Hmmm... I think our GM may have bitten off more than he can chew...
Early on I was having a great time. It was Pathfinder but we were playing low level Sandbox... lots of danger and PC death and wacky fun. 3 Players at lvl 1-3.
But lately the group has grown and now there's 8 of us AND things aren't so low level anymore (group average is around 7ish) AND we've gone MYTHIC. Combats are real slogs now... lots more discussion of how powers stack and who can do what when and for how long. The rules lawyer and charop guy are questioning a lot more decisions... holding the GM to RAW.
So, tonight the GM's laptop went south... the laptop he runs Pathfinders' app on.
I'm thinking, "So what, let's play!"
Nope, the GM spent the next couple hours trying to figure out the problem (no luck) while we talked amongst ourselves.
Really? Pathfinder can't be run without the computer? All the books are right there on the shelf beside us!
In retrospect it seems weird/ridiculous... but at the time everyone was patient.
Eventually we played some card game, then broke up early.
Now, it seems to me the GM has been stalling during the past couple games. I kind of recognized some stuff I used to do when I wasn't prepared to game.
I sense that he has been running on-the-fly up till now, no real preparation... but with so many people, and so many more moving mechanical parts involved in the game now... he can't really pull it off anymore.
The guy did so well with a smaller group at lower levels. He'd be great with some OSR game like S&W.
It seems like he's overextended himself... or something.
I know I wouldn't want to run PF... certainly not at this level for this many people.
I'm not even sure why I'm bringing it up here... it's not like I've got a question. At this point I'm just going to watch and see what happens... put in my 2 cents where I see an opening.
I've been lobbying to try D&D 5 but I think if I bring it up one more time I'll be in bitch territory and no one else seems to have any interest (not that I've got that much interest myself... but it's gotta be easier to run and faster than PF).
Anyone else got stories of seemingly decent GM's hitting a wall this way... due to Players, rules or whatever?
Quote from: Simlasa;781425Hmmm... I think our GM may have bitten off more than he can chew...
Early on I was having a great time. It was Pathfinder but we were playing low level Sandbox... lots of danger and PC death and wacky fun. 3 Players at lvl 1-3.
But lately the group has grown and now there's 8 of us AND things aren't so low level anymore (group average is around 7ish) AND we've gone MYTHIC.
In my opinion ANYONE would have hit the wall. 3.5/Pathfinder are designed for a group of about 4 players. I honestly don't remember if this is written anywhere, but IMHO, the idea is that the GM and the players learn the rules for high-level characters and such while naturally progressing through the game. After this, an expert group can start with high-level characters - but expect for them to still find some problems and debates with the rules...
This with 4 players.
Now... 8 players? With Pathfinder?? Not even HAL9000 would be able to manage them. Not to mention that 8 players means less opportunity for any of them to act and interact - it doesn't matter the system. Your GM shouldn't never have allowed this proliferation in the first place.
Have you thought about just...I dunno...asking him about it? See if he needs a hand, ask your friend if everything's okay, see if he wants to bounce a campaign idea off you, standard conversation-with-a-gaming-buddy stuff?
Quote from: Reckall;781426Your GM shouldn't never have allowed this proliferation in the first place.
Yeah, I think he's realizing that... though not owning up to it.
Hopefully he takes the Basic 5e escape hatch...
Quote from: Simlasa;781425Hmmm... I think our GM may have bitten off more than he can chew...
Early on I was having a great time. It was Pathfinder but we were playing low level Sandbox... lots of danger and PC death and wacky fun. 3 Players at lvl 1-3.
Low level can be fun, if you don't mind constant rolling up of PCs.
Quote from: Simlasa;781425But lately the group has grown and now there's 8 of us AND things aren't so low level anymore (group average is around 7ish) AND we've gone MYTHIC. Combats are real slogs now... lots more discussion of how powers stack and who can do what when and for how long.
High level games tend to be different from low level ones, in a variety of systems. Once you have invested in the PCs and have run them for a while, you want to keep playing them. There are more tactical decisions, more things to combine together, more spells to use and so on.
Quote from: Simlasa;781425The rules lawyer and charop guy are questioning a lot more decisions... holding the GM to RAW.
That's easy - You want to play RAW? Then run a game yourself. You want to play in my game, then you accept my house rules.
