I’m starting a new campaign soon and more people than could possibly fit (11) have expressed interest. At the same time, from experience I know that we will end up with a lot of people dropping out, especially as for the vast majority of these people they’ve never played D&D before and it might turn out to not be their thing, and for the some the time commitment might be too much
My question is how would you handle this situation?
Option 1 is to run two games, this allows everyone to play, and if I run each game biweekly that means that I’m running D&D once a week and players are playing twice a month (so less of a time commitment for players) but this assumes no/few dropouts which is a big ask.
Option 2 is to assume that realistically speaking 11 eventually becomes 4-5 and that having a big pool is good because it’s statistically more likely that I can end up with a full party of people who make most sessions and want to play. The issue here is how do I initially handle things should I run for 11? No way. Run two groups like proposed in option 1 then merge them when people start dropping out? That would disrupt things, or would we start over with a new adventure when that happens?
Thanks everyone, yeah I’m definitely not interested in running a game for 11 people. The question then is, if people drop out from both games, how to merge the remaining players into one game? Do we start over?
Have them playing the same campaign. Then combine by having half of them appear from an alternate dimension, having being teleported by a powerful god. Perhaps you can have the players pick the campaign that they want to merge to, or have the main one be the one with the most players in it, or the one furthest or not furthest along (depending on preference). I wouldn’t start over because then your players are playing things that they already have played. This might happen anyway if they merge into the not furthest along, but not as much. If you choose to merge into the furthest along, you can have the players roleplay a recap for the players who missed some.
Only caveat is that the groups may not "decay" at the same rate. Also when it's time to "consolidate" some players may have challenges rescheduling. But yes, unless you had a co-DM 11 is likely way too much.
Option 3 would be "Western Marches" and the "regularly scheduled" games is more a "pick up game" where players who want to go show up, and you run a sort of open world*. There's more to it, it's probably only best for really experienced DMs and Players who are also willing to keep track of the moving parts of the game world. "The gang's all here" is possible and you'd likely need a Co-DM on those sessions (it's also one of the times I'd actually allow PvP because different characters can fall into different conflict sides in a more freeform world venturing campaign ... not necessarily violent PvP rather stuff like two crews trying to heist the same thing or put their flag on the same territory).
*My recommended variant for Western Marches would assert each player has 2-3 characters to choose from for given sessions in case a character is sort of in "suspense" from a prior session that's not being picked up at the session being run. DMs and players will need a lot of notes.
I'd say plan your first adventure for each game to be relatively short... something that can be completed in 4 or 5 sessions. Either run both groups through the same adventure or separate adventures. Under ideal circumstances it would be two separate adventures that converge after those 4+ sessions... so at that point whoever's left out of the two groups all meet each other and get to trade notes. Bonus points if you can manufacture a complicated mystery that can only be resolved when both groups meet each other and start working together. That's a lot of work, of course, but I think it's the ideal way to eventually combine two parties into one.
Just uh... don't do too good of a job... if you don't manage to scare any players away you're going to have both groups converge and just end up with 11 players all over again :P
Just uh... don't do too good of a job... if you don't manage to scare any players away you're going to have both groups converge and just end up with 11 players all over again :P
Yeah if DMs are scarce in your environment and it turns out you have 11 committed players, well abundance of riches can sometimes be a curse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I suggest you see if 1 other person wants to DM and then sort the players among you and the other DM by schedule or whatever parameters you prefer (physical proximity for a live game, etc).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thanks everyone, yeah I’m definitely not interested in running a game for 11 people. The question then is, if people drop out from both games, how to merge the remaining players into one game? Do we start over?
Depends. If the environments are similar you could do an adventure with each group when you want to merge, or one do one adventure with 11- people, having each group go on different side quests or main quests in a way allowing them to meet each other.
