12-Player Games?

[Lonely Tylenol]

OK, so about a month ago I kicked off my own D&D 3.5 campaign (with backloaded Pathfinder content) in the local area. It's a 1-20 game, we've had three sessions and the PCs are hitting level 2, my players are mixed in terms of role play ability and we have the odd problems keeping the table focused (for reference, most of the group is college-aged, with a few in their teens and one or two in their late 20s/early 30s), but all standard stuff, except...

I currently have 10 people in my group, with two more (and potentially a third) on the way.

Here's how it happened:

A little over a month ago, I put the word out that I was starting up a D&D 3.5 campaign in town, fairly sandbox-y, with a homemade campaign world. Interest had already been generating for it for a time, so getting six players (which I had originally set as my limit) turned out to be fairly easy. Two of the first group had to drop out due to schedule restrictions, but were replaced after some searching about.

The night of the first game session, I had come in about two hours early to introduce everyone, get them acquainted with each other, confirm character sheets, and so on. When I arrive, I find that one of the players had invited her younger brother to the game. I sighed, shook my head and acted disappointed, but put it to a vote:

"The more the merrier!", they said.

So six became seven.

As I was helping him roll up his character sheet, her boyfriend (who is a friend of mine, and one of the six I started with) comes in. I greet him, and then ask him if he's here to watch the game. "Oh, no, I'm here to play!" he said. Apparently we were playing late enough in the day to rush up after work, so he figured he would give it a try. Again, I put it to a vote:

"The more the merrier!", they said.

So seven became eight.

As it turns out, right from the beginning my campaign was well-received and quickly became popular. The other player who dropped told me his schedule opened up, and he'd like to try something in 3.5 he can't get out of PF (the Martial Adepts), and since he had always been a solid role player with a solid grasp of the rules, I asked the group for their thoughts:

"The more the merrier!", they said.

So eight became nine. (Is it just me, or is this beginning to sound like a nerdy children's book?)

Shortly after, I told a few members of the group that nine was quite enough for me; if I had to fit another player in, my head would explode! However, word had already spread of the game I was running, and it quickly got referrals out to other people as it got whispered from one to the other. When I showed up to the next game session, another person was at the table; the first thing they said to me was, "is your head ready to explode yet?" Now, I was getting pretty close at this point, but I knew the player and he was always pretty nice, so I put it to a vote, and...

Well, need I say it?

So nine became ten.

"Oh, and I have another friend who said he's really interested in your game."

":smalleek:!"

Not counting the above, I have two other players (at least) that have expressed serious interest in the game, and have discussed with me what they would want to play, etc.

By the time I had hit nine, I had pretty much given up on the idea of having a smaller, CR-appropriate group, which is just as well: this is a game of warring states, so I guess it is only fair that they should be a war party.

The only problem is, aside from sheer quantity of bad guys, I don't have a clue how I am going to challenge a group of this size!

For reference, the characters already in the game just hit level 2, and are as follows:
1) NE Elf Rogue 1/ Shadowcaster 1
2) CN Half-Elf Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus)* 2
3) N Half-Elf Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus)* 2
4) CN Gnome Alchemist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist)* 2
5) LN Human Shadowcaster 2
6) NG Half-Elf Swashbuckler 2
7) CG Half-Elf Scout 2
8) CN Elf Bard 2
9) CN Grippli (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/grippli) Cleric of Ralishaz
10) NG Human Warblade 2

*With added 3.5 spells from PH2 and SpC

I know what two of the players are planning on playing (one a Swordsage and one a Rogue or Beguiler, both likely Human). I only found out about the third tonight.

The group all more or less fits within the same spectrum as far as power balance is concerned (the Cleric, the only T1-2, is adamant about being a healbot, and the Swashbuckler, the only true T5, more than makes up for it with inventive strategies and just generally being a strong role player), and represents quite a diverse range of abilities, so as far as huge and unwieldy parties go, I couldn't have picked a better one. People bring food, everyone is generally helpful (though ill-focused at times), and everyone has fun.

But I'm a relatively new DM, and though I've run a few one-offs and smaller campaigns, I've never done anything near this scale.

TL;DR HOW DO I RUN A TWELVE-PLAYER GAME?!

Please help! Will take any and all suggestions! :smallbiggrin:

[Hazzardevil]

I think most likely you will have to do one of 2 things.

Throw standard monsters at the party only with more hp, or throw higher CR monsters at the.
The problem with the higher CR option is that you are risking an arms race and the monster going in, one-shotting a party member and then being mobbed by the rest of the party.
I would also recommend making the game E6, to stop power levels escalating out of control, otherwise you will end up with the party turning into utter madness of mages trying to out-do each other and melee doing nothing.
So I think you should just throw monsters of standard CR with more hit points. Don't adjust the stat block, just multiply the hit points by 3 or 4 to keep things simple.

[Corlindale]

I would strongly advise against running a 12-player game, it's going to be hell to manage combat, and even out of combat each individual will get frustratingly little time in the spotlight.

I suggest you split the group in two. Either you GM for both groups, or you recruit one of the more experienced player as an additional GM.

