DMing for a larger group vs Kicking out players

So, it's pretty common for our group to play 2 games at once. One game for a couple of weeks, then the other, then the first again, so on.

Well, right now we're about start a new campaign with me DMing, but there's an issue. It's completely personal, other players don't seem to have this problem, but I do.

There are too many people. Five people other than me, to be exact.

Spoiler: Mini rant on why 5 people is too many

Show

Now, I like all of them, and they are good friends, but I does get tiring to play with two of them. One doesn't care at all about parts that don't involve him, and distracts other players and just makes the whole thing lose its focus. Any complaint about that he disregards as him "wanting to hangout with friends and not just play". Doesn't help that he has zero commitment. The other is a good RP-er, but has ridiculous amount of trouble with the rules. Just last week, after over 5 years playing 3.5/PF, he asked me with a straight face what "Fort Ref and Will Save" on the class table meant. You can't make this stuff up. More stuff about him in this old thread.

Additionally, I feel like everyone steps on each other's toes mechanics wise. Nobody is super unique in skill/gear selection, so people always fight for the spotlight. Roles aren't clearly defined, the Ninja has higher stealth and disable device than me, but can't scout because he lacks trapfinding. Three people have diplomacy maxxed out, so social situations you have all of them arguing different points and it's a mess. So on.

Lastly, it makes scheduling games a freaking nightmare. Last night our session lasted a whole two hours because the guy that's only interested in his moments was too tired to play. No other days available this week or the next. The one after that is gonna be tough as well. We'll be lucky to play at all in November.

Now, these are all OOC problems, that should be solved OOC. But I need help.

I feel like I've narrowed it down to three possible solutions.
Not DMing - This is always an option.
DMing for the other three players.
Accepting that the group won't like either option and DMing for all 5 anyway.

So I want to focus on the last two.

How can I make sure that the 5 players aren't constantly fighting for the spotlight, and that players don't lose focus during the 15 minutes between their turns in combat?

Alternatively, how can I communicate to the others that I don't want to DM for all of them without hurting their feelings?

Thank you.

No clue on DMing for five, but if you want to explain that you can't properly DM for five folk without hurting their feelings...

Just tell them, plainly and without malice. They're your friends, you said, so just say something like "I know you all want to play together, but I just don't feel confident in my abilities to properly DM for a group of this size."

I would say that it depends on the social structure of the group and the underlying motives for play.

I'm part of a similar scenario. The social situation is complicated, and I won't get too into it, but the gist of it is that I find it very frustrating to play D&D [or anything for that matter] with this collection of people together in the same place. I already decided I wasn't going to run games for them, having been the GM in the past and not wanting to deal with it again, and wanted to engage with alternate activities with subsets of the group, but another individual who is also a GM wanted to play D&D with the group. I play, and sit back and just focus on playing the game and having fun for myself and not dealing with the rest of the s***.

If you don't want to play D&D with those people, my 2c would be to do something else. If the reality of the social complexities of the situation force it, just play along and try to have fun hanging out with the people you want to and don't take it too seriously. Standing back and being a player helps, since you can invest as much or as little as you want and stick to the having of fun.

Well, for the one with no real interest in the game, I would simply follow the standard procedure of still hanging out with him, but not gaming.

As for your other problem, just make a special sheet where on the backside everything printed is explained. Noone can be that bad with anything unless they intent to if they just have to flip a page of paper (trust me, I tried this with a similarly challenged player).

If neither is to your liking, I can only rcommend to sit down, talk it over, and probabl. land on a reduced group. Happens, Does in no way mean one is not friends any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JNAProductions

No clue on DMing for five, but if you want to explain that you can't properly DM for five folk without hurting their feelings...

Just tell them, plainly and without malice. They're your friends, you said, so just say something like "I know you all want to play together, but I just don't feel confident in my abilities to properly DM for a group of this size."

---

It's not that I don't feel confident, though. I have DMed for them in the past, it's just that I'm sick of the never-ending stream of problems such a large group creates.

Would you be hurt if someone said this to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant

I would say that it depends on the social structure of the group and the underlying motives for play.

