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.
Well, if you honestly have 10 people that can show up every weekend, more power to you.
I'll try to remember other ideas that came up when I was dealing with this re combat. Do you by any chance have a few less involved players? If so, you could make them monster/golem/shield guardian associates of the party. They can still contribute to combat, but don't have a stupid-wide array of powers that bog the game down (especially uninvolved players, that are usually slower about making decisions when they have way too many choices).
Outside of combat is a different issue, and this time it's not 5e's fault. Bottom line, with 10 players around the table, that means, if they all had equal time to contribute, that amounts to 6 minutes an hour...and 54 minutes of nothing...for each hour outside of combat.
It's really tough to keep interest for all 10 players when the mathematics of the situation dictate the limitations. This is where a co-DM, and splitting the party off into different rooms, is pretty HUGE. The plan I use here is recruit one of the players as co-DM (his character goes off on a special mission, gaining experience based on how well the co-DM manages to get the party to do whatever it is you have ultimately planned for them, which obvious restrictions on how that can be achieved).
By taking that one player out of the equation, and splitting off to two rooms, you've cut the mathematical limitations by more than half, and that's pretty good considering the effort involved.
Of course, coming up with scenarios for convenient party-splitting can take some thought. Of the top of my head? An evil ritual is about to be performed at two villages on the same night, and both must be stopped for the Uber-Bad's lieutenants to be summoned at a third site (where the party will gather for the big battle).
A fire must be set in the harbor while the Great Chain is raised to block the harbor to burn a fleet filled with ghouls...and the party must accomplish both goals without slaughtering hapless city guardsmen, occupying both the harbor and the mighty chain towers at the mouth of the harbor. At some point the party will gather to take out the fireproofed flagship (once the ghouls start jumping from the flaming ships, their diplomatic protection will be voided).
The players must convince Farmer Brown to give up a wagonload of fresh milk from Farm A, while other players must do same with Farmer White at Farm B, in order for the master pastry chef to be able to prepare a suitably huge wedding cake for the friendly hill giant in a small town (the wedding might still be disrupted by a jealous hill giantess...).
Eh, maybe not the greatest ideas, but it can be done. It wouldn't take much brainstrain to make it a three-group situation.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923591Splitting 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.
The largest group I ran a campaign for was fourteen back in the day. Always had five to twelve more sitting in and observing. We ran for probably three months every weekend, after three months though the group naturally split, because some players preferred specific company (The group split by alignment, with the lawful players forming one subgroup and most of the neutral and minority of evil players forming the core of the second group). If I was smart I would have run it with a co-GM. As it was I ran two groups bouncing back and forth between the groups and it was a biatch amount of work.
The game finally broke up after about another five months, mostly because we were all in military school, and a bunch of the players had finished (including me) and were re-assigned to other military bases.
If I had to do it again, I'd take a co-GM. Now I won't GM for more than ten. If i get more than ten, I pick one of the other players to GM when the party splits (and the party will split, sooner or later...), even if they are the same alignment.
I hear co-GM suggested sometimes, but isn't that always a trainwreck?
The co-GM is never going to be on the same page as you re: lore, and story. And that's before you get into pacing issues, lining up the timeline, and the co-GM overstepping their bounds and getting possessive over their "share" of the game.
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.
They had 15-20 IN THE CAMPAIGN - the actual number of players at the table was generally much lower, 1-8 typical I think. The important point was that the PC group was variable & each session was a discrete dungeon expedition. You didn't need every player present to play.
Quote from: S'mon;923602They had 15-20 IN THE CAMPAIGN - the actual number of players at the table was generally much lower, 1-8 typical I think. The important point was that the PC group was variable & each session was a discrete dungeon expedition. You didn't need every player present to play.
What about the convention games where people say they had like 50 at once?
That is one of the good things about a big group. No matter who's busy you always have enough players to play. I like that.