Realistically, do you have the time to run two campaigns? Very few people do. Don't feel like you owe anyone a game. It's unfortunate, but its just a fact that there are many more players than there are DMs. The up side is you get to be choosy. Cut the number down to 6 or 7 and only run one game and tell the rest the table is full. I say 6-7 because its a safe bet 1-3 won't be able to make it to any given session, and then you'll still end up with a quorum. First, figure out which of them are interested in playing the kind of game you're running. Odds are that will cut a couple of them. Tell those who don't make the cut you'll give them a call if a seat opens up and see if they're still interested. Or do as Biowizard said, and have those who you don't play with see if they want to start their own game. Trying to run two games just to please everyone else will only end up with you frustrated and overwhelmed.
Realistically, do you have the time to run two campaigns? Very few people do. Don't feel like you owe anyone a game. It's unfortunate, but its just a fact that there are many more players than there are DMs. The up side is you get to be choosy. Cut the number down to 6 or 7 and only run one game and tell the rest the table is full. I say 6-7 because its a safe bet 1-3 won't be able to make it to any given session, and then you'll still end up with a quorum. First, figure out which of them are interested in playing the kind of game you're running. Odds are that will cut a couple of them. Tell those who don't make the cut you'll give them a call if a seat opens up and see if they're still interested. Or do as Biowizard said, and have those who you don't play with see if they want to start their own game. Trying to run two games just to please everyone else will only end up with you frustrated and overwhelmed.
I've been running two games online for a few months now but that's because I didn't have to work (had surgery, been on sick leave, starting running the games as a way to fill my time) which will change come July when I get back to work.
Both online campaigns are nearing their completion and I was going to start this game (which is in-person, everyone involved is vaccinated) when they are. Technically if I run two games it would be replacing two with two but of course, the massive difference is I now also have a full-time job to get back to. But that's fixable by using a bi-weekly schedule, effectively meaning I need to prep and run one game a week.
I don't have any criteria I can use to cull the player count because most of them have never played D&D before so no one is a problem player, no one has a history of flaking, no one is amazing to have around the table, etc. The only player involved whom I've run D&D for before is my wife. Also, these people are mostly friends of my wife's, with the exception of one dude who is my friend, so I can't really even go by who I like more because I don't know any of them super well, and as far as I can tell they're all okay people.
Not sure about a second DM as like I said most of them have never even played, but it could be an option further down the line I guess.
I would split the group and run two games. If you lose players, combine the groups. Run the same campaign world but have the two parties start at different ends of the map with the endgame in the same location. That way if you lose players, both parties can end up at some mid-ground staging area without breaking verisimilitude.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
From there ask in anyone feels like this isn't for them. You might get a few people who didn't like it or a few people who you just don't want to play with.
You will also get a feel for people and be able to put them in groups that better fit them. A lot of new groups need at least 1 person who is willing to speak up and interact at first.
From there ask in anyone feels like this isn't for them. You might get a few people who didn't like it or a few people who you just don't want to play with.
You will also get a feel for people and be able to put them in groups that better fit them. A lot of new groups need at least 1 person who is willing to speak up and interact at first.
That's a pretty good idea. Find out who was jazzed about it and maybe you'll end up with a reasonable number.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Start by running two separate games. But make it clear to each group that this first campaign will be a short "See How You Like It" campaign designed to give everyone an idea of what D&D is, and whether it's something they'd be interested in continuing long term. So if someone drops out because D&D isn't for them - fine. If someone has a life schedule that makes regular gameplay difficult for them - no problem. If someone is just not a nice player (i.e.: only wants to play CN) - cool. It's just an introductory short adventure. No harm no foul.
Then take the most dedicated players that remain from those two introductory campaigns to form the final group for your regular on-going long-lasting campaign group.
From there ask in anyone feels like this isn't for them. You might get a few people who didn't like it or a few people who you just don't want to play with.
You will also get a feel for people and be able to put them in groups that better fit them. A lot of new groups need at least 1 person who is willing to speak up and interact at first.