I'm part of a similar scenario. The social situation is complicated, and I won't get too into it, but the gist of it is that I find it very frustrating to play D&D [or anything for that matter] with this collection of people together in the same place. I already decided I wasn't going to run games for them, having been the GM in the past and not wanting to deal with it again, and wanted to engage with alternate activities with subsets of the group, but another individual who is also a GM wanted to play D&D with the group. I play, and sit back and just focus on playing the game and having fun for myself and not dealing with the rest of the s***.

If you don't want to play D&D with those people, my 2c would be to do something else. If the reality of the social complexities of the situation force it, just play along and try to have fun hanging out with the people you want to and don't take it too seriously. Standing back and being a player helps, since you can invest as much or as little as you want and stick to the having of fun.

---

I'm not sure what you meant with your first paragraph.

These people and I hang out weekly on non-gaming related stuff. I could DM for other people, but there are these 3 player that are actually really good players, and two that aren't so good.

As for being a player, yeah, I'm a player in the current campaign. It's easier, but hardly optimal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrayDeath

Well, for the one with no real interest in the game, I would simply follow the standard procedure of still hanging out with him, but not gaming.

As for your other problem, just make a special sheet where on the backside everything printed is explained. Noone can be that bad with anything unless they intent to if they just have to flip a page of paper (trust me, I tried this with a similarly challenged player).

If neither is to your liking, I can only rcommend to sit down, talk it over, and probabl. land on a reduced group. Happens, Does in no way mean one is not friends any more.

---

I'd love nothing more than that, but how do you kick someone out without hurting their feelings?

Now, I'm not saying your challenged player wasn't as bad my challenged player. But I'm talking "not knowing how to calculate your attack roll even after 5 years playing" type of bad. Attack rolls. The only thing that melee bruisers (the only kind of characters he plays) do. After 5 years. I've honestly given up on trying to have him understand stuff.

Let the group die. Wait a month. Individually invite people you want to a new group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavyfuel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant

I would say that it depends on the social structure of the group and the underlying motives for play.

I'm part of a similar scenario. The social situation is complicated, and I won't get too into it, but the gist of it is that I find it very frustrating to play D&D [or anything for that matter] with this collection of people together in the same place. I already decided I wasn't going to run games for them, having been the GM in the past and not wanting to deal with it again, and wanted to engage with alternate activities with subsets of the group, but another individual who is also a GM wanted to play D&D with the group. I play, and sit back and just focus on playing the game and having fun for myself and not dealing with the rest of the s***.

If you don't want to play D&D with those people, my 2c would be to do something else. If the reality of the social complexities of the situation force it, just play along and try to have fun hanging out with the people you want to and don't take it too seriously. Standing back and being a player helps, since you can invest as much or as little as you want and stick to the having of fun.

---

I'm not sure what you meant with your first paragraph.

These people and I hang out weekly on non-gaming related stuff. I could DM for other people, but there are these 3 player that are actually really good players, and two that aren't so good.

As for being a player, yeah, I'm a player in the current campaign. It's easier, but hardly optimal.

---

The first single sentence, or the paragraph below it?

The basic gist of the paragraph is that one of the groups I play D&D with has 2 players who negatively impact the amount of fun I have running D&D for and playing D&D with. One of them is really excited to play D&D, but just isn't fun to play with [and especially GM for], the other one doesn't want to play D&D with the group, but wants to do things with members.

In the end, though, the logistics of the group and the complex web of social ties that governs who want to participate in events with who and who's willing to/can participate in what kind of event means that D&D once a week ends up being the activity of compromise as long as somebody is willing to GM. I'm no longer willing to GM for this group, but somebody else is, so I've taken it upon myself to sit back and play and try to have fun for myself and ignore the problems, they're the GM's now.

I don't consider 5 to be large, by any means. I consider 4-5 "normal" for a game. 8 is large. 12 is large. 5? 5 is average, IMO.

As to your specific problems: Mr Not Interested-Can't-Make-It can just see himself out. I'm more than happy to tell players who aren't interested in the "group" portion of the game that they are welcome to leave.

As to scheduling: pick a day and tell everyone to deal with it. They can either make time and show up or they can not. Every single session shouldn't be a cat-herding effort to find a day that works. Get input on the day most people can make it and tell the rest "this is the day". I get it, life happens, but "life" shouldn't be happening so often as to force reschedules or cancelations every week. Spoken as a 33-year-old with a full-time job and other responsibilities.

