| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 18:41:07
When you first read the books in the OGB, did it ever surprise you to see descriptions in those books of adventuring parties numbering more than four adventurers?
I was pretty young back then, but I still remember being surprised at the idea that bands of adventurers could number upwards of twenty individuals.
I think that was one of my first experiences of “just because D&D is one way doesn’t mean the fantasy world is the exact same thing.”
Kind of a random thought/question I know. Was just thinking about how in one of my recent D&D encounters my players came upon—you guessed it—a group of four NPC adventurers.
Next time that happens, it’s going to be fifteen guys at least.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 27 Jan 2013 : 01:28:53
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm not sure what you are looking for, but I would say that a gaming group can be any size, so long as the GM has the prowess to handle it.
Just looking for more or less the different sizes of people's gaming groups. though the extra material you provided was very interesting to read.
I'm finding it fun to read about other people's gaming groups, how big or small they are, where they played, what their DM was like and how thinks worked (or didn't). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Jan 2013 : 23:40:39
The group I used to play with at SUNY Stonybrook was the RPG portion of the Science-Fiction Forum (basically a geek college club). Along with about 10 people from there, we had about 6 other 'regulars', so our group was about 16 people.
HOWEVER, not everyone showed up on Friday nights when we started, and not everyone stayed until Sunday night when we finished, so the group was usually not more then 8-12 people at any one time. People dropped in and out while things were going on, and our (epic-level) GM handled it all with amazing aplomb.
Some of us had several characters, which included hirelings (and even 'kids'). We had a necromancer who had 4-5 henchman, and I think others may have had similar numbers. I think when we took on the 'mighty dragon' there was about 20-25 people all-told in the party, being run by about 12 actual players.
Many folks who were too late to join a particular adventure (once we were inside a 'dungeon proper') would play NPCs, which helped the GM out a lot (one girl in particular would almost always choose to play the NPCs - she was very good at it).
And we did all of that using the Chivalry & Sorcery system - probably the most complicated set of fantasy rules ever invented. Did I mention our GM was a god? (in other words, an Ed Greewood level storyteller that could keep the game flowing no matter what).
I was 'the kid' in the group (being only 16 at the time), but man, those are some of my fondest memories. I did that every single weekend for three years. The LGS we met at also happened to be the headquarters of FGU (the makers of C&S and so many other very cool games back then).
I'm not sure what you are looking for, but I would say that a gaming group can be any size, so long as the GM has the prowess to handle it. I've seen large groups run well, and very small ones crash and burn. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Jan 2013 : 22:02:02
Question to Everyone:
1. What's the largest group of people you've ever had at the gaming table?
2. What's the largest party you've ever made a character for (including all henchmen and others in the party organization)? |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 10:41:35
Yeah, and besides the PCs you want to consider that the 'extended party' may include NPC linkboys, porters, muleskinners, dogsbodies, etc. A well-fitted dungeon or wilderness expedition could easily be comprised of more than a dozen men.
|
| DestroyYouAlot |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 15:55:11
1e definitely assumes a PARTY, not a small plucky clique. In the most recent campaign I played in (an all-dwarf game, as it happens), we had 6 players, and probably 15 warm bodies between PCs and henchmen. Several of those henchmen got left to guard the baggage train (0-level hirelings, wagons and pack animals.) That's before my cleric of Moradin hit 8th level and picked up a few dozen followers. ;)
Two things contribute to this: Higher lethality compared to newer editions means you WANT those warm bodies around (ranked spears, anybody?), and quicker gameplay (especially in combat). There's just a lot less fiddling with your sheet, so we still managed half a dozen combats in a night, even with a full dwarven soccer team plus replacements. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Mar 2012 : 15:21:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From my reading, I can't really recall any group that were precisely four in number - they were either much larger, or smaller (just one or two).
Regis, Wulfgar, Drizzt, Bruenor... 
Wasn't Cattie-Brie Wulfgar's age, meaning she's have to be counted if he was?
She wasn't part of the original expedition to find Mithril Hall. That particular quest was a party of four. 
Ah...
I had thought she was always counted amongst the group. I suppose she was 'too young' at that point.