Some players are always missing, but I get about 7 on average each session. The last time it was 10, and they wanted to invite more. :P
You say you have too many players cause you have too many friends?
Run Amber! It's run on inter party Dynamic so while you are running a part people can break off into little groups of 2 or3 and scheme and connive and back stab.
The bonus is after a month or two of that you won't have 10 people who want to be in the same room together any more!! Win! Win!
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923597I hear co-GM suggested sometimes, but isn't that always a trainwreck?
The co-GM is never going to be on the same page as you re: lore, and story. And that's before you get into pacing issues, lining up the timeline, and the co-GM overstepping their bounds and getting possessive over their "share" of the game.
1: Where'd you hear that? If that wee the case people wouldn't keep suggesting a co-DM would they? Its a practice that goes back to OD&D I believe?
2: What some have the co-DM for is to split up handling combat and some have the co-DM there to handle NPCs. This means the main DMs attention isnt spread out and things move faster. The Co-DM doesnt need to know alot. Just enough to handle the combats and play any assigned NPCs. Other methods are things like one DM handles the dungeons and attendant NPCs there while another handles the towns and the NPCs there. And so on. Ways to speed up the process by taking some of the burden off the DM.
Its also used by DMs with smaller groups who just arent cut out for certain tasks, but someone else handy is.
Another thing you can try , that works with varying levels of success, is have some of the idle players roll for the monsters attacking some of the PCs yet to act.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923479I 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?
Split into 2 groups! The players can rotate around if they wish. Or maybe have a co-DM, and still split the group, but you are all involved in the same story, from different angles?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923603What about the convention games where people say they had like 50 at once?
That is one of the good things about a big group. No matter who's busy you always have enough players to play. I like that.
Some players are always missing, but I get about 7 on average each session. The last time it was 10, and they wanted to invite more. :P
I ran 3e with 14 at Gencon 2002 (EN World meetup). It was ok but slow. 5e is doable with 7. I think the most I've been happy running with at table was 9. Generally simple PCs with simple options can work with up to 9 I think. 5e without Feats might be doable at that size but it's best if you use techniques like side-based initiative going round-table, and minis help create a visual understanding of events but you also want a flexible approach to what's on the battlemat, don't worry too much about square counting for ex.
Quote from: S'mon;9237905e without Feats might be doable at that size
but it's best if you use techniques like side-based initiative going round-table, and minis help create a visual understanding of events but you also want a flexible approach to what's on the battlemat, don't worry too much about square counting for ex.
1: Most 5e feats dont impact combat though past frontloading some bonus?
2: I've found that using minis tends to dramatically slow down combat instead of speed it up.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;923479X
I feel like I've posted on this for you before but that must have been awhile back. I'll keep my post short and sweet consequently (if you have questions, ask of course).
Do not do initiative. Only exception is "pitched combat", where the scenario is setup with a big, good bash-up in mind. This has side effect of encouraging more natural actions from your players in response to in-game situation.
Focus on "active" players. Most of your time should be spent on them. This encourages less decisive/engaged players to get more involved or back the fuck out. Some players will be mature about this and recognize this is their fault but often they'll bitch (and then you remind them that it's on them). Easiest comeback to this is, "it's not about just you, I've got consider EVERYONE at the table" (and it's true, you do! So own it!)
Cultivate player cliques. This helps ensure players are always ragging on each other to keep it movin'. This should happen naturally (even with a circle of friends, everyone has those 1-2+ friends they REALLY get on with). Reward engagement at clique and individual level with small things: a touch more loot, smidge better NPC reactions, a sprinkle of EXP etc...
Tell players to hurry the fuck up. Seriously, just do it. Works better if you have a more confident personality but channel your inner dick and do it. Encourage your players to also be dicks about this when the other players are not hurrying the fuck up. This works REALLY well and creates a "hustle" vibe pretty quickly.
