Help!
I need to talk this out.
Blades has been successful. Far too successful. Players are unexpectedly coming out of the woodwork to join the ghost-drug dealing scoundrels in Crows Foot.
I started with 8 players, already too many, with the idea that we are all (real life)academics, and the odds of getting all 8 back in the same room would be… unlikely given our typical schedules. So far so good. This has for the most part borne out. However, I’ve foolishly added 3 additional players from the department to my group because I’m an idiot.
Here are my options as I see them.
1. Keep on keeping on. Attrition has to happen, it has in every other group of archaeologists, and it must in this one too. Right? Good because no one is excluded, bad because the game will suffer, and less fun will be had. Maybe the group will shrink as a result?
2. Split the group and crew. Have them work at cross purposes Bloodletters/Rollplay style. Fun because it gets a spirit of competition going, a shared sandbox which gets even more complicated and strange. Bad because I barely have time to run a single group due to my workload, let alone two. I suppose I can get a co-GM?
3. Kick people out. Not only not ideal, but a bad idea, and also fundamentally what I’m trying to avoid. See Sean Nittners actual plays for why pissing off Academics is a bad idea. While actual drama wouldn’t result, I like all of my players(that’s why I let them in) and genuinely want to find a way to include everyone.
So there it is! I’ll run one more with everyone invited in two weeks to just see what happens. Maybe half the group will not be able to make it because of deadlines and there will be no problems.Or I’ll run a 10-12 person game of Blades… Thoughts?
Option 2 seems a good choice to me. Each group meets half as often, maybe. And the co-GM moves a player over to your side.
I’d go with Option 2, and if possible enlist the aid of one of the existing players to co-GM, maybe?
I definitely agree with you about not kicking people out!
I’d talk about this with the group. Explain that the size of the group means that some folks just don’t get enough screen time. Ask them to think about and propose a party split that makes sense for them, even just as a brief experiment. Explain that you can shuffle players between groups for a few sessions if the dynamic doesn’t immediately work out.
I am in a similar situation in my weekly group. It’s hard to say no when people want to play!
I would suggest two crews and alternating between them, either from session to session (i.e., crew A plays week 1, 3, 5, etc. and crew B plays week 2, 4, 6, etc.), or within a session. Just make sure to be really clear with everyone about spotlight time.
You might want to investigate parallel play possibilities as well. While you’re running crew A, crew B could be answering a list of questions about their character backgrounds or sketching out their lair. J. Walton recently posted about the way Firebrands turns player downtime into funtime.
Having a session with 2-3 players still works wonderfully. I would see who else is willing to GM, then go with option 2. You don’t have to play in the same world, even with an in-game rationale like some ectoplasmic explosion causes a rift between two dimensions of the world from some point forward, one for each group. Later on if you’re ambitious you can have characters find means to cross the gap and suddenly have duplicate Scurlocks working in tandem on one dimension, or whatever.
I had most fun running with 3-5, depending on the players, so I’d split an on-off group of 8-12 in a heartbeat.
What would be best is if you could get one of the players to agree to be ready to run a game, then set a number like 6; if more than 6 (plus the other GM) show up, split to 2 groups of 3-5.
For incentive, you could offer the other GM’s PC an authoritative sort of role in the crew; the sort of character who could delegate and not go along. (Or a support character like a spider or a leech who could benefit from more down time to work on projects.)
An advantage with Blades in the Dark is you do NOT have to plan lots of prep ahead of time, so if it turns out a big group shows, prioritize heists and send teams out to further the crew’s will.
With the right physical meeting space, and the right people, this could be a hoot.
Could Blades work in a “West Marches” style of game, where they’re all part of one crew in a shared world, but the players coordinate amongst themselves which jobs they want to undertake with which members, and schedule them with you?
(I honestly don’t know if this would work with the downtime structures in Blades, but maybe?)
Jeremy Strandberg Here’s something I developed along those lines.
docs.google.com – Blades in the Dark Gangs 9.15
What everyone else said is good advice. Personally, I’d go with splitting into two groups and playing less often. Also, remember to think about yourself here: if this legitimately feels too overwhelming, you’re well within your rights to not let other people join. Being inclusive is great, but you only have so much time and space and brainpower. Nothing’s stopping one of the extra people from starting their own thing.
Jeremy Strandberg second time I’ve seen this reference today. What is “West Marches” from? Google not helpful here
West Marches was a famous old school open table game, where a large stable of players all adventured based out of the same town.
J Stein, here:
arsludi.lamemage.com – ars ludi ยป Grand Experiments: West Marches
I have two play groups that I run as part as the same crew of Hawkers. The Sunday players focus on product and territory acquisition while the Tuesday evening players manage product distribution and sales. Maybe a similar arrangement would work if you decide to split your group?
Jeremy Strandberg thank you for sharing
As I expected, I’ve received nothing but great advice! I agree with most everyone that if attendance is consistent, I’m going to have to split the group. Andrew Shields suggestion of running Blades West Marches style is particularly interesting… Also appealing because I have the space to run two groups simultaneously at my house, and we already can only meet once a month or so. So it allows for game day to remain an “event.”