You could still let the adventures of the two parties take place in the same world, so the achievements of one party would have an effect on the other party's actions.
Perhaps they're both warbands on the same side in the war, and at one point one group might lead an infiltration of an enemy fort, while the other is heading the mission meant to divert enemy attention while the fort is infiltrated. Then run the distraction group in one session, and give the other group bonuses or penalties according to how well it went in the next. That way the players will still feel connected to each other, but you avoid the problems of running a huge group.

Or they could be on opposing sides in the war, so the one group tries to deal with the result of whatever the other group managed to do last time.

[marcielle]

Split the paty. Give them multiple seperate objectives and some hints( but no hard and fasts) on who should go on which mission. Having a mass 12 person battle will be hard, to put it mildly. You could split them into 3 parties of 4 or 2 of 6. Giving them things that need to be dont at different places at the same time or have many objectives under a strict time limit( there does not need to be an actual time limit, they just need to think there is one so they will split up). Have the actions of one party visibly affect the other so that they know roughly what the other is doing( at least until they can afford communication magic). That's all I got for you. Hope it helped.

Also, at some point, you'll either have to recruit another DM or just say no to all the people trying to get into your allready overflowing party.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think most likely you will have to do one of 2 things.

Throw standard monsters at the party only with more hp, or throw higher CR monsters at the.
The problem with the higher CR option is that you are risking an arms race and the monster going in, one-shotting a party member and then being mobbed by the rest of the party.
I would also recommend making the game E6, to stop power levels escalating out of control, otherwise you will end up with the party turning into utter madness of mages trying to out-do each other and melee doing nothing.
So I think you should just throw monsters of standard CR with more hit points. Don't adjust the stat block, just multiply the hit points by 3 or 4 to keep things simple.

I already swore off high-CR monsters, at least until the party is of a reasonable enough level. The Dire Wolf is enough of a reason: It has 6 HD, 45 Hit Points, a +11 to-hit and +10 to damage. It has the power to one-shot everyone in the party (minus the Warblade, who survives on a bad roll) and the longevity to do it more than once.

I may have to look at building up HP totals, although I always thought of that as a sort of cop-out (why should the barghest your level 4 party is fighting arbitrarily be able to soak a lot more damage than anything else?).


I suggest you split the group in two. Either you GM for both groups, or you recruit one of the more experienced player as an additional GM.

You could still let the adventures of the two parties take place in the same world, so the achievements of one party would have an effect on the other party's actions.
Perhaps they're both warbands on the same side in the war, and at one point one group might lead an infiltration of an enemy fort, while the other is heading the mission meant to divert enemy attention while the fort is infiltrated. Then run the distraction group in one session, and give the other group bonuses or penalties according to how well it went in the next. That way the players will still feel connected to each other, but you avoid the problems of running a huge group.



Split the paty. Give them multiple seperate objectives and some hints( but no hard and fasts) on who should go on which mission. Having a mass 12 person battle will be hard, to put it mildly. You could split them into 3 parties of 4 or 2 of 6. Giving them things that need to be dont at different places at the same time or have many objectives under a strict time limit( there does not need to be an actual time limit, they just need to think there is one so they will split up). Have the actions of one party visibly affect the other so that they know roughly what the other is doing( at least until they can afford communication magic). That's all I got for you. Hope it helped.

Also, at some point, you'll either have to recruit another DM or just say no to all the people trying to get into your allready overflowing party.

I am already doing something along these lines at certain intervals (splitting the groups into task-oriented subsets, as well as running solo adventures on the side for no EXP, but off-screen plot advancement), but I could not do this on a full-time basis, simply because of how strained my schedule already is. Either I'd have to take up another day (which is strictly impossible), or I'd have to spread it out to alternating weeks (which advances at snail's pace).

If I do double DM this, the problem I then face is that I first have to split the group (it is a large group of people, but we are all pretty close-knit; we live in a small, rural island, so everybody knows everybody), and second actually write out the campaign setting--I have been doing almost all of this (including the world maps, town layouts, notable figures, sociopolitical structures, adventure hooks, NPC interactions of all kinds) from memory, and improvising what I couldn't. I couldn't co-author as I have it right now, because the world's history or even its general layout isn't written--everything is completely inside my head, and there's no way for a second DM to create an adventure that interacts meaningfully with a world that they can't research for themselves!

OK, that last part is half my laziness and half the level of depth and complexity that my efforts in this world-building have wrought upon me, making it just very difficult to write everything in satisfactory detail.

OK, it's about three-fourths my laziness. :smallredface:

Is that really all there is to do? Split the party?

[Yora]

If you have two groups working on the same goal, you could have players on occassion play with the other group, and for some special events both DMs get together and run a huge battle with everyone involved.

[gkathellar]

I've played in a 12-player game before. The DM was really adept at splitting the party and keeping everyone active, but part of his approach was to throw big fights at us, with large numbers of CR-appropriate opponents.

[HunterOfJello]

Don't. Just don't.

