Too many people interested in my D&D group

[Pinjata]

Hey guys,

I'm in a bit of a canundrum. I've been a DM for quite a few years. I had played and DM-ed in quite a few groups and it turns out, I have (with a few exceptions) left quite an impression on people. About two weeks ago, I have casually mentioned to a few friends, I am thinking of finally starting a new campaign and two weeks later, I have 17! people applying, calling and even begging to take them into my group.

Now, most of these people are ok. I'd say two of them are Top tier in terms of overall qualities, but at least another dozen are of a kind I'd like to have on my group. There is actually only one guy I don't like.

So. What do I do? I have aditional problem of selecting "the best" group and fearing it will not turn out as cool as I thought.

What should I do?

Thanks

[Pelle]

Can everyone make it regulary to every session? If so you should just pick the ones you like best or run multiple groups.

If not you are lucky. Just establish a limit for every session and a queue system, and let people join the game whenever they can. Just make sure to structure the game so that only characters of the present players participate in the activity of the session, and you can support many players.

[GaelofDarkness]

A queuing system could work. Have you considered a West Marches style game? It's a bit different but if there's that many people eager to join your group it sounds like the kind of thing you could handle.

It's significantly more work, obviously, but you could have different groups rotating in and out. Especially if not everyone could make it every session, you might just switch out two groups every other week (maybe three - but obviously the more groups you add the more work this is for you). The people who have really irregular schedules could pop in as guests to any group when they've got a free evening. You could even have all of the groups operating in the same world - think of the possibilities for cross-overs! You could orchestrate it so that one group has the option of unknowingly interfering with the other group's schemes. Maybe go as far as Group A kidnapping a member of Group B and then revealing that next session both groups will meet up for an all-out-death-brawl or thoughtful negotiations to reach a mutually beneficial agreement - depending on your play style. Of course if you don't want to introduce ANY PvP elements (very understandable) these encounters could turn into alliances - or they could start off as allied squads in a mercenary guild or cooperating cells in a rebellion - whatever you care for. Giving them the option to exchange info and the like makes it a bit more like a West Marches game.

Do you know if any of the interested players would consider DMing? You could offer to take on a protégé and split the work load. The possibilities for crossovers could still apply there too - depending on how confident your apprentice DM is with pulling something like that off.

[Blymurkla]

You might want to read about opening your gaming table (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1223/roleplaying-games/opening-your-game-table). There's a few links at the bottom which might be interesting too.

[Yora]

With that many people, two or three should become GMs as well. It doesn't even have to be separate campaigns. Each of you could be running separate adventures tha are taking place in the same region. Players could switch around between adventures and the GMs can share short summaries of what happened in their games.

I think looking at the West Marches approach is clearly the way to go. Coordinating some kind of planned story between GMs and also the players would be highly difficult.
Instead, I would establish some basic ground rules for the setting as orientation for the GMs what kind of content fits the campaign and then each of them make their own dungeons, that each can have their own NPCs and small stories.

[Kaptin Keen]

Be like the Xel'Naga: Take the worst and the lowest of all you can find, and pit them against each other in a pitiless evolutionary race to eventually become RP'ers to conquer the galaxy and rule all.

[Kami2awa]

Well that's great news, you've got enough for a gaming club! I agree that 17 is FAR too many for a single game of any RPG. You'll need to split them into multiple groups, each with its own GM. Among 17 people finding 2-3 GMs should not be impossible. Good luck!

[Mordaedil]

I would definitely not bring on board the guy you don't like.

For the rest, I'd maybe offer to run two-four games with different teams on rotation, where they are playing as parties in the same game.

Do game 0 as the one game where they all show up to, roll their characters and then have them introduce their characters and agree to how they want to split up their party construction and then let them know how the games are run and that they will have to let you know in advance if they will be busy on the weekends you play or they get cut from the game.

You'll have to be kinda strict until you have a managable group, but also be cordial with unforseen consequences.

[Rynjin]

Pick 4-6 of the best candidates and tell the rest better luck next time. They are your first pick for replacements when half to all of your current group drops out.

It's hard at first, but do it enough times and your heart will shrivel and harden to a stone-like strength.

