PDA

View Full Version : Largest Group you've DM'd?



KitsuneKionchi
2009-10-28, 02:27 PM
What is the largest group you've GM'd and what did you learn from it?

Last summer I GM'd for a group of 10-13 people. Well, 'co-GM'd" as I had someone else take over. Believe it or not, in many respects it went smoother than GMing 5-6 people. People didn't expect to get big flashy heroic roles, but we still eventually gave everyone the opportunity to do it. Extremely large group diversity (almost every role and sub-role was more than accounted for). There were plenty of times people were just thinking of what to do next while watching others play, but it went surprisingly well. I think we met 7 times and completed 4 dungeons or so.

I know what I learned:

1.) Force everyone to write down their moves for the next round and roll pre-emptively. On that note, don't discourage players from deducing monster AC as it makes things much easier. ("I hit twice for 76 damage with XYZ." "Huh?" "I got 3 higher on all my rolls than last time I hit." "Oh, ok.")

2.) Table placement is critical. The best placement I found was a "u" style placement, with 2 tables in front and 2 on the sides with the GM(s) in the center of the "horse-shoe" and the map in front of him.

3.) Two GMs is a huge blessing. The group can split even in the same room if need be, as long as your cooperative enough with your GM. Switch off designing dungeons as the GM to save yourself a lot of trouble.

4.) City adventures are your best friend. It gives people a lot of chance to interact on their own and/or in smaller groups, and GREAT chances to "shop" and just RP with one another (which doesn't usually require a GM; well, shopping does, but only after they figure out what they want).

5.) If you use minis, have either a whiteboard or a dedicated "mini mover". Numbering or using lots of different terrain features helps people explain where they want to move too.

--

On another note, has anyone ever played 'without a GM' for short periods of time? Just character interaction and perhaps experienceless battles (arenas against random foes generated by the group to get to know one another's skills, etc...).

Lycan 01
2009-10-28, 04:01 PM
Oddly enough, I can only recall a 7-person Silent Hill came I ran with the Call of Cthulhu system. But I have a strong feeling I ran a 10 person game once. :smallconfused:

Temet Nosce
2009-10-28, 04:07 PM
On another note, has anyone ever played 'without a GM' for short periods of time? Just character interaction and perhaps experienceless battles (arenas against random foes generated by the group to get to know one another's skills, etc...).

Yes, I've done this both as a style of gaming on occasion and in between sessions in certain campaigns. It can be interesting, but shouldn't be a mandatory part of the game, just something people who are interested can do and have it be "canon".

As far as the largest group I've DMed? 6 that I recall, I found early on that DMing quality began to trend downwards after 3, and by the time I reached 6 the style of game completely changed (for the worse in my opinion). Encounters, rewards, plot, etc all tend to be far less personalized and more prone to failing to accomplish their aim. Less private sessions occur, less individual accomplishments, etc.

Shadwen
2009-10-28, 04:16 PM
I ran 9 one time...it turned out ok after everyone started getting along and realized they needed help..and they couldnt powergame through the campaign.

Starscream
2009-10-28, 04:38 PM
Did 8 once. It was a couple of years ago around Halloween, and we were mostly killing time.

It was like 2 in the morning when we started, and we knew we weren't in the right frame of mind to play a real game, so I just took a computer generated dungeon, had everyone roll up the quickest, simplest characters imaginable, and we just went from room to room killing monsters.

This was mostly just a way to amuse ourselves during a major horror movie binge. Because there were so many people combat took forever, so they'd just munch on pizza, watch Halloween III, and wait for their turns.

Actually, as time went on and characters were killed (streamlining combat) we got more and more into it. By the time only three players were left everyone was ignoring the movies to see if anyone would survive the dungeon.

