The Biggest Mistake New Dungeon Masters Make

[@andyenglish4303]

"If Mercer can do it, so can I!" Famous last words.

[@timreynolds4785]

I don't understand people who don't get the difference between what is essentially a TV show, and real life. If people think there is no coordination beforehand on a show like Critical Role, they're as silly as people who think that their favorite sitcom actors live together in real life.

[@Yutah1981]

@@timreynolds4785 It's not just coordination. Matt also plays: 1) with professional actors. none of them are shy or afraid to butt in, etc. they won't get lost. 2) for a show, so the players know they might have to wait for their turn for the majority of the session 3) with a lot of props, solid schedule and budget on their side

[@ikaemos]

Mercer is also a fairly trad GM. Sure, he can spring into action, but you also often see him sit back and disappear for like an hour. If his players are rolling (and they often are, since there's a lot of them, and they are the way they are), there's no need to intrude. It's a kind of referee-style DM-ing that was common before the modern style asserted itself. You won't see him often directing dramatic scenes the way Dimension 20 GMs do; he's there to convey worldbuilding and adjudicate interactions with Exandria. Now, his style has evolved a lot over the years, coming closer to the kind of narrativist GM-ing that modern groups often have, but I'd argue his mid-2000s style works better for such a large group. Hell, thinking back at OD&D games, you'd often have the referee interact with _just_ the shot-caller, not even paying attention to the 12-person group, letting them discuss among themselves and convey their decisions to one person who then presented it to the referee. It's the only way to stay sane, you can't follow three lines of conversation at once.

[@Katosepe]

I wish I had the confidence of anyone who thinks this way.

[@trombaritone86]

@@Yutah1981 I would add that the session length is longer than what I have personally been able to get a group of people together to do. If you only have 2 or 3 hours, you have to be efficient, and that's just not possible with a bigger table.

[@sleidman]

My first DnD group was a whopping 12 people and honestly, I don't know how I still fell in love with the game because of it.

[@brassdragonstudio]

Anyone interested in teaching will find 6-12 players is an accurate simulation of elementary and high school classroom dynamics, lol.

[@fredvincent7967]

My first campaign had 9 theater/band kids and it was chaos

[@hkaden6815]

How did combat go?

[@sarratonin]

I had the same experience! My husband decided to dm a campaign and asked me to give it another try. Team of 3 people, and it was amazing. I really went half a decade thinking one of my favorite past times was impossible to enjoy 😅

[@richardmunday2608]

First time I played was with about 10 and I enjoyed it but it’s so slow as well

[@vekovo324]

My first ever campaign I ran was lost mines. The first session we had 4 players. It went very well. After a while people started asking to join and by session 5 we had 8 people. We finished the campaign but it made me consider never dming again. Im glad I tried again later with a smaller group but 8 player sessions exhausted me.

[@poetwarrior7153]

Good for you for keeping going after that experience. I've been running with 7 for 4 years but it's all people that know each other well so I'm only managing the game experience not the social experience. If I'm running for players not familiar with each other especially new players who need help a smaller group is much better.

[@dungeonalliance807]

I was planning a 4 person mini campaign and last minute A friend got me to cave and I let them join so now I'm at 5. It's going fine and I don't regret letting that friend play but I've discovered 5 is my absolute max and I do prefer 3 or 4 as well.

[@rupertthegood]

Very similar story here. We had 7 players on LMoP and at the end our DM refused to DM again, so I took up the mantle. Now 6 months into another campaign. I’m pleased with how I’ve done given that big number but it takes _so_ much work and is such a challenge that I’m trying to figure out how to reduce numbers when the campaign finishes in a way that doesn’t come across as rejection to some people. I’m thrilled when people tell me they can’t make a game because having 6 or 5 or (one time) 4 players makes everything easier.

[@McGreevious_]

⁠My first time DMing was also Lost Mines for a random group I met on the discord for a local games cafe. The very first encounter at the goblin ambush, one of the players after killing the first goblin asks if he can skin off the goblins face. I know that’s maybe not a massive deal, but weird murder hobo behaviour is exactly the one thing I didn’t want to deal with so I finished that one session and never DMd again.

[@captainthorrek262]

Here's a trick from 2nd Edition: session zero. When everyone comes in, have one copy of the Players guide, and everyone makes their character then and there with the intent of everyonemaking a character by session's end. The social dynamic will start to show itself rather quickly. It's a team-oriented exercise which also shows how well people can share the spotlight (represented by the book). If you have to scrape up another PHB, then chances are the group is too big, someone might need extra attention, or is busy hogging "the spotlight".

[@TheAdventureMilk]

I’ve been DMing a group of 7 for several years now. It was a learning curve at first for us all, but we’re all best friends and family and we’ve learnt how to overcome the problems mentioned in this video. We have an amazing time playing and hanging out and the table never gets stale or boring with the 7 of them. It can be done! ❤

[@mtvjacknife816]

Same here. My home game is a come as you please, but it regularly has 6-7 players every other week, for over two years, and it hasn't been a huge problem. My starting rule is that the game goes on, no matter who is or is not there. And the people who like it make time for it. A lot of these problems seem like just a lot of miscommunication/misunderstanding of basic social rules. We just roll dice and eat pizza with friends.

[@mtvjacknife816]

With all that said, I do like the advice that they give for the first time DMs!

[@TheAdventureMilk]

@@mtvjacknife816Absolutely my guy, it’s a fantastic way to play isn’t it. I agree, though, this video has great advice.

[@tijgeke87]

like they said its not impossible BUT you need all of this > matching schedules+estabilized social dynamic+eperience+ matching expectations. if you are a new dm with 6+ players, with mostly strangers+ conflicting schedules there is a 80% of it not working out

[@mtvjacknife816]

@@tijgeke87 The thing is you don't you just need good communication with players.

[@XenBass]

Having run a campaign for 3-4 players... when 1 or 2 routinely "can't make it", it basically means session's canceled. A larger group, with all of its scheduling conflicts and other issues, *can* potentially allow you to run your session since there are more people attending.