Players do not dictate rules to the GM. They can suggest rules variants or explain why they don't like particular house rules, but the GM is in charge of the rules, always has been, always will be.
Quote from: Simlasa;781425So, tonight the GM's laptop went south... the laptop he runs Pathfinders' app on.
I'm thinking, "So what, let's play!"
Nope, the GM spent the next couple hours trying to figure out the problem (no luck) while we talked amongst ourselves.
Really? Pathfinder can't be run without the computer? All the books are right there on the shelf beside us!
In retrospect it seems weird/ridiculous... but at the time everyone was patient.
Eventually we played some card game, then broke up early.
The Gm might have had the scenario on the laptop, or might have generated NPCs or whatever. Some people don't link winging things and prefer to have things they can use.
Quote from: Simlasa;781425Now, it seems to me the GM has been stalling during the past couple games. I kind of recognized some stuff I used to do when I wasn't prepared to game.
I sense that he has been running on-the-fly up till now, no real preparation... but with so many people, and so many more moving mechanical parts involved in the game now... he can't really pull it off anymore.
The guy did so well with a smaller group at lower levels. He'd be great with some OSR game like S&W.
It seems like he's overextended himself... or something.
I know I wouldn't want to run PF... certainly not at this level for this many people.
Maybe there are too many players to cope with. Maybe it is the plot lines or character interaction that are too complex. It is hard to keep everything in your head at once.
"Six PCs just a shade above Street Level Supers" seems to be about the magical max processing yardstick, in my experience as GM & player. Naturally give or take a GM, a system, "candy distribution rate," etc. But a good rule of thumb nonetheless.
I noticed that AD&D 2e initiative flexibility has saved my ass more than once in variable combat sizes. Sometimes the skirmish warrants individual initiative and weapon speed minutia, sometimes the wave of archers warrants no more than high ground and group initiative. It's nice when game systems make allowances for the different scales of battle.
He needs a friendly talk before the burn out that sounds like it is coming. Anyone recommend options like a co-GM, split party nights, open table, or flexible party dynamics (no glued-to-the-hip gestalts)? Even table assistance on drafting wandering monster tables, faction agendas, or Holders of Power NPCs would help. Using players as a resource to advise is not such a bad thing.
I've hit the wall trying to run six PCs. Five is my max, with 3-4 being the "sweet spot". Gotta know your limits as a GM for how many PCs you can handle and still keep the pacing and interaction at the table at a good level.
If you are noticing this then chances are it has been building up for a bit. Just ask him straight up if he still enjoys running the game and tell him to be honest.
If the GM is no longer looking forward to preparing and running a game then the players are going to be miserable eventually so it's best to just end things and start something that the whole group will enjoy.
5E's got to be simpler than Pathfinder, but on the other hand - its an unfamiliar system which brings its own set of problems. (Particularly if people are invested in existing characters and want to try to convert them or somesuch)... If you were going to manage such a switch you likely have to GM it yourself.
How regularly do you guys play as well? Probably the most successful long-term 3.x gaming group I had played weekly for 6-8 hrs, but with two GMs alternating so that there was always a fortnight between a particular GM having to run again to give them prep time / time to get inspiration. Worked really well.
Quote from: Reckall;781426Now... 8 players? With Pathfinder?? Not even HAL9000 would be able to manage them. Not to mention that 8 players means less opportunity for any of them to act and interact - it doesn't matter the system. Your GM shouldn't never have allowed this proliferation in the first place.
I ran a PF campaign for 8 players for nearly a year. Making matters worse was that the 8th slot alternated between two different people (based on their schedules) so I had to do some micro-management to keep them both up to speed, and neither owned the books.
Things actually went great up to level 7.
Level 8 was slower than I would have liked, but still manageable.
Level 9 was shaky. This is where I stopped having fun (though the players still liked it)
Level 10 was very difficult.
Level 11 = DM implosion.
After that, I decided I'd never DM it for a large group again without an 8-level cap.
Ask the DM if he's getting burnt out. Back him up if he doesn't want to DM anymore, or would prefer a simpler system.
I don't get why people continue DMing games they aren't enjoying. And I don't understand the sense of entitlement some players seem to have regarding what a DM should run. In my group, I'll present different options for games, editions, or campaigns. The players will give me some feedback, but invariably their response is "whatever is easiest for you." They recognize that I'm a busy adult (as they are) and DMing is a lot of work; they're considerate, socially-adept friends. Maybe that's not the norm in the hobby?
