So I need some help FFG, 

I am about to start a campaign with some new players and theres a lot of them. 8 players on most days. Now for that many players each starts with 5 obligation. Now they can get ride of it, but they shouldn't. (Thats basically what the book says). Well I play on opening the campaign with the adventure in the back of the book and by then end of those 2 session (maybe 3) every gets to take off 5 obligation. Well Now I got 8 people with 0 obligation…OR they don't actually get to take off anything if I force them to keep it. 

I already plan on only letting those who the Hutt have direct power over (like forgive ship cost debt) actually lower their obligation, and furthuremore some people need a favor done by the hutt (like help find their lost family) So thats an easy Yes I'll start the search for you family as part of our deal. 

My question is, should I reduce all rates of obligation? I.E. only take of 2 points of obligation instead of 5? Sense everyone will only have a rating between 5-10? 

Or do I just let many characters get ride of their obligation and encourage them to take (or assign them) more obligation for something else. 

Minimum obligation is 5. Anyone who has 5 obligation starting out cant lose any, so you just dont have to worry about that.

 Trust me. Having just made a stack of pregens, most of your players will increase their obligation at chargen.

I would be more concerned they might have well over 100 obligation starting out.

This hadn't dawned on me… I have 4-6 players coming to my first session of edge… I suppose that won't be too bad, my group just tends to have a GM player character because we have a habit continuing campaigns and switching off GM after storyarchs are completed…

cetiken said:

They can't.  Not starting out, at least.  You can't take more "bonus" obligation than "starting obligation."  So… group of 8, starting obligation of 5… even if they all maxed out (at 10 obligation), that's only 80 for the group.

Sorthlador said:

Put on your Big GM Pants and tell half the group, "sorry, you'll have to play a board game or something that night, but I will run a game for you tomorrow/next week/etc." :)

You will be playing a brand-new game with an incredible load of players. It's really a recipe for dissatisfaction across the board. It's in everyone's best interest to split into two groups. Just throwing that out there…

Timberboar said:

Ouch. I hope no one wanted a blaster rifle, blaster pistol, and good armor. 

 My point is that to some players, fighting to try and lower an obligation that can't be lowered isn't really an obligation at all. I get why the rules have it as is, just was looking for some GM advice, which the only one who gave any is…kick a bunch of players out. Thanks helpful haha. 

I'll encourage players to take more starting obligation (Max +5) and then only lower the obligation that makes sense to lower based of what happens at the end of the first scenario.

countrugen said:

What?   No.  No it's not.  Even more importantly, in a Beta like this, the sort of the situation the OP describes is EXACTLY the sort of stress test this game needs to get!   Not everyone has a traditional number of players (4-6), and having 8 is hardly 'badwrongfun' - it's the way some people play.  This is discovering something that can easily mess up the game and needs to be addressed.  And that's the point of a Beta!

 i can't imagine being able to split my time and attention around to 8 different players. or even track 8 PCs plus NPCs during combat. all those relative distances and range bands. i definitely feel this system supports and encourages larger groups than smaller groups but there is always an upper limit in table top rpg. i have GM'ed for groups of 5 PCs and found that to be my upper limit.

schi0384 said:

If you've got a limit with a GM, as you say, that's fine.  And works for you.  But I know there are plenty of groups that have large numbers.  I want in a  local Deathwatch game, but the GM topped it at 8 Players.  I've run an L5R game for  8 players as well.  It can be done, and definitely requires knowing a system well for the Gm and most of the players.  But it's also important to test those things when possible, because people do play such.

Sorthlador said:

I hate to say it, but I kinda go with what that GM told you.  I would max cap at 6, but 4 for learning the game.  Once everyone knows it and is comfortable, then have at it any way you like, but 8 people demanding your attention, learning the dice, getting brand new characters off the ground.  Unless you're playing in 12 hour shifts, you're hardly going to get anything done. 

As odd as it sounds, 4/5 seems to be a sweet spot.  After that you start stepping on each others toes, and it starts taking so long between a player's turns, that they start disengaging from the story. 

Of course, you got some WonderMan GMs on here that can tell you, like Jesus, they can GM 2 million people with just a fish and a DQ Blizzard.  Undoubtedly they are out there, but I have never met one that has been able to hold my attention when it's 30 minutes between each of my characters actions.   More power to you, though….

Smaller groups will get the proper player attention to characters (as noted a group this size is capped at an obligation 10, and that really sucks.

Your show though.

Naa guys I've been in 5+ campaigns with 7 or 8 people and yes they don't get that awesome kind of attention but it does mean you get to have 8 people you care about in one room and watch some funny shit happen. I've been GMing for over 10 years and I know where to put the focus on the players who care about personally attention and story and those who want to just blow stuff up. 

Now I am in fact going to run this game with 8 players. If anyone has advice about tips for obligations in an 8 person group, I'd love to hear some tips, even bad ones. 

 Lots of alcohol?  That's all I got. I perfer 4-5 players myself and would rather play Angry Birds than be player 7+. 

cetiken said:

That is hilarious, I was just in a "test group" for Only War, the GM had 7 in it.  I gave it a go, but the party was so over his (and the games) head it wasn't funny. The party size alone broke the adventure he had come up with.   So I sat there and played Plants vs Zombies between turns. I had enough time to do a whole level and a half before my turn would come up again, and the sad thing about it…. we knew the dice system, well.