[@burnak7383]

Especially if you play a more episodical game, varying players works really wel

[@meikahidenori]

I actually do small solo side one shots when my small group has a session like that. Old D&D had you having multiple characters for this senario and it's great for those players who show up and enjoy messing around with experimental builds.

[@EduardoOliveira-lq2tg]

That would be my answer. I have a group with 6 players because is VERY common to one of them to miss a game, unfortunately. We have adult lives, is dificult for everyone to play always. So, with 6 players, even when 2 can't, we still play, and those who always come never have to wait to play again.

[@pgb8000]

I'm a player in two campaigns with work friends - 4 players + DM (we run 2 simultaneously, alternate weeks, with 2 people taking turns at DMing). We have a very tight rule: If 1 person drops out, we continue. If 2 drop out, we cancel. So, if someone decides not to come, they know the session will happen anyway - FOMO tends to stop people missing for frivolous reasons. But then we all know that when one person has dropped, if anyone else also drops, it's an auto-cancel. This seems to work really well - we only end up cancelling 2-3 sessions a year (aside from agreed holiday breaks). The alternating DM works especially well - if one DM is having a busy few weeks IRL, the other DM tends to run 3-4 sessions in a row to keep the weekly schedule going.

[@hkfifty871]

More players also increases the chances of somebody having to cancel, just by nature of the fact you’re trying to coordinate the lives and schedules of more people. I’m currently part of two groups (one as a player, one as a DM) and the larger group (5 players + DM) has had DRASTICALLY more problems with people not being able to make it than our smaller group (3 players + DM). The rule of thumb with that larger group has become if one player is can’t make it, too bad, the campaign goes on (unless MAYBE if we’re at a big, pivotal moment in the campaign). Two players, then we either cancel the session or pivot over to a one shot or try out a new game system for that evening or something.

[@Yekrep]

The biggest mistake new DMs make (actually, even many old DMs) is trying to write a story. The story is what happens at the table, not what the DM plans or what the module says. It's a very subtle but important distinction. As a DM, you should never assume that events will unfold in a certain way. Just set up situations, understand the motivations of the NPCs involved, and remember that players have access to magical and mundane ways to circumvent most obstacles.

[@pgb8000]

I totally agree with Kelly and Monty on this. I'm a moderately experienced DM, and I currently run 3 campaigns, two have 4 players, and one has 6. I find the session with 6 players SO much harder, and SO much more exhausting. There are a couple of quiet players, and I seem to spend half the evening trying to draw them into play, quietening the extroverts so the introverts can say something. Maybe it's just the people in the group - well, no. Because both quiet players and one of the extroverts are also present in one or other of the 4-person games I DM. In those campaigns, with less people in the room, they seem much more able to contribute easily, and I can concentrate completely on DMing the campaign, rather than having half my mind taken up with managing the social aspects of a 7 person table.

[@burgsrus]

I like to run tables of five. Here is why, if one player ends up not making it, I can still run my session. Where if I have a table of four and one player does not make it, then most of the time the session ends up getting cancelled. This is mostly because I run a very tight challenge with most of my combat's and it is much easier for me to adjust down to four than to three. For some reason adjusting to three seems to be more difficult. But this is just what I have encountered.

[@p4nd4zur33]

I honestly feel like that's the sweet spot. You get a lot of variety, can make different and interesting connections between each character, can even make it so that some PC's already know each other and a group of 3 and 2 is forming a party together together. So 4-5 is definitely a sweet spot in my opinion, with 3 and 6 being the absolute minimum/maximum.

[@Grimebucket]

I have a regular online group of 6 and another of 3 (soon to be 4), and I personally love smaller groups. With the smaller group of 3, I feel like I can incorporate satisfying chunks of each of their backstories into the mix, I can make combat more complex and longer, and sometimes the party fails important checks leading to interesting consequences. In my game with six people, I just don't have the time to incorporate everyone's backstory so I have to pick and choose, if I add complexity into combat, at least one or two people will get lost because they get distracted while waiting and if a battle lasts more than 3 rounds it is a huge slog-fest. And with a group of six, at least one person is specialized in whatever check you ask for, so they succeed at nearly everything.

[@p4nd4zur33]

@@Grimebucket I can see both the good and the bad things, and definitely see how combat is the biggest issue with big groups, I personally just really like diverse group dynamics and relationships between characters, which is why I like 5 player games the most. I do agree that 6 is starting to push it though, and I definitely would never play in a group with more than that.

[@RPGExile]

Never cancel your games. The players that showed up want to play still.

[@garion046]

I agree, though mostly because 2 ppl can be missing and 3 is still ok. I'd bank on one person being missing a fair bit of the time anyway.

[@Doombot221]

I love this advice, and it's something I use often when explaining to people about table etiquette especially. I'll say to players, so they keep it hopefully in mind, "this session is 3hrs, and there are six of you. That means that, all things being equal, each of you has maybe 30min (including combat) that is 'yours'. If you end up spending 35-50min doing things, it's because you are taking that time from someone else". In longer term campaigns it might make sense that some characters will enjoy a bit more of the spotlight at times, but attempting to mitigate that so other people still feel that their time at the table is worth it is a major factor for DMs to keep in mind. It can be the greatest cause of so many issues that spring up around the table.

[@valenetta8017]

My first time DMing was for one person with an original one shot and I learned a lot about how I like to run my games and what does/doesn't work. Now I'm running a game for two and everything feels natural and fun, I get to shine the spotlight on both of them equally which leads to a really personal and awesome experience!

[@chrismihatsch8397]

I run a weekly game at a friend's arcade bar. I average 10-12 players every week. Most are regulars, but I accommodate new players. The campaign is a 5th edition West Marches style megadungeon. This allows sessions to be self-contaoned and doesn't leave PCs stuck in limbo. I've also been DMing ttrpgs for a couple of decades. My tips for running large groups would be: Split the party. If there's enough for two smaller parties, have them play as two smaller groups. Focus on one group at a time, moving between them in regular intervals. 5-10 minutes outside of combat, or as long as a round takes in combat. Try leaving them on a cliffhanger when you transition to the next group. It gives them something to discuss until you get back to them. Look for modified/house rules that make running the game more smoothly. Group initiative, minions, players rolling saving throws for monsters, etc. Don't be a stickler for the rules. Err on the side of the players and let them have fun. Say yes to things you may otherwise say no to. It's easier to accommodate so many players when you let them do the things they want to do. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but this is far too long of a comment as it is. If you're a newer DM, try to start with smaller groups at first before moving on to larger ones, but it is doable with enough experience.

