My group is TOO BIG

[Graf]

It's an interesting problem.

I would probably try to adapt several of the suggestions. Have a "main" combat session oriented around bigger set piece battles, and then work with the second co-DM to create multiple threads for the groups to follow and split them.

(And embrace the idea that time is weird and fluid, so when they get out of sync it's not a big deal).

Lotta work, but the group will naturally "size down" as people get frustrated; may as well manage it.

 

[Kylas]

I hate you with the intensity of a thousand suns. My group has 3 count em, 3 players and one of them can't be bothered to show up half the time.

One thing that seems to work quite well in large groups is actually a very old idea going back to 1st ed. See if you can't recruit a 'caller' for the group. The old DM would probably be perfect for the job actually. It's the callers responsibility to tell you, what the group is doing. They develop a consensus among themselves then the caller actually tells you what's going on. Makes play quite a bit more organized with big groups.

You know, I completely feel your pain. 7 years ago I first discovered DnD didn't transform you into a super nerd that could never have a life outside of a dark basement; we picked up 3.0 and a group of 6-8 and fun was had by all. By junior year of high school DnD was 'way to dorky dude'. So it was just 3 of us and me being rules lawyer also made me DM.

It was a very interesting experience. We had a Hum Fgt and Elf Wiz I played a Hum Rog and we would get into all sorts of mischief. We built semi uber chars ( we thought half-dragon PC was god at the time); we would make PvP pocket dimensions and and settle those Fgt vs Rog vs Wiz debates. One player the Wiz, called himself Prince of Darkness and would throw fireballs while we were in melee combat centered on US!!!

One great thing about the small group was that it was the only group I was allowed to play Pre errata 3.0 shadow dancer. It was really easy to convince 2 other guys that my CG shadow dancer needs to make shades out of everyone he kills for the greater good of the group. I guess it helped that I was DM.

Good times and I still play with one of those guys (not the Wiz) but I know your pain. I wanted a bigger group but 10 is wow.

 

[SavageRobby]

Speaking as someone who has run groups that big, I don't think you need to split the group, nor just focus on combat and not character development (you can do both - I know, we've done it). I'd recommend you try it with the big group first, with as many streamlining tips as you can. Groups that big can be really fun.

That said, we did move away from 3x to another game system (with, as frankthedm said, a less bulky system - Savage Worlds). A definite part of that move was the complexity of the system, especially with our larger group. That wasn't the only issue, and we've had probably switched anyways, but it is a valid point. IME 3x doesn't support over 5 players well - and move quickly. (Heck, after experience with other systems, it doesn't move quickly even with fewer players.)

 

[Asmor]

Rule number one. Players take 10 for initiative and sit at the table in that order.

I can't tell if this suggestion was serious or in jest, but it's a really good idea.

Combat's going to take a long time. No two ways about it. You can probably do things to make the difference between "a really long time" and "a really, really long time," but either way...

However, as far as balancing combats go, here's a good trick that worked for me running 3rd edition D&D with a large group: Use lots of monsters! Since there are 10 players, and D&D's base line assumption is 4 players, just take whatever encounter you were planning, double it, and then maybe add a couple more monsters to flavor. The point is, don't try and just use one or two big nasties, use large groups of level-appropriate guys.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I wish I had 10 players. Only have 7 right now. I think campaigns shine the more players you have. I recall one session years ago where the players all ended up not needing me as DM for over 1/2 an hour as they talked and planned mostly in character, an left me alone...it was great. I was able to catch upon some paperwork and they all had fun.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I believe that the best solution is to break your too large group into two smaller groups. Two 5 person games are better then One 10 person game.

 

[Desdichado]

Wish I could help! We have six when everyone's there, and that's more than I like. I don't want to get rid of any of them, though, because I like them all (and the rest of the group wouldn't go for it anyway; I'd probably get the boot for suggesting it). 3-5 is my ideal.

 

[Cergorach]

In our group we had an experiment, for a short while we had a DM and a Co-DM (as in co-processor). While our group wasn't particulary large, it was fun to have someone to share the plot with and actually roleplay encounters with NPC vs. NPC vs. PC. Having someone to back you up is very relaxing and often makes it more enjoyable for the players. It is most rewarding if you can compensate each others weaknesses.

There was another experiment we wanted to try, but it never materialized. There were three groups, with some players being part of two groups. The idea was to create two groups that played at the same time in the same building, the characters would operate in the same area. They could join forces in certain situations, but this would not often be advantagious. It would be to crowded in a dungeon corridor, but it would be usefull when facing the big red dragon in the huge cavern. Certain objectives needed to be reached but there was only a limited time to do them all, but some where so complex that would require all the characters to be present. The idea was to let the DMs create their own parts of the adventure, so that if the PCs came together, one would be primary and the other the co-dm. It was also important to switch DMs regulary, this was a bit tricky, but we were sure that with a properly prepared dungeon/adventure it wouldn't be impossible.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, one suggestion - just for logistics. Put everyone around the table in initiative order when combat takes place. Continue asking folks what they are up to by seating order when out of combat - it makes it much less likely that anyone will be left out.

If you have players who hog time then use an egg timer on them.

Mostly, make sure everybody gets to do something!

The Auld Grump, who has run games with up to 12 kids between 10 and 16 years of age every summer for the last five.

 

[moritheil]

Over months the group grew and this last week our group grew to 10 PCs cause an incompetent player invited someone without asking the DMs.
HOW DO WE MANAGE A GROUP OF 10 PCs!!


PLEASE Suggestions anyone. Has anyone played with a group this big before.

I had 16 PCs at one point, in a campaign that ran for over 2 years (it averaged 10-12 PCs). The key was basically to run it as a world simulation: things happened and the PCs had to get their acts together to keep up. I think my willingness to deal with characters disagreeing, splitting up, then meeting up again, etc. helped. Oh, and banning cohorts was a major step towards coherence.

I would caution against running a lot of encounters that pose serious threats when the entire group is together. What is realistically going to take on a small army of armed-to-the-teeth adventurers? Even most dragons would at least pause to think before engaging such a group, as such a situation is statistically pretty unusual. Instead, try to make the campaign based around solving problems. Massive blowouts with 200+ NPCs and all dozen-plus PCs and their allies should be resolved for story arc endings, not a weekly affair.