On spotlight: take turns. So all your characters are charismatic. Present situations that cater to specific elements the other characters don't have. Got a Ninja? Have a league of assassins that will only deal with him. Got a rogue? Have a theives guild that will only deal with him. Got a fighter? Have a trustworty captain of the guard who will only deal with the him. So on and so forth.

Lean on the idea that each character's mental skills, even if all equal, represents different speaking eloquence on different subjects. Lean on their knowledge skills as a reflection of what they can speak well about, and what they can't. If the Fighter didn't put points in Religion, but has a great diplomacy, he lacks the vernacular to speak well on the subject of religion, or to the religious. If the Sorcerer didn't put points in arcana, he may be very personable, but he doesn't understand magic in the way a wizard might, and can't speak about the math and equations and formula to a wizard in a way that the wizard may appreciate.

Also: enforce the other players being quiet while someone talks. If Bobby is talking to the NPC, Jack and Susie need to be patient, wait their turn and if they want to add something to the conversation, do it after Bobby finishes. If they are helping Bobby then it needs to be made clear who's doing the talking, and how they're helping. IME: once you start getting a flow of players taking turns even doing the same thing, they'll start going "Oh I did this last time, you can do it this time."

I once ran a game for eleven other people. You need to tell them, "This is a lot of people, and if we don't focus on the game, it will fall apart."

Several specific thoughts:

1. During melee, I will not wait on somebody who hasn't decided.

DM: Your turn, Jon. What does Stronginthearm do?
Jon: Umm, I wasn't paying attention. How many goblins are there?
DM: I'll get back to you at the end of the round. Somebody please catch Jon up. Val, you're next. What does Bramblerose do?
...
DM (end of round): OK, Jon and Diane, back to you. Diane, what does Sophia do?
Diane: Sophia casts Cure Serious Wounds on Gwydion.
DM: Fine. You two roll the dice and apply the results. Jon, what does Stronginthearm do?
Jon: I haven't decided whether to ...
DM: Stronginthearm is undecided and looks around. OK, next round starts....

2. The purpose of wandering monsters is to prevent the game from bogging down. If the players spend over five real minutes in useless discussion, then it's ghoul o'clock.

3. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character. When they are all different, that's easy to arrange. But with overlapping skills, you need to plan to make this happen. Three diplomats? Either separate them, or have encounters with characters who don't speak Common, or use other tools to give each player his or her moment.

4. Get help. Many DM actions can be done by players. Get one person to track initiative. Ask another to put minis away when the encounter is over -- or even to set them up.

DM: Seven more ogres come out from behind the rocks. Rob, Nighthawk's got a late initiative. Would you set them up while I continue the melee?

5. But there is one person there who cannot get distracted. You will be trying to pull people back in regularly. But when you get distracted from the game, then it doesn't exist.

It can be done, and you can do it. But you need to commit to it, and be the best, most focused DM you can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

-Excellent Advice-

---

Jay, I think that's some awesome advice. However, if the OP just plain doesn't have FUN DMing for a group of 5... None of it matters. D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone involved, so no matter how competent the OP is, if it's not fun, it's not worth it.

I'm assuming you're all grown adults. Just tell people that you're not up for running a five person game, and can only run for three. Point out that you're running a pretty intricate system with a lot of mental parts, and that it takes serious effort on your part. If this is your only social contact with people (because hey, we're busy) make an effort with the people not invited to the game in terms of other socialization.

for dm'ing large groups (my sweet spot is 4, my max is 6 with everyone enjoying), i find that player focus is key. maybe get one player to help play catch-up to the ones not in-game (preparing snacks, checking rules...). when i dm'd for 6, the players were all hyper focused, being new players in a fun world, so we separated the tasks. session zero determined the play book on how we were all gonna have fun together without it becoming a mess. and that included an ooc player conflict! two people didn't get along. their two characters? friends and teammates. yeah, i wrangled a unicorn on that account.

maybe just explain that, do a late session zero with your fears on the table.

