I run a 5e game with my life long friends. The primary purpose of the game started as a social activity, something that we could all do together.

As time went on, more of our friends joined. It's getting to be untenable, but I don't want to kick anyone out.

I've heard stories from old DMs about running games with 20, 50 players back in the day. This must be possible -- but no doubt, it involves radically changing the way the game is run, or with different methods.

The current problems are:

•Combat becomes trivial for the group because of their overwhelming numbers. But any monster strong enough to challenge them can OHKO any individual player. Not sure if this is bad, per se, but one player complained about it, probably because he didn't feel like he was very badass when he got struck down instantly.

•It takes forever to decide what to do. Imagine when you go out with a group and try to decide where to eat. It's like that. Everyone takes forever and the players always get bored and then rush into something rash just to get some action going.

•Related to the above, because there's so many players, each individual player gets very little screen time. The player I mentioned above noted that it was normal for him to be quiet for 30 minutes at a time.

What kind of suggestions would you have to make this more manageable, but still a large group? Maybe try different DM styles?

I've read stories of you guys playing in 10 person, 15 person, 20 person games, so help me out! Also heard Gygax and co. did stuff like that back in the day.

You need some kind of leadership structure within the group.

One approach would be to choose the two most charismatic and headstrong players you have and make them captains. Then have them draft teams. So, for instance, 12 players will be organized into two six-man squads.

Now have the captains subdivide those into three-man "fireteams." Ninety percent of the time those fireteams should be moving with unity of purpose. So, practically speaking, you will then be handling four rather complex "characters," which should be manageable.

Of course, not every group will bite on this kind of structure. Just some food for thought.

Another option is to run a living campaign with rotating attendance. Two to three sessions a week, maximum of six players at the table.

From what I've heard, that's basically how Gary did it.

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;923486You need some kind of leadership structure within the group.

One approach would be to choose the two most charismatic and headstrong players you have and make them captains. Then have them draft teams. So, for instance, 12 players will be organized into two six-man squads.

Now have the captains subdivide those into three-man "fireteams." Ninety percent of the time those fireteams should be moving with unity of purpose. So, practically speaking, you will then be handling four rather complex "characters," which should be manageable.

Of course, not every group will bite on this kind of structure. Just some food for thought.

When you mention these squads, do you mean during combat, or in RP scenes too?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923498When you mention these squads, do you mean during combat, or in RP scenes too?

Naturally I'm talking about tactical situations. But ideally the three-man teams should be so tight that they do everything together, including working toward character/plot goals. Whether this works or not is hugely reliant on the social dynamics within your group, though.

It's been a long time since I played in a 10+ group.

If I recall right, we had two or three people who relayed what others in the group were doing to the DM.  Wonder if that was close to what a caller would do?

If folks are dawdling, you should just say "you have five more seconds- if you can't think of anything, then I'm going to assume your character sits there with a dumb look and does nothing." and then move on to the next person.  If they complain, you can talk to them afterwards about it.  If they are adults, they should be able to understand that you are running a game for 10+ players and that them being snappier with a decision helps.

As far as them overwhelming the enemy with numbers, you can always increase the amount of enemies they face.  10-15 (which they are starting to become platoon strength) players being faced with 30-40 orcs and goblins should work ok.  if it's too much, they can always run.

These are just my lame ideas- I'm sure others will be along with better ones:)  Good luck!  It's awesome of you to run such a game.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923479I've heard stories from old DMs about running games with 20, 50 players back in the day. This must be possible -- but no doubt, it involves radically changing the way the game is run, or with different methods.

The current problems are:

•Combat becomes trivial for the group because of their overwhelming numbers. But any monster strong enough to challenge them can OHKO any individual player. Not sure if this is bad, per se, but one player complained about it, probably because he didn't feel like he was very badass when he got struck down instantly.

•It takes forever to decide what to do. Imagine when you go out with a group and try to decide where to eat. It's like that. Everyone takes forever and the players always get bored and then rush into something rash just to get some action going.

•Related to the above, because there's so many players, each individual player gets very little screen time. The player I mentioned above noted that it was normal for him to be quiet for 30 minutes at a time.

What kind of suggestions would you have to make this more manageable, but still a large group? Maybe try different DM styles?

1: Ive done it, but not as frequently as some others here. I dont think you need to change the game at all. Just how you handle and look at situations.

A: This is a biggy and not just with 5e. Combat on these scales gets to be an issue even with the relatively speedy pace 5e moves. Dont worry about characters going down since with groups that size theres usually someone handy to revive them. So you lost a round or two? So what? Point out that they are still low level and have alot to learn. (Assuming it was a starter group)

B: As was pointed out by a poster above. Suggest having the group designate a caller. Someone who speaks for the group. Also possibly put time limits on discussion and debate. Especially if you have any players who keep trying to overthink things.

C: This is the other problem with a big group. Players just have to accept this and adapt. There really isnt any way around it. There will be times when the wizards are all sitting around doing nothing and there will be times when bob the fighter has something to contribute but joe the fighter doesnt, and so on.