[BreaktheStatue]

Once you've already determined the sensible method for dealing with this, but before you tell them, you should gather the 17 together:

Turn-around in a high-backed chair, a drink in hand. Totally stone-faced:

"You may be wondering why I've gathered you all here today. Some said I was crazy when I suggested a single 17-member adventuring party; that it was totally unwieldy and insane. I aim to prove them wrong. Ladies and gentlemen, let's play some D&D."

[Incorrect]

Dont try to please 17 people.
A queue system would only serve as a reminder to those left out that they are not allowed to play this time.
Pick a group, and suggest to the rest that they create separate groups. I would not try to tie these campaigns together, as again, this would only be a reminder that they were not chosen.
Better to make a clean cut on these things.
Keep it simple. Make one group and play with them.

Prioritize people who can attend the game every time. Personally I always allow anyone currently GMing for me to have a spot if they want it. It might be fun to avoid having exactly the same groups that has played together before, and try a new constellation instead. Choose people who actively add positive things to the game.

[dino_park]

I'm one of the interested people :P

[SirBellias]

I'm one of the interested people :P

Congratulations! You found the secret DM plotting area! Now that you have announced yourself, it is even more likely for this conversation to become super awkward.

With that said, I recommend a West Marches style game, as GaelofDarkness mentioned. That way everyone can shuffle around, you only have to run one world, and as long as you make sure any given outing can be handled in one session by a group of focused players, it works wonderfully.

Or you just eat all party members you dislike with direwolves until they don't show up anymore. Worked for me.

[Maelynn]

Now that you have announced yourself, it is even more likely for this conversation to become super awkward.

Even more so if it turns out he's 'that one guy'... ;)

[Calthropstu]

Even more so if it turns out he's 'that one guy'... ;)

Shhhh, that one guy is going to be the first eaten by dire wolves.

[Beneath]

The first D&D campaigns were like this; I'm told the OD&D books say a ratio of 1:20 referees:players was typical. The trick is that at any given session, most of the group won't show.

"West Marches style" is one way to manage it, but I don't think I've seen the links (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/) posted (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/94/west-marches-running-your-own/) to explain what he did. You might also be interested in what he says about his New Century City game (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/130/mixing-players-mixing-plots/).

You can do something similar with a sufficiently large dungeon (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2017/10/so-you-want-to-run-your-own-vaults-of.html). Castle Greyhawk filled that role for Gygax's game.

Basically: since you won't have the same players at every session, you can throw out the idea of a consistent plot. Instead have a consistent setting; the plot will reveal itself as the setting evolves and PCs will be a part of that but no PC is guaranteed a role. Which also means you can prep much more static situations (static, that is, until a PC shows up). (E: You can also throw out any idea of having managed and designed adventuring days, since the party size, composition, and cleverness will vary. Instead, just foreshadow how risky a given area is and let them manage their own adventuring day lengths)

You also don't have to do half as much player wrangling. If you want to schedule a session and someone can't make, great, they can't make. Someone else takes that seat and the game goes on. The West Marches guy didn't do any player wrangling, he just told them when he was available and let them schedule games.

[zlefin]

Are some of the people closer friends to you than others?
how many of the people are good friends with each other? and what clumps from thereby?

I'm going to look at the more practical aspects of selection (setting aside points others have made):
1. identify if there are some subgroups of people who should join together. (i.e. all or none should be in from that subgroup)

2. a lottery system can help select people in a way that doesn't hurt anyone's feeling. (though it doesn't fit as well since there's one guy you don't like and a couple you'd specifically like to include).

3. figure out what kind(s) of campaign you want to run, and see what kinds of campaign the players would like; as well as what kind of players they are. (I forget the various classification systems for player types). With this many players you should be able to select a group for high compatibility.
You could have a short survey for each player about this stuff, then look at the results.

[Calthropstu]

Obviously the solution is a live action jousting competition.

[Quertus]

If D&D has taught me anything, it's that 18 is 3 groups of 6. 3 GMs, each with 5 players. Or, heck, 2 GMs, each with 8 players. Talk to the group, figure out who can GM, who can meet when, who is interested in what, etc, and group accordingly.

And, yeah, definitely remember that some players come as a group.

[SirBellias]

If D&D has taught me anything, it's that 18 is 3 groups of 6. 3 GMs, each with 5 players. Or, heck, 2 GMs, each with 8 players. Talk to the group, figure out who can GM, who can meet when, who is interested in what, etc, and group accordingly.