Talk to everyone and find someone else willing to be a DM, then split it into 2 full groups of players. You can still have everyone meet up at the same time or have them all play in the same game world (even occasionally meeting one another), but having 12 people play in the same game is far too unrealistic. No one will get enough attention and you'll end up having 10 people not paying attention to anything and detracting from the game at any given moment in time.

Six players is usually a big group. Three or Four is optimal. Twelve is beyond ridiculous.

In my experiences, after I had gotten plenty of experience as a DM I had a lot of trouble with 6 people and 5 was a stretch. When I first started I had trouble with 4 and 3 was the best number. (Right now I'm at 2 and it's too small a number, but that's just how things go.)

[Philosoraptor]

The group I'm in is having a similar issue (we have around 13 people that go every session, with a group of 16 total). The most important thing is that you make sure to establish that you are going to play D&D, and that this isn't the place to be if you just want to hang out with friends. If you don't establish that up front, you're going to be screwed no matter what you end up deciding to do.

That said, you can make it work. As others have said, if you can find someone else who is willing to DM, splitting up into two groups within the same campaign can provide a really interesting narrative, with the one group supporting the other by pinning down enemies so the second group can complete an objective, etc.

Sorry for the long post, to sum it up: Make sure that you don't have people joining just because friends are in it; only let people you're fairly sure are going to take it seriously in. Second, split into two groups, this can work very well, depending on your communication with the other dm. Hope this helps.

[Chylde]

In-stead of fully splitting the party into 2 groups (which you've already said is unrealistic for your schedule), try making a couple of the more advanced players "assistant-DMs" if you plan out your sessions a bit ahead of time you can spend a few minutes going over the outline with them, and they can help keep the story going without you having to stop everything and answer every question and deal with every issue...

As far as combat goes, my suggestion is rather than upping the CR of the monsters, or even upping the HP, just make the quantities match the party size... (I mean how likely is it that a small raiding party of kobolds is going to attack a 12 strong party of adventurers?) Double their numbers and it will work out as a much more fun fight, and the players won't feel like they're having to whittle away at far too many HP for the enemies they're fighting...

[Lonely Tylenol]

In-stead of fully splitting the party into 2 groups (which you've already said is unrealistic for your schedule), try making a couple of the more advanced players "assistant-DMs" if you plan out your sessions a bit ahead of time you can spend a few minutes going over the outline with them, and they can help keep the story going without you having to stop everything and answer every question and deal with every issue...

Actually, this is what I've decided on for now.

If you will, my plan:

At present, I have confirmed 11 people for this campaign, one is tentative, and I haven't gotten back to the thirteenth yet. Of these, I'm selecting two (the Swashbuckler player, who I've come to admire both as a player and a DM, and the prospective Swordsage player, who's a respectable DM in his own right). I've picked these two largely because of their classes and the flavor of the characters: One, the dashing swashbuckler, is likely to wind up leading the charge of the "main attacking force", as it were, with mainly the martial specialists and main casters under his fold; the other, the swordsage (who is likely going to have a stealth focus), is going to lead the more stealth-oriented groups on infiltration, espionage, and subversive missions. In cases where missions are broken into two groups, I will run one half while one of these two DMs runs the other half; in cases where it's broken into three groups, both DMs will run their specialized groups, and I will run the third. The groups are going to meet together fairly frequently (meaning probably about half of the games are going to be whole-group games, give or take), where they will receive new directives (following the chain of command on down) or advance their own agendas as a war party. I will run these games, as well as individual side-quests (where characters run solo missions to advance their own character progression in the plot, or to perform "off-camera" events that impact the world around them).

What does everyone think of this plan?


As far as combat goes, my suggestion is rather than upping the CR of the monsters, or even upping the HP, just make the quantities match the party size... (I mean how likely is it that a small raiding party of kobolds is going to attack a 12 strong party of adventurers?) Double their numbers and it will work out as a much more fun fight, and the players won't feel like they're having to whittle away at far too many HP for the enemies they're fighting...

This is kinda what I was thinking as well, but fighting large armies of mooks alone isn't going to always be enough. Should I look to mix-and-match where appropriate? Perhaps create enemy PC parties, or something of that sort? :smalltongue:

[HunterOfJello]

A
What does everyone think of this plan?



This is kinda what I was thinking as well, but fighting large armies of mooks alone isn't going to always be enough. Should I look to mix-and-match where appropriate? Perhaps create enemy PC parties, or something of that sort? :smalltongue:

I think that having 12 PCs fight against 30 or even 10 monsters is going to take 8 hours per fight. I am not kidding. It will really take that long.

I've had 4 hour long fights with just 4 players against 5 monsters. If you double the number of monsters or double their hp, you often just double the length of the fight instead of increasing the difficultly.

[Acanous]

12 player games can be done, but combat WILL stretch out and you must be prepared to spend a lot of time on encounter design.

With Warring Cities, you actually have good reasons for the latter, IC. Either side would likely shore up their battle squads with a couple things that have different immunities.

