How big is too big? [Archive] - Wizards Community

How big is too big? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Rhone1
05-01-05, 06:30 PM How big of a party is too big to handle as a dm?

I have just started a new Eberron campaign and the number of people playing has grown from 6 to 10. The players are all experienced players and I'd hate to leave anyone out of the group. However, at yesterday's game it was almost too much to handle, combat was slow, so many side conversations and almost no roleplaying was being played.

Anyone have any ideas?
Edymnion
05-01-05, 06:36 PM I prefer to run a group of 3-4 people.
I consider 6 the absolute maximum I would ever DM.

Any more than that, and its time to split the group into two groups and run seperate games for them, because by that time its just too big to be worth the effort, IMO.
Egres
05-01-05, 06:43 PM No more than 6.

Exceptions could be allowed only for short periods.
Pallis
05-01-05, 06:59 PM I'd say I'm happiest with a group of four or five: that way everyone seems to get a decent amount of the DM's time and feels as though they're part of the game...
Streamweaver
05-01-05, 07:02 PM I don't think there is a hard answer, it depends on the DM and the players. I prefer 5 good players. I'm currently running with 6, but they're all good and I don't have a real problem with it.
InfinityStar8
05-01-05, 07:56 PM I run a game with 5 players and a 6th person joins in from time to time when his work lets him. I find five good experienced players can handel everything rather well and it give a group enough vareation to be fun.
Caliber
05-01-05, 08:59 PM I prefer to run a group of 3-4 people.
I consider 6 the absolute maximum I would ever DM.

Any more than that, and its time to split the group into two groups and run seperate games for them, because by that time its just too big to be worth the effort, IMO.

I agree with Ed.

-Cal
ThatOneMonk
05-01-05, 09:23 PM 10? wow, no way. I'm going to be starting 6 soon, and that's because two of them conned me into letting them in... because I'm weak... :(
Korhal_IV
05-02-05, 03:25 AM I DM'ed for 7, and it was the best campaign I ever ran. It did bog down a lot during combat, though. I ended up getting so ****** at one newbie player who took FOREVER to decide what he was doing that I'd just skip him if it went over 30 seconds before declaring an action (and this wasn't difficult puzzle type stuff; "there's an orc trying to stab you." "Uh..." Other players: "Kill it! Kill it! Kill it!" "Uh...").

10 is an absurdly large number, though. I would really suggest splitting into two groups if you can do that - out of ten players, there's gotta be one who's willing to DM (or co-DM - he can run one storyline, you run another, the two parties meet up, trade off members, or whatever whenever you guys decide).
Failing that, impose strict time limits on decision-making in combat (you have nine guys ahead of you doing stuff, this oughta give you plenty of time to plan ahead), and try to focus a bit more on roleplay or puzzles or things that let everyone participate without necessarily breaking down into initiative. Combat will also drag because there's a lot of "downtime" per player - time that they personally aren't involved in the combat.

A party of 10 can handle CRs 3-4 levels above it. A single big bad guy is probably the easiest way to go, since you don't want to run through a horde of NPCs in addition to your monstrous party. Try using terrain, traps, and other such elements to add a depth of complexity to the encounter. Split the PCs up, etc.
garner_adam
05-02-05, 04:37 AM All my best games seem to be with three people. Five people is also a good because I find that one person becomes lead and the others split in to two groups of two. Any else experience this?

Oh and you definitely need another GM in your group of friends. Seems like a too many indians and not enough chiefs situation.
Aaramis
05-02-05, 06:00 AM How big is too big?

Anything more than a mouthful is a waste.

- Says the great wyrm Red Dragon.
Get your minds out of the gutter.
DarkWarriorKarg
05-02-05, 09:05 AM I used to get numbers like this in my old Torg game (12!).

So I split them into two groups & ran concurrent storylines. I even had group crossovers.

But that was in the days when all I had was work & nothing else.

I'd suggest concurrent adventures. Ask at least 1 to co-author/Dm with you. Your assistant can also run the major NPCs (basically be the evil PC) vs the group. You run everything else.
Gurv
05-02-05, 10:03 AM How many depends on the kind of game you want to run. With more people in a group, there is less focus on any single character's story. If you have more than 3-4 players and want to have a plot-driven game, then some of the players begin to take on the role of interested bystanders who tag along to help rather than being part of the involved party themself. A small group is best for newer players and DMs, while more experinced players might be able to handle taking turns in the limelight a little better.