[@TLBainter]

You definitely need to do mini campaigns with people. If I'm considering someone for long-term, I will have them hop in as a guest for a 2-3 session arc in the campaign, without mentioning that I'm looking for someone to join on a long term basis. I hate being in a situation where I have to tell someone they need to leave the campaign, so avoiding that conversation by doing some thorough scouting is important.

[@TLBainter]

Also on the topic of player counts-I've run for 6 players for several years now; combat is definitely where we find challenges, but I have tried multiple approaches to help that out (some things work, other things don't) and prevent them from being slogs. However, when we have guests join us for arcs and I'm running for 8 or 9 (or even, for one campaign's finale, 13) players, I start losing my mind.

[@luckywallace]

I insist that I won't run a game for more than 5 players and even 5 is too many to be ideal, but it is just about manageable. My sweet spot is 3 or 4 players, I think that's the easiest to 'balance' and ensure everybody gets some spotlight while still having enough folks for fun group dynamics.

[@redmagedagger]

I’ve played 5e for several years now, and my DM has always managed to comfortably run tables of 5-8 players. The worst was when he had to DM a table of 13(!!!) players at a LGS because the other paid DMs did no-shows. Now I’m running my own campaign for the first time with 5 players, and I’m loving it! I plan to also run a oneshot in the near future with 4 players to see how it feels.

[@oskar6661]

Also worth noting...many of the "huge" D&D groups tend to be a headstrong DM who's trying to impress people...while the players are only loosely engaged, and just "going along" with the game, rather than being active in it.

[@josuaobst3650]

Totally agree with the player number issue. I started DM'ing after watching CR, because I wanted to play DnD and at that time there were no people around, even playing. I started with 5 players, by the second session there were 8. Total mess, endless combats, had to split the group. Later I started a weekly group with people I met through facebook and became really good friends with them. I DM'ed for them, too and at the peak we had 7 Players. Combat IS the biggest issue in my opinion, just as you described. We made it somehow, now we are in our second homebrew campaign, usually with 5 players at one time, due to scheduling issues, and it's much easier to run.

[@aaronbormet3804]

Current group: 8 PCs and me as the DM. We play on a regular schedule of Tuesday evenings at 6pm at a local pizza place (twice a month) by reserving the spare room they have. I don't care what they want to order. They can figure it out themselves. On Tuesday's, we have one player who remotes in since he lives four hours away. When we play at a husband/wife players' home for our epic 8-ish hour sessions on a Saturday (once a month usually), we coordinate the time we want to eat and what's on the menu. It's like a pot luck. Everyone is expected to bring something. The last campaign was 2.5 years (levels 1-20) and we're about two months into the new one. I set dates based on schedules about a month or two ahead of time. Sometimes people can't make it. Oh well, we're still playing. If three or more can't make it, well, why did we agree to this date again? Spotlight: Frequently ask everyone at the table, what are you doing? X player wants to investigate the coffin, what do you want to do? And go around the table. Everyone get's a chance to "go".

[@garion046]

You sound like a very good DM and your players seem chill with waiting for the group to do other stuff. Sounds like you all have a great time and have enough scheduling time to make it work. If I tried to get all 8 ppl I've played with recently in a room at the same time I think I'd need to schedule about 6 months ahead!

[@PresidentMystry]

I DM for a group of 7 people currently. I got very lucky with my group and our interests align pretty well. Most of us have ADHD so I don’t mind when people get on their phones. I built a DM screen with a literal screen on it so the players can look at art cycling through of their environment, which they liked a lot. I also love problem solving so I always look for ways to make the game new or exciting in some way. Using DC20’s initiative rules helped a ton with making combat more engaging. I as a DM already know what the tactics of my monsters are, so they go pretty fast. Then the players take a lot longer taking their turns, but it’s because they all spend the whole round synergizing their abilities together and strategizing, so it’s pretty engaging for them I find. Edit: I’m still a fairly new DM. I started in 2019 when I was 15, and it was with a group of 3 people at the time with my DMPC lol

[@carlinpotter137]

Great video, you guys. The pizza analogy was very apt. Were you guys hungry when you made the video? :P lol Here's my first time DM story: I had played a small campaign on and off as a PC fairly consistently for a while, 3.5e, and it was a group of 3 PCs and a DM. We had fun, but with people and jobs changing, the group eventually fell apart. My 1st time DM'ing properly, I ran a game with my own homebrew content. With my experience as a player, I designed a short dungeon with essentially 1 combat encounter with goons, a couple of social encounters with NPCs to get some gear and supplies, and a boss fight at the end of the dungeon. I was DM'ing for 5 players, and although I found it a bit overwhelming to have my attention spread that much initially, the group eventually dropped to 4, and it ran a little more smoothly. It also helped that it was 5e lol. Since I didn't know whether this was going to end up being a 1 shot or a campaign, I designed it to be a 1 shot that aimed to be finished in about 3-5 sessions, but I left it open ended so that it could be turned into a campaign, if the group wanted to continue. Luckily they did, and we had a sort of mini campaign for a while...then COVID. :( and the group sort of fell apart. One thing you guys forgot to mention that I find is extremely helpful, especially for new groups and new DMs, is session 0. Gives you as the DM the chance to see what kind of game everyone wants, what people want to see and try, and what sort of adventure to plan for the group. I also try to use session 0 to create the PCs characters, if everyone has a solid idea of what they want to play as, and I run a quick mock/demo combat so that everyone gets to see what their characters can do, and can make changes accordingly. Gobins in a cave are always a quick and easy choice :)

[@anthonyrenli8740]

This is totally spot on. I've been DM/GM'ing for over 40 years...and this is the same advice I will give new DM/GMs. Do I sometimes break these rules? Yeah, but usually to my own detriment. I had a Starfinder Campaign with people I know from being online with 7 players, and it was just PAINFUL. Scheduling was a NIGHTMARE (we had players in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia). People missed with little notice. Planning sessions was a massive PITA. We did a system switch to Scum and Villainy and moved to a much more episodic campaign that each session was (basically) it's own one-shot. The system change made things a light faster AND because of how the system works it is much easier to balance things for the party when we don't know if there are three/four/or up to all seven of them there...