regarding the rules thing, i was the whipping boy when it came to the rules. i'm not saying i suck at dnd/pf, but those rules are a burden i have to bear. i was always forgetting a bonus or a rule. i talked to the dm about it because i didn't want to penalize the group. he told me if i had a question to ask either him out of play or ask another player. said player gave me a sheet with a rules recap on it, along with online ressources similar to the srd to check in a pinch. we also wrote together a word document with all of my go-to actions and spells. i still check it sometimes, but that means a massive amount of committment including reading the rules on my own during my own private time.

tell your player to up his game, and that you're there to help him make the grade. it's not that he's a poor roleplayer, it's just that knowing the rules makes the game more fun for everyone.

Problem is not group size. 5 is fine. Problem is the two players you mentioned. Which are not the "throw up the game" kind of problems. They are mild problems, and can be lived with. But the choice is yours.

I don't have advice on sharing the spotlight because i failed at it myself, but i do have an advice on schedule: if somebody can't make it, play without, so long as it doesn't happen too often to the same guy.
Have someone else use the character, so it won't break immersion to have one character not be there for no reason.
My group (6 players + dm) has a policy that we play if we miss a single player, provided that no player skips two sessions in a row, and it works fine. We don't have to skip too often, and nobody is left too much out of the loop

Easiest way to handle the spotlight issue is to make the spotlight less about the character's abilities, and more about the character's story. This may be difficult if the game isn't really tailored around these characters.

For instance, in OotS, a plot or scene involving V's spouse would inherently spotlight V. It wouldn't matter if there was another wizard there, the spotlight isn't about "a wizard". it's about V.

Easy solution for the guy who's not really invested; "you're welcome to come and play but we -will- play whether you can show up or not. Your character will simply wink in and out of existence in response to your presence and absence." If he's only there for some sessions and not too disruptive, I feel like that could be a good compromise.

Now Mr doesn't know the rules is a real pain in the butt for a 3.P game. Tell him flat, "If you try do do something and don't know what to roll, you can't do it. If I call for a save or your AC and you don't know what value to give me, the thing hits you full force. Learn the damn rules already. You slow the game down to an unacceptable degree. I will relax this once you're being at least somewhat reliable about the rules. If you're not willing to play with this restriction, I'll see ya on movie night."

Sometimes you gotta just put your foot down, even with friends, even if it hurts their feelings a little. Real friends can take real criticism from one another. Just make it clear that it's only the end of your playing D&D together, not the end of your friendship as far as you're concerned. If they decide to stop hanging out with you over it, then the friendship was pretty shallow anyway and you haven't lost much even if it does sting a little.

Your the DM. My schedule is this we play from this time to this time. It is a float in and out game. Come as you wish if you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by False God

I don't consider 5 to be large, by any means. I consider 4-5 "normal" for a game. 8 is large. 12 is large. 5? 5 is average, IMO.

---

Yeah, 5 players is pretty normal. I happen to prefer double-digit size tables. But, I can see preferring unusually small tables, especially if you (and your group) lack skills in spotlight sharing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by False God

On spotlight: take turns. So all your characters are charismatic. Present situations that cater to specific elements the other characters don't have. Got a Ninja? Have a league of assassins that will only deal with him. Got a rogue? Have a theives guild that will only deal with him. Got a fighter? Have a trustworty captain of the guard who will only deal with the him. So on and so forth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by False God

Also: enforce the other players being quiet while someone talks. If Bobby is talking to the NPC, Jack and Susie need to be patient, wait their turn and if they want to add something to the conversation, do it after Bobby finishes. If they are helping Bobby then it needs to be made clear who's doing the talking, and how they're helping. IME: once you start getting a flow of players taking turns even doing the same thing, they'll start going "Oh I did this last time, you can do it this time."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

3. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character. When they are all different, that's easy to arrange. But with overlapping skills, you need to plan to make this happen. Three diplomats? Either separate them, or have encounters with characters who don't speak Common, or use other tools to give each player his or her moment.

---

One simple phrase to add to your toolkit: "and while he's doing that, what are you doing?". This is, IME, the best way to encourage spotlight sharing. Or, rather, the best way to let your players know that the spotlight will be shared, so they don't have to rush to speak first, or speak over each other to get to act.