I run my best games with 4-5 players. Currently I have 7, with an occassional 8th, which works fine for a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl type game, but not so well for the kind of adventure I want to run in Eberron. I may end up thinning them out soon.
Eberik
05-02-05, 02:28 PM Wow, 10... it took me 2 yrs to get a group of 5, and soon to be 6 I think, but anyways wow......
Well for one idea that I did once way back when I had too many players to deal with, I made one group A and the other group B and they work kinda like a alpha and beta sqwad as it were. They were both on the same adventure, but one went about it more along the ways of one way (sneeky, all out combat, or all out arcane) and the other group would take another approach to the adventure.
It was interesting to see the groups almost get antagonistic towards one another in competition to get the adventure done their way first before the other group could. It lead to a lot fo sabotage and sneeky stuff, but was fun. But a lot of work, a lot of planning and well, a lot for someone to have to deal with for a long time.
Personally, I would split them up, tell them you love the fact they're there to game and play and all, but that too many cooks in the kitchen is a bad idea. (as it were for my bad analogy.)
ekomega
05-03-05, 01:25 PM I've found 5 players to be the maximum I can divide my attention between, with 6 being playable but difficult. Of course, even if you have 6 players that doesn't mean they'll all show up.

I'm surprised that so many others said the same number. I guess you can only spread your attention so far, and a group only functions well when so big.

5 is good for CRs because then encounters are a little easier and you can usually assume PCs will come out on top. With 4 players, despite what the books say, sometimes it is too challenging.
hellfirewyrm
05-03-05, 01:35 PM I try to keep it to about 6 PCs because more makes the game too slow and too few makes it too difficult.
Dragom
05-03-05, 01:37 PM I did 12 once.

With one cohort, 2 animal companions, a familiar and a skeleton. And the druid started summoning.

Take my advice. Break your group in half. Talk to them and find out who's attached to who and cut along the line of least resistence.

Or you'll end up where I did. 30min a turn is excessive.
Naudachu
05-03-05, 02:38 PM I played in a large group awhile back and the GM used Whimsy cards (http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/byzantium/55/whimsy.htm) to keep everyone in the game. Basically its a deck of cards with plot devices on them. Each player would draw one at the beginning of the game and play it when they had an idea how to fit it into the game. Then, depending on success, draw another.

When played the player would suggest an event involving NPCs and PCs in the scene that had something to do with the plot device on the card. Then the GM could accept, reject or modify the idea. If the idea is accepted the player may gain bonus XP.

i.e. A player plays the Greed card when another PC is wounded and cornered by a couple of thugs. He suggests that one of the thugs stabs the other so he can have all the loot himself.

It really keeps everyone's head in the game and adds unexpected results even for the GM. It can get out of hand, though and the GM sometimes has to step in and call for a hold on using the cards for a little while. Depending on the group this can devovle into backstabbing or one-up-manship. But I've been wanting to use that idea ever since.

This may work best in a game where the characters split up as opposed to clustering in a group. You don't want a player influencing his own character in this way even indirectly.
The Livewire
05-03-05, 07:32 PM 6 is my maximum too. Then again, I'm something of a lethal DM, so says my dead character collection, so they appriciate the reinforcements.

Right now I'm running 4 players, and we're lucky to be all balanced out. Coud use a frontline fighter or two though.
KP91
05-04-05, 04:37 PM I like 4-5 but 6 is the max. Unless the situation lets you have more though. Such as if your group is a band of Lhazaar pirates, they may play the most of the crew.
Docrailgun
05-04-05, 05:13 PM I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far in this thread. 6 or so is probably the maximum I would feel comfortable with. That being said, more than six is possible, but as a GM, I'd have to be very hard-nosed.
"Init 16 - What do you do?"
*no response*... "Right. Who's next."
So on and so forth. You'd have to run a very tight ship to run more than 6 people, I think. Splitting the group up is probably a good idea.

How big of a party is too big to handle as a dm?

I have just started a new Eberron campaign and the number of people playing has grown from 6 to 10. The players are all experienced players and I'd hate to leave anyone out of the group. However, at yesterday's game it was almost too much to handle, combat was slow, so many side conversations and almost no roleplaying was being played.

