As someone who runs a big group amongst my friends, I've run into trouble lately managing the chaos. What are some techniques you use to pace the game and maintain order?

Right now, I have around 8 players give or take. When we have that much, there's a lot of crosstalk, which makes it hard to get into character, and for everyone to get a word in. In fact, we tend to get into a lot of OOC analysis during combat too. That makes it last a longer, and then inevitably some people might get bored and you'll have side conversations start until I rein things back in. And then some players naturally gravitate to taking control of the pace, but it ends up with them basically playing the other player's characters for them, so I want to cut down on that. Stuff like, I'll ask what they all do, and one player jumps in and lays out a chain of events for all of them and then they all just basically say, "what he said."

I'm thinking of instituting the following measures and seeing what happens:

1) No talking outside your turn during combat.

2) You can only speak for yourself. It doesn't matter if you're all going to do the same thing, you all still have to individually say it, rather than one person saying, "Okay now we all leave" even if you agreed with it.

3) IC talk only. This is the hardest one and the one most likely to go, but we'll see.

There are other issues, like half the group favoring kick-down-the-door style play while the other half wants to meticulously plan an operation, but I think that might be easier to manage.

8 players does seem like a lot, I'd probably draw the line at 5 or 6.

I've never been in the military. But when I was playing World of Warcraft and involved in raiding I came to appreciate the problems of group dynamics and trying to get everyone involved and working together toward a goal. Doing 10 man raids was rough enough, but going for 15, 25 or 40... hell. Even when it was a guild event and we all knew each other and worked together repeatedly there were problems. I gotta hand it to my guild leaders, they really were a step above the rest of us. I was an officer in my guild and rather well liked by all and still I didn't want to lead raids.

That was all easy on-line stuff with people playing in the quiet and comfort of their homes. Turn those group dynamics to the real world and trying to move a dozen or more guys in a military operation... damn. I fully appreciate the reasoning behind drill sergeants and demanding absolute discipline and compliance to orders.

So 8 players at a table... just imagine how difficult it would be if the characters were real and in a dangerous environment, with all the aches and pains and problems people have in their daily lives. The idea of "adventuring" would quickly lose its appeal. Most groups would get cut up real quick.

Well, there's one old school approach that can help pacing and maintain order, but it probably wouldn't meet all your needs. You could institute a Caller, an intermediary player that helps manage the players and keeps everyone on task. The Caller would not run the other characters, but would confer with everyone, acting as a leader for the group.

Quote from: Moldvay Basic D&DTo avoid confusion, the players should select one player to speak for the entire group or party. That player is named the caller. When unusual situations occur, each player may want to say what his or her character is doing. The caller should make sure that he or she is accurately representing all the player characters' wishes. The caller is a mediator between the players and the DM, and should not judge what the player characters should do.
...
The players may tell the DM what their characters are doing, but the game runs more smoothly when the caller relays the information. The caller should be sure to check with each member of the party before announcing any actions (such as "We'll turn right" or "The thief will check for traps").

Quote from: Doughdee222;8601068 players does seem like a lot, I'd probably draw the line at 5 or 6.

I've never been in the military. But when I was playing World of Warcraft and involved in raiding I came to appreciate the problems of group dynamics and trying to get everyone involved and working together toward a goal. Doing 10 man raids was rough enough, but going for 15, 25 or 40... hell. Even when it was a guild event and we all knew each other and worked together repeatedly there were problems. I gotta hand it to my guild leaders, they really were a step above the rest of us. I was an officer in my guild and rather well liked by all and still I didn't want to lead raids.

That was all easy on-line stuff with people playing in the quiet and comfort of their homes. Turn those group dynamics to the real world and trying to move a dozen or more guys in a military operation... damn. I fully appreciate the reasoning behind drill sergeants and demanding absolute discipline and compliance to orders.

So 8 players at a table... just imagine how difficult it would be if the characters were real and in a dangerous environment, with all the aches and pains and problems people have in their daily lives. The idea of "adventuring" would quickly lose its appeal. Most groups would get cut up real quick.

It's actually more like 12 players total but 7-8 can actually show up on any given session. It makes scheduling less painful since there's always people around too.

The main reason everybody's lumped into one giant group is that we don't get to play that often, so splitting everyone into two groups would just make it so everyone plays half as much. That and the original reason we started playing in the first place was so all of us could have something to do together.

Quote from: K Peterson;860107Well, there's one old school approach that can help pacing and maintain order, but it probably wouldn't meet all your needs. You could institute a Caller, an intermediary player that helps manage the players and keeps everyone on task. The Caller would not run the other characters, but would confer with everyone, acting as a leader for the group.