Use Interaction Moments to give players "screen time" with others. Some players do like "screen time" in that they are the star at that moment but most just want their actions verified and represented in-game by the GM and seen by whoever the hell they're chatting to at the time. This also creates mystery/a reason to keep up with group news/politics because players will just not know all the wheels that are in motion (works INCREDIBLY WELL in more intrigue/social-encouraging systems like NWOD/Storytelling -- some players may specialize specifically in *knowing* all these wheels).
Get really good at providing layout directions. Make sure you're using a universal language everyone understands, such as the classic NSEW. My classic line of all-time is "on a map facing north". It really is just as simple as that.
No maps. Fuck maps. Get used to auditory direction. Time flies way quicker. Have your players sketch the maps as they go. Reward this effort as above.
Do NOT use co-GMs. Very bad idea. 100% solidarity and integrity of YOUR idea of the world is critical. You shouldn't need one even to help combat through if you follow these tips
Get other players to do rules lookups for you. You don't have the time nor the energy to flick through one nor even the energy it takes to move your eyes to read your screen away from the players. Your players can be a very useful resource: use (and abuse) them!
Group creatures/NPCs together. Amalgamate their stats, maybe lower slightly for speed of play. In interest of expedience, stat the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM stats needed to make em' workable (you'd be surprised at how much you can cut). Henchmen and boss characters stay individual, of course.
Ask players if they're getting involved in combat. If not, ask em' if they're stealthing or crafting or something else that's useful. No? Then they can just sit there. Seriously.
More advanced but use random action tables to streamline combat. Do not "think" for creatures/NPCs. Just do Attack, Power, Special Move, Retreat, Cover et al. Have sublists within those potentially. Assign each participant (PC AND NPC) a single number from 1+. If Attack, roll a number within the participant range and do as instructed, attack. SO MUCH BURDEN LIFTED! It'll never seem random too, especially if you hide this aspect from your players. If one of your players is a shithead about "bias", whip your random action table dick in their face.
Don't be afraid to be lethal. Constant reminders on your part of this but do feel free to kill of characters, ESPECIALLY IF USING RAT AS ABOVE!
Always allow split parties. Kill off cliques if they do it stupidly (a mummy got em' or somethin') but give them a chance to get out of there.
Give no fucks about individual badassery. I've really had to start comin' down hard on this in my ongoing Hunter The Vigil chron at my club. Badassery is earned by being smart and well-statted for the situation. Prior Preparation Prevents Pissed-off Perplexion (quintuple P's bitch!).
Let players push other players around with their stats. If a social character wants a combat character to do something and they win a persuasion roll, they damm well better do it! Same way if a combat wants to fuck-up a social, same thing if it don't pan out for the social (it almost never does). Suddenly EVERYONE is paying more attention to their sheet and other peoples' sheets!
Enable players to elect themselves a leader or two. Every mainquest or sidequest mission done at my club has a party list which lists one of the PCs as leader. They can spend WP to "force" a PC to do something (great for characters who aren't social but also reinforces social-focused characters strengths) and the target PC can roll to resist.
Just generally be an asshole GM but do it with a laugh and a smile and lots of cheerleading for your players to win! You want them to WIN! And they're your friends outside of the game so this should make it even easier, more fun, get good memories out of it.
Quote from: Omega;9238071: Most 5e feats dont impact combat though past frontloading some bonus?
2: I've found that using minis tends to dramatically slow down combat instead of speed it up.
Eh, most of the time "no minis is faster" really means "not using rules related to facing, positioning, time, distance, speed, cover, and visibility is faster".
If you are using any of those rules, minis or some other visual representation can vastly increase speed because dozens of facts can be ascertained at a glance as opposed to Q&A with the GM. Picture worth a thousand words and all that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;923831Eh, most of the time "no minis is faster" really means "not using rules related to facing, positioning, time, distance, speed, cover, and visibility is faster".
If you are using any of those rules, minis or some other visual representation can vastly increase speed because dozens of facts can be ascertained at a glance as opposed to Q&A with the GM. Picture worth a thousand words and all that.