That's a pretty good idea. Find out who was jazzed about it and maybe you'll end up with a reasonable number.
Yeah, this is a good idea. If you do combine the two games though I suggest not having one group suddenly pop in from another universe, just set the starting adventure in different areas of the same world. You can just as easily hunt goblins or fight pirates on the east coast as on the west coast, then everyone is going to the middle for their next quest.
Another solution, which may or may not be better depending on how much time you have. Is to start a game with say six players and have the rest on a waiting list. If a player drops out or is gone for , say, more thn three sessions then somone from the waiting list can join in instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m starting a new campaign soon and more people than could possibly fit (11) have expressed interest. At the same time, from experience I know that we will end up with a lot of people dropping out, especially as for the vast majority of these people they’ve never played D&D before and it might turn out to not be their thing, and for the some the time commitment might be too much
My question is how would you handle this situation?
Option 1 is to run two games, this allows everyone to play, and if I run each game biweekly that means that I’m running D&D once a week and players are playing twice a month (so less of a time commitment for players) but this assumes no/few dropouts which is a big ask.
Option 2 is to assume that realistically speaking 11 eventually becomes 4-5 and that having a big pool is good because it’s statistically more likely that I can end up with a full party of people who make most sessions and want to play. The issue here is how do I initially handle things should I run for 11? No way. Run two groups like proposed in option 1 then merge them when people start dropping out? That would disrupt things, or would we start over with a new adventure when that happens?
What do fellow DMs think?
Run two games. Do not try to fit a small arm around a table. Trying to make encounters work and keep people interested will end in frustration.
Definitely 2 games. You don't want a person's first experience of dnd to be waiting 45min for their turn in combat.
Run two games, and if lots of people drop out, combine them.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Thanks everyone, yeah I’m definitely not interested in running a game for 11 people. The question then is, if people drop out from both games, how to merge the remaining players into one game? Do we start over?
Have them playing the same campaign. Then combine by having half of them appear from an alternate dimension, having being teleported by a powerful god. Perhaps you can have the players pick the campaign that they want to merge to, or have the main one be the one with the most players in it, or the one furthest or not furthest along (depending on preference). I wouldn’t start over because then your players are playing things that they already have played. This might happen anyway if they merge into the not furthest along, but not as much. If you choose to merge into the furthest along, you can have the players roleplay a recap for the players who missed some.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Only caveat is that the groups may not "decay" at the same rate. Also when it's time to "consolidate" some players may have challenges rescheduling. But yes, unless you had a co-DM 11 is likely way too much.
Option 3 would be "Western Marches" and the "regularly scheduled" games is more a "pick up game" where players who want to go show up, and you run a sort of open world*. There's more to it, it's probably only best for really experienced DMs and Players who are also willing to keep track of the moving parts of the game world. "The gang's all here" is possible and you'd likely need a Co-DM on those sessions (it's also one of the times I'd actually allow PvP because different characters can fall into different conflict sides in a more freeform world venturing campaign ... not necessarily violent PvP rather stuff like two crews trying to heist the same thing or put their flag on the same territory).
*My recommended variant for Western Marches would assert each player has 2-3 characters to choose from for given sessions in case a character is sort of in "suspense" from a prior session that's not being picked up at the session being run. DMs and players will need a lot of notes.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd say plan your first adventure for each game to be relatively short... something that can be completed in 4 or 5 sessions. Either run both groups through the same adventure or separate adventures. Under ideal circumstances it would be two separate adventures that converge after those 4+ sessions... so at that point whoever's left out of the two groups all meet each other and get to trade notes. Bonus points if you can manufacture a complicated mystery that can only be resolved when both groups meet each other and start working together. That's a lot of work, of course, but I think it's the ideal way to eventually combine two parties into one.