Talyn
2009-10-28, 04:53 PM
While I was still at the Academy, I was able to run an entire campaign with a group of 10 in D&D 3.5. It was a challenge, but what made it possible was the fact that I ran it for a group of military cadets. Cadets are not your typical gamers:
- people were on time, with their character sheets, having done thier "homework" (leveling up, item crafting, etc.) every time
- they were used to working as a group and following orders, which meant that the "party leader" was really the "party commander," and everyone more or less did what they were told

Also, I had some good luck with my players:
- we had three experienced players besides myself, who would automatically take over certain jobs - rules' questions, running initiative, explaining things to someone who missed something - without me having to step in, which meant I could focus on

Finally, I built a campaign that could handle such a large party:
- rigid alignment restrictions - you had to be LG, NG, LN, or N. I think we had one CG guy, but he was one of the most "team" oriented chaotic players I've ever had, so that was fine
- I only allowed core books for classes and feats, but then proceeded to homebrew the CRAP out of it, inventing feats and prestige classes specifically tailored to my group and my campaign
- as a corrolary to that, everyone in the group was willing to accept that the homebrewed stuff was experimental, and didn't bitch when I accidentally overpowered someone and had to nerf them
- I improvised a lot. Seriously, I would stat out monsters, treasure, and decide what direction I wanted the story to go, and made up everything else on the spot. With that many players, that's just mandatory.

I think it was the best campaign I've ever run, and I still look back on it fondly. It was a lot of work, though - I don't think I'd want to run a campaign like that again, especially with non-military players.

valadil
2009-10-28, 04:57 PM
I ran for 7 once and hated it. It wasn't that I had trouble keeping up, but I had trouble giving everyone enough individual time. There just wasn't enough game time to divide up among that many players.

Maryring
2009-10-28, 04:59 PM
I've done eight once before. It crashed, then burned, then exploded violently, then exploded again just for good measure.

Doug Lampert
2009-10-28, 05:03 PM
What is the largest group you've GM'd and what did you learn from it?

Last summer I GM'd for a group of 10-13 people. Well, 'co-GM'd" as I had someone else take over. Believe it or not, in many respects it went smoother than GMing 5-6 people. People didn't expect to get big flashy heroic roles, but we still eventually gave everyone the opportunity to do it. Extremely large group diversity (almost every role and sub-role was more than accounted for). There were plenty of times people were just thinking of what to do next while watching others play, but it went surprisingly well. I think we met 7 times and completed 4 dungeons or so.

I know what I learned:

1.) Force everyone to write down their moves for the next round and roll pre-emptively. On that note, don't discourage players from deducing monster AC as it makes things much easier. ("I hit twice for 76 damage with XYZ." "Huh?" "I got 3 higher on all my rolls than last time I hit." "Oh, ok.")

2.) Table placement is critical. The best placement I found was a "u" style placement, with 2 tables in front and 2 on the sides with the GM(s) in the center of the "horse-shoe" and the map in front of him.

3.) Two GMs is a huge blessing. The group can split even in the same room if need be, as long as your cooperative enough with your GM. Switch off designing dungeons as the GM to save yourself a lot of trouble.

4.) City adventures are your best friend. It gives people a lot of chance to interact on their own and/or in smaller groups, and GREAT chances to "shop" and just RP with one another (which doesn't usually require a GM; well, shopping does, but only after they figure out what they want).

5.) If you use minis, have either a whiteboard or a dedicated "mini mover". Numbering or using lots of different terrain features helps people explain where they want to move too.

--

On another note, has anyone ever played 'without a GM' for short periods of time? Just character interaction and perhaps experienceless battles (arenas against random foes generated by the group to get to know one another's skills, etc...).

The Ars Magica/Runequest group I was in at Berkeley used rotating GMs for the Ars Magica campaign. One session I ran had 17 players present.

Note that the Mage/Companion split is a BIG help for Ars Magica (it gives clearly defined lead characters without leaving some people feeling left out), and the the adventure being mostly problem solving rather than straight combat also helped.

Broadly, if the PCs could figure out WHO to fight they typically had no trouble winning the actual fight.

So most of your lessons weren't really applicable.

But my regular D&D group has 7 and doesn't generate any problems. I have one player who tracks initiative cards, and we just go. 4th ed is a lot easier to rune than 3.x OTOH.

drengnikrafe
2009-10-28, 05:05 PM
7. Although, at that time, there were only 4 players. I learned not to let PCs play a second character, or role playing dies.

Talyn
2009-10-28, 05:07 PM
But my regular D&D group has 7 and doesn't generate any problems. I have one player who tracks initiative cards, and we just go. 4th ed is a lot easier to rune than 3.x OTOH.