We use the rules and dont use minis, and it goes alot faster.
I normally don't use minis, but when combat gets huge (10 players, + monsters) I thought minis would help since I won't have to stop and describe where everyone is every time. Because there's always a few minutes wasted on "OK where am I? Where is monster X? How many feet are they away?" Etc.
So I'm considering pre-drawing maps and using minis now...
Good luck with all this. My advice would've been "don't do it." Points for bravery (or stupidity? either way, it's XP's!).:-)
Well, if you're willing to chuck lots of 5e stuff (and absolutely nothing wrong with that), then, yeah, getting rid of maps and minis, to some extent, is the way to go.
You still want minis, and sort of a map, getting rid of the "every round, you to figure out 30' or more of movement to make" will speed things up alot.
Draw the map in advance? Sure? Put the minis right on the map? Nah. Set them up off the map, just like the characters are off the map.
With 10 players, make sure the map is pretty interesting with stuff to do. Statues to turn over? Furniture to hide behind/under or shove around? Books to burn? Bottles to toss? Columns to break? Levers to pull? Rugs/fur/puke on the floor?
Use an initiative order chart (Paizo sells a great one), one slot for all/most of the monsters (some special monsters mmight get their own slot, and liar actions happen on 20, for example), one slot for each character.
Just go down the initiative line, and be very generous with whatever the character wants. If he says he's meleeing a monster, that's what he's doing (put his mini right next to the mini he's fighting). If he says he's range-shooting, then he's doing that. If he says he's hiding behind stuff to avoid all combat, that's fine too...just none of that 5', 5', 5', 5', 5', 5' stuff. Make opportunity attacks when you think it makes sense for it to happen.
Put labels (or use Alea markers) by miniatures to signify anything relevant, to make it easier for you to figure out what monsters are doing, quickly.
That'll speed up combat alot, just make sure your players understand that when it comes to area effect, they won't be be able to minmax to get the most monsters or whatever, you'd just going to DM who gets hit (since that only takes a second, while minmaxing takes 30 seconds or more).
And co-DMing a whole campaign is tough. Seriously, though, try using a sub-DM just for small side noncombat adventures like the ones I described, you'll see the advantage of doing it, at least sometimes.
Quote from: Doom;923936Well, if you're willing to chuck lots of 5e stuff (and absolutely nothing wrong with that), then, yeah, getting rid of maps and minis, to some extent, is the way to go.
You dont have to toss out anything in 5e to play without minis. In fact the system is more geared to play without them now. All you have to discard are the allready optional minis rules, which dont ammount to much anyhow.
Quote from: S'mon;923602They had 15-20 IN THE CAMPAIGN - the actual number of players at the table was generally much lower, 1-8 typical I think. The important point was that the PC group was variable & each session was a discrete dungeon expedition. You didn't need every player present to play.
Years ago, I ran a an AD&D campaign with 7 players and 3 of them ran two at once (the 2d usually being a thief or fighter). We didn't use minis and it was all TotM. I actually think minis would have been a problem, since we weren't that precise about positioning. Screen time was less of a problem because in the case of double characters, one of them could fade into the background without putting the player himself out of the game. And, I'd say that, as a whole, the group was pretty heavy on fighters and rangers, with only one wizard and one illusionist. That helped speed things up as well. But the main advantage was that the players were all close friends and just mixed well in terms of their social interactions.
More recently, I ran a 9-player, 14-level campaign in Pathfinder, but only once did all 9 show up at once (and it was VERY slow and difficult to run). Most weeks, we had 6 or 7 players, which was much more manageable.
If you plan ion running a 10-player campaign with 5E where you expect most people to show up, I'd advise trying to keep the classes simple (basic fighters instead of weaponmasters), sorcerers instead of wizards, clerics instead of moon-circle druids, etc. Watch out for magic items that exacerbate the problem like bags of tricks, wondrous figurines, etc.
As far as monster CL goes, you're going to have to use more and bigger foes and it's going to lead to more swingy situations - it's hard to avoid.
Mostly, though, it's going to depend on your players and whether they can adjust to the crowded quarters and the necessity of fast play and limited time in the spotlight.
Quote from: Omega;924012You dont have to toss out anything in 5e to play without minis. In fact the system is more geared to play without them now. All you have to discard are the allready optional minis rules, which dont ammount to much anyhow.
Well, when you consider range that's when it gets tricky. Or when people want to deftly maneuver around enemies without getting Opportunity Attacked, or get maximum distance to make some sort of spell, etc.
mAcular- are you and the group set on D&D5e? Maybe there's some other systems that could be more manageable for you, and fun for everyone else. That many people, I'm thinking something like Tunnels & Trolls. Just spit-balling some ideas here.
What's good about T&T?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;924147What's good about T&T?
It's a simpler system than D&D5e, at least T&T5th was- not sure where the new Deluxe is on the scale. Can't be too far off. Combat was rolling a number of d6's plus your adds (bonuses) against the enemies number of d6's and their adds. Whomever rolled higher won, the difference between the number was damage taken. Large combats were done by one side rolling all of their dice and adding it together, versus the enemies doing the same. The difference between was damage distributed evenly among the losing side. There is a Save system that allows you to do off the wall stuff outside of that. It was a much more abstract system for sure- and that could be further away from what you and your players want.
I was just thinking that simpler systems might be easier for all parties involved in a group that size. Are you and your friends set on using miniatures?
No, we normally don't use minis. I just thought it might be useful to cut down on time since I have to constantly explain where everyone is in relation to each other and the 20 other combatants.
Just handwaving all range from now on is probably a better idea. 30 feet, 120 feet, who cares.
The damage portion of CR is calculated by average damage per round, which ignores the number of attacks/spells/etc said damage comes from, so you could try to use monsters with many attacks, or make/modify monsters to deal the damage per round of an appropriate CR but over more attacks, so you can spread it out and avoid one shots. And make sure if you're using small groups of, or solo, powerful monsters, that they have legendary actions.
It might not be the most elegant solution, but you could also abstract large groups of monsters by giving them a shared stat block, as if they were just one big monster with several attacks. I thought there were rules for swarms somewhere, but I can't find them. I'm probably thinking of 3.5. But you should be able to approximate it pretty easily with the monster creation rules.
Another thing you might want to think about is reducing the damage of breath weapons and AoE spells, since they're designed with smaller parties in mind. That way you could use monsters good at engaging large groups of PCs, like dragons, without their breath weapons being too effective.
10 would be too much for my tastes. I've run 7 often enough for D&D, and 8 for Amber, but that's my limit.
The only thing I would advise is that the more players you have, if you're running D&D, the less you can let them focus on their character's own thing. You have to keep them together as a group, and have them mission-oriented.
Quote from: RPGPundit;92491810 would be too much for my tastes. I've run 7 often enough for D&D, and 8 for Amber, but that's my limit.
The only thing I would advise is that the more players you have, if you're running D&D, the less you can let them focus on their character's own thing. You have to keep them together as a group, and have them mission-oriented.
I'd second this; my Gary Con game last year had something like 16-18 people in it, and I did exactly this; gave them a clear mission and objective, and turned them loose. I did not use a battle mat - I find that very limiting, both in terms of conveying information to the players and in terms of my GM time - but did project the Jakalla Underworld map up on the wall where everyone could see it. I did use miniatures, but in the way we used to use them back in ye olden days; free Kreigspiel style, and simply as a tactical display so that the party and I could exchange information more quickly. (No measuring, no templates, etc.)
I also provided several friends as 'answerers' for questions about the world-setting, and this allowed me to give all of my time to what the players were doing. It all seemed to work just fine, Gronan said.