For instance, assume one city makes heavy use of undead. They send 6 zombies, 2 skeleton archers, a human cleric, 2 Shadows, and a Rogue as one battle squad. Your lv 2 party would tear them up, yes, but not in a single round, and there's some serious danger from those shadows that the casters need to focus on, while the melee need to stop the zombies and skeletons from disrupting your squishy casters. Finally, you've got that cleric/rogue combo to deal with, so there's a lot going on and everyone has something to do.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think that having 12 PCs fight against 30 or even 10 monsters is going to take 8 hours per fight. I am not kidding. It will really take that long.

I've had 4 hour long fights with just 4 players against 5 monsters. If you double the number of monsters or double their hp, you often just double the length of the fight instead of increasing the difficultly.

Normally I'd agree with you--I've been in an hour+ round in other campaigns--but as far as keeping the flow of combat goes, I have been very good about keeping people paying attention to their role in the initiative and their place in the coming actions quite well. I'm more concerned with non-combat interactions getting crowded than I am combat, because I have a pretty good track record of staying on track of large-scale combat situations such as the above mentioned.

Not that you don't make a good point--and I don't want to simply up the CR of every encounter by upping the quantity of enemies--but what would you suggest? I'm kind of at a loss for how to challenge a party that could tackle CR 3+ encounters at such a low level, because in the early stages of the game, this sort of thing wasn't planned for, balance-wise.

EDIT: I should note that non-monster dangers, such as traps and environmental hazards, are the norm, and not the exception, in my campaign as well, so if anybody has any ideas for how to mix and match environmental threats, terrain advantage, traps, and the like with monsters of various types, I always welcome such suggestions. :smallsmile:

[danzibr]

Is that really all there is to do? Split the party?
This is absolutely what I suggest too. The first real campaign I ran had 8 people in it... and it really sucked. I mean, my campaign was alright, but encounters, even easy ones, took waaaaaaaaaaay too long, too many people disagreeing, not getting time. With 12 people I'd say split it in 3, with 10 I'd say split it in 2.

I mean, probably what'll happen with 13 of you around a table is a lot of them just aren't going to have much fun.

[Amphetryon]

I've DMed 10+ players for a long time. Things that I learned, which may be applicable to your situation:

Don't split the party without a co-DM. Half the folks will be likely to get bored.
Don't rely on inflated CR to balance out encounters; use piles of mooks. Action economy will win out, and you'll just splat one or more PCs in the meantime with a single overclocked monstrosity.
Have a party spokesperson to relay intentions to you, to cut down signal-to-noise ratio.
Don't overuse aspects of the game that leave a majority twiddling their thumbs for a while, such as excessive traps with only one Rogue.
Use some sort of visible combat timer in which folks have a defined window to decide their actions in a round.
Either announce up-front that they need to follow the path, or be ready to improvise. More ideas from the party means more chances to go off the rails.

[Chylde]

This is kinda what I was thinking as well, but fighting large armies of mooks alone isn't going to always be enough. Should I look to mix-and-match where appropriate? Perhaps create enemy PC parties, or something of that sort? :smalltongue:

In a campaign of this type, encountering an enemy party with appropriate lavels is not only a good idea, but a must. why wouldn't the other side have a yan to their party's yin?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Split the group in half, you DM for one group and get someone else to DM for the other group, or just run the same game two days a week for half of them at a time.

For a group that size, encounters should have two to three times as many opponents, and maybe the occasional higher-CR encounter. The more opponents you use, the more variety you can include in a single fight, and they should have quite a bit of fun with it.

To keep things moving, you'll probably want two characters acting at a time. The two highest initiative PCs act simultaneously, the next two highest on initiative are paired, etc. for any given encounter. Roll shared initiative checks for multiple opponents as well, and be able to get through their actions quickly.

Have everyone considering what they'll do before their turn comes to keep the game moving. The second time someone's not paying attention when their turn comes they get skipped. The second time someone gets attacked or has to roll a saving throw and they're not paying attention the attack hits or they fail the save. One or two PCs getting knocked out of a fight isn't going to be a huge deal compared to a 4-man party, so an auto-failed save vs Sleep for not paying attention isn't really going to screw the party.

[Manateee]

If you must play with 12 people (and not split the group into 2-3 sections), I wouldn't say it'd be a bad idea to play, but I'd say it would be a bad idea to play D&D.

Use the 3.5 system to roll up characters, sure. That's not where your problems are going to come in, as long as the players do their prep outside of the session.

But as far as game structure, avoid the traditional "All the Party Members v. The Dungeon" paradigm. Make the players drive the action among themselves. Think more "How to Host a Murder" than "Temple of Elemental Evil." That way, the 12 players' actions can be filtered received and responded to by each other, rather than demanding your attention for every individual action that those 12 people choose to make.

Otherwise, maybe take up religion?

EDIT:
Even if you don't feel totally happy about the idea, your best bet is probably asking 1 or 2 of the players to run separate games alongside yours, for 2-3 games total. If they must even be involved in the same plotlines, coordinate plots and party actions with the other 1-2 DMs. The way you're going sounds like a good way for a bunch of people to have no fun and for you to lose big swaths of hair.

[Dr.Epic]

Try to find multiple DMs. I'd say 2-3 for a group this big. Either that, or try to convince some people to become recurring characters that only show up every now and then.