And, yeah, definitely remember that some players come as a group.

And that is how you start a club. Works perfectly well, provided people are willing to take the seat, and doesn't fall back on you if no one outside the group you selected wants to.

If you're in such high demand, offer your advice to aspiring players on how to run it well and give them your blessing. After all, a consistent +1 is pretty okay.

[Rajaat99]

Make a list of those you wouldn't mind playing with and roll randomly. Tables always solve all problems.

[SirBellias]

Make a list of those you wouldn't mind playing with and roll randomly. Tables always solve all problems.

This man does random encounters. With dire wolves.

[Mastikator]

Make them compete for your attention by giving you gifts.

[Calthropstu]

And that is how you start a club. Works perfectly well, provided people are willing to take the seat, and doesn't fall back on you if no one outside the group you selected wants to.

If you're in such high demand, offer your advice to aspiring players on how to run it well and give them your blessing. After all, a consistent +1 is pretty okay.

I thought you started a club by ripping a tree out of the ground and breaking off the branches.

[Maelynn]

Tables always solve all problems.

Precisely! Like, you can flip them when you're losing. Problem solved.

[username1]

Try and start a gaming group with multiple tables. If not you can just pick the people you originally asked to play. I mean there must be some originals who spread the word.

[Pinjata]

Well, you made me laugh (and gave me sound advice). Thanks guys :)

[EldritchWeaver]

What will you do then?

[Calthropstu]

What will you do then?

Obviously the jousting competition.

[Kyrell1978]

The first D&D campaigns were like this; I'm told the OD&D books say a ratio of 1:20 referees:players was typical. The trick is that at any given session, most of the group won't show.
It's kind of true, but the older versions of the game were balanced completely differently. You were pretty much expected to die, and a 5th level character was "crazy powerful." Every class had a d6 hp and every weapon did a d6 damage [basic d and d]. No class powers to speak of to keep track of, so your really talking about a much simpler game to run.

[Beneath]

It's kind of true, but the older versions of the game were balanced completely differently. You were pretty much expected to die, and a 5th level character was "crazy powerful." Every class had a d6 hp and every weapon did a d6 damage [basic d and d]. No class powers to speak of to keep track of, so your really talking about a much simpler game to run.

Ben Robbins ran the West Marches game in 3.0, and made the argument (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/705/west-marches-secrets-answers-part-1/) that 3e works better than any previous edition for this style because of its enormously detailed combat rules.

That it was low-level and high-fatality is true (I think he said somewhere that the highest level character was 7th level), and there are reasons why that is which he gets into in his posts on the topic (in short, because if you ask players players set their own risk/reward level and then pull your punches, you aren't keeping up your end of the bargain), but that doesn't mean you can't run it with recent rules.

(also, rules for using dice other than d6 and d20 were added in one of the first supplements to OD&D, before the basic rules were written, and IIRC the most popular basic set (Moldvay) used those)

[Knaight]

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but: logistics might be your friend here. You've got 17 interested players, sure. 16 of them are even real candidates (don't invite the guy you don't like). Pin down a schedule that works for you, and see how many you have left after that - there's a good chance it's much more reasonable.

Otherwise just pick the subset you want to GM for most and call it a day.


If D&D has taught me anything, it's that 18 is 3 groups of 6. 3 GMs, each with 5 players. Or, heck, 2 GMs, each with 8 players. Talk to the group, figure out who can GM, who can meet when, who is interested in what, etc, and group accordingly.

And, yeah, definitely remember that some players come as a group.

Or 6 groups of 3, or two groups of five and two groups of four.

[paigeoliver]

Too many people are always bad.

My suggestion for a quick way to whittle down the list when there are just way too many potential players.

First eliminate every couple. Couples always call off the game in pairs, and it is often at the last second. Then eliminate anyone who relies on someone else to get them to the game (particularly if it is another players), these people will often be flaky in attendance, and in many cases they are people who should probably be finding a job to get out of their mother's basement and not gaming every day of the week.

Anyone on your list that you remember as always running late? Bye.
If you still have too many than cut out the hygiene challenged, people who tell anecdotes in the middle of the action and people who play with their cell phone during the game.

If you cut all those then you are probably going to have to go add some back in.