Joined: Jul 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 392 Location: Civitas Quinqueecclesiensis Karma: 26
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #15 on Mar 13, 2008, 9:09am »
The highest I ever got was 8 players plus me as a DM, but it only worked because some of them were more casual types, who preferred to see others direct the action and interject now and then.
My current campaign is six people plus the DM. More people are a physical impossibility, since our host doesn't have enough chairs to seat additional players! At home, I've got a huge table specifically bought for gaming (pictured here), but I'm not lugging it 240 km and back every second week!
Joined: Jul 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 410 Location: Urbana, IL Karma: 26
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #16 on Mar 13, 2008, 10:08am »
Quote:
The highest I ever got was 8 players plus me as a DM, but it only worked because some of them were more casual types, who preferred to see others direct the action and interject now and then.
I think it is unfortunate that the present thrust of D&D seems designed to push the casual player away from the table. I don't want an entire table full of laissez faire players, but I think the hobby is healthier when we welcome dabblers and social players.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 505 Karma: 15
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #17 on Mar 13, 2008, 12:22pm »
I definitely miss those days of characters coming and going. Most campaigns had a pretty solid set of stable players, but there was always some PCs going back and forth.
Interesting discussion on rpgnet, unfortunately, like most discussions there, they get so huge it's impossible to jump into...
for more discussion and confirmation of this phenomenon (some, alas, from our old friend tetsujin28).
I've never really stopped running my old world from the seventies even though I don't do it as much any more.
I remember that thread. I loved your initial post. The phrase "[a] time when everyone's dreams could kind of reach out and touch each other" tugs at the same sentimental heartstrings that make my eyes wet when I watch Arthur and Guenivere's final exchange in Excalibur.
Joined: Aug 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 323 Location: Leander, TX Karma: 14
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #19 on Mar 13, 2008, 1:28pm »
Quote:
Hi Jeff -
Good post on your blog, I missed it. I'm with Victor (last comment), that's what I think of as a fantasy campaign. Some GMs choose to close down their worlds, but 'closed world' was pejorative in the late seventies/early eighties gaming culture I grew up with.
for more discussion and confirmation of this phenomenon (some, alas, from our old friend tetsujin28).
I've never really stopped running my old world from the seventies even though I don't do it as much any more.
Fascinating. Have an Exalt!
Having read through that entire thread (!), I'm interested in the idea but I also can see that there are many ways in which I personally tend toward the closed campaign. For example, my own world of Xulrua (currently under construction) is consciously based upon Vance, Smith and Thundarr and it would ruin my own sense of having woven together something distinct (though by no means unique!) if a Viking or an orc were to show up. I can't be excited about it (this one in particular) unless I am satisfied that I have drawn the elements coherently from one set of sources and deliberately excluded others (like Tolkien, whom I admire). Maybe that's too artsy-smartsy, but I like having a coherent vision of the place. A hobbit running around would be too jarring, even though the world itself is not meant to be taken completely seriously (but there are varieties of wit, too, and the wit here isn't really geared to that sort of pastiche).
Nevertheless, there's something really exciting about the scene that was described. It sounds like great fun and I regret that it isn't more prevalent nowadays.
Philotomy was talking about a megadungeon that was really a sort of planar crossroads, with various gates, portals and so on. That sounds like exactly the sort of setting for an open campaign. Not the only one, of course, but very conducive.
It almost makes me want to have two campaign worlds: one that is narrow in its theme (Xulrua), and one that is rather more open to the tropes of fantasy role playing as it has developed (and thus a place where a variety of adventures, such as all my old TSR modules, could be comfortably set). Sadly, even having an "open" world these days doesn't mean a whole lot when there's little chance to take advantage of it: there are so many editions and playstyles even among the Old School community that such cross-campaign play would be a rarity.
Unless OD&D arises and conquers all of Gamerdom, of course. There may be a decent chance of that happening in about July or August of this year.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 505 Karma: 15
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #20 on Mar 13, 2008, 2:09pm »
Wanting a close theme to your world needn't mean must remain absolutely closed. Even back in the day, GMs would reject characters that didn't fit, or even just magic items (sorry, my game is low magic, your vorpal sword is just +2 in my world). Even things like race can change, or not. There's a european knight running around Tekumel as a result of a player who couldn't get his mind around Tekumel.
Certainly the differing game systems of today make it less likely, along with the fact that big game clubs have diminished in importance (I suspect at least some of these clubs are still quite active). But conventions could still be a source of openness. And it becomes far easier to run a session of your game at a convention in the hotel lobby if players can just bring in their PC from some other game.
Heck, even if you have a heavily plotted storyline as some of the detractors in that thread complained about, you could still bring in a PC from somewhere else.
I think it would be good for gaming to become a little less constrained.