Doesn't that make Drizzt "a dirty old man"? 
"Can't wait until my best friend's daughter gets a little older..."
And here I thought Mirt was the Realm's 'Woody Allen'.
Anyhow, my point was (even though I miscounted) that Drizzt & Co. don't qualify as your standard adventuring party. I don't count the Moonshae novels because #1, the were actually written for a different setting entirely, and then shoe-horned in (and not a very clean fit, I might add), and I also barely remember them. I had meant to re-read them at some point, but {sigh}, that probably will never happen now (unless I go book-happy with my new tablet).
I digress WAAAAAY too much - how many people were in the party of the Moonshae novels anyway? After the Drizzt and Moonshae books, I read Red Magic (and have hated Harpers ever since), and there were only two members of that party, IIRC.
EDIT: Ugh! I've gone to blue!!! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Mar 2012 : 13:02:09
And, much to my personal satisfaction, neither Drizzt nor any of his companions existed in Realmslore when the Old Grey Box was published. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Mar 2012 : 04:01:24
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From my reading, I can't really recall any group that were precisely four in number - they were either much larger, or smaller (just one or two).
Regis, Wulfgar, Drizzt, Bruenor...
Wasn't Cattie-Brie Wulfgar's age, meaning she's have to be counted if he was?
She wasn't part of the original expedition to find Mithril Hall. That particular quest was a party of four. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 24 Mar 2012 : 00:10:17
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
FR's original adventuring party (aside from the Moonshaes - I tend to ignore those) was Drizzt & Co., and they didn't even have any spell-casters (arcane or divine)!
So if we are ignoring Darkwalker on Moonshae then we should be ignoring all other adventuring parties and going back to the roots of the Realms to-whit Mirt and Durnan, of course to be penadantic they probably would not be considered a true adventuring group, so we will go with the Company of Crazed Venturers as the first realms adventuring group - yes?
Cheers
Damian |
| Icelander |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 21:49:57
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From my reading, I can't really recall any group that were precisely four in number - they were either much larger, or smaller (just one or two).
Regis, Wulfgar, Drizzt, Bruenor...
Wasn't Cattie-Brie Wulfgar's age, meaning she's have to be counted if he was? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 21:42:46
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From my reading, I can't really recall any group that were precisely four in number - they were either much larger, or smaller (just one or two).
Regis, Wulfgar, Drizzt, Bruenor... |
| Icelander |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 20:58:17
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
At what point does a 'party' become a 'fellowship'?
If a female is a member of a fellowship, shouldn't it then be a personship?
Why should it?
The root is etymologically the O.E./O.N. 'fé', i.e. 'wealth, value' and it is referring to one who lays down fé, i.e. is in a joint financial venture with another. There is no connection with sex or gender and a woman may be a fellow as easily as a man. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 20:17:33
At what point does a 'party' become a 'fellowship'?
If a female is a member of a fellowship, shouldn't it then be a personship?
FR's original adventuring party (aside from the Moonshaes - I tend to ignore those) was Drizzt & Co., and they didn't even have any spell-casters (arcane or divine)!
And despite the 'imbalance' to the party (they'd never fly in a 4e game), they still manage to be FR's most successful group of adventurers (from a RW perspective, at any rate).
So no, I have never found bigger-then-four parties weird - I grew up on fantasy, long before I played D&D. From my reading, I can't really recall any group that were precisely four in number - they were either much larger, or smaller (just one or two). |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 17:35:07
The Expendables?  |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 17:06:17
Oceans 11? 12? 13? |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 10:06:50
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The Thirteen Musketeers sounds like it's worth one more point than the Dirty Dozen. I blame Hollywood for limiting our popular expectations to just the Hero, his love interest, and his team of 1d4 elite trusty companions. More characters means more interactions and complexities between characters, fewer vanity shots and less of the predictably necessary proceed-to-next-objective sort of stuff. Although do I feel Dragonlance went overboard; I mostly remember just a handful of characters surrounded by their excessive mob of two-dimensional fighters.