I'm really not complaining about the GM... just trying to figure out the situation and how we got to last night's debacle. I'm still thinking how I might best approach the GM about it so it doesn't come off as complaining or accusing.
Quote from: soltakss;781449Low level can be fun, if you don't mind constant rolling up of PCs.
It's not something I mind... after playing for years with a group where death NEVER happened it was a breath of fresh air for combats to feel dangerous again.
QuoteThat's easy - You want to play RAW? Then run a game yourself. You want to play in my game, then you accept my house rules.
When I say they're holding him to RAW I just mean those players know the rules well enough that they've started arguing with some of his rulings... no House Rules involved, just the GM forgetting/not knowing the rules. This didn't happen earlier on... but now there a lot more mechanics to consider. GM has to know them ALL while Players only focus on the section applying to their PC.
QuotePlayers do not dictate rules to the GM. They can suggest rules variants or explain why they don't like particular house rules, but the GM is in charge of the rules, always has been, always will be.
True... but if the GM wants Players at his table then running something like Noumenon probably isn't going to pack them in. Our GM has mentioned an interest in running older versions of D&D before... and 5e... but except for myself there was no support and he hasn't brought it up again. Players exert a degree of control over how the game runs... even if it's done in a passive/aggressive manner.
QuoteThe Gm might have had the scenario on the laptop, or might have generated NPCs or whatever. Some people don't link winging things and prefer to have things they can use.
I'm pretty sure the GM has been winging stuff all along. There was no scenario and all he was doing when the laptop went down was calling up some random Mythic monster to fight. Meanwhile he's got all the rulebooks sitting at arms reach.
The PF computer app he's using appears to pretty much run combats for him... calculating initiative and adding bonuses and whatever. The GM has seemed to be relying on it more and more as we've progressed and our PCs got more complicated mechanically.
QuoteMaybe there are too many players to cope with. Maybe it is the plot lines or character interaction that are too complex. It is hard to keep everything in your head at once.
I think Reckall is right in thinking it's too many players for THESE rules... for THIS GM's seat-of-pants style.
The sense I'm getting is that higher level PF play is NOT going to work well without significantly more preparation than this GM has been putting into the game.
He's not burned out... he obviously enjoys running games... just that the last few sessions seem to have left his comfort zone and last night's broke down completely. We play every week but he's got family and work, etc. to deal with so I'm not at all expecting he could/should spend every free moment planning for an RPG... but if he's that reliant on the computer to run the game for him then I think that's an issue that might endorse moving to a less complicated set of rules.
Playing a game that the referee doesn't like isn't "GM breakdown."
It's the wrong system for the campaign he wants to run; that isn't some sort of failure on the part of the referee. That said, he needs to be upfront and say, this isn't working for me.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;781586Playing a game that the referee doesn't like isn't "GM breakdown."
Yeah, I wasn't happy with that wording myself. I think he does like the system, or wants to like it... and did well when we were 3x3. It feels like he's hit a wall though... not with his enjoyment but with his ability to run it effectively.
QuoteIt's the wrong system for the campaign he wants to run; that isn't some sort of failure on the part of the referee. That said, he needs to be upfront and say, this isn't working for me.
Yep... that's where I think we're at. I've written to him, saying whatever he needs to change is fine by me... but, again, I think his concern is that he's going to lose Players if he moves to something he's more comfortable with... that that feels like failure/rejection somehow... that he really likes 'holding court' at a big table full of folks.
Four Players is about tops of my comfort zone these days... but I think a lot of GMs dream of big groups playing long, multi-layered campaigns.
Quote from: Simlasa;781596I think his concern is that he's going to lose Players if he moves to something he's more comfortable with...
Eight players is too many for most games (and most GMs); fortunately 9 people is enough for 2 smaller groups.
Could be time to split the party...
4 or 5 players is my sweet spot. 6 feels like a bit more but I'm still good. 7 is probably my limit.
That's assuming I know my way around the system, and wrote the setting or adventure myself. If I didn't, God help us all.
Quote from: Al Livingstone;781600Eight players is too many for most games (and most GMs); fortunately 9 people is enough for 2 smaller groups.
Could be time to split the party...
