Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 3286575" data-attributes="member: 38357">Speaking strictly from a personal standpoint, it's not that the 4 PC party is in any way a weakness of the system (especially since I prefer to run with a couple more players than that), it's just that a) I never played 1e AD&D with less than six players ~ games where canceled if fewer than 5 players showed up, and b) I never knew anyone to play AD&D with fewer than five players. This isn't in any way saying that my AD&D experiences where better than my current 3.x experiences. In fact, I'd have to say that from a strictly mechanical standpoint 3.x is a much better game than AD&D (personal opinion only). What made the play in AD&D as good as my current games was that we entertained ourselves, rather than expecting the rules to be fun in and of themselves (if you can see what I mean ~ I'm not at all sure I'm being completely clear about it... Sorry...).So, personally, I'm quick to jump in with stories about 20+ players at a session (spread around various sofas and chairs in a recroom; without a battlemat there was no need to actually fit everyone at a single table) when the idea that 4 is the "standard" number of players in AD&D, it's because a) that statement does not match my experiences, and b) a lot of the fun of AD&D (for me) was in getting a dozen+ guys together who where all really excited about the game and would pay attention to every little thing that happened, even if, say, your character was engaged in something elsewhere in the campaign and you didn't get to actually "play" more than making a few suggestions for how some NPC retainers should act...I agree with 4-6 being the "sweet spot" (at least unless I can find a dozen or so 11-year old Übernerds, obsessed with the idea that AD&D is the coolest thing they have ever seen and the need to "do it right"), but I also do think that within that range more is, indeed, better (for me at least). If I could get a group of exactly 6 players, who would all show up (nearly) every session, that would be awesome! But, mostly, I can't. Having 7 or 8 players in the group (nowadays) is simply a matter of "insurance", and I still have weeks when so few (<4, or the wrong 4 or 5) show up that I have to skip a week.Right now I'm finding somewhat of the opposite. With less than 5 or 6 (barring having one of two particular players show up) there are painfully long moments of silence when no-one at the table wants to speak up. But, from the sound of it, if I was DMing your group I suspect that I would have experiences much more similar to yours.I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's not a "bragging right" or any such. It is a "special thing" because, frankly, I'm nostalgic for the days when a Vorpal sword seemed like some kind of pure vision of Awesome, and at the same time myself and every DM I knew where far, far too afraid of being called "Monty Haul" to ever include one in our games*. However, for me at least, and from 1978 to 1984 or so, gaming with less than 6 was completely abnormal. It's could be that this was some kind of crazy fluke thing, but I've seen too many others echo that sentiment to believe so.* As an aside, related to the thread about wishes in AD&D: the only times (5 or 6, IIRC) that I ever included wish-granting items in my games was in a specific attempt to get one of my players in particular to wish for a Vorpal sword, so that I would have an excuse for such foolishness... Of course, none of my players where ever so "foolish" to actually wish for a Vorpal sword... Just imagine the mischief an AD&D DM could have gotten up to with a request like that!</blockquote>

Verification