Anyone have any ideas?
Gurv
05-04-05, 06:29 PM So on and so forth. You'd have to run a very tight ship to run more than 6 people, I think. Splitting the group up is probably a good idea.
I'm planning on doing that this week with my insane group of 8. Not only are there too many players at the table and too many PCs to challenge during encounters, but they're all geared towards different things. They can all function as they are now, but some of them would be much better in a "solve the mystery" game, while others will excel in a more "swashbuckling adventure" type situation.

Not sure how they're going to get split up, but I think selective teleportation might work right now. They're too low level to get back together without a lot of effort, and if I leave it so that it seems like the other half of the group perished, then there will be no roleplaying reason to try.
poeticyde
05-05-05, 11:49 AM I started my Eberron campaign with five PC's and one NPC member of the main party. I almost immediately had three other players who wanted to join in the game, but I knew that six "main" characters was the most I was comfortable handling...but things worked out, because two of my players are moving away at the end of the month, and I was able to rotate the three others into their place. For a brief time, I was running a campaign with eight PC's, and it got a little crazy...and I am now turning down any one else who wants to join in. Six PC's is my comfortable limit, and even that stretches it a little...
reese
05-06-05, 12:23 AM find someone to help keep your stuff straight... they can help look up rules and keep things in order, couldn't hurt, even if players are all good. your very own personal living breathing cohort!!! the possibilities are endless...

but if you can't find anyone to help than definitley split your group.
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple
05-06-05, 01:47 AM I did an 11 person campaign once...

Once. Never again. For the love of all that is and ever will be, I strongly suggest setting a FIRM maximum of six, and if you can help it, never do more than four.

Simply put, D&D can be a party, but if the game is at all important to you as a DM, it quickly loses all reward when people are too busy chatting on tangents to listen to what you're saying, or for that matter, can't hear you at the other end of your 20 foot long gaming table.

Every DM has to learn how to be strong and say "Sorry, but there's no more room at my gaming table. I know Billy got in on the game yesterday, but he asked before you did. Sorry." Much the same way, in fact, that every good DM has to learn how to say "I'm sorry, but you can't be a tenth level illithid psion in my level two campaign." or "I'm sorry, but you can't be a hengeyokai shujenja in my setting. Neither Hengeyokai nor shujenjas exist."
Marshall Stone
05-06-05, 02:44 AM I was in a game once that had started out at 8 players and grew to 12. It quickly grew tiresome. Which was something of a pity since I was intrigued by the idea; basically it was just like ol' D&D cartoon show. All the characters came from the "real" world that took up characters in the "game" world. We were allowed to use whatever we already knew about the setting in the game, but we couldn't look anything up in books of course.

I currently run a group of six with a co-DM. I have to write that six is my limit as well. Initially I had ten people interested, in which case I would have run two groups, but fortunately things worked out the way they are now. Still that's eight people sitting around a large table that takes up most of my living room. Gets a little crowded and hot if the window's not open.

I agree with Gnome Dragon Disciple, you have to set limits and stick by them.

You have 10 players, divide them into two groups.
stembolt
05-06-05, 07:04 PM OK, wow. My guess is everyone here is organizationally challenged. With a standard Action/Adventure Campaign the minimum number of PCs in an adequate group is 4 (from optimization analysis). That�s the low ball. 5 gives you some breathing space in character creation and 6 usually gives you the ideal mix.

So 6 PCs is the middle number. 6 PCs run insignificantly slower than 4 and usually the time is a logical increase of 50%.

As for 8 players that�s where you need to break out the table rules (I suggest strong table rules at all levels but at 8 they are vital). With table rules 8 works fine.

In college my weekly game was always 6 and sometimes 8-9. And I have played with 16 players, 19 characters. It was a crossover between two groups that had some overlap. Would I do that many people in a crossover again, yes. Would I do it if there was overlap, No.

Would I run every game with 8 players? Absolutely. I wish I had them now, an 8 PC group is really, really fun.
Gurv
05-06-05, 07:32 PM Have you ever wondered, when in the minority, whether it was really you having the superior method?
stembolt
05-07-05, 02:34 PM Have you ever wondered, when in the minority, whether it was really you having the superior method?

Put like that it would indicate that I have the superior method, thank you.

I am only in the minority here, at this moment. It just so happens that the people here in this sample happen to be capable/willing to play with a very low number of players.