[@leahwilton785]

If you have too many players, consider running a west marches style game. I have run many standalone 1-5 session adventures, but am currently running my first longer campaign. I currently have 8 players and we are having a blast. I have a max of 4 players per session. If a 5th person tries to join in, I'll deny them (first come first serve), but let them choose the next adventure/plan it around their schedule. I think 3 PCs is my preferred size. Enough folks to bounce ideas around, an odd number to tiebreak disagreements, but few enough that I feel like I'm never ignoring someone.

[@Jin_1814]

Listening to the pizza analogies while eating a pizza :)

[@andrewrmcmaster]

Seeing the pizza analogy comment during the pizza analogy conversation 😂

[@Segwyne]

I'm so glad that I did many of the things you recommend here. I haven't DMed for 25-30 years, so I asked my bestie (who gamed with me way back then) if she was interested in a weekday morning game while the kids are at school. Then we thought about who else might want to play with us and we picked my college daughter who has no classes that morning, and a self-employed friend of mine who has a flexible schedule. So it is just the four of us (ages 48, 47, 20, and 39, from two states) and once we took two sessions to figure out all the tech aspects of playing on Roll20, we finally had our first actual game play the other day. Our plan is to run a few sessions until college is out in mid-May, then evaluate what we want to do. If all goes well, my daughter's summer job will leave her free still at that time slot and we can keep going.

[@Wolfog_]

Thanks for making these vidoes, not just this one inpartiuclar but just in general, your uploads are always so high quality and informative whilst also showing your own personal views, Theyre always worth watching when they come up on my feed and i only hope you keep having things to talk about for a long time to come :)

[@radyoung779]

I lucked into a group with some friends this year. I am a musician and it turns out one of our drummers is a DM. Five player party. Four of us are good friends and the other guy is tight with the DM already and has played with him for years. I know him better in character than I do in real life. I have been listening to your videos at work as I am about to go play in just a few minutes. I will recommend your channel to my DM but I bet he already watches.

[@zeddwulfen7737]

I've been binge watching this channel myself... lol.

[@mingbritson]

A great topic! I play DnD w/ several others from an online-only community (fishkeepers, actually). A few of us have played, or still play, but many newbies showed interest once we started the first group. A little more than a year into it, we now have 2 regular DMs (M + T nights). Myself and another player have started DMing if regular DM/group can't make it and have also done a few 1-3 shots sessions outside our normal times if there are people who want to play on another day. We have a total of 12-15 players, some of whom play more than one campaign, others just drop in from time to time. Our groups usually are 4-5, but we've had 8-9 a few times, which works OK and allows for more people to play, but is obviously slower.

[@darrenromanko2414]

This advice is solid gold and great for DM's new and old. Amazing video.

[@trombaritone86]

I play in a campaign with six other players. Of the seven of us, I would say four are super regular, and the other three are hit or miss. It works for our group dynamic (I have personally found it really difficult to find a group that I feel comfortable playing with). At one point we were trying to determine what was happening if someone missed, but it's now at a point where we just hand-wave it and move on. Like I said, it works for us. It also worked out that the four regular people are the ones that actually did backstories, so it's easier for the DM to integrate into the campaign. The main problem is when the irregular players are all tanks. Getting the spellcasters/rogue only for some sessions has made some combats very challenging. And when we all show up, we generally go to town on whoever we're fighting.

[@rayzor2121]

That's the best DM advice I've come across. My first campaign idea had 7-8 of my friends all saying they were super keen to play DnD. But getting anyone to commit to a schedule was crazy. SO I scratched my massive overplanned campaign. I ended up running a 6 session campaign with just 2 players and I learned a tonne and discovered the many advantages of a small group. My current Drakkenheim campaign has 4 players, with 4 being the max I was willing to allow.

[@Andross1983]

Audio sounds awesome on headphones this episode. Nice job folks!

[@kittikats]

Im a new DM. I took over from our last DM (he's a player now). Theres 6 of us including me (I run a DMPC - the party healer). I'm running Phandelver and Below and working back story in. If 1-2 people cant make it, we still go on but old DM and I ask if we can run their characters for them. Never doing a bad job in combat or doing bad trades or anything to screw them. Its fun, challenging and lots of work. You guys really help.😊

[@buddha4tw]

After a 32-year hiatus, I recently returned to playing D&D. During my initial 10-year stint, I enjoyed both playing and DM'ing various games such as D&D, Traveller, Gamma World, Bushido, Aftermath, and Conan. However, as life happened-friends had kids, I had kids-gaming took a back seat. About a year ago, some older friends invited me to join their D&D game, and I've been thoroughly enjoying it. However, when we lost a player due to control issues, I saw an opportunity to introduce new blood. My son's girlfriend and later my niece's boyfriend expressed interest in D&D, but my current group seemed hesitant to welcome younger or different-gendered players. I decided to start my own game on the side. Securing interest from four players was easy, with an additional joining later. Scheduling proved to be the next challenge, requiring everyone to be consistently available on the same day. We've settled on monthly sessions, each lasting around five hours, a far cry from my younger days of marathon 12-hour sessions, particularly when playing games like Aftermath. Nonetheless, as I've grown older, anything beyond eight hours tends to fry my brain.

[@cassidyshepard6371]

The small party size was actually the primary draw of your Drakkenheim campaign to me. I really wanted a long, in-depth, character driven campaign to watch, but I cannot handle the huge parties of Critical Role and the like. When I learned your game only had a party of 3, I started it the same day. I've learned a lot about writing around PC backgrounds and goals from your game. I'm finally caught up, and can't wait to see where it goes next!