[Mystify]

I've played in a 12-player game before. Seriously, try to avoid it, that is way too many people. Combat will take forever, and it does not balance properly. If you use high-CR monsters, then they will end up one-shotting people and still going down quickly, making for extremely bloody battles. If you try using larger amounts of on-CR monsters, then the AoE people hit 12 things just as easily as 4 and the party will still clear them out easily. You would have to specifically hand-design each encounter to pose a balanced threat.
In top of that, 12 players takes foreverto go through a combat round. There where times I sat around for 2 hours(no exaggeration) to make my attack. People don't focus on the game because it takes so long, which amplifies the problem as they aren't as aware of what is going on and so take longer to take their turn.
Interparty balance is also hell. Unless you are hand-picking people, you are likely to get some people that dominate the game and others who are useless, and the large size of a party complicates efforts to correct that.
Class-wise, you seem to have a good mix, but relative optimization between players can really skew that.
12 people. esp with such disparate abilities, also means that someone will have the right answer to every situation. You will likely have a hardtime challenging them out of combat. And as far as reaching a party consensus on decisions, the more people the harder that becomes.

try finding a way to split it into 2 6-person parties. It will work much better for everyone.I would never go more than 8 people, and only because I know what I am doing.

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is absolutely what I suggest too. The first real campaign I ran had 8 people in it... and it really sucked. I mean, my campaign was alright, but encounters, even easy ones, took waaaaaaaaaaay too long, too many people disagreeing, not getting time. With 12 people I'd say split it in 3, with 10 I'd say split it in 2.

I mean, probably what'll happen with 13 of you around a table is a lot of them just aren't going to have much fun.


I've DMed 10+ players for a long time. Things that I learned, which may be applicable to your situation:

Don't split the party without a co-DM. Half the folks will be likely to get bored.
Don't rely on inflated CR to balance out encounters; use piles of mooks. Action economy will win out, and you'll just splat one or more PCs in the meantime with a single overclocked monstrosity.
Have a party spokesperson to relay intentions to you, to cut down signal-to-noise ratio.
Don't overuse aspects of the game that leave a majority twiddling their thumbs for a while, such as excessive traps with only one Rogue.
Use some sort of visible combat timer in which folks have a defined window to decide their actions in a round.
Either announce up-front that they need to follow the path, or be ready to improvise. More ideas from the party means more chances to go off the rails.



Split the group in half, you DM for one group and get someone else to DM for the other group, or just run the same game two days a week for half of them at a time.

For a group that size, encounters should have two to three times as many opponents, and maybe the occasional higher-CR encounter. The more opponents you use, the more variety you can include in a single fight, and they should have quite a bit of fun with it.

To keep things moving, you'll probably want two characters acting at a time. The two highest initiative PCs act simultaneously, the next two highest on initiative are paired, etc. for any given encounter. Roll shared initiative checks for multiple opponents as well, and be able to get through their actions quickly.

Have everyone considering what they'll do before their turn comes to keep the game moving. The second time someone's not paying attention when their turn comes they get skipped. The second time someone gets attacked or has to roll a saving throw and they're not paying attention the attack hits or they fail the save. One or two PCs getting knocked out of a fight isn't going to be a huge deal compared to a 4-man party, so an auto-failed save vs Sleep for not paying attention isn't really going to screw the party.


If you must play with 12 people (and not split the group into 2-3 sections), I wouldn't say it'd be a bad idea to play, but I'd say it would be a bad idea to play D&D.

Use the 3.5 system to roll up characters, sure. That's not where your problems are going to come in, as long as the players do their prep outside of the session.

But as far as game structure, avoid the traditional "All the Party Members v. The Dungeon" paradigm. Make the players drive the action among themselves. Think more "How to Host a Murder" than "Temple of Elemental Evil." That way, the 12 players' actions can be filtered received and responded to by each other, rather than demanding your attention for every individual action that those 12 people choose to make.

Otherwise, maybe take up religion?

EDIT:
Even if you don't feel totally happy about the idea, your best bet is probably asking 1 or 2 of the players to run separate games alongside yours, for 2-3 games total. If they must even be involved in the same plotlines, coordinate plots and party actions with the other 1-2 DMs. The way you're going sounds like a good way for a bunch of people to have no fun and for you to lose big swaths of hair.


Try to find multiple DMs. I'd say 2-3 for a group this big. Either that, or try to convince some people to become recurring characters that only show up every now and then.


I've played in a 12-player game before. Seriously, try to avoid it, that is way too many people. Combat will take forever, and it does not balance properly. If you use high-CR monsters, then they will end up one-shotting people and still going down quickly, making for extremely bloody battles. If you try using larger amounts of on-CR monsters, then the AoE people hit 12 things just as easily as 4 and the party will still clear them out easily. You would have to specifically hand-design each encounter to pose a balanced threat.
In top of that, 12 players takes foreverto go through a combat round. There where times I sat around for 2 hours(no exaggeration) to make my attack. People don't focus on the game because it takes so long, which amplifies the problem as they aren't as aware of what is going on and so take longer to take their turn.
Interparty balance is also hell. Unless you are hand-picking people, you are likely to get some people that dominate the game and others who are useless, and the large size of a party complicates efforts to correct that.
Class-wise, you seem to have a good mix, but relative optimization between players can really skew that.
12 people. esp with such disparate abilities, also means that someone will have the right answer to every situation. You will likely have a hardtime challenging them out of combat. And as far as reaching a party consensus on decisions, the more people the harder that becomes.

try finding a way to split it into 2 6-person parties. It will work much better for everyone.I would never go more than 8 people, and only because I know what I am doing.