I thought of this, but isn't that basically what the DM does anyway? What would the Caller do that the DM doesn't? Also would the Caller be an IC leader or an OOC one? It seems like it would turn the game into all OOC talk, though that's fine if it works. I floated the concept of Caller before and the players didn't seem keen on the idea of there being a "leader."

A wandering monster appears every time crosstalk occurs over your voice.  Works an absolute treat.

The Caller talks to the referee, the other players talk quietly to the Caller.

Essentially it's running the session in character.  If your players are sitting around blathering, their characters are having a loud gabfest in the middle of the tenth level of the dungeon (or whatever.)  Whatever the referee hears, the character is saying out loud.

Well, it's just another organizational tool for the DM if you've got a large group of players. It's one less thing for you to deal with if the players can self-manage. As the DM, you have one focal point to pull actions from instead of having to deal with a cacophony of voices yourself. Basically, it's off-loading the responsibility of asking each player what they want to do on to someone else. You're already going to have a lot to manage with 8+ players so why not outsource some of your busy-work?

If planning and OOC chatter becomes too extensive, then as the DM you can impose time restrictions to keep the pacing going. I don't recall how long combat rounds are in 5e, but I imagine they're still measured in seconds. You don't have to stare at a stopwatch and count down time, but you can remind the players that you need their actions soon. And after a few reminders you can skip their turn if they dilly-dally for too long. That'll get their attention.

It would have the potential of limiting IC talk a little, but you'd still roleplay out conversations and other IC activities on an individual basis.

A Caller is primarily an OOC leader, though there's no reason why they couldn't be an IC one as well.

Or you could just say "Are you fuckers here to game or to talk?  Then shut the fuck up!"

I should say that the Caller is a concept that works very well in versions of D&D with group-initiative. The role would require some tweaking with versions that use individual-initiative.

Quote from: K Peterson;860117I should say that the Caller is a concept that works very well in versions of D&D with group-initiative. The role would require some tweaking with versions that use individual-initiative.

The Caller is mostly useful for non-combat.  Auction style initiative works fine during combat.  (Any 6s?  Any 5s?  etc)

Quote from: K Peterson;860117I should say that the Caller is a concept that works very well in versions of D&D with group-initiative. The role would require some tweaking with versions that use individual-initiative.

What do you mean?

And yeah I imagined it would be most useful for outside of combat.

If they're going to talk IC though how would they talk to the Caller OOC? Would they just say the stuff they would normally say to me? Or would the Caller just listen to everybody's opinions IC and then make a decision OOC? That seems like a decision that should be made IC though.

Definitely number two, people speaking for themselves.

But here's the major caveat: declare actions within a time limit or be skipped.

I will absolutely guarantee you a few rounds of their PC standing around being slapped about will bring their attention back with stiletto sharpness. Or they will throw a hissy and walk from the table, which is also a plus. Or their character dies and they are finally free to pursue their primary interest in full. There is nothing but win from this approach.

There's nothing wrong with socializing and dithering during lulls. But there's also the expectation that you will also be courteous to others during crunch time. So timeliness during time sensitive situations (i.e. combat) is not an unreasonable expectation.

(Fog of War initiative has so much layered utility it is an absolute wonder why people thought we could "reinvent the wheel." Culls tactical metagaming and social dithering in a single stroke. It even works wonders as a penalty on those who continually talk too loud and drown out other critical conversation, like between the GM & the active PC. Enjoy!)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860113A wandering monster appears every time crosstalk occurs over your voice.  Works an absolute treat.

Depends on the system. In WOTC editions it is just extra XP on the hoof. Wandering monsters don't drain resources while providing little benefit as they did originally.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860121What do you mean?

By group-initiative? I mean where a single d6 is rolled per side involved in a combat to determine which group (characters or monsters) move/act first. Rather than individual-initiative where a die is rolled per player (and per monster) and the movement/actions of characters and monsters is interspersed throughout the combat round.

In B/X D&D, at least, actions can be declared for the entire group and the order in which they occur depends on the type of action (movement, missile fire, magic use, hand-to-hand combat). So, it's easier for a Caller to declare exactly what all the characters are doing during a round.

In other versions of D&D, you have characters taking action after the action of monsters, so a character might elect to take a different action based on what another character does, or what a monster does. So, it would be more challenging to announce what a party is doing during combat because actions might change due to circumstances.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860118Auction style initiative works fine during combat.  (Any 6s?  Any 5s?  etc)

Is that how initiative works in OD&D? I know shit-and-nothing about OD&D, and am a little surprised that it doesn't use group-initiative like a number of other 'early' systems (late 70s and early 80s stuff).