Classic D&D - number of Players - rule books vs. advertisements

[Bullgrit]

OD&D recommends a referee to player ratio of 1:20.

I’ve seen many references, through the years, in many classic D&D publications (rule books, magazines, etc.) to the idea of having a large number of Players at a table in front of a single DM.

It seems that Gygax often had many Players (up to 20) at a game session. Classic tournaments usually had 6-12 Players per DM. Many classic adventure modules said they were designed for 6+ PCs. And many people around here have claimed to have regularly played classic D&D with 6+ Players/PCs. (Personally, I never *regularly* had more than 6 Players at a time in my games; my average was probably 4 Players.)

Why, then, do all the examples of play, and advertisements for the game show only 2 to 4 Players? I was looking through some of my old Dragon magazines (and some comic books), and I found all the D&D ads show no more than 4 Players at the table (plus a DM). Looking through the old classic rule books, I found the examples of play didn’t have more than 4 Players. (If there are examples with more than 4, point them out, please.)

Was it just because showing 10 Players at a table looked cluttered for an ad? Or was there some other considerations? And if 10 people in a photograph is cluttered, aren’t 10 people around a kitchen table cluttered?

And if following 10 Players in an example of play is too confusing, aren't following 10 Players at the table too confusing?

Were they (they = TSR) learning that 4 Players was a more optimal number – for game play or for game sales – and so were showing ads for how they wanted people to play the game? Or were they showing the actual, real-world average, and just saying 6-12 in publications for the unusual situations like tournaments.

It just seems like a real disconnect between what the advertisements for the game showed and what the publications for the game said was expected.

Bullgrit

 

[Doug McCrae]

I should stress that that ratio, 1:20, refers to the campaign as a whole, not to individual play sessions. My understanding is that it would be expected that only a fraction of the total number of players involved would turn up for each session. What fraction, I'm not sure though.

 

[billd91]

Was it just because showing 10 Players at a table looked cluttered for an ad? Or was there some other considerations? And if 10 people in a photograph is cluttered, aren’t 10 people around a kitchen table cluttered?

And if following 10 Players in an example of play is too confusing, aren't following 10 Players at the table too confusing?

I don't think it has anything to do with TSR showing a "real" average number of players in the ads or in the play examples but recommending more. The ads would have been too cluttered with too many players. How many ads involving football have all 22 players on the field in the picture? The graphic designers know better than to have too busy an image cluttering up the ad.

Similarly, why include a full boatload of players in a play example when the concepts you want to cover can be covered with 3 or 4? The example is to illustrate the rules and their application in a clear fashion, not to encompas everything going on at the game table. If they did, players would also be depicted getting up to take a leak or raid the fridge.

 

[Umbran]

It seems to me that the original books look at a D&D campaign like it was... a wargamer club meeting. Your club has maybe 20 people in it total, and for any meeting some portion of them would show up and you'd play with whoever showed.

That is not easy to depict in a photograph. And an example of play with a dozen people would take a horrendously long time to read.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The recommended ratio was 1:20, but since most people could not even be half the DM that Gary Gygax was, it meant most groups were limited to around 4-6 players.

 

[Jhaelen]

I should stress that that ratio, 1:20, refers to the campaign as a whole, not to individual play sessions. My understanding is that it would be expected that only a fraction of the total number of players involved would turn up for each session. What fraction, I'm not sure though.

Interesting, since that's similar to my approach to DMing campaign. My current 3e campaign has 9 players, my 2e Dark Sun campaign had 11 players. It happens to be that way because
a) I can't say no to players asking to join.
b) Tight schedules mean that only a fraction of the players can show up for a perticular session, so it's good to have a large pool of players.

 

[Stormonu]

My own game ratios have been all over the place, ranging from as little as 3 total (me + two players) up to about 10 players in a game (that's about the max I can handle at once). Most of my games have had about 5-6 players.

I think it's worth noting that the DL series of modules had 8 pre-made characters (with the assumption Goldmoon and Riverwind would likely be NPCs), and that modules with premade characters usually presented 6-8 characters for play - usually with some overlapping characters that assumed one of two archtypes might be chosen by the group (such as A1, which listed 9 such characters in the back; there's some overlap in the characters and I don't suspect a group would be likely to have, say both Dread Delgath the M-U and Phanstern the Illusionist in the same group).

 

[Blackbrrd]

Now, who plays at the kitchen table? It's much to far away from the sofa!

In my group we don't usually play if we only have 4+DM. We really do prefer 6+ DM. 5+DM is an ok compromise between the number of active role playing players and combat speed though. (My group does at least have some who are kinda inactive and some who are more active. With a group of 6 players the party feels much more dynamic and the role playing aspect of the game will have a good pace)

 

[PeelSeel2]

I DM in a college town. During school, I have a minimum of 9 players to a maximum of 18 on any given game night. We meet every Friday in the basement of my home around a converted ping pong table with chairs scabbed from the hospital to the college. During the summer break I typically have 8 to 12 players on game night.

One thing I can say with many players, simple rules make it go fast and keep everyone involved more. Playing Moldvay/Cook D&D is better than say playing 4e with that many players. Although I DM 4e 95% of the time. I have had to learn to speed things up with 4e and that many people. It is still fun.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Under the heading "How many players do I want? How will I find them?" Ray Winniger wrote in his Dungeon Craft essays:

Unlike a lot of newer roleplaying games, AD&D works best with a lot of players. Think of the ideal AD&D adventuring party-you need at least a couple of fighters to engage monsters and protect the weaker adventurers in combat, a cleric to cast healing spells, a thief to deal with tricks and traps, and a wizard or two to decipher magical clues and provide an extra punch in important battles. If any of these key roles aren't filled, the players are bound to run into trouble; many AD&D supplements were designed under the assumption that all these skills would be available to the players' party. Similarly, it is nice if one or two of the players choose to play nonhuman races, giving the party even more capabilities and flexibility with regards to language, etc. Because players are free to choose any role they wish, it's wise to plan on four or more players to guarantee a well-balanced party. If your players are willing to give up some of their options while creating their characters, you might get away with only four or five players (more on this in a later installment devoted to character creation). Playing with fewer than four players is likely to prove difficult in all but the most unusual campaigns.

On the upper end, you'll want to limit yourself to eight or ten players as a general rule. With more than ten players, it's easy to lose control of the game. For similar reasons, less-experienced DMs might want to limit themselves to six or seven players for the time being; you can always add more later. In any case, since you should always have enough room at the game table(s) to comfortably accommodate all players, it's far more likely that the real limit on the number of players proves to be a function of the space available.

This text is from 1997.

So while the game as designed and as supported with supplements promoted large player groups, Winniger acknowledges that practical problems may speak differently.

In 2e, which was the current game in 1997, the idea of gaming club based campaigns still seems to be the norm, which I find rather weird.