The more the merrier? How many players is too many?

[DMR]

I have a problem I never thought I'd have to face: too many players! After 3 decades of continually struggling to find enough people to actually play DnD, I now have a new group forming (we've met once so far, to roll up characters) that will have nine - yes, NINE - regular players. It started out as 5, but they brought 2 friends, and they brought 2 friends, etc. I hate to say it, but I'm hoping a few decide to drop out... Has anyone else ever had to deal with this? Any advice on making it work?

[Turin the Mad]

DMR wrote:

I have a problem I never thought I'd have to face: too many players! After 3 decades of continually struggling to find enough people to actually play DnD, I now have a new group forming (we've met once so far, to roll up characters) that will have nine - yes, NINE - regular players. It started out as 5, but they brought 2 friends, and they brought 2 friends, etc. I hate to say it, but I'm hoping a few decide to drop out... Has anyone else ever had to deal with this? Any advice on making it work?

De-emphasize the RP elements of the game - with that many at the table, it takes for ever to play out heavily interactive scenes. Ban Leadership, REALLY emphasize swapping out familiars and animal companions and mounts for alternative class features that give other stuff instead and lastly prohibit critter-conjurer types. Tracking nine PC's is hard enough - tack on hordes of tagalongs and it becomes a sheer nightmare.

[Molech]

I strongly agree with one thing and strongly disagree with another, Turin.

Yeah -- DO NOT ALLOW familiars, companions, cohorts, even intelligent weapons! Encourage someone playing a Druid not to focus on summoning; I'd argue not allowing druids to have an animal companion AT ALL. Trust me on this as a DM with almost exclusive "big group" history. (Sometimes I wonder how folks cope with ONLY 4 or 5 PCs)

Neah -- I think focusing on RP is vital. Now, different folks game for different reasons and different groups have different gaming-style dynamics -- you'll have to see what you guys want and what you like. BUT, roleplaying is the one thing that lots of folks can do simoultaneously. Check out the DMG II entry on sharing information; it's really going to be helpful food for thought.

Meanwhile, combat for 9 PCs is a headache. It's very easy to skip a PC or NPC in initiative; the DM can regularly forget to count off rounds of spell effects; it's hard to think strategy for the bad guys and it takes FOREVER.

-W. E. Ray

[mwbeeler]

Over six, I start shuffling people into subordinate DM positions. Extra person 1 runs my monsters, extra person 2 runs all the NPC's, and so on.

[Andrew Turner]

Hmmm...deputy DMs.

I remember the olde dayes, when modules were often designed for nine PCs...

[Forever Man]

I agree . . . 6 players is *plenty!* It's what I've got in 3 different groups I play in, and that's just fine!

I've GM'ed as many as eight, but thank the gods it didn't last long. I've played in a 12 person game once - it was a cool concept, but really quite boring in practice.

Some of the best games I've ran or playing in had only 3 players - but it never lasts because every time other people heard about how great the game was and joined up.

So for me, the range is 3-6 PC's.

- FM

[Eyebite]

3 to 5 is the perfect range for me.

Less than 3 just doesn't work, more than 5 is a circus.

[Rezdave]

DMR wrote:

Has anyone else ever had to deal with this? Any advice on making it work?

I have to disagree with Turin. I've run groups for months with 8-10 Players and currently have a new camapgin with 7 and 3 more wanting to join.

Here is my advice (and I do this regardless of the number of Players) ...

1) Find out how many DM or have DM experience. Get them used to the idea of "self-DMing". When they walk into a bar looking for someone from whom to pump information, let them describe the scene for you rather than the other way around ... it's quicker. Just chime in when they start getting too far off base and rein them in a little.

2) Along with the self-DM thing goes the idea of letting them run their own cohorts, "Player-controlled NPCs" and so forth. In my last campaign I had a Player running her own PC, her researcher husband, an apprentice/cohort, two "bodyguards" a trio of pages, and whatever members of her "religious order" she happened to commandeer for a given mission.

3) There are lots of little things Players can do to speed up the game. Suggestions are all over this board, in Dungeoncraft articles, on the WotC site and so forth. Have Players roll their own "secret checks" and trust them to play it appropriately, have them pre-roll attacks and damage for their actions before you arrive at their turn, count down initiative number-by-number and skip anyone who isn't paying attention and doesn't give you their action when you call their number ... the list goes on.