Hollywood, literature, legends faery tales etc. I think its a bit more dominant than the movie industry could be blamed for. And I the vanity shots is less of a problem with small groups as everyone gets their screen time so too speak. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 09:56:55
The Thirteen Musketeers sounds like it's worth one more point than the Dirty Dozen. I blame Hollywood for limiting our popular expectations to just the Hero, his love interest, and his team of 1d4 elite trusty companions. More characters means more interactions and complexities between characters, fewer vanity shots and less of the predictably necessary proceed-to-next-objective sort of stuff. Although do I feel Dragonlance went overboard; I mostly remember just a handful of characters surrounded by their excessive mob of two-dimensional fighters. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 09:41:46
For me it always felt a bit unheroic with the large teams and adventurer companies. The existence of these are among the things in the OGB that I never really liked. I am used too between one and four players,which fits me perfectly. And even that is really a bit much for the S&S feel, as it feels more like a mercenary company than a group of plunder and thrill seekers. After all, how good too the thirteen musketeers sound? |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 16:09:42
Having grown up on the Avengers, X-Men, and Final Fantasy games, I am very inclined to have adventuring groups be large, rather than close-knit. I've even played in and/or run a couple campaigns wherein the 4-6 players portrayed multiple PCs, and would gather a "team" from their pool of characters to address the specific challenges in an upcoming adventure.
As a DM, it's also fun (though sometimes a hassle) to keep track of what the other characters are up to "off-stage," which often works best as a way to create story hooks. The heroes return from an adventure only to find one of their number has shown up with a pressing family matter to attend to, or just the lure of a particular treasure/goal to be found in the next adventure arc.
Cheers |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 13:47:01
I'll agree with Ayrik, the secondary DM is often another useful tool in dealing with the large group. The concept also gives other players (who might enjoy DMing on occasion, but who don't want to be running the campaign!) a chance to exercise their creative urges from time to time.
My wife, who just started roleplaying two years ago when I made the standard gaming boyfriend 'care to try it once honey?' offer, fills the role most of the time. She had no prior exposure to gaming before the Pathfinder system, and she's apparently a natural born rules lawyer, so she's developed the sort of encyclopedic knowledge of the total rules set for Pathfinder that I had for 2E (the system I 'cut my teeth' on). I can't tell you how often that comes in handy. It's nice to have someone who I can turn to for a reference to a rule on the fly. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 06:16:54
My gaming group consists of some eight players, five or six of whom have strong attendance, they sometimes invite an additional friend or two (who are typically nervous and passive spectators, until they return a few times). There have even been a handful of occasions when I've had to appoint a second DM - quality of play tends to degrade after my limit of eight players is exceeded, although this limit depends greatly upon the individuals and how they are involved current events in the story. It's not unusual for the party to consist of ten or a dozen individuals after one counts their various henchmen, minions, and any prominent NPCs who might tag along. A few memorable instances have seen party sizes of up to 17 PCs. It can get a bit crowded.
The trend I've noticed is that characters in later editions of D&D tend to have more personal and collective power available, so smaller parties can generally accomplish much more. This means that large parties in earlier-edition AD&D gaming need to possess higher character levels on average, and inequities caused by powerful spells or items possessed by one or a few individuals can be more pronounced; noobs can be outright astounded and intimidated by the party's arsenal and have a hard time asserting themselves. My players often accommodate this by selecting lesser characters from their roster who are roughly equivalent to each other in terms of powers and capabilities. 4E game mechanics are heavily formulated around the "four man party" idea, anything less usually suffers from some sort of disadvantage, anything more is overkill. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 21:52:39
This thread/scroll tricked me! Lol. Here I thought it would be an esoteric OGB lore discussion and instead it is chat about party size and composition.
That said, I find such topics pretty interesting, especially in that they expose a core tension between what makes sense/is realistic in a 'fantasy world' environment and what works with the game rules.
I'm pretty much with Icelander (who I have to admit I find myself agreeing with fairly frequently these days...) as to 'what makes sense' as far as party size (and here I am using his definition of 'heroes plus' being the total party size) in a setting such as the Realms. While it is easy enough for a smaller number of powerful individuals (of levels 15+ say) to accomplish adventuring goals as a tight knit group, it makes much more sense for the classic 'middle level' adventurers to form larger associations (like Viking raiding groups or low end Frankish 'nobles') where a single hero, or a group of a few, serves as the anchor for a diverse group of 'self sufficient' adventurers performing acts of daring do from a base camp of their own devising. For one thing, they simply tend to live longer relying on trusted companions rather than having to 'order out' for random NPCs with mission specific abilities. Think '13th Warrior' or, for that matter, most modern military special forces organizations.
