Ten players. One DM.

[the Jester]

I have tons of experience running huge games. They're a blast.

The main key things are:

The player must know what they're doing when their turn comes up.
Minimize table talk.
Minimize solo action- if you go off on your own expect to wait while I run the game rather than having the game wait while I run you.

The two great advantages of huge groups (imho) are:

The game goes on. Bob and Bill can't make it? Fine. We still have a quorum. (In fact, I recommend you establish a 'quorum rule'- once we have x players present we start. For my groups, the quorum is three. Even if the party is 12 pcs, we got three here? We start.)
Continuity is easier to maintain. In small groups, once you kill three or four of the starting pcs, there isn't much to connect you with the original mission. If there are still seven or eight pcs left that were sicced on the original mission, hey presto, your problem with maintaining the mission evaporates.

One more recommendation: run a high-lethality game. That increases the sense of accomplishment of the survivors, makes them all feel at risk, and lessens the odds of someone feeling singled out for killin' (because it gets spread around so widely).

Good luck!

 

[Particle_Man]

Ban the Leadership feat.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I would suggest the following:

1. Make all initiatives FIXED. Everyone takes 10 all the time on initiative. Then you can seat your players round the table in order of initiative.

2. Make it a habit to go around the table and ask each player what they're doing, getting a quick answer from each, and not getting bogged down with minutae. Then, work out who's going to complete first, and what happens then. The key is to keep everyone occupied, so the table chatter stays to a minimum. Effectively you keep the game in initiative all the time as a tool to divide your time evenly.

 

[wingsandsword]

1) Have the group appoint a party leader (he should often consult the group, but once he's made the decision it's final - kind of like Picard. oh man am I a nerd.) Seriously, it helps..

I can't advise you against this course of action enough. I know I would be mortally offended, outright enraged even, if the DM appointed one player as the boss of the others, capiable of overriding anything I say or want my character to do. How wonderful it is when the "Caller" decides that your PC is going to bravely sacrifice himself to save the rest of the party, or give his magic sword to the Caller's PC, and his decision on that is final. People go to D&D games to play D&D, not to be part of a group of advisors to the one person who is actually playing D&D with the DM.

Now, the first D&D game I ever played in had 10 PC's, I was the 10th actually (the last person joining). After that, the DM swore to never have more than 6 PC's in a game. We had a few players who, honestly, weren't paying attention and didn't do much other than sit at the table and play gameboy or idly read the rulebook, they generally only got involved in combat or for major decisions. We also used no Battlemats or Miniatures. This was in AD&D 2e, and minis and battlemats weren't common.

Now, something I can suggest you not do: Boot players from the game when their character dies just to cut the numbers down. I've been on the receiving end of this and it sucks big time when not only does your character die: you're kicked out of the game as well. If you tell players that "if your character dies you're out of the game", since that encourages players to not be very heroic.

The most I've run for personally is 7, and that's getting unwieldy. Personally I'd call 5 an ideal group.

I'd suggest that you tell people how many are going to be in the game, and see how many people are still interested, and if you ask for people to step aside (at least temporarily until an opening comes available later) how many will you get.

 

[Eloi]

A few things that haven't been mentioned: it's ok to have more than one player play a critical class in a large group (Two Fighters are just dandy, as are two Clerics). Support classes like Bard and Marshal add a lot more synergistic power when the party is large. If your 10 players looks something like the following, things look good (Front rank/mid /rear rank):

Fighter Paladin Thief / Wizard Bard Artificer Marshal / Druid Cleric Cleric, Druid's Companion in the rear against ambushes, or swinging wide to flank around the front if out in the open.

If the group needs an NPC information source, wandering Monks and Sorcerers are fine sources of knowledge (if a PC is already playing the Bard, that is).

Two Clerics and a Druid can lay down superb missile fire, if unmolested. A wand of Cat's Grace will go a long way. If all three of the casters in the rear are moving and fighting as a unit, things will go well - see if they like the idea of rolling a mini group initiative.