Now, this is harder with Diplomacy. At a very large table, I once handled this as a player by dominating the initial scene, then explicitly bringing up things that I knew others wanted to discuss (and then stepping out of the conversation), to make sure that everyone got their time talking to the NPC(s).

Setting up contrived scenes every session will feel, well, contrived. Hit your players with the clue-by-four of sharing 101; ie, do the work to solve whatever the underlying social issue is. And, IME, the best 101 tool for the job is changing the table's mindset from "gimme gimme" (the spotlight) to "while he's doing that, what are you doing?".

Hmmm… one thing I've done to get PCs to learn to work together is to have NPCs react to their antics. (NPC diplomats walk off; nobleman ally tells party they were being highly unprofessional, for example). Or just have them make diplomacy checks to realize that they're idiots. :smalltongue:

Tailor the wake-up call to the table correctly, and you should only have to make it once. Just remember to keep giving them the carrot is they get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

I once ran a game for eleven other people. You need to tell them, "This is a lot of people, and if we don't focus on the game, it will fall apart."

---

I mean, you probably shouldn't "need" to tell the players this - they should probably be smart enough to see this on their own. Not that that should keep you from explicitly saying it, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

1. During melee, I will not wait on somebody who hasn't decided.

DM: Your turn, Jon. What does Stronginthearm do?
Jon: Umm, I wasn't paying attention. How many goblins are there?
DM: I'll get back to you at the end of the round. Somebody please catch Jon up. Val, you're next. What does Bramblerose do?
...
DM (end of round): OK, Jon and Diane, back to you. Diane, what does Sophia do?
Diane: Sophia casts Cure Serious Wounds on Gwydion.
DM: Fine. You two roll the dice and apply the results. Jon, what does Stronginthearm do?
Jon: I haven't decided whether to ...
DM: Stronginthearm is undecided and looks around. OK, next round starts....

---

Bloody awesome. Harder to do with smaller tables though, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

4. Get help. Many DM actions can be done by players. Get one person to track initiative. Ask another to put minis away when the encounter is over -- or even to set them up.

DM: Seven more ogres come out from behind the rocks. Rob, Nighthawk's got a late initiative. Would you set them up while I continue the melee?

---

Strongly agree. I had one player who saw that I was overwhelmed, and just grabbed the initiative sheet. And that made all the difference between being overwhelmed and just being whelmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JNAProductions

Jay, I think that's some awesome advice. However, if the OP just plain doesn't have FUN DMing for a group of 5... None of it matters. D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone involved, so no matter how competent the OP is, if it's not fun, it's not worth it.

---

Although I don't disagree, I will point out that solving these problems - and building the skills to solve other similar CR problems - may well serve to make the game fun.

Sorry I took a long time to reply. I've been mulling over on what to do based on your advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb

Let the group die. Wait a month. Individually invite people you want to a new group.

---

I don't think this would work. Thankfully (or not) the group's been going strong for a few years. I don't see it dying without a few people moving or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordCdrMilitant

The first single sentence, or the paragraph below it?

---

I meant the very first line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

I once ran a game for eleven other people. You need to tell them, "This is a lot of people, and if we don't focus on the game, it will fall apart."

---

It's all great advice that we've unfortunately tried and failed to implement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JNAProductions

Jay, I think that's some awesome advice. However, if the OP just plain doesn't have FUN DMing for a group of 5... None of it matters. D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone involved, so no matter how competent the OP is, if it's not fun, it's not worth it.

---

That is the bottom line, isn't it? :smallfrown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knaight

I'm assuming you're all grown adults. Just tell people that you're not up for running a five person game, and can only run for three. Point out that you're running a pretty intricate system with a lot of mental parts, and that it takes serious effort on your part. If this is your only social contact with people (because hey, we're busy) make an effort with the people not invited to the game in terms of other socialization.

---

Yup. I've come to accept that this is what I'll have to do if I wish to continue playing with (some of) them. No work-arounds.

Either that or find new players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Nowhere

Problem is not group size. 5 is fine. Problem is the two players you mentioned. Which are not the "throw up the game" kind of problems. They are mild problems, and can be lived with. But the choice is yours.