Turning to the game rules, and speaking as someone who has run 1E, 2E, 3E and now Pathfinder games over a couple decades of play, starting in High School with the classic '3 to 4 players and a DM' sized group and running up to the present where (quite perversely) I have a campaign that can't seem to stop adding new players (and presently staggers under the weight of 10 of them, plus DM makes 11 at the table), I can tell you less is quite often more! I certainly appreciate my players (having spent a few of those 20 years just trying to get a stable group to sustain a campaign), and my DM sized ego is certainly flattered by having 10 people in the room enjoying my game, but just finding a way to seat them all (in a furnished basement dedicated entirely to gaming no less!) is a challenge, getting them all to focus at once can often require whip cracking, and the Pathfinder (and 3E rules) make running battles engaging to all a lengthy affair at best. What's more, the PCs started as a group of 4 and have been steadily adding players over the last 2 years, so I've also had to deal with the dilemma of 'the OG PCs are 8th level and the new guy/gal (I run about 50/50 of each...a challenge in and of itself, Lol) is 1st, how do they all have fun'?
I find I end up dealing with this in a couple of ways. First, in a group of that size it often works out that not everyone is there for every session (ages range from 21 to 41, so schedules vary accordingly, we are all sans kids, so that helps out QUITE a bit), and groups of that size (in game, as Icelander again points out) often develop sub groups within the main with differing interests and agendas. So, I get to run smaller adventures (with 6 to 8 players) reasonably frequently just by encouraging that trend. Second, when I do want run 'core campaign story' adventures and have all the PCs in attendance for major story arcs, I do them on what I have taken to affectionately calling (having stolen the term from a friend to whom credit is due, Lol) 'Mega-Sessions'. Those are two to three day (usually held on long/holiday weekends) events where I invite the players over to the old homestead on say a Friday, and we game Friday night, most of Saturday, and into Sunday afternoon (with food and pleasant socialization on the side, for which the 50/50 gender mix is actually an asset, Lol).
Having that kind of time on my hands ensures that I'll have the ability to actually get through the plot I could finish in one super long night with 5 players, with my 10. Setting up the old 'Dwarven Forge' gear for combat still requires creative seating of course. I find running two 'battle map' tables, with one half of the fight on one, and the other half on the other (as I also find groups of that size sprawl across a battlefield nicely, so that's a plus!), seems to work best to address that issue. The key to dealing with it all is spreading out your group's availability to ensure sub groups get to alternate fairly (so no one gets too far ahead timeline wise) and keeping your 'Mega-Sessions' frequent enough (we run one about every six weeks or so as long weekends allow) that your meta-plot/group cohesion stays on track.
I'll admit we are blessed with some tech savvy players (of which I am not one!) and so we use a dedicated (google plus hosted) website to communicate in between sessions about game events, character stats, loot, etc, Skype to 'remote in' far flung gamers on some nights to reduce the need to drive, and a web scheduler (doodle) to plot our collective availability over time. I'll also freely admit, this makes a lot more work for me as DM (and for those players, like my wife, who end up doing the 'hosting' work on 'Mega-Sessions'), but I have to say, I'm having some of the best gaming nights of my long gaming career these days. Just like watching a movie in the theater allows for the excitement of the crowd to infect individual members, having such a large crew balanced on a knife's edge during an epic confrontation (and having more players means I can throw WAY more monsters at the PCs) makes for some great gaming moments.
Anyway, I guess that is my long winded way of saying, big groups are certainly a hassle, but I think that the added 'in game realism' you get, plus the fun of having a 'party atmosphere' more than makes up for it in the end. If you have the chance, and the PCs to spare, I say give it a go! |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 21:21:14
Thanks Icelander.
