perfect group size

Hey all,

I'm sure this varies depending on your GM experience and style, but here's a question. What's your preferred group size? How many is "too many" to run sessions smoothly?

I'm asking because I'm looking to put together a group and I have received more interest than anticipated. I've run Apocalypse World a few times before, and for me the challenge has always been giving people the proper amount of screen time.

Any thoughts and experiences are appreciated!

Half your luck!

My group started at six players two weeks ago. Then one guy dropped out, then another, then another... tonight we're running our first session with two players and the MC. Rasserfrassin'.

How many do you have? I should think 5-6 would be pretty good, anymore than that and you should wrap them extras up, stick a stamp on 'em and post 'em to me!

I prefer 3-4, wouldn't go beyond 6. If you're at 6+, a good idea is to group them into 2-3 strong groups, no solo players. Like, maybe three PCs are the Chopper and two pack members, and four PCs are the Hardholder and his liuetenants. Co-mc:ing with another MC might help:

http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2867.0

Oh, dang. I've done 6 before but it can be tough.
If you have disciplined players and enough practice at MCing, maybe 7, but I'd usually cap at 5-6.
It helps if at least some of them have played before.

- Alex

Yep, that all checks out, thanks! My ideal group size is prob 3-5, but it looks like I may wind up with 6. Avrid, your advice about splitting the group into strong groups is very useful, so thanks for that!

We wont be starting till after the holidays anyway, but I didn't want to comit to more players than I could handle. Thanks for the feedback, y'all.

I've run with two players. It was rather challenging. Probably the biggest thing is that, as MC, you have to be very proactive about setting up PC-NPC-PC triangles.

From my perspective, 2-3 is perfect.
It's a bit harder to spinup the setting, and it's a bit more demanding on MC, but once you are going, there is lot of spotlight for players, and you can really expand the NPCs as real, fully fleshed out characters.
Also - going with 3 is good, as you easily can set situations in which one player is talking or acting with NPCs, and two players talk with each other.

On the other end of spectrum, I'm now running 5 player group as MC, and that's definitely too much. Much harder to give all characters spotlight, and there is time for just few interesting scenes with NPCs.

My preference is to have 4 or 5, largely because this brackets the possible playbook capabilities better and allows the players to tackle a wider array of situations.

But some of this will depend on both your players and your style of running a game.  If your players think quickly on their feet and are engaged in the idea that they bear some responsibility for advancing the story, it's easy to use tricks like roping an unlikely character into the scene.  You know, when the Operator goes to talk to the Hocus the MC says, "OK, Hondo is there too."  She then turns to the player of the Gun-Lugger (who has a well-established "difference of opinion" with the Hocus) and says, "What is Hondo doing at the shrine and what kind of mood is he in currently?"  This is insidious and devious and glorious and lets you get people lots of screen time in new and interesting ways.

But if your players balk at this kind of being put on-the-spot, then I'm with zefir in that fewer is better.

My group that I just started is 5 players and after 2 sessions I have found that sometimes it is difficult to get that many people equal screen time. Our battlebabe, a part of the town guard, kept inserting herself into every scene because she could. However I have something awesome planned for her next session that will hopefully allow her character to shine more.

Thanks for the tip though Munin. I am trying to get my group to be better at thinking on their feet so I will try doing stuff like that. I also agree that I like the balance that 5 characters creates. Makes it so there is a lot going on in the world.

Oh, about spotlight time, one principle I abide by is to always have at least two PCs in every scene.

Although, I have also started to experiment with doing scene-centered rather than story-centered MC:ing, that is, focus on making the individual scenes interesting, rather than thinking about how to make the big story interesting.

As a part of this, I've started dealing out NPCs to players whose character isn't present, so they can help build the scene and I don't feel rushed to switch the spotlight.

@WampDiesel
I've got similar issues in my 5 player campaign. I've got chopper, and he is getting most of the screen time, as he is important force in the town, and his gang is engaged in many things.

Now I'm intentionally trying to bump up threads of other characters, and that worked out quite nicely. I definitely go with approach that Arvid wrote about - if I manage to create interesting scene, that's great - if in the long run scenes manage to connect into good story - even better. But I would much more prefer having mediocre story made up from good scenes, then other way around - as from my experience, most fun comes from having good scenes with your character in them.

