to all your players, find out what they want from the game and tell them how you'd like the sessions to run (e.g. if no out-of-character chat is to be a rule they must be told this). Make sure that you can satisfy their wants. And you must learn to manage the players in the same way that a tutor manages a group of students (not an ideal example but I trust you get my meaning).

If you are a roleplaying novice I'd suggest either reducing group numbers or beginning with a less serious scenario or mini campaign. Large groups require good tracking and thinking-on-your-feet skills. You should give yourself and your players the opportunity to make your mistakes early on. Don't expect to be the world's greatest gaming group until everyone has had some experience in cooperative roleplaying.

(2) Making up characters is a black art. If you know your players you can help them to get a character they will be happy to play. Likewise if everyone knows what kind of gaming they are going into, you are less likely to have lame duck characters.

My own group became comfortable with allowing the GM to produce a character based on a biographical description that they handed in. This approach allows the GM some additional freedom and ensures that nobody gets short changed in the character lottery. It also allows you to build in plot hooks that you can exploit later

[Gaffer]

I think large groups are difficult for long campaigns, though I've had fair success with 6-8 players, usually by providing a "team/pair" link: heiress/bodyguard, archaeologist/fiancee, reporter/photographer, crook/moll, and such. The pairs have someone logical to talk to, share with, take risks for, and a strong player can help a weak player.

Party splitting is inevitable with large groups and sometimes preferable (does anyone remember Woody Allen's escaping chain gang in Take the Money and Run?). I try to rotate between/among split groups so that each gets at least some activity every 30 minutes or so to help keep them involved -- setting a problem/query/mystery as I leave them helps keep them occupied as well.

If your time permits, you might want to try splitting the 8 into two groups of 4 for a while, until everyone gets their "sea-legs."

[FNH]

I think 8 is going to be okay in a haunted mansion type scenario where you can fend off the players by having them spend time talking to each other, but I would avoid having this many in an investigation.

8 people walking into the newspaper office seems a little unreasonable, 8 people interviewing, 8 people in a car, 8 people just seems too many!

8 could be a DnD party but not a group of investigators. Play will suffer, individual players will suffer from not getting a chance to interact, atke part.

I've always thought 3-4 players works, anymore can be a real pain.

[DrGikur]

To the large group gurus . . .

So is there a laundry list of things to do or avoid with large groups? I have never managed or played with more than five at a time.

[houndocullan]

I always found the fewer players the better, about 2 -4 is perfect. It is easier to set mood, imply subtle clues and keep every one focused. I have played with up to eight people and it usually turns out to be sub-par, if not a total train wreck.

[Logan9a]

I like five players.

I've GM'ed about 13 players at a time before but I've noticed that if you go above five, then you will get your group split into dominate and passive elements - the dominate ones talk, the passive ones do if asked to make dice rolls or are addressed by other players/GM.

[KaosDevice]

I agree 4-5 is pretty idyllic. More then that and the GM has to work hard to prevent 'bored player phenomenon'.

[DrJest]

For a one-shot adventure, lots of players can be fun, though you might want to have two people running the game, especially if the players have reason to split up. While it may seem harder to get everybody in the mood, that just means that your one-shot needs a strong opening to get everybody involved. Start in the middle of things if necessary, like everybody wakes up chained to the wall in the basement of the cultist hideout. The real payoff with the larger group is that the fight scenes tend to be very chaotic, with some trying to be heroic, while others dive for cover or run away. Since the system itself is very easy, the only real challenge of the mass combat is keeping track of initiative, which I do with index cards showing character name, player name and Dexterity score.

For a campaign, I personally prefer a group of 4-6 players, because usually at least one person can't make it on any given day. I hate running the game for anything less than three players, because I have to pull my punches too much before the final encounter, or else risk the story getting derailed by untimely death or insanity.

[Gaffer]

For a one-shot adventure, lots of players can be fun, though you might want to have two people running the game, especially if the players have reason to split up. While it may seem harder to get everybody in the mood, that just means that your one-shot needs a strong opening to get everybody involved. Start in the middle of things if necessary, like everybody wakes up chained to the wall in the basement of the cultist hideout. The real payoff with the larger group is that the fight scenes tend to be very chaotic, with some trying to be heroic, while others dive for cover or run away. Since the system itself is very easy, the only real challenge of the mass combat is keeping track of initiative, which I do with index cards showing character name, player name and Dexterity score.

A few years ago my daughter and I ran linked events with two tables of 8 players each that ended in a battle royale bringing everyone together for a fight using miniatures for the last half hour. We ran the combat by assigning characters initiative numbers and calling out the numbers each round. The player had 5 seconds to commit to an action or get skipped. It was mayhem, but everyone had a blast (I think) and we always got to the end in the time limit.

I like to start con events with action of some sort or at least a good dramatic scene. It does get the players focused and interacting better than a long exposition. It's helped by having a good descriptive background -- long term and immediate -- for each character. Having characters who are significantly different with various important skills also helps. I also advocate setting them up as pairs as much as possible and having the pairs sit together, which gives them a partner, a relationship and some motivation.

[Master_Forcide]

I haven't yet had the experience of too many players in CoC -- my current group has three players and two Keepers -- but in a Scion game I've been playing in the group has ballooned to ten players; I get the feeling the Storyteller wants to involve everyone who knows about the game. Combat tends to really bog down at that level.

[johnmcfloss]

I'm involved in a game with 7 players (Scion too, go figure...)
As the players are new, I'd advise against - unless you can be sure that there'll be intercharacter interaction people'll spend a lot of time sitting around listening or just waiting (and even I struggle to concentrate after that).
It also depends on space, I'd think - even if you can get them to interact with eachother, you're still looking at three or four simultanious conversations around a single table, which may result in needing to shout to be heard.

That said, we play in a comic shop while it's still open, the challenge is Not getting distracted...

[MrLogic]

...since I tend to shy away from
physically killing main PC's (though I'll send 'em to Riverview with but
a bat of an eyelash)...

My players have a problem with death, to such an extent that they are now on an entirely seperate campaign to find a resurrection spell that will work on a man who had his head ripped apart by the haunter in the dark. Strange people.

Also, as an aside, they are also very distrustful of asylums... We had one player who was became blind, deaf and amnesiac, and the only thing he was sure of was that he didn't want to go to the 'Godwyn House', the local asylum.

Sometimes the threat of being sent to an asylum works as well as the threat of death to concentrate a player on the story...

[sufirjp]

A thought:

I don't know when your game is starting, but if I was going to handle a group that large I'd be tempted to wait for Trail of Cthulhu before I got started or adapt Esoterrorists. Since these games give a limited amount of points to players to spend for "spotlight time" based on the size of the group, this should make sure everyone stays engaged and has fun while keeping the dominant players from hijacking the game.