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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="arscott" data-source="post: 3130914" data-attributes="member: 17969">Some random observations:-have you considered running a table of 8 players.  In my experience, running a large table is more exhausting, but it's also less actual work--more players means more time spent in discussion with the rest of the party (which is pretty much break time for the GM), and more characters means combats and the like take longer (which means you have less planning to do before each session).-I run a game with seven players, but usually at least one person can't make it.  Since I let their characters advance even when they're not present, there's no special encouragement to show up for every session, and the table remains fairly manageable.  If you think that one or two players might be absent each session, this is the way to go.-If that's not going to work, then consider a more scheduled approach.  Just have each character sit out an adventure every so often.-If you wan't these people to stay friends, then the survivor option is a bad idea.  Because whoever loses is basically getting told "Sorry, we don't like to play with you".  That's gonna cause a lot of resentment (and probably a bit of guilt among the winners).-Jekell and Hyde is an even worse Idea than survivor.  My friend was in a Con Game where this happened, and it worked out horribly.  If something is enough to wreck a four hour con game, it's definately got to be avoided for a long-term campaign.-What about some sort of tryout opportunity?  Have each player make a character complete with game stats, background, and whatever else you feel is important.  Then pick the six characters that you feel best fit with the tone and theme of the campaign.</blockquote>

Verification