Furthermore my �superior� methods are certainly well shared out so I am hardly unique. Part of the problem here is that this topic is on the wrong board. You want �what�s a dm to do?�

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rhone1 05-01-05, 06:30 PM	How big of a party is too big to handle as a dm? I have just started a new Eberron campaign and the number of people playing has grown from 6 to 10. The players are all experienced players and I'd hate to leave anyone out of the group. However, at yesterday's game it was almost too much to handle, combat was slow, so many side conversations and almost no roleplaying was being played. Anyone have any ideas?
Edymnion 05-01-05, 06:36 PM	I prefer to run a group of 3-4 people. I consider 6 the absolute maximum I would ever DM. Any more than that, and its time to split the group into two groups and run seperate games for them, because by that time its just too big to be worth the effort, IMO.
Egres 05-01-05, 06:43 PM	No more than 6. Exceptions could be allowed only for short periods.
Pallis 05-01-05, 06:59 PM	I'd say I'm happiest with a group of four or five: that way everyone seems to get a decent amount of the DM's time and feels as though they're part of the game...
Streamweaver 05-01-05, 07:02 PM	I don't think there is a hard answer, it depends on the DM and the players. I prefer 5 good players. I'm currently running with 6, but they're all good and I don't have a real problem with it.
InfinityStar8 05-01-05, 07:56 PM	I run a game with 5 players and a 6th person joins in from time to time when his work lets him. I find five good experienced players can handel everything rather well and it give a group enough vareation to be fun.
Caliber 05-01-05, 08:59 PM	I prefer to run a group of 3-4 people. I consider 6 the absolute maximum I would ever DM. Any more than that, and its time to split the group into two groups and run seperate games for them, because by that time its just too big to be worth the effort, IMO. I agree with Ed. -Cal
ThatOneMonk 05-01-05, 09:23 PM	10? wow, no way. I'm going to be starting 6 soon, and that's because two of them conned me into letting them in... because I'm weak... :(
Korhal_IV 05-02-05, 03:25 AM	I DM'ed for 7, and it was the best campaign I ever ran. It did bog down a lot during combat, though. I ended up getting so ****** at one newbie player who took FOREVER to decide what he was doing that I'd just skip him if it went over 30 seconds before declaring an action (and this wasn't difficult puzzle type stuff; "there's an orc trying to stab you." "Uh..." Other players: "Kill it! Kill it! Kill it!" "Uh..."). 10 is an absurdly large number, though. I would really suggest splitting into two groups if you can do that - out of ten players, there's gotta be one who's willing to DM (or co-DM - he can run one storyline, you run another, the two parties meet up, trade off members, or whatever whenever you guys decide). Failing that, impose strict time limits on decision-making in combat (you have nine guys ahead of you doing stuff, this oughta give you plenty of time to plan ahead), and try to focus a bit more on roleplay or puzzles or things that let everyone participate without necessarily breaking down into initiative. Combat will also drag because there's a lot of "downtime" per player - time that they personally aren't involved in the combat. A party of 10 can handle CRs 3-4 levels above it. A single big bad guy is probably the easiest way to go, since you don't want to run through a horde of NPCs in addition to your monstrous party. Try using terrain, traps, and other such elements to add a depth of complexity to the encounter. Split the PCs up, etc.
garner_adam 05-02-05, 04:37 AM	All my best games seem to be with three people. Five people is also a good because I find that one person becomes lead and the others split in to two groups of two. Any else experience this? Oh and you definitely need another GM in your group of friends. Seems like a too many indians and not enough chiefs situation.
Aaramis 05-02-05, 06:00 AM	How big is too big? Anything more than a mouthful is a waste. - Says the great wyrm Red Dragon. Get your minds out of the gutter.
DarkWarriorKarg 05-02-05, 09:05 AM	I used to get numbers like this in my old Torg game (12!). So I split them into two groups & ran concurrent storylines. I even had group crossovers. But that was in the days when all I had was work & nothing else. I'd suggest concurrent adventures. Ask at least 1 to co-author/Dm with you. Your assistant can also run the major NPCs (basically be the evil PC) vs the group. You run everything else.
Gurv 05-02-05, 10:03 AM	How many depends on the kind of game you want to run. With more people in a group, there is less focus on any single character's story. If you have more than 3-4 players and want to have a plot-driven game, then some of the players begin to take on the role of interested bystanders who tag along to help rather than being part of the involved party themself. A small group is best for newer players and DMs, while more experinced players might be able to handle taking turns in the limelight a little better. I run my best games with 4-5 players. Currently I have 7, with an occassional 8th, which works fine for a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl type game, but not so well for the kind of adventure I want to run in Eberron. I may end up thinning them out soon.