Ironically (and despite the fact that I am a huge 4E fan), I am having a much, much harder time running large groups in 4E than I ever did in 3.X. I haven't been able to put my finger on why, though. In 4E, 6 players seems to be the limit as to how many I can have and keep things moving at a good clip, and having 9 makes it almost impossible to play (haven't tried with more than 9 yet).

It may just be that people still aren't 100% comfortable with the rules yet.

Zaydos
2009-10-28, 05:29 PM
I had a group of 9 regular players for a while. Half of them were casual gamers and someone else had to decide their character actions half the time which didn't help and EVERYONE played a caster (the least casting centric character was a glass cannon duskblade and eventually a cleric who was the only non-arcane character). I learned that I needed to cut out the casual gamers, they mostly just watched and things went smoother with them watching/hanging out and not having characters for them if they weren't actually playing. I also came to the realization I needed to have a second DM and I did let one player run some monsters for some battles and even some battles.

The largest group though was when I had an extra two players for one session (at that point having only had 8 players so 10 total)... which surprisingly went quite smoothly and smoother than normal even though an extra NPC was added for story reasons. They were new to it too having played 2e once or twice with this being a Lv 6 or 7 3.X adventure.

I mainly learned it was fun, but to make sure to get people that want to play and anyone else can watch and gawk and maybe take over NPCs (since one of them did this quite well, as well as being able to RP demons possessing people). Also it was a failure but people had fun (one of the PCs even wants to try running a game in the world so I'm proud).

DiscipleofBob
2009-10-28, 05:38 PM
First game I ever DMed was a BESM d20 game...

It ended up being a 12-people oneshot because people kept bringing in other players. Interesting oneshot involving a hot Rita Repulsa-esque schoolteacher and a chibi Pokemon-sized Cthulu and a "magical girl" janitor, but a oneshot nontheless.

Weimann
2009-10-28, 06:17 PM
4. Yeah, I've not done it that much :P

Akal Saris
2009-10-28, 09:30 PM
I think 11-12 people, at a birthday party, where only half the players knew D&D. I ran it as an extremely rules-light game based largely on d6 rolls - almost everyone was amused, so it worked out well enough.

The largest typical game I run has 8 players, though it recently dropped to 6 PCs, which made it much simpler. 8 players was still do-able, but I couldn't run very many combats in a session.



On another note, has anyone ever played 'without a GM' for short periods of time? Just character interaction and perhaps experienceless battles (arenas against random foes generated by the group to get to know one another's skills, etc...).

My last session of the 8 player game was like this actually - one of the PCs held a large party which most of the major PCs and NPCs came to so that they could intrigue against each other, form alliances, meet new PCs, etc. So I ran it much like I run a LARP, moving from group to group and taking over various NPC roles on the fly. Everyone had a blast, though I was exhausted =P

Tyndmyr
2009-10-28, 09:36 PM
I ran for 7 once and hated it. It wasn't that I had trouble keeping up, but I had trouble giving everyone enough individual time. There just wasn't enough game time to divide up among that many players.

Yeah, I think that's the most I've ever done as well. IMO, 4-6 is great. I haven't DMed any more than seven ever, but I've seen parties of a dozen, etc, and combat...hell, everything, but especially combat drags.

Harder to get in good roleplaying without people hogging the spotlight/getting ignored, too. I suspect if I ever had to run a really big game, I'd insist on a co-DM, and split it up somehow.

The Gilded Duke
2009-10-28, 09:54 PM
34 person LARP.
Had assistants, but it got rough at times.
The main thing was trying to get players to generate plot for each other.

Vortling
2009-10-29, 03:16 AM
7, over chat. The only big issue was that the OOC chatter threatened to overwhelm the game itself.

mint
2009-10-29, 06:28 AM
My regular group is 8. Though I am a player, not the DM.
The main time-sink is if someone is unprepared or needs help leveling. We have a whiteboard for miniatures.
The whiteboard is really, really large and we've made a grid on it. We have an initiative counter in one of the corners and everyone has a marker so we can write down relevant combat stuff in front of us.
A few of us have laptops with the books so nobody has to wait in line to look stuff up.