[@ryuzakidestiny]

I would love a video about tools like the list of skills of the other day.

[@supalord]

I dmd my first group of 8 people and had a great time, i ran a second campaign of 2 people and that almost felt overwhelming because i wasn't used to getting through so much content in 1 session. My sessions would be 8 plus hours so obviously my group dynamic was probably a large factor

[@zeddwulfen7737]

Eight hours!? Whoa.

[@Gabriel-vl2ft]

This video should be called. "Understanding how balance can affect your game at the table." The biggest mistake a DM can make is not knowing how balance is very important, and understanding that 5e is as 'the Dudes' mentioned setup for 3-4 player characters. From character skills blowing out the challenge of monster encounters, to the general game play and spotlight.

[@victorvictor_dead_kro_nov_jail]

I can confirm that even one fight with 8 is really hard to make. On the discord server I was the DM runner the strixhaven campaign for 2 different group of 4 player each and at the end of the first year we decided to connect to fight each other's, we were level 5,there was no monster and even no pet allowed. And even with that this got into a 3/4 hours fight which was kind of a slug at the end (just to let you know even as a sorcerer with a 2 level dip in warlock I had time to use all of my spells)

[@fershnibbity330]

No KZbin video has hit me so hard as this. I started a game with 5 that grew to 7, then 6, then 7 again. That core 5 turned into 4, and their storylines are moving forward swimmingly. Then I have one player who’s played 3 characters so far because he likes to “switch it up”, one who’s brand new to D&D and I have to teach him, and one who just joined and has been perfect so far. So much learning new classes, scaling combat encounters to matter, and TRACKING conditions during battle. What a nightmare. My next game will definitely be 4.

[@jleewatts4318]

I have been running since 1983. My last game started with 9 players. Two dropped after the first session. Two more later quit due to conflicts. I kept one charact as an npc, because she was the sole ranged character. I then added two NPCs who the group had rescued. Then a player dropped due to personal reason and I replace him with a first time player. He dropped. I had to keep track of 5 players and 4 NPCs. It was a struggle. Game lasted 5 years and they reached level 19.

[@xanderwoo5457]

I was asked to DM for a friend's 40th, for 10 people, most I didn't know or barely knew. I've a fair bit of experience but was apprehensive. I set about how to do this logistically, reading forums, watching lots of videos (Thanks Dungeon Dudes), maintaining pace, working in enough for everyone to contribute and RP. I wrote a session zero, list of expectations and tips, guided character creation in advance, sat experienced players with newbies, used average damage for my rolls and suggested it to the players, deputised captains for each side of the table to help looking up rules and arbitrate with party decision making. Still, the first encounter went looong for a one shot and I had to edit on the fly. Even though it went well, they were a good bunch, made it through the adventure and I and the party had a good time, I would not advise it. A lot of work and may have taken years off my life in anxiety at times. DMing is really fun but it can be hard, even with experience. Make life easier for yourself. Starting out, find folk who you know and trust to play well together. 3-4 players is the sweet spot and it's the people at the table that make the experience.

[@khw1425]

My group that started at 6 players (and was mostly new players) naturally has gone down to 4. The downside of 4 as a lot of people have mentioned is that we can't really run a game one player short...but it really is good for game flow, we get to do our individual shenanigans and it usually doesn't take to long, the DM can use multiple monsters without it being too unwieldy, and no one's complained about using summoned creatures or pets...Though the DM does let other players control the pets (2 Displacer Beasts), especially if the character with the pets is separated, so this helps.

[@shybard]

My biggest mistake was not letting people suffer the consequences of their own actions. That's not a mistake that I'll ever repeat.

[@DankBobRoss]

I’d love a video focused on tips for a more play backstory driven campaign, I’m starting up a campaign for only a few players but they all have different goals that will be difficult to balance out the importance of within the campaign but I’d also not like to belittle any of the other characters stories, it’s not an impossible task but I’d love any tips on this

[@matthouse4989]

I’m running a group of 6 people as a new DM in a Wildemount/homebrew campaign and we have had a blast so far. I over planned so hard, but I love the planning aspect and story building.

[@MeatyDangles]

I have my players role initiative after long rest, and we use the result to run, not just battle but rp as well with an egg timer for turn length restriction in both.

[@roninhare9615]

As tedious as it is kind of track spotlight moments and when I noticed that a player has had at least 3 to 4 spotlight moments and other players have had less I will start individually calling them out. Typically, I will find by doing this five or six sessions in, I no longer have to track this because the players who were not getting involved are now being involved, they involved themselves, into a kind of a cohesive experience. Tedious, yes but it keeps the game flowing.

[@jblackrazz]

The longest combat I've had with my current play group (5 players + DM) lasted three 3-hour sessions. That's because we were in a deceptive colosseum fight where we were trying to trick a rich family to bet on the wrong team and lose their money and status. We had to make the fight convincing so we dragged it out for the "show".

[@almostanarchybro9129]

Setting up a new group about a year ago and it still going strong feels great. I was a bit nervous as it was a group of 5 I didn't know about and curated. Now we are 40+ sessions into a large Campaign. Personally, 5 is ideal for me as it fits on what I run. The combat can be a bit odd to run (at level 9 at full strength, they could take on CR22 monsters) but I love the dynamics and development of the players I have.

[@wanderlocktv]

I started with an 11 person group my first time, it dwindled to 5 quickly and worked out. my second 11 person game lasted 15 months before I had to split it into 2 6 person groups, and now we are at 19 months

[@AndyReichert0]

love the shirt. Skeletor is that most wholesome evil villain ever. What patron would his warlocks be, mechanically speaking?

[@jochenhaesemeyer1106]

I started DoD with three friends as players. We increased after some time to four, in order to play on a more regular schedule. I try to use their backstory for some of the adventure and that would be hard for more players. And considering the shows, DoD was my first actual play campaign I'm following and mainly through podcast. So with smaller groups players are easier to distinguish. And there is so little trash talk in all drakkenheim sessions, and that I really appreciate🥰

[@Logan0503]

I’m on session 11 of my first campaign, and we have 8 people total who play. Most weeks we only have 3-5 because not everyone can make it consistently, and man is it fun when everybody can make it, and man am I glad that weeks when everyone can come are usually once every couple months at most.

