West Marches is actually a really good approach to this kind of situation. You send the players a map and some potential things to explore, and they sign up for an adventure (which you can put a cap on). When you meet the quota, you figure out when to play. It's very player-driven so people who are less motivated/interested/available shake out quickly. I'd guess after about a month or two you will see how many folks you have left and you can shift gears to a more regular playstyle at that point if needed.
West Marches is actually a really good approach to this kind of situation. You send the players a map and some potential things to explore, and they sign up for an adventure (which you can put a cap on). When you meet the quota, you figure out when to play. It's very player-driven so people who are less motivated/interested/available shake out quickly. I'd guess after about a month or two you will see how many folks you have left and you can shift gears to a more regular playstyle at that point if needed.
Yeah, I suggested some form of West Marches too (though called it western marches because I'm disloyal/forgetful to concept terms), but when I realized that we're talking about largely new players, I'm not as sure. I think it could still work though, though maybe actually do a like a tutorial session of two groups taking each group to level 3. Then you and the players will know who has buy in.
I think a Westmarches game would work after the players know how to play. The lack of true direction can be unappealing or off-putting considering how much information new players already have to deal with.
I'm not saying it can't work, just that throwing the map at them can be overwhelming rather than, "the villagers have a problem and need help."
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?"
The largest group I have run a roleplay system for was 12, that was not DnD (Paranoia) it was 12 experienced players who took the story off in a. Crazy direction.
The largest 5E party I have run is 8 people that is a remote game, it works well, the players cycle through combat quickly and they all get several moments to shine every session, in person I think I could run 10 maybe 11 but they would need to be experienced players who can think quickly or plan out what they need to achieve and do and not spend 10 mins on their turn working out what to do next.
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.
Maybe grab lost mines of phandelver, you can run it for both parties so you only need one lot of prep and they can feel if they enjoy the game, if the parties shrink you can then find the right story moment to join the parties (when they have both completed the same stuff) and complete the adventure.
Do you really want to run two games? You might not have as many people drop as you expect. Or you might end up with 7 people: too big for one game, but a little too small for two.
Pick 5-6 players (max size of game you actually want to run). Run one-shots until you see who consistently attends. Boot people who are inconsistent and sub people in.
A variation on this theme is to select, by whatever means, the "main group" and the rest become "alternates". If a main group player can't play one session, the door is open for an alternate to pick up the seat for that session. It would mean character-sharing so some management would be in order there. Good way to let newbies get some table experience too. I still prefer the other suggestion of running two games in the same gameworld, perhaps slightly different areas, though.
If you want to run for 11 players and don't have the heart to cull it down to a manageable 5 or 6, run a Westmarches style game. Which is to say, a campaign with no set players, that each player can propose an adventure and a time to run it (that works for you as the DM) and then up to 6 players can join that adventure.
It depends if you want to run 2 games or just 1. If you're ready to run 2 games then it's certainly an option.
If you're not, then you need to pick the number of players for it, then invite the players that you want in your campaign. It is not uncommon for DMs, especially for online games, to have many applications and run interviews. My current campaign had a 2-round application process, first in writing with a couple general questions about age, experience with D&D and Roll20 etc and the second a live interview on Discord. That process allowed me to reduce the number of potential candidates considerably from which i finally selected the final group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
West Marches is actually a really good approach to this kind of situation. You send the players a map and some potential things to explore, and they sign up for an adventure (which you can put a cap on). When you meet the quota, you figure out when to play. It's very player-driven so people who are less motivated/interested/available shake out quickly. I'd guess after about a month or two you will see how many folks you have left and you can shift gears to a more regular playstyle at that point if needed.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yeah, I suggested some form of West Marches too (though called it western marches because I'm disloyal/forgetful to concept terms), but when I realized that we're talking about largely new players, I'm not as sure. I think it could still work though, though maybe actually do a like a tutorial session of two groups taking each group to level 3. Then you and the players will know who has buy in.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think a Westmarches game would work after the players know how to play. The lack of true direction can be unappealing or off-putting considering how much information new players already have to deal with.
I'm not saying it can't work, just that throwing the map at them can be overwhelming rather than, "the villagers have a problem and need help."
"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
The largest group I have run a roleplay system for was 12, that was not DnD (Paranoia) it was 12 experienced players who took the story off in a. Crazy direction.
The largest 5E party I have run is 8 people that is a remote game, it works well, the players cycle through combat quickly and they all get several moments to shine every session, in person I think I could run 10 maybe 11 but they would need to be experienced players who can think quickly or plan out what they need to achieve and do and not spend 10 mins on their turn working out what to do next.
Maybe grab lost mines of phandelver, you can run it for both parties so you only need one lot of prep and they can feel if they enjoy the game, if the parties shrink you can then find the right story moment to join the parties (when they have both completed the same stuff) and complete the adventure.
Do you really want to run two games? You might not have as many people drop as you expect. Or you might end up with 7 people: too big for one game, but a little too small for two.
Pick 5-6 players (max size of game you actually want to run). Run one-shots until you see who consistently attends. Boot people who are inconsistent and sub people in.
A variation on this theme is to select, by whatever means, the "main group" and the rest become "alternates". If a main group player can't play one session, the door is open for an alternate to pick up the seat for that session. It would mean character-sharing so some management would be in order there. Good way to let newbies get some table experience too. I still prefer the other suggestion of running two games in the same gameworld, perhaps slightly different areas, though.
If you want to run for 11 players and don't have the heart to cull it down to a manageable 5 or 6, run a Westmarches style game. Which is to say, a campaign with no set players, that each player can propose an adventure and a time to run it (that works for you as the DM) and then up to 6 players can join that adventure.
Here's a guide.
This wouldn't be a traditional adventure, but it would solve your player problem.
It depends if you want to run 2 games or just 1. If you're ready to run 2 games then it's certainly an option.
If you're not, then you need to pick the number of players for it, then invite the players that you want in your campaign. It is not uncommon for DMs, especially for online games, to have many applications and run interviews. My current campaign had a 2-round application process, first in writing with a couple general questions about age, experience with D&D and Roll20 etc and the second a live interview on Discord. That process allowed me to reduce the number of potential candidates considerably from which i finally selected the final group.