I've never played AD&D1

[Gentlegamer]

In comparison, 3e is a good place for a gamer to get started. All the rules are there if you look hard enough. The drawback I see is that, for many people, the system is too interconnected, and connected in ways that aren't obvious, for them to feel comfortable modifying things. That's a pity, because half the fun of running a campaign is making house rules, creating monsters and magic items, and building a really unique experience.

QFT!!!

 

[WSmith]

Mainly, from the chart in the DMG for surprise, but you are correct: it could go higher. I think I'll leave it as-is for the Gameday, because (1) 3 segments is enough surprise, and (2) I've already printed the sheets.

Ah, thanks for reminding me. I need to edit my copy. If one of my monsters surprise on a 1-4, and are only surprised on a 1, I don't want to cheat them the chance to wipe out the PCs in one round of surprise.

Thanks again, Henry! Please let us know how this game days goes.

 

[Umbran]

Heh. "4 players is more the norm". Not doubting current wisdom but Back In The Day(TM), Gary would regularly host - at his ome game - 20+ players at one end of the table, with Rob Kuntz DMing another group of ten to fifteen at the other end.

You have a choice - either Mr. Gygax is somehow "normal", or that data isn't meaningfull. Take your pick

I suggest that physical tables (heck, just physical rooms!) that'll accommodate 20 players, much less 35, are a whole lot off the "norm" for most households. And I don't think the idea that the normal game happend outside of the home is reasonable.

But, we probably should not argue this point - there is no reliable data about how many players were the norm at the time. All we have is anecdotes, and anecdotes aren't reliable.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I believe the 20+ players was not in one party, but for total number of participants in the campaign, either comprising different adventuring parties, or players that rotated in and out on a fairly regular basis.

 

[dcas]

Heh. "4 players is more the norm". Not doubting current wisdom but Back In The Day(TM), Gary would regularly host - at his ome game - 20+ players at one end of the table, with Rob Kuntz DMing another group of ten to fifteen at the other end.

Gary and Rob also did a lot of one-on-one gaming -- Rob would DM for Mordenkainen and henchmen, Gary would DM for Robilar and henchmen.

I would bet the average is about 5. But I like 4 myself.

I also thought the OP's reference to "base four" was a reference to the character classes (there are 4 base character classes, if you don't include the Monk or consider it a Cleric sub-class) and not the number of players at the table.

 

[T. Foster]

Back in the 80s, every RPGA tournament I ever played in had 6 players per table (except the AD&D Open at GenCon, which had 9 players per table), and six players (plus applicable henchmen/hirelings/followers) was therefore widely considered to be the norm, and the ideal. Even if in reality the norm was 4, the assumption was still 6+.

FWIW my (non-convention) groups back in the mid-late 80s fluctuated between 1 (which will obviously bring the average down) and 7 or 8, and eventually stabilized at 5 in the 90s (I missed out on the legendary 70s and early 80s games with a dozen or more players at a table). My current 1E group has 8 players total, but typical session attendance is usually 5 or 6 (but not the same 5 or 6 every time).

 

[Desdichado]

What's your point? I think I already adequately qualified the statement. :\

Maybe you did. I didn't read the whole thread. My point is that your point is irrelevent and out of the blue.

 

[Quasqueton]

Gygax regularly played solo with Rob Kuntz DMing, so 1 Player in a game must be the norm.

I never would have thought that the number of people in a game session would be such a contentious subject.

Quasqueton

 

[thedungeondelver]

Maybe you did. I didn't read the whole thread. My point is that your point is irrelevent and out of the blue.

*gasp* Intarweb discussion thread has amusing anecdote related in it - film at eleven - not for the squeamish!

 

[Desdichado]

"Amusing" is certainly in the eye of the beholder. No pun intended.