[@chaosheaven23]

Man, this brings me back to when I got started and had just a bucket of people playing. I ran a game for a couple years in high school with 8 players on average. Our sessions though were about 8 hours long, and man, I really do miss those days. Its just real different having to make the best of 3 hour sessions bc players have work or got older and less patient n what-not. Our solution to making sure everyone had enough to eat was to make the pie bigger.:P

[@purpleomlet]

Man, the first point is so hard to deal with, even as a somewhat experienced DM. I currently have 8 players and I'm pulling my hair out trying to tie their stories together and make fun combat encounters. I'm excited that my campaign is nearly finished so I can start my next one with far fewer players. I'm thinking 5 is my sweet spot for player count. It is a bummer that not all my friends can play together, but sometimes it's just what has to be done.

[@gharrison8013]

About a year ago I was playing in a 15 player group. It was a bunch of my brother's coworkers (a lot of whom were in their teens), and myself. Roleplaying was impossible, combat took hours, and different factions formed within the group because there were a few problem players who only wanted to cause chaos, rather than engage with the adventure hooks. Needless to say, after a few sessions of utter chaos, we split up into groups and even then we only had a few more sessions afterwards. Now that same DM is running a sci-fi flavored campaign for 5 of us and it is A LOT easier for him and more fun for us.

[@MrAltissimo]

I honestly wish some of the “themed” games I tried to join did more of that pre-game talk. I joined an ongoing game that was The Elder Scrolls themed, I was coming in with a Vigilant of Stendarr type character, of course most of the party were public Daedra followers and basically kneecapped my character.

[@williamtaylor6886]

Great video! Even in the old 1e days, smaller groups proved more fun. However, I do recall challenging guidance like this from Vault of the Drow: “1. The composition of the party must be well balanced with respect to magic-users and fighters, and at least one thief and two clerics should be along. 2. The average level of the group should be about 10th, and each character should have magic items commensurate with his or her level of experience. 3. There is no instant retreat from this underworld, as teleportation will not function properly so deep beneath the ground, and the party must be both strong and numerous enough to trek in and face what they discover, then manage to come out alive. 8 or 9 characters is not an excessive party number, and 6 is the minimum number that should attempt the module.”

[@LordMyron09]

I have a group of five players, and I am routinely having to cancel sessions because more than one person cannot make it. The part that sucks the most: it's almost always the same two people, and I ALMOST ALWAYS learn about it within hours of the session's scheduled start. It has never gotten easier, and it sometimes makes me want to just abandon the campaign :(

[@Echo1231]

Four players: A sturdy campaign. Everyone has potential to have a unique play style and rp moments. Five players: the flexible campaign. Most likely, one person will always cancel, and your group will still meet. Roles aren't as concrete, but you get optimized play time and still have time to shine. Also most likely to have a couple playing that either are core members or are the reason why this is no longer a flexible group as they always cancel. Six to eight: the mystery group. You're not sure how many people actually are playing, and aside from the three core people that always show up, roles are as fluid is liquid. Half your time will be spent catching up on the last few sessions and reminding people about key bits of information and trying to figure out how the artificer got an antimaterial rifle in a "swords and shield" esc campaign. Eight or more: This is a social gathering. You probably have a full meal before playing dnd. You will try to start several times only to be sidetracked. Not to say it's impossible, but you've decided to do something else more times than you actually play dnd with group. Wait, when did that guy join the group?

[@grantsnake]

Im in the middle of founding of a group at the moment. We all go to the same meet up group where people run one shots. It usualy a good mix of newbies and veterans, last week both the newbies who joined where naturals one who watches and read allot of dnd content and one with alllot BG3 hours meant we hit the ground running. Now we want to be semi permenant group taking turns to DM all our one shots (newbies might be a while before they offer to DM). The most exciting thing is gonna be the shifting DM style im a comedy/ paradoy style one shot dm wheras next week our most emotional DM is running something. Watching this as I havnt DM'ed in over a year.

[@sinnFeiN]

I completely agree. My experience was limited, as I had run only a few one shots. Then, friends asked me, whether I might join them as a more experienced player. However, my experience is very limited as a player as well, because I only played in one full campaign and had started with D&D just a few years ago. Turns out, the DM was a bit overwhelmed and I helmed the campaign after all (Curse of Strahd being my first campaign). Orginally, we started with 7 players, one being a friend from my first campaign as a player. She was the helping DM for rules and to ease them into roleplay. After session 0 one player bailed out, because he hadn't thought of D&D being as time consuming as we suggested (1-2 hour session, once or twice per month was their aim which didn't align with our aims at all). After 2 sessions another player bailed out, because of the same reasons and stress at work. Now, at session 13, we are left with 4 players, as my helping DM friend had to drop to a auxiliary role when the schedule (and her being pregnant) works for her. So we are at 4 players, everyone has a really good time, it's way less stressful. The most significant changes are scheduling problems diminishing nearly completely (3 sessions per month for 5 hours might be a thing now) and we get through the campaign way faster. Our progress in the first 6 sessions was way slower than in the last 3 sessions. Having learned not that much, I was asked whether I might DM the group which got me into D&D (the one, where my pregnant friend plays as well). I run Dungeons of Drakkenheim thanks to you guys and scheduling as well as group planning is taken over by the players. Unfortunately, that led us to 6 players once again, however, with one player being more of a auxiliary stand-in whenever they got time. So, yeah... it sure is possible to play with more people, but makes it more complicated and less fun for the players and the DM. Thanks for the video, because that confirmed my suspicion, why, suddenly, the other campaign runs way smoother and the more experienced group somehow works as is (but not in an ideal way).

[@Insert_Bland_Name_Here]

While I would love to try playing a one-off adventure with a larger group, I'll be honest. My current group is by far the most fun I've had as a DM since I started playing D&D, even more fun than when I was a player. And this group only consists of TWO players and me as DM. At first I kinda dreaded having to DM again, but they asked me nicely to prepare an adventure for them, because one of them wanted to try the game, so I did, and now I'm actually looking forward to each game session. It doesn't feel like a chore, and the players truly seem to love the story and the world I've made, unlike my previous group who were murderhobos and didn't really care about the world or the characters in it. They've actually made me enjoy DMing again, for the first time in years.