A Thief in a group like this should be in hog heaven - if she can't find somewhere to flank, she's not trying.

Let the players discuss what the group might need for balance before they set off - if you end up with 2 Fighters, 2 Rangers, 4 Thieves, a Monk, and a Druid, you know better what you might need in the way of an NPC.

A party leader who collects initiative results from the party and reads them off a card to the DM is a good idea - breaking the big group into functional subgroups works too, but there needs to be one intelligence keeping the purpose of the party's efforts in mind.

I hope people arrive early. Good luck!

 

[VirgilCaine]

I would suggest the following:

1. Make all initiatives FIXED. Everyone takes 10 all the time on initiative. Then you can seat your players round the table in order of initiative.

2. Make it a habit to go around the table and ask each player what they're doing, getting a quick answer from each, and not getting bogged down with minutae. Then, work out who's going to complete first, and what happens then. The key is to keep everyone occupied, so the table chatter stays to a minimum. Effectively you keep the game in initiative all the time as a tool to divide your time evenly.

That sounds like it could be a good idea, though I suppose initiative is a pretty minor part of the game...anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

It can be done-we have 10 guys total (DM included) that have been together 25+ years. Things move pretty good but one trick is to get a "vice-DM" who can run NPC, split the party into to groups and run simultaniously during the session (like doing detective work around town, etc.) If you don't have someone to do this it can still work but the players need to understand that there will be slow periods for their character during the game while you focus on other PCs.

 

[farscapesg1]

I can't advise you against this course of action enough. I know I would be mortally offended, outright enraged even, if the DM appointed one player as the boss of the others, capiable of overriding anything I say or want my character to do. How wonderful it is when the "Caller" decides that your PC is going to bravely sacrifice himself to save the rest of the party, or give his magic sword to the Caller's PC, and his decision on that is final. People go to D&D games to play D&D, not to be part of a group of advisors to the one person who is actually playing D&D with the DM.

I have to go against this. There is nothing wrong with appointing a "leader" of the group. However, this leader does not do as you suggest and basically control the other PCs. Instead, they do things like making the decision when the group cannot come to a decision. They do things like try to coordinate the group in combat situations.

Now, the problem is that some people can't handle authority and having another player "recommend" what to do in certain situations. These are also the people that usually have a character that charges off after the single goblin by himself, while the rest of the group is fighting for their lives. IMHO, an adventuring group should be similar to a military squad without all the penalties of ignoring orders (court martial, imprisonment, etc.).

As to other ideas that could help speed things up you might want to have the players each roll a d20 20 or 30 times and keep these pre-rolls for saving throws, listen checks, etc. That way, you can just look at the list, use the next roll, cross it off, and continue with the story. Not only does this save time rolling, it also adds a little suspense since you don't have to ask the players to make a save or listen check when they normally wouldn't know that anything is going on

The ideas of stating out summoned creatures and having all important spell information ready has always been a given for me, even in small groups. It all boils down to being prepared and organized. I personally can't stand players that come to the game with their character information written out on a handful of sheets of paper and have to constantly refer to their books.

 

[spider_minion]

There's a lot of great advice on this thread so far, but there's one thing I have to add:

Use a map!

In the big group I've played in, combat would go extra-slow because people often wouldn't know where everyone was in relation to each other. This lead to a lot of needless questions for the DM and player confusion, especially when the area of effect spells get thrown around. It doesn't need to be a fancy battlemat with painted D&D minis or anything like that. A sheet of paper and a variety of distinct counters will fit the bill just fine (I personally like those multicolored glass stones that are used to decorate fish tanks).

Regarding initiative, what I've done is to have people roll as normal, but be loose with the order. If the bad guys go on 17, have all the players above that take their turns in whatever order they wish. If someone wants a little extra time to think, they can sit back until a few other players have gone. Since characters can hold their actions or whatnot, the exact order isn't a big deal.