Eberik 05-02-05, 02:28 PM	Wow, 10... it took me 2 yrs to get a group of 5, and soon to be 6 I think, but anyways wow...... Well for one idea that I did once way back when I had too many players to deal with, I made one group A and the other group B and they work kinda like a alpha and beta sqwad as it were. They were both on the same adventure, but one went about it more along the ways of one way (sneeky, all out combat, or all out arcane) and the other group would take another approach to the adventure. It was interesting to see the groups almost get antagonistic towards one another in competition to get the adventure done their way first before the other group could. It lead to a lot fo sabotage and sneeky stuff, but was fun. But a lot of work, a lot of planning and well, a lot for someone to have to deal with for a long time. Personally, I would split them up, tell them you love the fact they're there to game and play and all, but that too many cooks in the kitchen is a bad idea. (as it were for my bad analogy.)
ekomega 05-03-05, 01:25 PM	I've found 5 players to be the maximum I can divide my attention between, with 6 being playable but difficult. Of course, even if you have 6 players that doesn't mean they'll all show up. I'm surprised that so many others said the same number. I guess you can only spread your attention so far, and a group only functions well when so big. 5 is good for CRs because then encounters are a little easier and you can usually assume PCs will come out on top. With 4 players, despite what the books say, sometimes it is too challenging.
hellfirewyrm 05-03-05, 01:35 PM	I try to keep it to about 6 PCs because more makes the game too slow and too few makes it too difficult.
Dragom 05-03-05, 01:37 PM	I did 12 once. With one cohort, 2 animal companions, a familiar and a skeleton. And the druid started summoning. Take my advice. Break your group in half. Talk to them and find out who's attached to who and cut along the line of least resistence. Or you'll end up where I did. 30min a turn is excessive.
Naudachu 05-03-05, 02:38 PM	I played in a large group awhile back and the GM used Whimsy cards (http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/byzantium/55/whimsy.htm) to keep everyone in the game. Basically its a deck of cards with plot devices on them. Each player would draw one at the beginning of the game and play it when they had an idea how to fit it into the game. Then, depending on success, draw another. When played the player would suggest an event involving NPCs and PCs in the scene that had something to do with the plot device on the card. Then the GM could accept, reject or modify the idea. If the idea is accepted the player may gain bonus XP. i.e. A player plays the Greed card when another PC is wounded and cornered by a couple of thugs. He suggests that one of the thugs stabs the other so he can have all the loot himself. It really keeps everyone's head in the game and adds unexpected results even for the GM. It can get out of hand, though and the GM sometimes has to step in and call for a hold on using the cards for a little while. Depending on the group this can devovle into backstabbing or one-up-manship. But I've been wanting to use that idea ever since. This may work best in a game where the characters split up as opposed to clustering in a group. You don't want a player influencing his own character in this way even indirectly.
The Livewire 05-03-05, 07:32 PM	6 is my maximum too. Then again, I'm something of a lethal DM, so says my dead character collection, so they appriciate the reinforcements. Right now I'm running 4 players, and we're lucky to be all balanced out. Coud use a frontline fighter or two though.
KP91 05-04-05, 04:37 PM	I like 4-5 but 6 is the max. Unless the situation lets you have more though. Such as if your group is a band of Lhazaar pirates, they may play the most of the crew.
Docrailgun 05-04-05, 05:13 PM	I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far in this thread. 6 or so is probably the maximum I would feel comfortable with. That being said, more than six is possible, but as a GM, I'd have to be very hard-nosed. "Init 16 - What do you do?" no response... "Right. Who's next." So on and so forth. You'd have to run a very tight ship to run more than 6 people, I think. Splitting the group up is probably a good idea. How big of a party is too big to handle as a dm? I have just started a new Eberron campaign and the number of people playing has grown from 6 to 10. The players are all experienced players and I'd hate to leave anyone out of the group. However, at yesterday's game it was almost too much to handle, combat was slow, so many side conversations and almost no roleplaying was being played. Anyone have any ideas?