Let me refer all of you to the following:


If you will, my plan:

At present, I have confirmed 11 people for this campaign, one is tentative, and I haven't gotten back to the thirteenth yet. Of these, I'm selecting two (the Swashbuckler player, who I've come to admire both as a player and a DM, and the prospective Swordsage player, who's a respectable DM in his own right). I've picked these two largely because of their classes and the flavor of the characters: One, the dashing swashbuckler, is likely to wind up leading the charge of the "main attacking force", as it were, with mainly the martial specialists and main casters under his fold; the other, the swordsage (who is likely going to have a stealth focus), is going to lead the more stealth-oriented groups on infiltration, espionage, and subversive missions. In cases where missions are broken into two groups, I will run one half while one of these two DMs runs the other half; in cases where it's broken into three groups, both DMs will run their specialized groups, and I will run the third. The groups are going to meet together fairly frequently (meaning probably about half of the games are going to be whole-group games, give or take), where they will receive new directives (following the chain of command on down) or advance their own agendas as a war party. I will run these games, as well as individual side-quests (where characters run solo missions to advance their own character progression in the plot, or to perform "off-camera" events that impact the world around them).

What does everyone think of this plan?

An update:

Since posting this last night, I've gotten both of the assistant DMs I've had in mind to agree to assist me in running this game. The swordsage player wants to run the combat stuff and play in the roguish missions; the swashbuckler, vice-versa. That way, nobody has to DMPC in order to actually play a game.

I'm trying to find two separate nights to run games, but if we cannot, and the game absolutely must be run in the same day, I'll DM one, one of the two will DM the other, and the third will simply play.

Now, in order:

danzibr: I suspect that this may be the case to an extent, but the sessions we have played thus far (with between seven or nine players each) have all run quite smoothly.

Amphetryon: Thanks for the tips! I have no intention or splitting the party without a co-DM (because it would either leave a lot of people in the dark or result in a lot of bookkeeping just for the schedule), but I want to say that the third and fifth tip, in particular, are incredibly useful. Right now I have one or two members that are incredibly vocal, but it would be great to have a PC that acts as a liaison between me and the players.

Chylde: That sounds good. :smallsmile:

Biffoniacus_Furiou: I'm actually pretty good at keeping things moving quickly through the initiative order, but those are solid tips; I'll have to try those next session.

Manateee: I'm actually well on my way to becoming a schoolteacher, so sitting before a room full of people who aren't having fun and losing swaths of hair is practically already in my job description. :smallwink:

But seriously... You'd be surprised at how similar managing a classroom of unruly first-graders and managing a table full of unruly twenty-something PCs can be. At a glance, it's almost impossible to tell the difference, unless you look for facial hair and T-shirts with ironic humor on them. Point being, I may not be perfect, but I like to consider myself at least an above-average DM, and a decent enforcer of proper table manners, and as a result my games have always been well-received. Managing the table is not the problem I am having at this point; it's mainly that, with my somewhat limited DMing experience, I don't know enough about how to fill the gaps in content for this group. (Think of it like teaching a class full of generally well-mannered students a unit on a subject you don't know a whole lot about that isn't in your curriculum.)

Mystify: That sounds like the worst case, or even general scenario for a party of that size, but it is not an accurate description of my scenario (at least yet). I like to consider myself at least a competent DM who has been blessed with a group that is, at the least, capable of being managed. Even for our group size, initiative hasn't lasted longer than 15 minutes on a given round (when things are going south). It's generally been all right.

That said, we're a little bit past that point; I'm looking for pointers on whether or not my new plan of action (which involves splitting the group into halves or thirds and managing them appropriately) is viable, and what specifically I might be able to do to improve on my current plan.

[ahenobarbi]

HOW DO I RUN A TWELVE-PLAYER GAME?!


Have them roll initiative at the beginning of the session. When more then one person at time wants to talk go to round system (one person can talk for a moment, then next person in initiative can talk...)

Split the group (more then 6 players is usually to many to manage).

Get a supporting DM.

Also congratulations :smallbiggrin:

[Mystify]

Let me refer all of you to the following:
Mystify: That sounds like the worst case, or even general scenario for a party of that size, but it is not an accurate description of my scenario (at least yet). I like to consider myself at least a competent DM who has been blessed with a group that is, at the least, capable of being managed. Even for our group size, initiative hasn't lasted longer than 15 minutes on a given round (when things are going south). It's generally been all right.


You are also level 2, which runs quicker than higher levels. If everyone can keep on it and have the game flow, great for you.