Your description brings back memories of my old group:
One player building a castle in the Stonelands (seeking to become Baron of the Stonelands);
One character putting together the ingredients--and customer contacts--to create an Epic Spell that will produce a flying castle/school of magic that will cater to the wants of the richest persons in all the Realms, but not exclude the poorest who have talent (kind of like Stanford University, now that I think about it);
One character perfecting an Epic Spellsong in order to advance the faith of Eilistraee (in Cormyr of all places);
One character being called upon by Queen Amlaruil to lead the elven return to Myth Drannor after he and one other PC slew a number of fiends and closed off their infernal gates in that city.
I spent most of my time derailing these efforts, but not in a me-vs.-the-PCs sort of way. Rather I tried to keep things hectic, dangerous and interesting, while allowing them progress over time.
In that regard, I think Felgolos the Flying Misfortune is one of the best ways to bring the laughs, bring the headaches and send the PCs off on a tangent.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 21:04:58
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Switching gears here a bit: Icelander, given the description of how your game runs, do your players experience significant idle time at the table? Also, is yours a mid to high level game?
When the players who arrive for a session don't all have their PCs in the place, then, yeah, there is a lot of idle time. We've been trying to forestall it by holding seperate sessions for seperate groups, in cases where we know in advance that, e.g., for the next tenday, PC1 and PC2 will be somewhere else than PC3 and PC4.
As for level, well, we've been playing that campaign for something like eight years or so. Not all the same PCs as the ones who started, granted, but still, I wouldn't call them low level. I'm not using D&D rules, so there aren't actual levels, but if I were to use such terms, they'd be roughly equivalent to 9th-13th level people, I suppose.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I ask because your description reminded me of how I found it to be easier when running a high level game to have the PC henchmen become like unto PCs, since the characters liked to go in several directions at once and sometimes one PC’s henchman would go off with another PC and do something, which gave at least two players at the table something to do together.
As things stand in my game now, I've got two PCs with an army of their own mercenaries and local allies, fighting a war. These are the viceroy and with him are a bunch of NPCs and at least three PCs. Two of those other PCs are involved in setting up an espionage network. They're technically located in the same part of the world as the first two, but the fact that one pair is out in campaign along the coast and the other pair is inside the city means that they're effectively seperate for now, at least.
Two other PCs went travelling, using a Helm of Teleportation they had the use of for three days*. One was left in Ravens Bluff, the home city of their merchant house, where he means to practise jousting, oversee the building of his manor, check on his horses, visit friends, do a little business and eventually participate in a tourney in Tantras.
The other used the helm to visit Saerloon, his home city, and have lunch with his mother. Given that his brother is a high-ranking member of the city watch and convinced** that his brother the PC is a professional criminal, the fact that his new sister-in-law was present at the lunch and invited him to a social event in the evening is bound to cause some interesting times in our next session.
There we are. We've got a total of six PCs in four places. Of those six, four are regulars while two are more rarely there. I expect to run a solo session for the knight in Ravens Bluff at some point in the next week, another session with the two PCs involved in the war in Unther and either a solo session with the PC in Saerloon or a session in which I switch focus from him and the knight in their seperate cities and activities, until they are reunited by another use of the Helm.
*Obtained by lending the owner a circlet which allows him to understand all languages for the same amount of time and paying him a small fortune in spell reagents. They also left a powerful magical mace, in his hands, as security.
**Rightly so, at least as far as all his adolescence and young adulthood in Saerloon are concerned. It is more doubtful whether he could accurately be termed a professional criminal any longer, as his income mostly derives from the legitimate merchant house he runs. He does still sacrifice to Mask and belongs to an illegal criminal organisation (Shadowmasters of Telflamm), though. And he breaks the law from time to time. All the same, I'd call him a hobbyist criminal at best, these days. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 20:47:13
@Crazed: agreed on the slowness of the 3E rules. Even with experienced players and my best efforts to speed things up, combat sure ran slow if the whole party was in on the battle.
The only thing that sped combat up (besides the nerfing of Haste) was having less PCs involved in the combat.
Switching gears here a bit: Icelander, given the description of how your game runs, do your players experience significant idle time at the table? Also, is yours a mid to high level game?