4) I agree with Molech that Role Playing is an important part of the game, but you have to make certain that it is Group RP and not everyone running off by themselves. If you don't have one then start a YahooGroup or other mailing list for your game to handle administration and individual or down-time RP stuff. People should arrive at the session with admin done and be ready to play. Keep session RP focused on group activities. Encourage the Players to talk amongst themselves and make plans, riddle out puzzles and so forth. Less combat and more social interaction will keep people involved more often, rather than waiting action-by-action as time ticks go by.

5) Encourage your Players to engage in "musical chairs" or even re-position them yourself as necessary during the session to facilitate small-group planning and actions. It's counter-intuitive, but don't be afraid to let the party split up into 2-3 smaller groups. While one group is planning how to infiltrate the warehouse another can be puzzling over a cryptic riddle while you are running a scene with a third that is ambushing a villain's henchman in a dark alley. Just check in on the other groups from time to time, and if you need to pause one group for 10-15 minutes to deal with another that's fine ... let them take a pizza-break. I've even run multiple combats simultaniously, rotating from group-to-group in 3-round cycles. Try to be vivid and descriptive as you tell them what happens during the battle scenes, so that instead of a bunch of dice and numbers and mechanics then it's more like watching (imagining) a movie or maybe even like listening to the TV in the next room and enjoying the program for those who aren't directly involved. D&D generally isn't a spectator sport, but with larger groups you occasionally have to make it one.

These are things that jump to the top of my head. It's approaching midnight and I'm tired, so maybe I'll think of more later.

Rez

[Vegepygmy]

IMO, 6 is the absolute maximum. 4-5 is just right. 3 is a quorum.

[Fatespinner]

I'm content with anywhere from 2-5 players. I can make a very intimate and deeply-involved game with only two or three PCs, which can be a lot of fun. More "traditional" D&D games are for groups of 4-5, which is also plenty of fun.

Once I get 6 players, though, it starts to become overwhelming. I once ran a game for 8 players and managed, somehow, to keep them entertained through a full 6-month-long campaign. It was rough, though, and I don't particularly want to repeat it.

So, for me, 2-5 is great. 6 is the maximum. More than that and it's a zoo.

[Rothandalantearic]

As many have heard me say before in other threads, I run a group of anywhere from 7 to 11 players depending on who can make it to the games each week. Rez brought up sevral great points, and I hope to emphasize some that work for us and expand on his list.

Definitly give summoned creatures, animal companions, cohorts and familiars a BIG backseat to sit in for your group. With that many players there is no real need for more things to slow down combat. Summoned creatures for the bad guys are fine, and in some cases very nesessary to make the monster fit its CR.

Combat - play your dumb monsters dumb, and your smart monsters smart. Don't overthink things behind that DM screen, cause you have lots of people twiddling their thumbs while you do.

Make it a hard and fast rule to use an Initiative Board and have each player roll both thier attack and damage dice together. Keep the board propped up somewhere where everyone can see it. (I keep mine right in front of the DM screen, sometimes with a color picture of the monster/s the group is fighting next to it if I don't have the right minis.)

Role Playing is Fun, but so is dice chucking. With large groups I find that not everyone wants to roleplay. Some just want to kick in the bad guys door and get to it. Some players get shy roleplaying in front of so many other folks, but everyone can get involved in a fight.

If you are running Pre Written adventures, use one that is one to two levels higher than the groups average level. I made the mistake early on in my campaign of thinking the group couldn't handle it, but boy was I wrong. It also has the benefit of moving your campaigns along faster, as the group levels up faster... so they need harder adventures... so they level up faster.... so they need harder adventures... etc.

Rez mentioned creating a Website for admin stuff. This is a WONDERFUL idea that has really enhanced our games. Those shy folks who can't think of anything to say during your sessions? Well they bloom into roleplaying professionals when given the time to think about what they will say, and then post it on the web site. We do lots of our downtime roleplaying by posting during the week in between games. I personally can recommend Yahoo Groups, though there are several services out there that do the same thing.

Large groups are a challenge, but as a DM I am hooked on the high my players give me when I look up from my notes to see 10 smiling faces looking back at me. Hope you get to feel the same way!

just my two coppers,
-Roth

[GeraintElberion]

I once had 16 players turn up for a game. In 5 hours they managed to kill 2 orcs, search an empty logging camp and then burn it down.

never again.

Even with 8-10 the hardest thing with big groups is managing difficult players.

edit - forgot to add. If it's too difficult or you can manage it but it's no fun then you do have a comfortable let out. 10 dnd players could be one DM and a party of 9, or it could be 2DMs and 2 parties of 4. The 16 player game stablised at 12, then i killed one character and the party split dead PC's player DMed half the group, i did the other.