[big teej]

OK, so about a month ago I kicked off my own D&D 3.5 campaign (with backloaded Pathfinder content) in the local area. It's a 1-20 game, we've had three sessions and the PCs are hitting level 2, my players are mixed in terms of role play ability and we have the odd problems keeping the table focused (for reference, most of the group is college-aged, with a few in their teens and one or two in their late 20s/early 30s), but all standard stuff, except...

I currently have 10 people in my group, with two more (and potentially a third) on the way.

Here's how it happened:

A little over a month ago, I put the word out that I was starting up a D&D 3.5 campaign in town, fairly sandbox-y, with a homemade campaign world. Interest had already been generating for it for a time, so getting six players (which I had originally set as my limit) turned out to be fairly easy. Two of the first group had to drop out due to schedule restrictions, but were replaced after some searching about.

The night of the first game session, I had come in about two hours early to introduce everyone, get them acquainted with each other, confirm character sheets, and so on. When I arrive, I find that one of the players had invited her younger brother to the game. I sighed, shook my head and acted disappointed, but put it to a vote:

"The more the merrier!", they said.

So six became seven.

As I was helping him roll up his character sheet, her boyfriend (who is a friend of mine, and one of the six I started with) comes in. I greet him, and then ask him if he's here to watch the game. "Oh, no, I'm here to play!" he said. Apparently we were playing late enough in the day to rush up after work, so he figured he would give it a try. Again, I put it to a vote:

"The more the merrier!", they said.

So seven became eight.

As it turns out, right from the beginning my campaign was well-received and quickly became popular. The other player who dropped told me his schedule opened up, and he'd like to try something in 3.5 he can't get out of PF (the Martial Adepts), and since he had always been a solid role player with a solid grasp of the rules, I asked the group for their thoughts:

"The more the merrier!", they said.

So eight became nine. (Is it just me, or is this beginning to sound like a nerdy children's book?)

Shortly after, I told a few members of the group that nine was quite enough for me; if I had to fit another player in, my head would explode! However, word had already spread of the game I was running, and it quickly got referrals out to other people as it got whispered from one to the other. When I showed up to the next game session, another person was at the table; the first thing they said to me was, "is your head ready to explode yet?" Now, I was getting pretty close at this point, but I knew the player and he was always pretty nice, so I put it to a vote, and...

Well, need I say it?

So nine became ten.

"Oh, and I have another friend who said he's really interested in your game."

":smalleek:!"

Not counting the above, I have two other players (at least) that have expressed serious interest in the game, and have discussed with me what they would want to play, etc.

By the time I had hit nine, I had pretty much given up on the idea of having a smaller, CR-appropriate group, which is just as well: this is a game of warring states, so I guess it is only fair that they should be a war party.

The only problem is, aside from sheer quantity of bad guys, I don't have a clue how I am going to challenge a group of this size!

For reference, the characters already in the game just hit level 2, and are as follows:
1) NE Elf Rogue 1/ Shadowcaster 1
2) CN Half-Elf Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus)* 2
3) N Half-Elf Magus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus)* 2
4) CN Gnome Alchemist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist)* 2
5) LN Human Shadowcaster 2
6) NG Half-Elf Swashbuckler 2
7) CG Half-Elf Scout 2
8) CN Elf Bard 2
9) CN Grippli (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/grippli) Cleric of Ralishaz
10) NG Human Warblade 2

*With added 3.5 spells from PH2 and SpC

I know what two of the players are planning on playing (one a Swordsage and one a Rogue or Beguiler, both likely Human). I only found out about the third tonight.

The group all more or less fits within the same spectrum as far as power balance is concerned (the Cleric, the only T1-2, is adamant about being a healbot, and the Swashbuckler, the only true T5, more than makes up for it with inventive strategies and just generally being a strong role player), and represents quite a diverse range of abilities, so as far as huge and unwieldy parties go, I couldn't have picked a better one. People bring food, everyone is generally helpful (though ill-focused at times), and everyone has fun.

But I'm a relatively new DM, and though I've run a few one-offs and smaller campaigns, I've never done anything near this scale.

TL;DR HOW DO I RUN A TWELVE-PLAYER GAME?!

Please help! Will take any and all suggestions! :smallbiggrin:


I DM for 11 players every week, so I believe I will be of help in this endeavor... I do not have the time to read this whole post at this time, but I will as soon as I'm through with homework and stuff.


but, there is one thing I can do right now without reading anything except that you have 12 players.

find out if you have any problem players. either eject them, or break the group down into smaller components.

why? simple.

roughly a year ago my group was still growing, hovering around a 6-8 members.... we had a new player come in, and due to this one player, the groups size became unworkable. that player has since left us, and I now run an 11 player group with no problems (that is, no problems not generated by size itself) because I have great players.


and with that, I must go for a time.

[Dark Kerman]

Organise a PvP of the players, give them a series of random items (Sticks, flint and tinder, alchemy sets etc) and let them get to work. Then a tournament, to the death, with the losers being ejected from the group! :belkar:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

[Big Fau]

Split everyone up into two 5-6 man parties. Have one of the other players become an "assisstant" DM, and run the second group.