That's how I'd handle it.
Plus changing the system, but then I think I wouldn't be caught dead playing 3.5e or PF.
Quote from: Simlasa;781596I think his concern is that he's going to lose Players if he moves to something he's more comfortable with... that that feels like failure/rejection somehow... that he really likes 'holding court' at a big table full of folks.
Add another to the list of Weird RPG Hobby Pathologies.
Maybe having the rulebook on the computer makes it a lot more convenient to look stuff up and he doesn't want to bother without it.
Quote from: Haffrung;781620Add another to the list of Weird RPG Hobby Pathologies.
Not that weird... I think, from a certain angle, being a GM feels a bit like operating a shop. Players are your customers... you want/need Players. Having a 'full' table is a certain mark of success... approval for the game you run and how you run it.
So not much of a leap to seeing more Players as being more successful... to the point where you might over-extend... need to hire help, open a second store, turn folks away... and losing players as being indication of something wrong. No surprise a GM might take it personally when a Players stops coming.
Whenever I've quit groups I've generally explained myself... but I know for a fact that my last group totally disbelieved my reasons for leaving, because I still talk to them. They thought I quit in a huff, despite my explanation that it was a long time coming and carefully considered.
Also, our GM is a bit of a 'Big Man'... he talks big, tells tall tales... a lovable blowhard. If he has bitten off more than he can chew there obviously some ego involved... but I also think some of that funnels back into what made the game so much fun earlier on (shy and insecure isn't really ideal GM material IMO). I'm inclined to feel sympathy for him and help if I can.
As for splitting the party/group... I'm not sure how that would work. I've never Played in a group that split. The GM likely doesn't have time to run a second game and I can't see any of the Players stepping up to do it. I'd happily run a game, but not that Pathfinder or anything close.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;781634Maybe having the rulebook on the computer makes it a lot more convenient to look stuff up and he doesn't want to bother without it.
Probably... there are a LOT of books... and the computer seems to do most of the math for him as well. IMO that just seems like regrettable game design though, an indictment of Pathfinder... and doesn't explain last night's collapse since all he was preparing to do at that moment was run a single one-on-one combat, yet stopped dead when the computer failed.
EDIT: The group has been e'mailing about it. Seems I'm not the only one with concerns. The GM has decided to start a new campaign from scratch... lvl 0. Still Pathfinder.
Oh, and one Player has dropped out so we're down to 6.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;7814825E's got to be simpler than Pathfinder, but on the other hand - its an unfamiliar system which brings its own set of problems.
We ran the playtest for over a year. The last half year, 7 characters. Could. Not. Stand. It.
Doing BFRPG now, with 5 players, max. (huge sigh of relief, for system and lower numbers).
I think 2 or 3 players is my sweet spot, 4 is OK. I can manage 5 but that's my limit. This is regardless which game I'm running, though I tend towards lighter rules systems. I've never run or played 3.5 or PF, nor do I feel inclined to give them a try, but I can see how even 4 players could be too much with those systems.
I would switch to BareBones Fantasy or something like that ASAP, but yeah, that doesn't seem to be something this GM would even think of.
I ran PF some years back for about 7 players.
It was perfectly manageable for me between about 1st and 9th level.
After that it all got too complicated and clunky.
I eventually ended up taking longer and longer GM breaks, getting someone else to run something for a few weeks.
Eventually, it got to about level 12 and I stopped running the campaign as it just wasn't fun anymore.
Low level PF is fantastic.. the Play-style at higher levels is not to my taste.
5 players is about my perfect number for players, regardless of the system.
Can't speak to Pathfinder, I've regularly run other games for just a single player or for groups of 6-8 players.but I find that 2-4 players is about the right number for our group and with 3 or possibly 4 being the optimal number of players.
- 3 players that allows each player to have enough time in the spot light even if their characters are in three different places.
- 4 or more players makes the wait time in those situations either a bit too long or much too long.
- Obviously split parties can be mitigated by forcing the PCs to stay together or in only a couple of teams, but increasingly we find that hard to justify in many situations.
- 2 or more players allow for someone to bounce ideas off and to brainstorm with. With only one player there is no bounce and with only two it is too easy for both to get stumped or to have analysis paralysis.
- 5 or more players make the brainstorming time consuming to get consensus or to include all the players.
- So 3-4 players seems about the right number for brainstorming.
I can and have handled that many players before but it's not ideal and never in something like mid to high level 3.5/PF. That sounds like a massive headache even without the two knobs talking rules at me all the time.
Talk to the dude, let him have a break, convince the rest to try something else out for awhile, and put a muzzle on the two roolez lawurz before they break something else.
I damn near had a heart attack the last time I ran with 10 players, and that was with Myth & Magic core book only. I can't imagine running high level PF with all options turned on and somewhat confrontational players. That's when one needs to start making SAN checks.
Ouch.
PF needs to supply DMs big foam dice, and when things get wonky, the DM has the option of beaning players!
Quote from: Raven;781764Talk to the dude, let him have a break, convince the rest to try something else out for awhile, and put a muzzle on the two roolez lawurz before they break something else.
We've had a bit of a chat about it via e'mail (I wasn't the only one who thought there was a problem). The GM is starting us up next week from scratch... lvl 0 and I'm assuming no Mythic. We lost one player, so down to 7. Still Pathfinder though.
Wait n' see I guess.
I used to run seven, routinely. Different era, thirty years younger, a lot more energy. I don't think I've done more than five regulars the last decade, and I prefer four.
Now I put a lot more prep work in, and sometimes it gets a bit daunting. I have a density level of detail the players have come to expect, and if they go in directions too far afield too quickly, I just don't have that detail upon which to fall back. There've been a couple times the last couple years where I've called a premature halt to a session on the grounds that I need more prep work to handle the wild tangent people have taken.
I used to run two groups in LA, 8-9 players each, in the same campaign (different parts of the map), but what one group did could/did effect the other. There were many sessions that required members of one group come to the other sessions and vice versa.
It got hectic. Then I decided to culminate it into one *big* super-adventure, and if you karked it, you were out of the game. I told everyone I needed to pare it down to 6 players - and I had 17. So I had them all as part of an expedition to this massive asteroid Dwarven fortress, and it was literally crawling with colonies of Yitsan (think Alien) who were eating the very fertile though cannibalisitic Space Hamsters that were set free.
17 players entered... those bastards(and bastardettes) wore me the fuck down. Took several sessions to get down to the final 7 - when the host where we played got killed, and surreptitiously threw this titanic fit, overturned the table told us all to get the fuck out...
Yeah... the good ol' days
I wouldn't call this GM breakdown as much as it was GM Ideas-Gone-Wrong
Sounds like it's been resolved, but as for large tables...
In college we had 12-ish Earthdawn players running the Barsaive epic. For a time we did a co-GM game where all 12 would assemble in the Commons, get some story preamble and then split into two groups. We had the advantage of the epic for plot points and used it as a guide the whole way through. And it had railroady bits in it that we leaned on pretty heavily. "The king wants you to..." and so. To split the group we'd just make two of these time-sensitive world-ending events happen at once...
We also introduced a pair of artifact style scrolls allowing teleporting and communication between as per day effects.
I'd only ever run a game with more than 5 players if I had a co-GM.
I did that once (for a one-shot) and it worked really, really well.
I've run campaigns with 5 and 6 players. It's not that hard if:
- All the players are familiar with the rules set you're using.
- Designate one player as caller.
- Designate another as mapper.
- Designate another as secretary to track HP, AC, treasure, etc.
- Give each player 30 seconds to take his action on his round. If he's not ready, he misses his action.
Quote from: Haffrung;781953- Give each player 30 seconds to take his action on his round. If he's not ready, he misses his action.
Slow player decision making is an annoyance when GMing, especially when there are a lot of players. In one way it would seem like having 6 or 8 people (including the GM) take a turn before you have to declare your action would give a player plenty of time to figure out what they are going to do that turn. (Because the vast majority of the time those other six or 8 actions don't make a huge difference in what actions are optimal for the player or in fact, simplify the available choices.) But sadly, in practice most players aren't using the wait time to make their decisions, do their dice roll ahead of time, or anything else productive and their brain doesn't actively start making the decisions until the GM says something like, "So Bill what does Ragnar do this round?"
I probably should put a 30 second decision making limit on the players. I used to have a 1 minute hour glass. Maybe I need to find that.
