My group is TOO BIG
- Thread starter Kylas
- Start date
Olaf the Stout
Legend
I would suggest either splitting the group up into 2 separate groups or having co-DM's. Having a second DM there can help speed things along.
If the group splits up the 2 DM's can deal with each group simultaneously. In combat the 2 DM's can take half the baddies each or one DM can keep track of initiative, spell effects, etc., while the other one just worries about rolling attacks, etc.,
That should speed things up a little at least.
Olaf the Stout
If the group splits up the 2 DM's can deal with each group simultaneously. In combat the 2 DM's can take half the baddies each or one DM can keep track of initiative, spell effects, etc., while the other one just worries about rolling attacks, etc.,
That should speed things up a little at least.
Olaf the Stout
frankthedm
First Post
Rule number one. Players take 10 for initiative and sit at the table in that order.
I feel your pain, I do think once you get past 6 players your just adding on dead weight as opposed to enhancing the game.
If this truly feels like a problem to you, then I suggest the following:
1) Stop the game your playing. Start over, start fresh with a new campaign.
2) Pick 6 players. Either pick randomly for true fairness, or have each person submit a character concept. The 6 you feel are the most interesting and the ones that will work the best together remain, the rest are out.
It always sucks have to knock out players, but if your game is suffering from the weight, better to have one shock of pain then feeling that pain week in and week out as your game slowly suffers.
If this truly feels like a problem to you, then I suggest the following:
1) Stop the game your playing. Start over, start fresh with a new campaign.
2) Pick 6 players. Either pick randomly for true fairness, or have each person submit a character concept. The 6 you feel are the most interesting and the ones that will work the best together remain, the rest are out.
It always sucks have to knock out players, but if your game is suffering from the weight, better to have one shock of pain then feeling that pain week in and week out as your game slowly suffers.
Almacov
First Post
Well, a group that size might work if you were running something like BECMI, considering Keep on the Borderlands, for example, was designed for "six to nine" player characters. This would move combat much faster than 3.5e, but the simplicity/perceived lack of options may bother some.
That said, splitting the group is probably what I would end up doing, though I'd be tempted to run games for the two separate parties both within the same world and general timeline as an experiment.
That said, splitting the group is probably what I would end up doing, though I'd be tempted to run games for the two separate parties both within the same world and general timeline as an experiment.
(i don't know how well this will work, just spouting off a random idea that may or maynot work depending on the individual people).
But take one or two people out of the PC role and have them be DM assistants to roll for the NPCs and attacking creatures, etc..
Of course, that could turn it from a group play together to something more adversarial depending on the mentality of everyone.
But take one or two people out of the PC role and have them be DM assistants to roll for the NPCs and attacking creatures, etc..
Of course, that could turn it from a group play together to something more adversarial depending on the mentality of everyone.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Forget the experiment part, this is *exactly* what to do.Almacov said:
Then, as time goes on, players can switch groups between adventures if they like. It really helps keep things interesting if each adventure has a new group of players/characters yet it's all the same campaign/world.
But a warning: timekeeping between the parties becomes a real twitch when you do this. Believe me.
Lanefan
frankthedm
First Post
Savage worlds, Castles and Crusades or some other system with a less 'bulky' ruleset may be very useful.
I've never actually done this before, but it could work in theory.
Get a co-DM and make plots that necessitate splitting up into two (or more) "parties" that work together. Make sure that the adventures require achieving two or more objectives simultaneously, which forces the 10 PCs to split up into multiple parties, each with their own DM. That way for combat you have manageable party sizes while still keeping all the players in the same story. You could also vary the challenges involved to ensure that you have a good amount of variance in the two groups (so it's not the same groups of 5 PCs).
Get a co-DM and make plots that necessitate splitting up into two (or more) "parties" that work together. Make sure that the adventures require achieving two or more objectives simultaneously, which forces the 10 PCs to split up into multiple parties, each with their own DM. That way for combat you have manageable party sizes while still keeping all the players in the same story. You could also vary the challenges involved to ensure that you have a good amount of variance in the two groups (so it's not the same groups of 5 PCs).
