Crazy Huge D&D Group

[Galileo]

As the title may suggest, my group's become bizarrely large in the past couple of weeks. It used to be just me and 5 of my friends. Then our rather loud discussions outside the school library got another couple of people interested, then a guy from my Classics class started asking about joining, one of our DMs said his friend wanted to play, and now the little sisters of two of my friends are in as well. All in all, 13 people. We've divided everyone into two parties, with a balance of experienced players and newbies, but we're not sure how we should play this. The options seem to be:

1. Have the two groups working closely together. Tackling a large dungeon cooperatively and such. This would take the most work, but could be the most interesting.

2. Both parties are part of one organisation, but don't work directly together. They could be the elite teams of a mercenary force, each working on separate missions, but whose actions reflect on the other.

3. They're completely separate.

I'd appreciate some advice on how to do this, as we're feeling a little overwhelmed.

[Atcote]

I once had a similar problem with a group I used to play with - we started as a single party, but soon realised we had enough for two, then three.

Speaking from personal experience, for the sake of ease I'd make it two seperate parties, except we did participate in a 'related but not together' type game that lasted a few sessions, and it was really fun to hear about the other party's exploits during our own session (and vice versa). Problems were run into when one group fell behind the other, but this was balanced as the second party was moved to another country in that time - it was pretty much a transit session for them.

The plan was to eventually group but to take down the Big Bads together in an epic battle that would shake the very foundations of the collapsable table that we played on!... But we never got there. Really wish we did though - I've no doubt it would've been interesting.

So there's my advice - split them, but if you can co-operate with another DM, try the 'one world/organisation, two parties' method. Maybe even the other respective party are the enemies or rivals of the other (hell, good excuse for Good vs. Evil), and have them work against each other (could be messy, but good natured players would probably enjoy themselves)!

[arguskos]

I'd personally suggest doing it completely separate. I've tried running concurrent groups before, and it's a royal pain.

If you DO try it, then I would suggest there is a "master DM" who has final say over the metaplot that the games are both working towards, but doesn't actually run either game. It'll help for coordination, if nothing else.

[toasty]

I'd suggest having the DM's for both parties (do you have two DMs or just one?) work together to create a fun campaign that will give both parties the ability to remain mostly separate, but link up from time-to-time. Obviously keeping the two groups together would remain rather crazy. I can't imagine combat with 13 PCs let alone monsters! But I think that mixing-and-matching the various PCs between the two groups from time-to-time (and maybe even one or two "epic sessions" with all 13 players at the table) would work very well if you can create a believable story that links the thirteen players together.

The coolest thing about having two parties whose actions effect each other would be linking in references. Perhaps the two groups are supposed to infiltrate a city and do some various dirty work. Well maybe the first group sounded the alarm (by accident) and now BOTH groups feel the consequence of this result. Of course some players might not like this (understandable: they all played stealthy and then the other group went out and smashed everything that moved) but, like I said, if the DMs and the PCs can somehow work stuff like this out then I can imagine a really fun and really epic campaign.

[Atcote]

If you DO try it, then I would suggest there is a "master DM" who has final say over the metaplot that the games are both working towards, but doesn't actually run either game. It'll help for coordination, if nothing else.

We didn't do this, but it's a great idea. Both our DMs gave each other updates and had a basic idea of where the plot was able to head, but there was the occassional arguement (they over thought some things... Turns out stopping an army in our game stopped him from having an excuse to attack the town the other party was currently in - you know, except for, well, he could've just made up ANOTHER threat).

[EndlessWrath]

I've played a game with 14 people in the same party. I was dm. best advice... Don't.

My other game (first campaign i really played in that was normal 3.5) I was in one group of 2. we had 12 players. We worked against each other. thats not very good either.. considering we just came out of a PvP naruto game.. and someone was bending the rules quite a bit.

My suggestion: Run separate games. But don't have them working against each other. Have 3 dms. one being the master dm. and 2 minor dms. They run the dungeons. master dm can run whichever he chooses. The minors can have characters.. but can't run things for their party. etc.

-Wrath

[IonDragon]

I'm interested what your DM set up is because that could change my overall response, though I'm generally inclined to agree that keeping the parties completely separate would ease the load on the already stressed GM.

[arguskos]

We didn't do this, but it's a great idea. Both our DMs gave each other updates and had a basic idea of where the plot was able to head, but there was the occassional arguement (they over thought some things... Turns out stopping an army in our game stopped him from having an excuse to attack the town the other party was currently in - you know, except for, well, he could've just made up ANOTHER threat).

That's the issue that sank our attempt. The DMs bickered about trying something (and by that, I mean, the other dude tried to control my game >_>) and we broke over it. I went on to run a very enjoyable game that involved "the Evil Dungeon Master and his Leet Hordes!" It was a humor game, go figure.

[Tyrmatt]

Trying to resist the urge to make a crack about "Don't Split the Party!!" but in this case, it's a good choice.

You could split the players into the more experienced and the less experienced. Have the greater experience party play against the world ending evil since they'll be capable of handling it (metaphorically speaking). Have the newer players tackle a middling threat, probably an inconvenience to the powered up old hands but a waste of precious resources on their part. They haven't got the time to chase after Mid-Level Cultist Guy who happens to have stolen the artefact that can stop the apocalypse as they're keeping the city from being razed to the ground or duelling the BBEG on a close personal level as he enacts the rituals to bring abou the end of days.
Looks like the plucky band of younglings need to step up and track him down! Have them start out on horseback and level them up to the point of being able to teleport and whatnot, letting them end on a high note of dashing in at the last second to toss the paladin the Holy Avenger/Excalibur etc so he can layeth the smacketh down.