I don't give players 30 seconds. Combat actions in GURPS are sequential, everyone knows where they are in the order, and I expect them to have their acts together. When I call upon you, you've got somewhere between five and seven seconds to tell me what you're doing. When that time expires, I hold up a closed fist, and start flipping fingers up, one per second. If I reach five, you've spent the round dithering and can do nothing but stand there gaping like a fish. (As to that, this is realistic enough; sometimes people's minds do short out in combat.)
I don't recall how far back I've been doing this, but it's been a couple decades anyway. To date, I can remember exactly twice counting a player out.
Biggest group I've GMed for at once was 12 for an Albedo session back at the disasterous AC10.
It was alot of fun. But I prefer groups of 6 or less as its easier for me to see who is talking. Though my last regular group was 7 for a Star Frontiers campaign.
I can well sympathize with the ego boost of having a big group. Especially if the group is obviously enjoying themselves. But there can easily come the point where you cant handle it.
Thats when you have to give ego the boot and rethink things.
Hopefully your DM will hit on a viable solution.
I had a friend who was a great GM using, of all things, RoleMaster with players who were not familiar with the system. Then again, maybe it would have been harder with players who did know it, since more things become rules issues the less it's simply a matter of "the ref is the rules."
But he didn't usually run RM for groups larger than 4 players, maybe even 3.
Mechanical complexity is certainly a factor. Something on the order of BX D&D, or Advanced with judicious selection of chrome, is pretty good for 8 or 9 players (the actual expectation of some old scenarios).
The most important thing, though, is that the game should suit the GM's style.
Quote from: Bren;782132Slow player decision making is an annoyance when GMing, especially when there are a lot of players. In one way it would seem like having 6 or 8 people (including the GM) take a turn before you have to declare your action would give a player plenty of time to figure out what they are going to do that turn. (Because the vast majority of the time those other six or 8 actions don't make a huge difference in what actions are optimal for the player or in fact, simplify the available choices.) But sadly, in practice most players aren't using the wait time to make their decisions, do their dice roll ahead of time, or anything else productive and their brain doesn't actively start making the decisions until the GM says something like, "So Bill what does Ragnar do this round?"
I probably should put a 30 second decision making limit on the players. I used to have a 1 minute hour glass. Maybe I need to find that.
I like old fashioned "simultaneous moves" preceded by declaration of intent. I take a few seconds to decide for my GM figures, then go around the table asking the players. Someone who's not ready gets passed up. If when I come around again he's still waffling about, then so is his character.
Another thing I've done is simply get on with the local action immediately upon hesitation. "The ogre steps over the body. What do you do?" (Most players: "We're running!") "He raises the bloody club for a swing. What do you do?" (One player still just standing there, I toss the dice.) "It crashes into your skull, 10 points. What do you do?"
Quote from: Phillip;782292"The ogre steps over the body. What do you do?" (Most players: "We're running!") "He raises the bloody club for a swing. What do you do?" (One player still just standing there, I toss the dice.) "It crashes into your skull, 10 points. What do you do?"
Hope I am wearing a full helm? Fall down incapacitated? But then I played a lot of Runequest 2. :D
Quote from: Phillip;782292Another thing I've done is simply get on with the local action immediately upon hesitation. "The ogre steps over the body. What do you do?" (Most players: "We're running!") "He raises the bloody club for a swing. What do you do?" (One player still just standing there, I toss the dice.) "It crashes into your skull, 10 points. What do you do?"
Hell, I didnt even have time for that!
All I heard was "Thogg Sm-" then POW and I am out for the rest of the battle which was nearly a TPK.
What is with all the "Señor Member" titles, did the swibble get you?
TT - Yeah, in the old days a grenade rolled down the stairs and you took 5D damage, no saves.
IMO, you need simple systems for larger groups.
I've run 12 person Gamma World and it worked better than 8 person WFRP. The more abstractions in the system, the easier the choices, thus faster the gameplay.
I love Rifts, but I would cringe to run more than 6 players. But I can run a 10 player Mechanoid Invasion without much of a concern.
BUT my issue has been running Call of Cthulhu with larger groups. Even though its mechanically simple, I have trouble holding together the horror atmosphere with more than 6 players.
Quote from: dragoner;782400What is with all the "Señor Member" titles, did the swibble get you?
In a fit of whimsy, I decided to add a new user title for people who get to 1000 posts.
Ok, that's cool.