I don't have advice on sharing the spotlight because i failed at it myself, but i do have an advice on schedule: if somebody can't make it, play without, so long as it doesn't happen too often to the same guy.
Have someone else use the character, so it won't break immersion to have one character not be there for no reason.
My group (6 players + dm) has a policy that we play if we miss a single player, provided that no player skips two sessions in a row, and it works fine. We don't have to skip too often, and nobody is left too much out of the loop

---

I don't think 5 is fine. DM+2 is what I consider optimal, with DM+3 being ok. I just hate people getting sidetracked during the game, and it's pretty impossible to make it happen with more than 3 players

As for playing without a particular character, it works for most games, but it sucks for when you have a big event planned. We once spent nearly 3 months without playing because it was right before a big important fight, and not once during these months did we find a day where everyone was available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kyoryu

Easiest way to handle the spotlight issue is to make the spotlight less about the character's abilities, and more about the character's story. This may be difficult if the game isn't really tailored around these characters.

For instance, in OotS, a plot or scene involving V's spouse would inherently spotlight V. It wouldn't matter if there was another wizard there, the spotlight isn't about "a wizard". it's about V.

---

Way easier said than done. The party gets involved in each others business, and asking that the charisma 8 Wizard specifically rolls for Diplomacy is just setting players up for failure and disregarding people that actually invested into being charismatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Easy solution for the guy who's not really invested; "you're welcome to come and play but we -will- play whether you can show up or not. Your character will simply wink in and out of existence in response to your presence and absence." If he's only there for some sessions and not too disruptive, I feel like that could be a good compromise.

Now Mr doesn't know the rules is a real pain in the butt for a 3.P game. Tell him flat, "If you try do do something and don't know what to roll, you can't do it. If I call for a save or your AC and you don't know what value to give me, the thing hits you full force. Learn the damn rules already. You slow the game down to an unacceptable degree. I will relax this once you're being at least somewhat reliable about the rules. If you're not willing to play with this restriction, I'll see ya on movie night."

Sometimes you gotta just put your foot down, even with friends, even if it hurts their feelings a little. Real friends can take real criticism from one another. Just make it clear that it's only the end of your playing D&D together, not the end of your friendship as far as you're concerned. If they decide to stop hanging out with you over it, then the friendship was pretty shallow anyway and you haven't lost much even if it does sting a little.

---

The biggest problem is that while I and one other player follow this logic, the others don't, and then he distracts over half of the table with non-gaming-related blabber.

Other players take pity on him. Which makes it somewhat difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JNAProductions

Jay, I think that's some awesome advice. However, if the OP just plain doesn't have FUN DMing for a group of 5... None of it matters. D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone involved, so no matter how competent the OP is, if it's not fun, it's not worth it.

---

Yes, of course. But this is also advice on how to have fun running a game for a large party.

I never wanted to run a game for eleven other people. But I wound up enjoying it -- because I found a way to do it well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay R

Yes, of course. But this is also advice on how to have fun running a game for a large party.

I never wanted to run a game for eleven other people. But I wound up enjoying it -- because I found a way to do it well.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavyfuel

I don't think 5 is fine. DM+2 is what I consider optimal, with DM+3 being ok. I just hate people getting sidetracked during the game, and it's pretty impossible to make it happen with more than 3 players

---

huh. the game is supposed to be 4 people + dm, and i consider it my lower limit. i may play in 3 + dm if there were good reasons for it. it would just feel so wrong to play d&d without a full group.

one keeps discovering new ways of doing things in this forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Nowhere

huh. the game is supposed to be 4 people + dm, and i consider it my lower limit. i may play in 3 + dm if there were good reasons for it. it would just feel so wrong to play d&d without a full group.

one keeps discovering new ways of doing things in this forum

---

last night we were 5+dm, didn't stop the session from being 13 hours long and filled with fun and high levels of adrenaline. but that's what i'm used to playing, between 4 and 6 players with long sessions where derailing just means we take a break for 15-20 minutes every few hours to make food, let the adrenaline dip, have a smoke, go drain the weasel or just think about what's happening. you can't be 100% concentrated on something for 2 hours straight, you need a break, even a little one.