@zefir - if your Chopper's gang is involved in lots of things, then you have some great opportunities to work in other PCs through the NPCs in the gang (which will inherently create PC-NPC-PC triangles).

So for example, say the Chopper's gang is involved in patrolling the marketplace and keeping the trouble there down to a dull roar.  But the gang is doing lots of other stuff too, so the Chopper leaves that operation up to one of his lieutenants, whom we'll call Jughead.  So Jughead's spending a lot of time in the market, which perhap is right next to the Savvyhead's workspace (or where the Hocus' followers hang out, or whatever).  And maybe Jughead has taken a shine to the Savvyhead, and rather than doing what the Chopper has told him to do (police the marketplace) he's spending all his time hanging out with the Savvyhead, mooning over her and generally making a pain in the ass of himself.

This is a little devious because the Chopper's gang (his big piece of character-defining "crap") is involved, which makes him feel important.  But he's off-screen and another player gets the limelight.  This same trick can be used with the Operator's crew, the Hocus' followers, the Angel's or Savvyhead's clinic/workspace staff, the Hardholder's lieutenants, etc.  It also gives you the ability to work additional delicious conflict into your fiction - as trouble erupts in the marketplace and the Chopper is mad at the Savvyhead for "distracting" Jughead from his assigned duty.  And the more stuff the Chopper's gang in involved in, the more opportunities for this kind of stuff crop up.

It also gives you opportunities to bring other players on-screen for Chopper-related scenes.  Like when the Chopper has to resolve an (inevitable) issue in the marketplace, he does it by first tracking down Jughead - at the Savvyhead's workshop.  Boom!  Another PC on-screen.

@Arvid - I too have come to really concentrate on scene-centered methods.  It's funny, because this is something for which we all have an intrinsic feel, but that is very rarely spelled out explicitly in telling you how to MC a game.  Vincent's "don't make your character's lives boring" is fantastic advice, but unless you understand framing, pacing, introducing tension and escalating it to conflict, exposition, dialogue, and juxtaposition like a filmmaker, it's kind of like black magic - as a player you can feel when a GM is doing it right and when they're not, but it's not always easy to say why.  It's like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography vs. art - you know it when you see it.

But when I say we all have an intrinsic feel for it, I think much of that feel comes from watching movies and TV shows, and reading books or comics.  Good, gripping stories (regardless of medium) take hold of you and don't let go.  They keep things moving, and while there may be some exposition it's not central to the story (as that would be more like a documentary).

Of course the problem is that just as different people like different game-play styles, different people like different movie styles.  A friend of mine ran a Battlestar:Galactica-themed Solar System hack in which the character creation, plot elements, and scene framing were designed to recreate the feel of a TV show.  I thought it was a great concept.  Some of the other players were ambivalent and at least one of them found the whole thing frustrating.  And I think much of that has to do with what players are looking to get out of the game.

I like this Jughead idea.

My experience in real life is that when I spread myself thin across too many things, those things don't sit wilting in their boxes waiting for my attention, they go on without me and it's my access to them that ends up suffering. This example fits with that very neatly, and your player might even marvel at how well you give him a realistic experience of having too many irons in the fire.

I like about 3 to 4 players myself. I'm in a game back home with 4 players and its been ongoing for about a year now. We're all pretty invested. To me thats the ideal size.

However at college i'm the mc for a game for 6 players. Its going well, but with every game some players are more invested then others. It would be easier to move action with less people, but having all those characters does lead to a lot of in-party conflict, and I just love that.

Been about a month since someone posted on this, but I am looking for a GM for a group of 4 people, we have 2 new players, me and 1 other, and 2 that have had experience. Anyone willing to join us is welcomed, we don't have a schedule, yet, but we will work on 1 when we get a GM.

I'm mainly looking for a GM who is pretty chill, and friendly. And, if you like what you see when we are in the actual game, maybe consider sticking around? I would love to form a permanent group, one that can stick together for a lot of games.