[@charlescrocco7896]

As a first time DM with ten players (definitely regretting it at times!!), I’m looking on the bright side of this: splitting the party to do two separate dungeons (or one large dungeon where the party takes at least two paths, meeting up at the end for the boss encounter) does wonders for my energy. Also, I enjoy seeing the rest of the players respond to what happens in real time

[@DandDgamer]

That is not a bad idea. On one hand the players are basically getting half as much game as if you just had a party of 5. But I guess it's fine if they're just doing background activities and essentially watching the other group as passive entertainment meanwhile.

[@Hubabuba258]

In the first campaign I was a GM for (not D&D, but Dragon Age) I eventually had five players at my table and it was still manageable, although the balancing issue was definitely a factor (especially because there was a lot of homebrew, since this system has more holes than a Swiss cheese). I did start with only three players though and slowly added the other two over time. Going from 3 to 4 and then to 5 gave me this nice transitional period to adjust my Gaming style. It went so well that I've been a GM for the past couple of years and haven't had a chance to play since. Yay.

[@Akky7032]

As a fairly new DM, this is actually the first time I heard this advice. I am immediately relieved that my two friends and me decided to try our first games with just the three of us. Playing with a very small group has its own challenges of course, but compared to the things you guys mentioned they feel trivial.

[@zednumar6917]

One thing you can do is arrange a campaign with 2 or more groups playing in different parts of the same setting on different days. Having two biweekly games allows a DM to run more players than a single weekly game.

[@WolfmanXD]

When I was playing at my lgs, they had a rule that if we had less than 7 players, and a new player walked in to play, you had to take them at your table. There was frequently 4-5 7 player games going on in d&d night. It was pretty nuts. My first campaign at the lgs had 7 players, this was right before the start of covid, and it was pretty miserable. Once covid started, and we moved to roll20, the group dropped to 5 players, and it was much better. I haven't been back to the lgs for d&d since, and I haven't played with more than 5 players since (typically 4).

[@DaDavid1193]

I started playing DND earlier this year with a whole 4 people and I struggle every, single, week to make sure I'm planning scenes, encounters and plot hooks that roughly equally involve all my players. I cannot imagine willingly signing up to doing that for more than four people.

[@cassou124]

I'm going to run an 11-player TTRPG soon, and there are other players wanting to join (I'll only let them if people fall off). This isn't my first time DMing, but I've basically only DM'd oneshots before. I pretty much immediately decided that I'd do two to three player rotations (4-6 players at a time, tops), and that someone else would deal with scheduling in my stead.

[@syrupchugger421]

I play with my family and is a group of 5 players and me (DM). It was definitely rough when I was first getting into it and even after a year I find myself forgetting details and trying to make sure everyone gets a spotlight. Thanks for the video

[@darcraven01]

our group is currently average of 6 members but we have up to 10 people pending on schedueling. our DM's rule for continuity sake is "if you're here you were always here, if you're not here you never were". basically if you're playing that day, great.. you character has been with the party the whole time. if you not there the party isnt going to suddenly wonder where you went. and we start every session with a quick recap of the previous session and if anyone shows up that wadnt there for a few weeks we may go extend that to the last few sessions so everyone is on the same page. seens to work well enough. as for combat, the dm tends to tell us the next two peoples turns so we can prepare.. seems to work and not slow down combat too much

[@DandDgamer]

Try DMing a oneshot sometime. I've played in larger groups, and personally they're perfectly playable but compared to 3-4 I think it just doesn't compare at all.

[@darcraven01]

@@DandDgamer i mean, im not the DM but i have run in a smaller group before. and i wasnt saying the larger group was better.. wasnt trying to compare them at all, i was just giving my experiance with it and how our dm handles things

[@Draail19]

I ran a 3 year campaign every other week with 9 players. Alternating weeks with another DM's game who was in the group. It was incredibly rewarding but exceedingly difficult to manage. Of course, we had been playing World of Darkness for years together at that point, and Sunday afternoon into Monday mornings were for gaming at that point in all of our lives. That being said, I definitely prefer 4-5 at the table now. Wonderful video Dudes! I agree with everything said here.

[@ethanwebber7056]

The very first game I ever ran was for 2 players. It was nice because I had only been playing for a short period of time and both my players were completely new. My first campaign was with 3 players, all relatively new. My current campaign is with 7 players of varying skill levels. Here is what Ive learned: 2-3 Player sessions are really cool and intimate, and allows for a lot of emphasis on the players. Roleplaying small moments dont kill the pace of play. However, you will likely have to talk a lot and if your players aren't into RP with each other, then it can be A LOT on your shoulders. 4-5: I've only run a few one-shots with this player count, but this is really an ideal party size IMO. The party is hopefully able to cover every 'role' in an adventuring party, its still easy to get players individual moments, and party discussions can give you a reprieve. 6+: Can lead to really cool moments with the group sessions. Balancing is a nightmare for combat, since often time a player will have an ability that breaks the encounter. If the party roleplays with each other it can give you nice long breaks, but it can also KILL the pace of play. I have had sessions where the party basically plans for the entire session. Getting players cool moments individually can be hard Overall: Smaller groups are definitely easier to run, but there can be a magic to larger groups.

[@verdugosilver3047]

For me the player maximum depends on the experience level of the players. More experienced players are able to make decisions without help and take their turns a lot faster, which allows me to handle more of them at once.