Just uh... don't do too good of a job... if you don't manage to scare any players away you're going to have both groups converge and just end up with 11 players all over again :P
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yeah if DMs are scarce in your environment and it turns out you have 11 committed players, well abundance of riches can sometimes be a curse.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I suggest you see if 1 other person wants to DM and then sort the players among you and the other DM by schedule or whatever parameters you prefer (physical proximity for a live game, etc).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I have a game that started with 9 players, we lost 3 but 1 of them has just rejoined after having a baby. It was challenging but a lot of fun.
Depends. If the environments are similar you could do an adventure with each group when you want to merge, or one do one adventure with 11- people, having each group go on different side quests or main quests in a way allowing them to meet each other.
"Hero of the Heavens" (Title by Drummer)
Realistically, do you have the time to run two campaigns? Very few people do. Don't feel like you owe anyone a game. It's unfortunate, but its just a fact that there are many more players than there are DMs. The up side is you get to be choosy. Cut the number down to 6 or 7 and only run one game and tell the rest the table is full. I say 6-7 because its a safe bet 1-3 won't be able to make it to any given session, and then you'll still end up with a quorum. First, figure out which of them are interested in playing the kind of game you're running. Odds are that will cut a couple of them. Tell those who don't make the cut you'll give them a call if a seat opens up and see if they're still interested. Or do as Biowizard said, and have those who you don't play with see if they want to start their own game. Trying to run two games just to please everyone else will only end up with you frustrated and overwhelmed.
Definitely see if someone else will DM and try to split it into 2 groups.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I've been running two games online for a few months now but that's because I didn't have to work (had surgery, been on sick leave, starting running the games as a way to fill my time) which will change come July when I get back to work.
Both online campaigns are nearing their completion and I was going to start this game (which is in-person, everyone involved is vaccinated) when they are. Technically if I run two games it would be replacing two with two but of course, the massive difference is I now also have a full-time job to get back to. But that's fixable by using a bi-weekly schedule, effectively meaning I need to prep and run one game a week.
I don't have any criteria I can use to cull the player count because most of them have never played D&D before so no one is a problem player, no one has a history of flaking, no one is amazing to have around the table, etc. The only player involved whom I've run D&D for before is my wife. Also, these people are mostly friends of my wife's, with the exception of one dude who is my friend, so I can't really even go by who I like more because I don't know any of them super well, and as far as I can tell they're all okay people.
Not sure about a second DM as like I said most of them have never even played, but it could be an option further down the line I guess.
I would split the group and run two games. If you lose players, combine the groups. Run the same campaign world but have the two parties start at different ends of the map with the endgame in the same location. That way if you lose players, both parties can end up at some mid-ground staging area without breaking verisimilitude.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I would run 2 session 0s and 2 1 shots.
From there ask in anyone feels like this isn't for them. You might get a few people who didn't like it or a few people who you just don't want to play with.
You will also get a feel for people and be able to put them in groups that better fit them. A lot of new groups need at least 1 person who is willing to speak up and interact at first.
That's a pretty good idea. Find out who was jazzed about it and maybe you'll end up with a reasonable number.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Start by running two separate games. But make it clear to each group that this first campaign will be a short "See How You Like It" campaign designed to give everyone an idea of what D&D is, and whether it's something they'd be interested in continuing long term. So if someone drops out because D&D isn't for them - fine. If someone has a life schedule that makes regular gameplay difficult for them - no problem. If someone is just not a nice player (i.e.: only wants to play CN) - cool. It's just an introductory short adventure. No harm no foul.
Then take the most dedicated players that remain from those two introductory campaigns to form the final group for your regular on-going long-lasting campaign group.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Yeah, this is a good idea. If you do combine the two games though I suggest not having one group suddenly pop in from another universe, just set the starting adventure in different areas of the same world. You can just as easily hunt goblins or fight pirates on the east coast as on the west coast, then everyone is going to the middle for their next quest.
Another solution, which may or may not be better depending on how much time you have. Is to start a game with say six players and have the rest on a waiting list. If a player drops out or is gone for , say, more thn three sessions then somone from the waiting list can join in instead.