WOW! Boy howdy, I liked that blog! Really put perspective on one of the few issues I was still having trouble with regarding our favorite game. Thanks for the link.
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #22 on Mar 14, 2008, 2:52pm »
Four seems about right on the low end. You can play with fewer, but it feels like a really small game where all the action has to be carried by the few players who showed up. IMO 50 is just a basic number of how many people can be controlled in a room without having to burst out of it. I think it's more so the referees don't become too numerous and have time to get back on the same page throughout the game. Referees are have a suggested maximum of 1:20, and 20 is really for a very good ref anyways.
My understanding is: this is really a style specific to OD&D. It is a "build up to" style. I know in our games we sometimes don't really need a ref for long stretches. Our is good, so he keeps the world hopping even though we may be ignoring it for awhile, but the real action is happening because each of us has information in a manner specific to our character. That way to can share and plan and interact and roleplay with everyone else at the table. That is, instead of taking turns interacting with, and inevitably competing for, the referee.
By making the game about the group interacting with itself it's more like a modern day LARP where people actually have things to enjoy playing through with other players and not needing refs there. I mean, they are there to make judgement calls, to interact with the world specifically in some way, and to record any item changes (loss, swapping, etc.) But the real work is building up to that level. I think it's best to start small and add players as things become more and more complex. The more people playing, the higher the complexity level and things to track and remember for 1 ref. It also means the players don't need the ref as often, so more can be added and increase their own understanding through play with someone who isn't a ref. Sure, the information they have is only a subset and not necessarily trustworthy (for being in character), but their own plans and actions can change things for others too.
It's a tough mix as the most we've played with was 13 and we could easily have done more with just our one ref. We increase our number of PCs too by including retainers, allies, henchman, etc. too. So the number of characters in play has gotten pretty high.
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 384 Location: Maryland, USA Karma: 26
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #23 on Mar 18, 2008, 9:30pm »
I like 5 or 6 players at one session. I was never able to actually run different concurrent groups, though. The way I am designing my current project is perfect for that style of game...although it won't happen anytime soon (I don't know enough gamers).
I designed a 'classic' AD&D campaign at one time (it was really my first try at a mega dungeon, before I was even familair with the genre) using just the original three hardcovers and nothing else, constructed for 2 players. This was a lot of fun, and was the last campaign I ran.
Speaking to Jeff's linked thread, it's interesting in that when I first started visiting some of the various old school forums, I would speak in terms of campaign and world being different things. To me, a world is a campaign setting (where you can host campaigns), but not a campaign. I think over the years the term has been muddled and now means world.
I always thought of campaigns as a hold over term from TSR's wargaming roots...a series of battles involving the same forces, basically. The world in which these took place was not a campaign. That's why I think I sometimes confuse people when I say I am designing campaign seven...but it's in the same world as my past campaigns. To me, a campaign is the story of a particular group of adventurers/players, or the story line they are involved with.
Finarvyn Administrator Dungeon Master member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,673 Location: Near Chicago Karma: 178
Re: "4-50 players" « Reply #24 on Mar 18, 2008, 10:17pm »
Well, if the characters are simple enough and the game is essentially a glorified wargame (as it was often in the dark ages) it wouldn't be impossible to run dozens of players at a time in a giaganto battle. Each would be in control of one miniature figure. Each side would move together so you might get bunches of guys moving and fighting at pretty much the same time, then the other side would get a turn. I'm not sure it would really be D&D, however, but more like a giant Chainmail battle.
For actual OD&D play in a true RPG format, I've never been comfortable with more than 6 players. Three is most ideal, as it gives variety in characters but also freedom for each person to get a turn often.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
I think that those numbers refer to a full campaign with multiple characters of building strongholds, exploring the wilderness, and crafting magic items. They only occasionally team up to tackle a dungeon together.
Some of these characters would be played by the same players, whilst others would be played by different players and sometimes, possibly often, only ever played once as one-offs for a night.
The game was heavily geared towards campaign play, just look in the AD&D books, and not for episodic, adventure of the week stuff.
The largest I've run was 10 players, which created seating/logistic issues and a couple of them were getting a little hyper. Combat seemed to go on and on and the accounting became nightmarish. Since then, I've learned how to use Chainmail, and think that I would use the "normal" or mass-troop rules while figuring 10 pc's, 5 npc's and 25 goblins. Each player would roll their own dice all at the same time, I'd roll for NPC's. Each "kill" would be at least a hit, depending on the HD of the creatures.. (d6 HD, d6 dam across the board) That indeed, would be fun!
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/thHAMTILE.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa152/jrients/BnM_Mogar.gif "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/themattjon/TheSilverWarrior.jpg "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/dog.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/finarvyn/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3632089479/384133a24f0d799205d632883fe0448e.jpeg "[avatar]")