[Problem] Too Many Players: Who Gets to Play?

[el-remmen]

real D&D.

C'mon, Diaglo - I don't want to get into this with you, but it is *ALL* real D&D.

As for the caller thing, if I were running more traditional adventures with dungeons and the like this could work - but with the politics, personal drama and the extension of personal quirks and motives into how combat plays out that would not work for us.

 

[diaglo]

C'mon, Diaglo - I don't want to get into this with you, but it is *ALL* real D&D.

As for the caller thing, if I were running more traditional adventures with dungeons and the like this could work - but with the politics, personal drama and the extension of personal quirks and motives into how combat plays out that would not work for us.

the newer systems use each PC/player as a Caller. they call their actions to the DM.

but they can still interact with each other. the DM justs sits on the side and records the conversations as story awards and the like. or for plot hook ideas.

the personal drama still applies. let the players play. let them haggle out. the only time you need to step forward is when an NPC is involved. or when they need to ask for rulings.

 

[Brimshack]

It's your choice, but I will say that the most fun I have ever had running a campaign was one involving 2 separate groups. The beginning of each game was often an account of events involving the other group (and assessing the role played by the other group was often a significant portion of the challenge). When we had the occassional combined game it was a lot of work, but also a lot of fun. Mostly though the groups worked against each other, but in subtle ways. I asked the players to cooperate on keeping the premise which separated the groups viable, but I also said that I was fully prepared to inflict arbitrary acts of the gods in the event that the players tried to force a meeting of characters when the right players were absent. Running alternating campaigns in the same setting can be a lot of fun if you can work out the details. A lot depends on what you have in mind for the campaign.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Actually one of them did have an Eberron game going w/ some other folks that kind of stalled.

Perfect! Now he can revive it.

But if I can find time I may join up. Though honestly, the idea of Eberron would sit a lot better with me if it weren't for warforged.

Eh... I used to get worked up about stuff like that, but now I let it slide like water off a duck's back. It's all good as long as we're having fun.

I don't like the changelings in Eberron, but that wouldn't stop me from playing in an Eberron campaign if one were available.

 

[pawsplay]

I don'te see 8 players as vastly more of a challenge than 6. I've been in groups that large, and it was fun.

 

[Nyaricus]

I don'te see 8 players as vastly more of a challenge than 6. I've been in groups that large, and it was fun.

See, and I've ran groups of 8, and it's hard (when compared to running 6). Of course, there were some different people in each campaign, so there's that too. I guess it all depends where you're standing

cheers,
--N

 

[Sanackranib]

as you say the players are deciding so that you don't have to. my advice is simple. step back out of the way having set the peramaters of how many players you are preppaired to run the game for. let the 2 who sat out last time in since that was your intension and let the players decide for themselves who is in and who is not. perhaps a 2nd group forms out of the remainder, then you get to play as well. since the idea was for you not to have to choose, then don't.

 

[stevelabny]

I've been trying to have an Eberron game with a group that is down to me +2 and I believe one of them (Greg) has played in one of your campaigns before. (a ranger for a few sessions)

So if any of your group that isn't playing is looking for something to do on Saturdays, have them contact me.