We planned that the two parties might meet up, even swap members sometimes (just required a bit of DM co-ordination) but the other half of the game peetered out after a few months.

[Valegrim]

8 is my max; I prefer 6; with 8 I need a assistant gm to help handle combats so they dont get bogged down and I have trouble keeping track of the roughly 70 adventure threads that would be running though a group of 8 players and keeping them fresh and updated with npc's attached to each thread; various stories and histories running around; this is probably only a real time gaming issue; in a pbp game this might not be a cause for concern. 12 is way to many, I cannot keep a game of this size going; players split up to much and some players are always bored and that is no good; the amount of sheer regulation it takes to ensure everyone gets to talk becomes so regimented that it inhibits everyones fun.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Molech wrote:

Yeah -- DO NOT ALLOW familiars, companions, cohorts, even intelligent weapons! Encourage someone playing a Druid not to focus on summoning; I'd argue not allowing druids to have an animal companion AT ALL.

-W. E. Ray

At least you aren't saying that druids have to worship a god--I hate it when people say that.

[Lilith]

Two to five is my ideal group size for a face to face game, a larger group by PbP might be okay.

[Rift]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Molech wrote:

Yeah -- DO NOT ALLOW familiars, companions, cohorts, even intelligent weapons! Encourage someone playing a Druid not to focus on summoning; I'd argue not allowing druids to have an animal companion AT ALL.

-W. E. Ray

At least you aren't saying that druids have to worship a god--I hate it when people say that.

Don't even think about playing in my campaigns.

6 is the max, at that point the DM has to split his efforts too much and D&D turns into a waiting game. As a personal favorite, I think five players is the perfect number.

[ArchLich]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Molech wrote:

Yeah -- DO NOT ALLOW familiars, companions, cohorts, even intelligent weapons! Encourage someone playing a Druid not to focus on summoning; I'd argue not allowing druids to have an animal companion AT ALL.

-W. E. Ray

At least you aren't saying that druids have to worship a god--I hate it when people say that.

I don't think that is what they were saying at all.

A little sensitive?

[Valegrim]

am curious what that secondary topic in this dicussion has to do with number of players; perhaps that thread should be started elsewhere...just a thought

[Demiurge 1138]

4 to 6 players is my ideal group size - for larger groups, it helps to have more experienced players, so turns go by quickly and smoothly. I've DMed 7 before, which was doable, but suboptimal. Any larger than that and my head starts spinning.

[Rezdave]

Rothandalantearic wrote:

Role Playing is Fun, but so is dice chucking. With large groups I find that not everyone wants to roleplay. Some just want to kick in the bad guys door and get to it. Some players get shy roleplaying in front of so many other folks, but everyone can get involved in a fight.

The catch here is that people like "dice chucking" but not "watching others chuck dice". You want to keep things in combat moving as swiftly and fluidly as possible.

Keep people rolling for something as much as possible. If they're not rolling Attacks or Damage they should be rolling Saves or Spots or anything.

[Korgoth]

I max out at five, and my group runs almost exclusively combat, so...

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

DMR wrote:

I have a problem I never thought I'd have to face: too many players! After 3 decades of continually struggling to find enough people to actually play DnD, I now have a new group forming (we've met once so far, to roll up characters) that will have nine - yes, NINE - regular players. It started out as 5, but they brought 2 friends, and they brought 2 friends, etc. I hate to say it, but I'm hoping a few decide to drop out... Has anyone else ever had to deal with this? Any advice on making it work?

Lots of good advice here but I'd hope that some of them drop if I where you. Ask those that are here not to invite more friends. While I believe its possible to run a good game for a lot of players I have a hard time believing that such a game can be as good for the individual players as one in which each player gets more face time. Let attrition take care of some of these players.

I know what you mean about there being an insane number of players out there. I always feel a little sad when I have to tell a prospective player that I'm not taking any more players at my table at this time. Where were these people 15 years ago when I could barely keep a group together?

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Valegrim wrote:

am curious what that secondary topic in this dicussion has to do with number of players; perhaps that thread should be started elsewhere...just a thought

The OP must take responsibility for this. The question the thread title asks and the question the OP asks in the first post are two different questions.

So the thread Title asks those clicking on it how many players are to many. But in the first post the OP asks for advice on running a game with a large number of players. Hence the posters are answering the one thats caught their attention.