I ask because your description reminded me of how I found it to be easier when running a high level game to have the PC henchmen become like unto PCs, since the characters liked to go in several directions at once and sometimes one PC’s henchman would go off with another PC and do something, which gave at least two players at the table something to do together.
|
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 20:44:18
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I think you’d need a rules-lite system for that though.
Aye you certainly do, when the old 2E campaign I was playing in with eight others converted to 3E (approx 9th level PC's) the combat aspect of the game slowed down immensely, to begin with that was down to unfamiliarity with the rules but it soon became apparent that is was how the 3E combat system worked compared to 2E and the fact we had double the number of players that the rule-set was designed for. We stuck with it and it became a slightly more manageable with six PC's but 1 round was still taking 30 mins at least to resolve dependant on situation, number of bad guys, all the different combat manoeuvres and the checking of the rules to make sure the trip/tumble/bull rush DC was correct etc. It was way too slow for me when an entire combat under older rules systems took 30 mins or so to complete.
That's why I hope D&D Next core rules will be as basic as possible to play, with all the complexities than people want as options, rather than putting all the options in as the core rules first.
Cheers
Damian |
| Icelander |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 20:25:59
I generally play with from 1-5 players per session, with three being the most common.
Regardless of the number of players, adventuring parties tend to number 10+ in my campaigns. PCs have NPC mentors, friends, colleagues, henchmen, students or loyal followers. They'll seek out people with particular skills related to their line of work, without worrying about whether such people are NPCs or PCs.
I often find that individual sessions tend to feature fewer than all the adventuring party. A few of them may band together to accomplish a certain task while others in the party are occupied with their own private business, take some time off or are engaged in some other adventuring venture. It's not uncommon for the current group of ten main adventurers (PC and NPC)* to be engaged in four important 'quests'** at once, with the focus of the sessions staying on the PCs, but no guarantee that their actions will turn out any more important than those of others.
*These ten also have an average of one to two hangers-on per person. These are people like one PC's live-in lover, another PC's sworn shield (warrior henchman and 'squire'), apprentices for a mage NPC, herald and chief spy for a PC functioning as a viceroy on behalf of the merchant house and mercenary company owned by the adventuring party, etc.
**Well, more usually some of them are engaged in urgent mercantile pursuits, some are carrying out diplomacy with varying amounts of veiled threats involved, others are commanding armies in the field or mounting covert military operations where adventuring skills are tremendous force multipliers and a few of them, very often the PCs, are getting into some kind of entirely uncalled for trouble. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 20:12:00
For the D&D game, I don't think I've ever played with more than five people at the gaming table.
I’ve run games where each player had two characters. In this case the henchmen became characters in their own right, so I worked out a percentage-based XP system that kept each PC henchmen (henchman? henchperson?) within 2-3 levels of the PC they were linked to.
Getting back to my first post, I remember thinking how cool it was to have a bunch of guys all working together to explore ruins and dungeons. Back then I couldn’t imagine how you’d do that as a DM and none of the DMs who ran games ever went that far.
Fast forward to now and I think it’d be a fun twist to say to each player, “OK, you don’t have a main character. Instead you have 3-4 sub-characters. Let’s get started on character creation.”
I think you’d need a rules-lite system for that though. I wonder if 5E will support this style of play?
#8195;
|
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 19:44:30
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Ah, makes sense then.
The first time I ever played it was just me, one other kid and the DM. After that it was just me and the DM! Guess that's why I had a hard time imagining eight or ten people all crammed in around the table.
Were it still the same! have 3 regular players now, but definitely quality over quantity (anway the table isn't big enough anymore!)
I think the OGBS gives a good breakdown of what a typical adventuring party is about especially 'The Hunt', when I see that I recgonise the sort of groups I gamed with 30+ years ago (Yikes  ) a mix of high-(ish), medium and low level characters all playing together at the same time. We never really considered the level difference back then, but that does not seem the same anymore when folks are more vocal about balance
Cheers
Damian |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 19:34:03
Ah, makes sense then.
The first time I ever played it was just me, one other kid and the DM. After that it was just me and the DM! Guess that's why I had a hard time imagining eight or ten people all crammed in around the table. |
|
|