Then meet with your "assisstant" DM, and work out an overarching storyline to tie the two groups together. Have one group either be a complementary group, or have that group be in opposition to the other group.

Then coordinate regularly with the other DM.



Running a 12-person game is more difficult than doing this.

[Aotrs Commander]

I've been DMing for twenty years, and while my preferred party size is six, and I will cheerfully handle to to eight, twelve is going to be very difficult. (Not least if you have players that will get easily distracted. For your own sake, please INSIST that everyone kills their mobiles during the game, unless of critically importany matters like a pregnant wife or hospitalised family or something, and ensure everyone keeps the off-topic chatter when it's not their turn down, or no-one will have any idea what's going on.) You will need those co-DMs!

I also will warn you that as you get higher level it will get massively more difficult and convoltuted to run combat, especially once you start to hit the teen levels, especially if there is anyone approaching ony modest rules-savvy optimisers... (I've just done with a six-strong-party that reached Epic, and am running another at level 15 and it can be very slow with all the complex dohickes and what not.) That said, if I'm reading that aright, you don't have too many full casters, which should make things at least a little easier!

You're a braver soul than me, though, and I run Rolemaster with eight players on occasion...



On other thing I suggest - something I use as a matter of course, but is nearly a requirement for you - have the PCs roll up ten or so initiatives in advance on a sheet for you, as that'll save a huge amount of time you're going to need for other things.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You are also level 2, which runs quicker than higher levels. If everyone can keep on it and have the game flow, great for you.

Fair.


I DM for 11 players every week, so I believe I will be of help in this endeavor... I do not have the time to read this whole post at this time, but I will as soon as I'm through with homework and stuff.


but, there is one thing I can do right now without reading anything except that you have 12 players.

find out if you have any problem players. either eject them, or break the group down into smaller components.

why? simple.

roughly a year ago my group was still growing, hovering around a 6-8 members.... we had a new player come in, and due to this one player, the groups size became unworkable. that player has since left us, and I now run an 11 player group with no problems (that is, no problems not generated by size itself) because I have great players.


and with that, I must go for a time.

I had this happen with an 8-player group I was in that was being run by another DM. It was actually 5 for the longest time, and then the sixth was added. The sixth was fine for a short time, but gradually became very disruptive, and when more players were added the problem only got worse and worse.

I am sitting the entire table down this weekend and going over a list of rules that I'm also going to try and make a poster out of. Some are things discussed here (like no freakin' cell phones), or things that I can see might become a problem in this session, or things that I know have become problems last session.

Having this rule set expanded now will (hopefully) make culling the herd easier down the line, if the need arises.

Thanks. Waiting to hear back on more. :smallbiggrin:


I've been DMing for twenty years, and while my preferred party size is six, and I will cheerfully handle to to eight, twelve is going to be very difficult. (Not least if you have players that will get easily distracted. For your own sake, please INSIST that everyone kills their mobiles during the game, unless of critically importany matters like a pregnant wife or hospitalised family or something, and ensure everyone keeps the off-topic chatter when it's not their turn down, or no-one will have any idea what's going on.) You will need those co-DMs!

I also will warn you that as you get higher level it will get massively more difficult and convoltuted to run combat, especially once you start to hit the teen levels, especially if there is anyone approaching ony modest rules-savvy optimisers... (I've just done with a six-strong-party that reached Epic, and am running another at level 15 and it can be very slow with all the complex dohickes and what not.) That said, if I'm reading that aright, you don't have too many full casters, which should make things at least a little easier!

You're a braver soul than me, though, and I run Rolemaster with eight players on occasion...



On other thing I suggest - something I use as a matter of course, but is nearly a requirement for you - have the PCs roll up ten or so initiatives in advance on a sheet for you, as that'll save a huge amount of time you're going to need for other things.

There are thirteen at the table, counting myself, but I know for a fact that I am the most optimized player among them. (Two--the Warblade player and the Swordsage player/co-DM who just converted to Warblade--come close in that they have a good idea of game mechanics and a strong sense of what works in-game. Two others--the Swashbuckler/second co-DM and the Alchemist--are very strong role-players, but relatively low-op, so most of their inventiveness comes from the "how cool would that be?" side of things, and I encourage that sort of thing, so I just roll with it, and BS the skill check DCs if I don't know that any such check exists.)

I also do much of the bookkeeping off-table (I have a handwritten copy of every PC's character sheet, plus a hand-written spell/mystery list for spellcasters and maneuver list for initiators, and what-have-you). Both of these facts have streamlined the combat process somewhat, at least at these levels, but I have yet to see how things will progress into higher levels (obviously).

Rolling multiple initiatives could definitely work; I could also ask if the party wants me to roll their initiatives (being that I have copies of all their character sheets and can scribble their init modifiers on a flash card if need be), but I think the former solution would definitely work better, since I think half the party just likes the sound of dice rolling. :smallwink:

I just wanted to say thanks a ton to everyone who has been helping me thus far. I hope I don't seem combative or anything in my responses; I'm just trying to paint as complete a picture as possible. I really do appreciate all the help. :smallbiggrin: