|
So, I've been playing for about three years and decided to take the AP-DMing plunge recently. I've done a couple of Society games which is fine; there are set rules and numbers that I can play with.
However, with the AP, things are slightly different. Essentially every single roleplayer in the wargaming club that I'm part of wants to play Kingmaker but we only have one person proficient enough in the rules to DM; me.
So, what's the issue? 14 players. I don't want to turn anyone away, and whilst there are a couple of guys who are willing to DM, they want to get some more time under their belts before they do so. So I need to up the difficulty of the encounters and then some. I think they might even kill the 1d4 Trolls, if all of them are playing at the same time!
I've only addressed the first encounter so far, and here are the building blocks of what I have considered so far.
- Upgrade Happs to a level 2 Ranger with the Guide archetype so that he can apply his Ranger's Focus against whichever opponent makes most sense, rather than having just a simple "I hate this race" which doesn't really stick with a bandit type, personally.
- Add a healing NPC; I'm thinking a Nature Oracle with the Tongues curse. Screaming Terran as they partake in battle. I did consider an arcanist in the form of a Witch instead, but figured some healing was required given the number of possible opponents but a Cleric doesn't really fit. Druid is also a strong possibility.
- Add two more mooks, and make them first level PC classes (2 Barbarian, 2 Fighters with crossbows, 2 Rogues for flanking).
For gear and stats; heroic all round, and stick to the NPC wealth tables. So, any more experienced DMs want to help out? And I'm afraid any calls of "split the group" will probably be largely ignored. :)
|
|
14 is just way to big of a group. I have never in all my many many years of playing seen a group that big work. Combat rounds take FOREVER and people get bored and lost in the shuffle. It just turns into a big mess.
I know you said you would ignore posts saying split the group but ... well i guess you should ignore my post. Cause that is the only advice i can give that I think would work, in the long run.
Either that or just turn some people away.
|
I am beginning Kingmaker in about a week. In order to put my group together I put out a call/email to all the players in my area that I have gamed with in the past year. Basically I did an open call for Kingmaker. The first 6 players that responded with a character idea got to play. I had one exception to this, I turned one person away because I play with him all the time and he is involved in about three other campaigns. I felt that maybe he should allow others to play in this one. However, he is playing now because I had two people back out because they couldn't make the commitment. I know there are probably about 4 or 5 people who are not in the campaign that would like to play, but I wasn't about to run a game with more than 6 players.
As previously mentioned, we know you said don't split the party, but my suggestion would be to "split the party". I considered doing a split party myself, with the two different groups set as rivals and coming to a big confrontation at the end of the first chapter. With "hopefully" the result coming about that you would find out who was truly interested and committed in playing the campaign and forming one consistent group that would take the lead and one secondary group that would get together once in a while and do the dirty work of the main group.
14 players sitting around 1 table is way to many. I don't see this working and being fun, ever. In order to challenge them without putting 30 mini's out on the game table, you're bound to kill a couple every fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm...also probably not what you were hoping, but I think this will pay off in the longer run.
14 is too many people by *far* for 1 game/GM. So, I'd say offer to run a non-Kingmaker game for a small group for the next two months. The caveat, the players have to be people who are interested in GMing (or willing to give it a shot). The intent is to get those 4 people more comfortable and experienced with the rules, so the game should include encounters that deal with various side rules (combats in unusual environments, combat maneuvers, social encounters that use Diplomacy/Bluff/etc).
At the end of the two months, the goal is to have 2 of the 4 players willing to GM, and two other players who have had more exposure to the system.
Then 3 four-player Kingmaker games get started. One run by you, 2 run by the new GMs (each of whom includes an experienced player in his/her group). Total gaming size: 15 (you plus the 14 in your club).
All three of you will be running the same AP, so between sessions you can compare notes, share strategies, etc. If one of you has decided to develop something further, the others can take advantage of it.
If you're ambitious, and the three games are paced about the same, who says that the final enemy in the First World can't be attempting to influence things in multiple realities at once? You could conceivably set up the occasional parallel world hop between games, and a final sequence that involves all the players teaming up in a multiple-GM'd slugfest.
Best of all, if it works, you now have 3 GMs among your gang, and hopefully more who want to try it, so that you can snag a player slot in the *next* AP....
Ramarren's got the best plan.
Right now, "I don't want to turn anyone away" means that you're going to short-change everyone. Saying no means that you're helping them out by refusing to waste their time.
Hell, if you split them into groups with three DMs you could have them all be in the Kingmaker verse, competing with one another.
|
I used to run a 12 person Kingmaker game. It would have worked out fine except that I ended up being very time poor (due to hectic university schedule and my regular job).
The trick was to split the group up and run games weekly (one group a week). It worked fine for about two months, and then the schedule got crazy.
So if you have the time for it. Start a facebook group with all the players as members. Then set up Events (the title for the event will be the quest the players will be participating in - Kobolds in the Hills, The Lost Temple of Erastil and what have you). Have the players take up roles like: Chronicler, Map Maker, Naturalist and Treasurer will all be important.
Make sure the PLAYERS update the discussion boards with what the PCs do each session. If the players can't do that, then they're cut (be brutal).
Finally, If there's any other option (seriously a second GM to take half those players off your hands) then take it. You need to do a lot of work to keep 14 players straight.
|
|
It just can't be done.
...with everyone still having fun. I think this is the kicker. I know that as an experienced GM, that no matter how much prep work I do, and I probably do more than the average GM, I would not be able to get ready any campaign for that many players.
We all understand that you don't want anyone to miss out. Especially on such a great campaign. But I think the overwhelming consensus is that you need to do something that gives you groups of 6 or less. There have been some good suggestions made that keep everyone involved. Think about them, mull them over and decide what is best for your group. But I wouldn't expect anyone to adjust encounters for you for a table of 14. Good Luck!
|
14 is far too many.
Your recommendations for upgrading Happs to level 2 are roughly in line for a 6 player party, assuming you add an extra bandit or two as well.
Talk to the group, and just explain you have far too many players to DM for. Ask someone else to step up, or in the worst case scenario draw straws.
Consider simply splitting into two groups of 7 and run Kingmaker with each independently. You have the advantage that you only need to prepare once. Additionally, later, when one of the players progresses enough to GM, he can take over one of the groups.
I could join the chorus of folks saying don't do it, but you say that's not what you want, so my only advice for you if you insist on trying wih 14 players is that you have to be hyper-organized, to the point of obsessiveness. You have to do a hell of a lot more work to upgrade the CRs to make it at all challenging for a mob that size. You also have to be an absolute dictator during play. You cannot tolerate people getting off topic or disruptive. During combats you have to be really organized yourself, and crack the whip with the players to make sure they are ready when their turn comes. If someone can't decide what to do in real-time (6 seconds) then their character holds action that round and you move on.
All that said, I've never (in 30+ years as a GM) run a game for a group that large, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. 8 is my absolute limit. In 1st or 2nd edition I would go up to 10 because the games was actually designed for a "standard" party of 6 rather than the 4 that is the standard for 3.X/Kingmaker.
Best of luck if you insist on doing this, and I'd love to hear back how it works out.
The main problem with running a group of 14 is that you have 14 players demanding your attention, while you are only one. This usually results in the loudest players getting all the attention, while the quieter ones gets ignored. So if you really don't want to split the group, one way of doing it is to take the players that showed interest in DMing and make them your co-DMs. You are the main DM, but your co-DMs help you run battles, roleplay NPCs and so on. When your co-DMs are getting more confident you can split the group and let each of them run their own groups instead.
As for scaling the encounters, the main problem there is that your group have 14 actions (or somewhat less if you go the co-DM path). That means that it doesn't matter if you add levels to the NPCs since your party will make mincemeat of the opposition anyway. What you instead have to do is to add opponents, which in turn makes the battles more unwieldy.
One way of handling this if you have more than one co-DM is that you split the group as Alatariel suggested, and give each co-DM one of the groups. However, you run your games together, with you as the supervisor for each group. If any of the co-DMs run into problems, they simply call you over for advice.
Having had this as a reoccurring issue with a variety of games over the years, I guess i can share a few insights. The largest game I ever ran was an 18 man Call of Cthulhu game which ended up being more of a party with me taking people in small groups off to the side for actual action and in-depth rp - not real viable for d20-based games. While I've had a number of successful groups in the 10-12 player category, allot depended on the players all getting along and being willing to rp with each other and keep patient if I have to narrow my focus on specific pcs - again, not a play-style for everyone, and not very functional with d20/pathfinder. My recent Kingmaker game I started with 12 or so players, split into two groups - each group meeting once per week but competing for territory and quests in the same campaign - but after two or three months one of the groups fell apart when it doubled in size, shrank to 4-5 players the following week, leading to a TPK two or so weeks later. Other group still floats around happily at 4-7 players and is still going strong.
See, even splitting the group can be tricky.
Thoughts on what you can do with a 14 man group:
1) Reintroduce the "Caller" tradition from old-school D&D: The Caller is the player responsible for keeping the other players on track, finding out what each player intends to do, and informing you of their actions when their turn comes up. They don't have to be the party leader, though they could be. With a group as large as you have, you may want two.
2) Spread out GM responsibilities: I frequently have one player responsible for keeping track of initiative on a big dry-erase board so everyone can clearly see who's initiative it is (me included), and yet I don't have to worry about it. Dry-erase boards are darned useful in general for helping get points across to large groups. Another thing I do is let players run monsters if they don't have a character in the action (such as when their character is down or the party has split up).
3) Limit PC controlled creatures: Seriously consider not allowing any character that depends on subsidiary characters (Druids with Animal Companions, Summoners & Cavaliers, etc). Also, no Summoning spells or Leadership feats. They add clutter & length to the combat and allow players to "eat up more screen time." Alternately, if you have a few players that will only be showing up occasionally, allow THEM to run companion characters as their own when they visit - gives the flunkies more personality (though if you're going this route, I'd suggest just handing said players friendly npcs instead).
4) Use Abstract rather than Exact XP awards: I cannot stress this one enough. Using Table 12-2 (pg 398) was one of the first things to sell me on Pathfinder and is one of the better improvements for me as a GM over 3.5. Even with that as your default though, you'll still need to be rather liberal with Wandering Monsters and Ad Hoc xp. The Gamemastery Guide has some nice advice here that's worth checking out.
5) Avoid extra rules and supplements: Much as I love them, more books on the table mean more things to flip through to look things up. If you have players you trust and can be on the ball, that's one thing, but others at the table may cry foul if they don't get the same liberties.
Respect the fact that combat WILL usually be long (expect 2-3 hours, sometimes more), and if you have a limited amount of time that may be all there is for some sessions. Make sure your players know this is a possibility - some may be unwilling to play under such constraints and drop out (not necessarily a bad thing, as that in and of itself will fix some of your troubles). Remember too that beefing up encounters works better by increasing numbers over increasing the CR of the monster (though I have seen just as many high CR monsters swarmed to death as I have TPKs).
And then there's constraints that are specific to Kingmaker. The kingdom building rules you run into in part 2 is only set up for 10-12 court posts. At that point, unless you have a few players who aren't interested in having a role in government (which is entirely possible) you'll HAVE to split the group into two different kingdoms (perhaps allied colonies/baronies), expanding in tandem, but again, competing for resources, unless you invent some new roles for your Court (there have been a number of threads already on that subject, so you may wish to look them up, if you choose to go that route).
Well, that should give you plenty to chew on. Hope it helps :)
|
|
I've actually run AD&D2e games for more than 14 people before. I'd split the group into sub-groups of a reasonable size and each sub-group would have a caller (a'la the old 1e rules). He'd coordinate his group's activities and, for the most part, a combat round just involved me needing to go to the callers so it worked out fairly well.
At some point, I just got tired of that. It was ok for a 2e dungeon delving game but not for any sort of story-driven game. There was this buffer between me and the non-callers that made it so that they were just there to act and react and there really wasn't much story development.
Kingmaker has a lot of action but it is definitely story-driven. As much as you might want to be doing your 14 friends a favor, in reality, you'd be cheating them of a good adventure path. You're better off giving those two friends the time they need to get up to running the game and split the group... coincidentally, you'd have 3 groups with 5 people (the recommended 4 players and a GM) in each. It might not satisfy everyone's instant gratification genes but, in the long run, they are likely to be grateful for it.
Combat indoors is going to be ridiculous. Overcrowded rooms mean CRAZY AoO. Cleave/Great Cleave and Area Effect spells will become problematic. The Earth will crash into the Sun and the lion will lay down with the lamb. DOOOOOOOOOOMED! :) Joking aside, relying on the players to stay honest with their rolls and giving each player a very short and specific amount of time to declare and resolve their actions might help speed up combat. Have them decide actions and roll appropriate dice before their turn whenever possible. Minimize delay and readied actions whenever possible. Have callers (as Grendel Todd said) coordinate the party and rely on a few spokespeople during RP encounters.
Zo
I would like to say that Kingmaker is my first time with any significant GMing and it has gone well. Throw your friends in the deep end and they will learn better than any other way. The first session usually only has a couple non-combat NPCs and 2 combats that the players can go straight for. Make sure they have an idea of how to handle the Happs and Kressle encounters, make sure they are comfortable losing, and then throw them in the GM seat. Rules questions will come up, but most of those you have to wing anyway.
i once Gmed 1st ed AD&D to a group of 22 in a one off adventure
the party had a whole assassins guild in it
2 pcs survived at the end (they mostly turned on each other)
it was quite a laff!!
Hrm...also probably not what you were hoping, but I think this will pay off in the longer run.
14 is too many people by *far* for 1 game/GM. So, I'd say offer to run a non-Kingmaker game for a small group for the next two months. The caveat, the players have to be people who are interested in GMing (or willing to give it a shot). The intent is to get those 4 people more comfortable and experienced with the rules, so the game should include encounters that deal with various side rules (combats in unusual environments, combat maneuvers, social encounters that use Diplomacy/Bluff/etc).
At the end of the two months, the goal is to have 2 of the 4 players willing to GM, and two other players who have had more exposure to the system.
Then 3 four-player Kingmaker games get started. One run by you, 2 run by the new GMs (each of whom includes an experienced player in his/her group). Total gaming size: 15 (you plus the 14 in your club).
All three of you will be running the same AP, so between sessions you can compare notes, share strategies, etc. If one of you has decided to develop something further, the others can take advantage of it.
If you're ambitious, and the three games are paced about the same, who says that the final enemy in the First World can't be attempting to influence things in multiple realities at once? You could conceivably set up the occasional parallel world hop between games, and a final sequence that involves all the players teaming up in a multiple-GM'd slugfest.
Best of all, if it works, you now have 3 GMs among your gang, and hopefully more who want to try it, so that you can snag a player slot in the *next* AP....
Go with this advice it is solid!.
a grupe of 14 is way to many!, even splitting them in 2 will give you truble with the grupe size.