A large part of our sessions is us, discussing what do do in character. We have a bunch of alignment conflicts but we enjoy them so that's not really a problem.
Sometimes deciding what do takes a lot of time however.
Also, since there's less time in the spotlight, you have less of a chance to show the other players what kind of person your character is.
So the way you portrat your character has to be... efficient.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-29, 06:33 AM
11 players (not everybody present every time) was the norm of our long-lasting epic campaign. Started level 1 (6 players), ended 5 years later with 11 players level 40. Unforgettable.

With no damages to my strong DM brain.

Squirrels. I see Squirrels Everywere. I hate them so much.

Totally Guy
2009-10-29, 08:00 AM
6 players. I managed to overlook that a player had tried to "outsmart" the 4th edition book by making his hitting stat rather weak. And because I'd not noticed that he'd been missing every turn he now hates the the sysem. Well either that or he hates my GMing but he's not exactly going to tell me that. So it's 4th edition's fault.

I'm going to run a completely different system next time they let me GM again... I miss it so much.

bosssmiley
2009-10-29, 09:20 AM
8 players. Too many. A bad case of too little GM, spread too thinly. I usually play with (and thus plan for) the customary 4.

In retrospect I should have divided the players into 2 parties of four and used the old protocol of having party callers to keep things straight in my head. Yeah, 20:20 hindsight.

Scarlet Tropix
2009-10-29, 09:21 AM
I'm currently running a group of seven on MSN, with more people clamoring to get in. Everything runs great when everyone is actually there, but when battle rolls around and people are missing it can get problematic.

Also some people are new to the game... Fortunately the experienced players aid in referencing rules and aiding level ups.

It's been fun but I'm probably cutting the numbers down to five for the next game.

[And by that I mean I'm a pushover and will end up with ten players who I torment constantly with inappropriately scaled encounters.] XP

Solaris
2009-10-29, 09:51 AM
While I was still at the Academy, I was able to run an entire campaign with a group of 10 in D&D 3.5. It was a challenge, but what made it possible was the fact that I ran it for a group of military cadets. Cadets are not your typical gamers:
- people were on time, with their character sheets, having done thier "homework" (leveling up, item crafting, etc.) every time
- they were used to working as a group and following orders, which meant that the "party leader" was really the "party commander," and everyone more or less did what they were told.
That was about the best part of joining the Army: Discovering players who would actually plan ahead, work together, and think outside the box.

The largest group I've run was somewhere between nine and twelve (I can't quite remember), with everyone running two characters at the same time. We were, appropriately enough, pirates mercenaries scum adventurers. Great fun, but not a whole lot of roleplaying as you might imagine. The campaign lasted about a year, and my players still swap stories about the stuff they pulled.
All that without another DM, too.

Tyger
2009-10-29, 10:29 AM
64. But it was LARP. Does that still count? Of course, we had 3 DMs, 6 Assistant DMs, and a stable of players who handled the NPCs for us. :)

Tabletop, 8 and I won't got that large again. Things slowed to a crawl and none of the characters really got to strut their stuff. My current 4e game is threatening to expand to 7 and I am leery to say the least.

Akal Saris
2009-10-29, 03:02 PM
So far in my experience 4E doesn't handle larger table sizes as well as 2E and 3E/3.5/PF handle it. I'm not sure whether it's an issue with ongoing effects, increased PC abilities/level, or something else, though.

Fhaolan
2009-10-29, 03:57 PM
24

It was at a convention, it was 1st edition, ran over three days in six 3 hour blocks, and I had two 'assistant GMs'. One was TGM (Tactics Guy), who was running the combats and the non-influential NPCs (i.e. Monsters, shopkeepers, etc.). The other RGM (Rules Girl), who was in primarily in charge of looking stuff up in the various books and tracking rolls and results. And then there was me. I was PGM (Plot Guy) and was doing the storyline, setting, and plot-driven NPCs (major villains, mysterious strangers, etc.).

Never, ever again. The only thing that made that game work (and I use that term delicately, hoping it doesn't get mad and beat me up for it), was the fact that most of the players were stunned into submission by the RGM because she showed up in a short skirt and tank top, and had perfect recall of every AD&D hardcover published at that time. This was *ages* ago, so a good number of the players at that event had never seen a girl before, let alone a pretty gamer girl who was better at the game than they were.

Solaris
2009-10-29, 04:07 PM
24

It was at a convention, it was 1st edition, ran over three days in six 3 hour blocks, and I had two 'assistant GMs'. One was TGM (Tactics Guy), who was running the combats and the non-influential NPCs (i.e. Monsters, shopkeepers, etc.). The other RGM (Rules Girl), who was in primarily in charge of looking stuff up in the various books and tracking rolls and results. And then there was me. I was PGM (Plot Guy) and was doing the storyline, setting, and plot-driven NPCs (major villains, mysterious strangers, etc.).

Never, ever again. The only thing that made that game work (and I use that term delicately, hoping it doesn't get mad and beat me up for it), was the fact that most of the players were stunned into submission by the RGM because she showed up in a short skirt and tank top, and had perfect recall of every AD&D hardcover published at that time. This was *ages* ago, so a good number of the players at that event had never seen a girl before, let alone a pretty gamer girl who was better at the game than they were.

- Tales from the Golden Age of Gaming.

We will never again know their like. By the way, I think it's safe to say Old Fhart Fhaolan wins the headcount for multiple players.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-29, 04:48 PM
So far in my experience 4E doesn't handle larger table sizes as well as 2E and 3E/3.5/PF handle it. I'm not sure whether it's an issue with ongoing effects, increased PC abilities/level, or something else, though.

Combat seems to be relatively slow to resolve in 4e. Admittedly, the average player proficiency with 3.5 is probably higher, so it's probably too early to be 100% sure on this yet, but in general, the slower the system is to resolve combat, the worse the problem gets with more players...and fast.

You could probably run ridiculous amounts of players with the original white box D&D, simply because it'll speed up as you kill people off.

arguskos
2009-10-29, 05:01 PM
8 players. Too many. A bad case of too little GM, spread too thinly. I usually play with (and thus plan for) the customary 4.

In retrospect I should have divided the players into 2 parties of four and used the old protocol of having party callers to keep things straight in my head. Yeah, 20:20 hindsight.
Interestingly enough, same exact case here. :smallconfused: I have 4 to 5, depending on if my gf can make it, and it really IS the perfect number.

I do tend to run a NPC or two to shore up party weaknesses, simply because that's what's needed sometimes. Esp with uneven parties (who aren't smart enough to hire a healer). :smallsigh:

AslanCross
2009-10-29, 06:32 PM
Most I've handled is 6. I've refused to handle any more than that.

Fhaolan
2009-10-29, 07:08 PM
- Tales from the Golden Age of Gaming.

We will never again know their like. By the way, I think it's safe to say Old Fhart Fhaolan wins the headcount for multiple players.

I have to admit, it was more the normal 'convention chaos' than my deliberately setting forth to do this. Afterwards the gaming coordinator told me I was supposed to split the group up into three groups of 8, and have one group on Friday, one group on Saturday, and another group on Sunday.

I just looked at him blankly and said, "Well, you should've told me these things ahead of time."

"Don't you mean, 'Next time tell you these things?'"

"Oh, no. There will be no next time."

"But the feedback..."

"THERE WILL BE NO NEXT TIME!"

Glimbur
2009-10-29, 07:30 PM
I ran Wuthering Heights for a group of 8 once. Well... I used the Wuthering Heights rule set but the Warhammer 40K setting. It got a lot more manageable once players started doing dumb things and getting killed off. Here's a hint: don't carry a dead body into your house in broad daylight.

I'd prefer 6 or 7 for Wuthering Heights, and 4 or 5 for more crunch-heavy games.

Galileo
2009-10-29, 10:17 PM
I'm about to start co-DMing a campaign involving 11 players. They'll be split into parties of 6 and 5, but they're all part of the same mercenary unit.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-29, 10:20 PM
I do tend to run a NPC or two to shore up party weaknesses, simply because that's what's needed sometimes. Esp with uneven parties (who aren't smart enough to hire a healer). :smallsigh:

You can always suggest they hire an NPC healer. Or better yet, if anyone has UMD, they can replace the healer with an inexpensive wand.