2: One suggestion that may not work depending on your gaming structure and schedule is to split the group into two sessions of 5 each. Such as alternating which group of players meets each time.

Quote from: RunningLaser;923511players being faced with 30-40 orcs and goblins should work ok.  if it's too much, they can always run.

These are just my lame ideas- I'm sure others will be along with better ones:)  Good luck!  It's awesome of you to run such a game.

30-40 Orcs though would be a nightmare to run. It took like an hour to run one turn of combat with those 10 players and 5 monsters. Imagine 40! How did anyone ever get it done.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;92352930-40 Orcs though would be a nightmare to run. It took like an hour to run one turn of combat with those 10 players and 5 monsters. Imagine 40! How did anyone ever get it done.

Do things in clusters. 10 orcs are archers, roll them all at once and get it over with. Then break things down. Say 2 orc warriors are on each PC. Then roll them in groups of 2 or however they ganged up on the frontlines. Or some orcs will be unable to attack due to the battlefield constraints. They just cant get close enough. So you ignore them.

Was it really an hour to complete or did it just feel that way? I assume some of the players were dithering instead of committing to a coarse of action?

Quote from: Omega;923555Do things in clusters. 10 orcs are archers, roll them all at once and get it over with. Then break things down. Say 2 orc warriors are on each PC. Then roll them in groups of 2 or however they ganged up on the frontlines. Or some orcs will be unable to attack due to the battlefield constraints. They just cant get close enough. So you ignore them.

Was it really an hour to complete or did it just feel that way? I assume some of the players were dithering instead of committing to a coarse of action?

MAYBE it was like 40 minutes, but it took a while to get around the table. When you have that many people it's inevitable that some are going to start having side conversations or have to look stuff up, etc.

They should be doing that while waiting their turn to act.

It's time to get a co-GM if you want to keep the gaming group together. Split the party, ;let them fill in the gaps with Henchmen and hirelings, and give the co-GM a portion of the campaign world to run, preferable where some of the group is exploring. If both groups get together in the same time and place, have both GMs running simultaneously.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923484I've read stories of you guys playing in 10 person, 15 person, 20 person games, so help me out! Also heard Gygax and co. did stuff like that back in the day.

You really can't do that with 3e or later games.

In the Gygax era, most characters had one play: "I attack!" They rolled a d20, did damage and that was it...maybe two attacks when at pretty high level. When it came to movement, well, most characters could move 6' or 12' in a round (one square, maybe two, in 3e or later terms)--and there were vanishingly few powahs that allowed much past this. Later games you get a powah nigh every level, which can really bog things down after half a dozen levels.

So, a fight with 10 players at the table was easy enough in the old games. No vast array of movement options means there was almost no rushing around (this is a huge time-sucker), and no wide array of attack options means deciding what to do (roll the 20 and...well, that was it for most classes). There are plenty of 20' by 20' rooms in the old dungeons, but those make little sense in 5e rules (heck, I'm running the old hill giant module, and there are rooms that can't even hold the giants in the room and also the party, under 5e rules)...the scale changes combined with the massive increase in movement capabilities have changed too much to expect things to run the same. That's probably what you've noticed with trying to run the monsters: just keeping track of all the movement is too much.

I don't think it's a good idea to expect 5e with ten players around the table to run anything like the old games, and that's not even addressing the other issue you've noticed: the CR rating is pretty borked even for the baseline it's meant for, and it's tough to really find a 'sweet spot' for fights that are interesting but not stupid deadly.

But I've got about the same problem as you, 10 players...too much for one table. For me, and I reckon it's quite possible for you, only half of those players can play every week. So I run two campaigns, with the 'core' being split well enough between the two games (and one player overlap, currently). The less-regular players can mostly show up, and as long as I have a foursome, the game runs.

I have played with 8 at once, though, and that's probably the maximum for this game for any long term campaign. If you're going to use lots of monsters (and you really should, sometimes, because that's a good chunk of the game), make sure most of them are relatively static (archers, or guys in a circle summoning a demon, or the like). Do what you can to control the party's movement so it doesn't take an hour for each round of combat (lots of walls of fire, pit traps where you lose your turn if you fall in, teleporter traps, glue-floors, whatever it takes).

Another big issue, especially in 5e, is the mass of range-attack players. You have what, maybe 1 character in 4 is melee, and the rest are range? The rules are set up for this kind of play unfortunately, but it means if you use alot of melee monsters, you'll get lots of running battles where the players kite the monsters, which is a real drag if you have great room mapped out, and the players keep running away 30' a turn while blasting away. Plans to cut this down a bit are the trusty ol' portcullis trap, and the less railroady monsters coming up from behind...but you should have a plan for this at least sometimes.

Past that, well it depends on the players.

Splitting the group would be easy, but the whole point of getting together to play was so we'd all have a regular activity again to keep in touch and so forth. It's been fun so far.

So splitting it would defeat the purpose of running the game.

Using stuff like pits could be a good idea... or maybe start using party callers, initiative trackers, that sort of thing. A lot of time is chewed up with people just trying to decide what to do outside of combat.