Gurv 05-04-05, 06:29 PM	So on and so forth. You'd have to run a very tight ship to run more than 6 people, I think. Splitting the group up is probably a good idea. I'm planning on doing that this week with my insane group of 8. Not only are there too many players at the table and too many PCs to challenge during encounters, but they're all geared towards different things. They can all function as they are now, but some of them would be much better in a "solve the mystery" game, while others will excel in a more "swashbuckling adventure" type situation. Not sure how they're going to get split up, but I think selective teleportation might work right now. They're too low level to get back together without a lot of effort, and if I leave it so that it seems like the other half of the group perished, then there will be no roleplaying reason to try.
poeticyde 05-05-05, 11:49 AM	I started my Eberron campaign with five PC's and one NPC member of the main party. I almost immediately had three other players who wanted to join in the game, but I knew that six "main" characters was the most I was comfortable handling...but things worked out, because two of my players are moving away at the end of the month, and I was able to rotate the three others into their place. For a brief time, I was running a campaign with eight PC's, and it got a little crazy...and I am now turning down any one else who wants to join in. Six PC's is my comfortable limit, and even that stretches it a little...
reese 05-06-05, 12:23 AM	find someone to help keep your stuff straight... they can help look up rules and keep things in order, couldn't hurt, even if players are all good. your very own personal living breathing cohort!!! the possibilities are endless... but if you can't find anyone to help than definitley split your group.
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple 05-06-05, 01:47 AM	I did an 11 person campaign once... Once. Never again. For the love of all that is and ever will be, I strongly suggest setting a FIRM maximum of six, and if you can help it, never do more than four. Simply put, D&D can be a party, but if the game is at all important to you as a DM, it quickly loses all reward when people are too busy chatting on tangents to listen to what you're saying, or for that matter, can't hear you at the other end of your 20 foot long gaming table. Every DM has to learn how to be strong and say "Sorry, but there's no more room at my gaming table. I know Billy got in on the game yesterday, but he asked before you did. Sorry." Much the same way, in fact, that every good DM has to learn how to say "I'm sorry, but you can't be a tenth level illithid psion in my level two campaign." or "I'm sorry, but you can't be a hengeyokai shujenja in my setting. Neither Hengeyokai nor shujenjas exist."
Marshall Stone 05-06-05, 02:44 AM	I was in a game once that had started out at 8 players and grew to 12. It quickly grew tiresome. Which was something of a pity since I was intrigued by the idea; basically it was just like ol' D&D cartoon show. All the characters came from the "real" world that took up characters in the "game" world. We were allowed to use whatever we already knew about the setting in the game, but we couldn't look anything up in books of course. I currently run a group of six with a co-DM. I have to write that six is my limit as well. Initially I had ten people interested, in which case I would have run two groups, but fortunately things worked out the way they are now. Still that's eight people sitting around a large table that takes up most of my living room. Gets a little crowded and hot if the window's not open. I agree with Gnome Dragon Disciple, you have to set limits and stick by them. You have 10 players, divide them into two groups.
stembolt 05-06-05, 07:04 PM	OK, wow. My guess is everyone here is organizationally challenged. With a standard Action/Adventure Campaign the minimum number of PCs in an adequate group is 4 (from optimization analysis). That�s the low ball. 5 gives you some breathing space in character creation and 6 usually gives you the ideal mix. So 6 PCs is the middle number. 6 PCs run insignificantly slower than 4 and usually the time is a logical increase of 50%. As for 8 players that�s where you need to break out the table rules (I suggest strong table rules at all levels but at 8 they are vital). With table rules 8 works fine. In college my weekly game was always 6 and sometimes 8-9. And I have played with 16 players, 19 characters. It was a crossover between two groups that had some overlap. Would I do that many people in a crossover again, yes. Would I do it if there was overlap, No. Would I run every game with 8 players? Absolutely. I wish I had them now, an 8 PC group is really, really fun.
Gurv 05-06-05, 07:32 PM	Have you ever wondered, when in the minority, whether it was really you having the superior method?
stembolt 05-07-05, 02:34 PM	Have you ever wondered, when in the minority, whether it was really you having the superior method? Put like that it would indicate that I have the superior method, thank you. I am only in the minority here, at this moment. It just so happens that the people here in this sample happen to be capable/willing to play with a very low number of players. Furthermore my �superior� methods are certainly well shared out so I am hardly unique. Part of the problem here is that this topic is on the wrong board. You want �what�s a dm to do?