[@DandDgamer]

I still personally find the game is worse for overmany players, but yes, not all players are created equal. I've had a table of 5 go much faster than a table 3 where 1 player never knew what he wanted to do

[@jancatperson8329]

I agree with you that for a new DM to try to handle a large group would be inadvisable. Our group of nearly 4 years now has always had 7 players. While our DM is very experienced and runs our sessions well, we still occasionally encounter the problems you described. Sometimes players get involved in other things (online games, so things like folding the laundry, feeding the dog, etc.) and lose track of game progress. While we don’t have anyone with main character syndrome, the more outgoing players sometimes dominate play, especially outside of combat when initiative order ensures everyone gets their turn. Although we’re all experienced players now, ocasionally people will misinterpret class rules, and the DM has seven different classes or subclasses to keep track of, which I’m sure can’t be easy. If I were to consider trying to DM, I would definitely start small. I do run a solo campaign just for funsies, and I find my three main characters are enough. The one time I ran combat with those three plus three of their friends against several enemies got a little complicated even though there was nobody at the “table” but me.

[@inhumANthropoid]

I messed up my very 1st Ravnica campaign by giving out too many magic items. Now a lvl 6 party is currently engaged with Jarad and two Delvakin Lichs and I'm going to one shot a few of them 😅

[@bolggamer]

Also, do you guys have any recommendations for a group playing in person with one player virtually? We have this situation and our virtual player feels disconnected a lot of the time. Is there any way to fix this or is he gonna have to adapt until he can play in person again?

[@DankBobRoss]

I have done a campaign like this before and in my experience it really is more determined by the other people playing within the campaign instead of the dm, if you can get help with including that player with a few of the other party members it can be a big help

[@KMT719]

I was in this situation where I was the virtual player. I stuck with it for about 10 sessions, but ultimately had to call it quits. It was just too difficult to feel involved and engaged with the in person group. Between technical issues, being unable to take part in any kind of sidebar conversations, etc. it just wasn't fun and instead an actively discouraging time. I hope you guys are able to make it work until he can play in person again.

[@Gingrman-mx4sp]

13:00 My group is 22 sessions into The Lost Mine of Phandelver and they still haven't fought the Black Spider yet. It's been almost 2 years! I'm so ready to be done with that awful adventure.

[@LyleAshbaugh]

Ouch! We had 6 newbie players and it took 10 sessions.

[@katecritt]

A friend of mine started a campaign with 7 people (not D&D, but a system that scales about as well), and decided to split the group in half and asked me to run the other group, which he joined as a player. Now we're running parallel campaigns in a shared setting and have PCs in each other's groups. The co-GMing has been going great so far, but scheduling four adult humans is already hard enough. Some day when the stars align we'll have the groups meet up and do a beach episode so they can brag to each other about their adventures.

[@Enby_Benji]

I have two best friends. I am beginning to GM for a group of 5 soon, including these two people. We had a short time where we played before. I've noticed that one of my best friends kind of impedes my fun and excitement for DND because it seems we don't mash as well in TTRPGs as we do in other aspects. But I can't "kick" him from the group because it's a social gathering of our friend group and it would be very hurtful and horrible to tell one friend he can't come. He kind of has a bit of trouble differentiating his emotions (frustration, impatience mainly) and opinions from his character. He has no experience with roleplaying and tends to choose "Gary Sue" characters that are an idealized version of one part of himself. That's what's fun for him, he always plays like this. In all video games, he always goes this way. And that's fine but at the table I've noticed how his playstyle and especially his emotions make a bit anxious. ("Have you talked to him about this yet?" - It's a bit hard to talk to him about these things cause he often does not understand where I'm coming from. He doesn't mean to make me or anyone feel bad, that's just not him. But he sometimes is a bit clueless about it. I will keep trying to gently approach him when it happens.)

[@nicolasv6031]

Ive been a dnd player for a few years now, and Ive just started a homebrew campaign for my friends. When they described how people come out of the woodworks to play... they were not kidding lol. I was planning on having 3 or 4 players, now Ive got 7! Thankfully, we all met up to hang out before hand, and things are going pretty well! My main trouble is getting the group to focus, but im hoping we'll settle into a rythm!

[@jatsantsa]

I just got hope from my 1st DM session of DND ever, by chance I have exactly 4 people. I made small level 1 adventure for them and so far works nicecly. To be honest I have DM expierence in different ttrpg, much simplier.

[@rayne-t]

It's funny, the very first time I was a DM, I had trouble finding just a couple people to play, and one if them only managed one session before they got swamped with their schedule and I had to somehow find another player to replace them.

[@matunusdonnerhammer3423]

I made the mistake of having too large groups when I started DMing a little more than 20 years ago. I was excited about DnD and happy to be able to promote the game at the game store, so invited basically everyone who had some interest in DnD. I had eight players and even more headaches. Nowadays I only play with a fairly small group: Me, my wife, my mother-in-law and my two best friends. Works far better for us than large groups.

[@jonathanmedina407]

My current group was 4 people and games lasted 3 hours. That was 3 years ago. Now my group is 7 players and me as DM and games last 6 hours and everyone gets their spotlight. But that didn't happen easily.

[@lordelon9955]

It was rough introducing my friend group to D&D at first. Starting a couple games for a few friends, but never getting past 5th lvl, then deciding to run a game for 9 people..... We only played once a month, for about 8-9 hours. Combat took most of that time, and while I had fun and we had some great moments, it's not sustainable long term. I've since gone down to 4 for my current run through of Tyranny of Dragons, with 5 being my max (space in my apartment has become more limited as well). Especially starting out as a new DM where no one in the group really knows the rules or are going off older editions of the game, and going off the book and trying to figure out XP values and unsure of how much prep work I need to do and uncomfortable with coming up with things on the spot..... it's always best to start small and offer up to someone else to trying DMing because you also don't want to be the forever DM of the group.

[@carlosbaroni1158]

Through various games i found my player limit is 4 at its max. I prefer playing with less people as it gives that sense of a tight knit group and better rp

[@lukeholbrook204]

It’s interesting that your suggested group size is 3-4, and the “wrong” size is 6-8; what of five? I actually find five to be a nice number, at least for party size. It’s easier for the PCs to fill out the needed roles without someone feeling like they have to play a particular role. The party is also more resilient to one PC getting incapacitated or otherwise removed from the combat. Three PCs suddenly reduced to two is pretty rough.

[@the_doc_webb]

I run games for students, and, while I can and do run games with 8+ kids at the table, 6 is the max for a narrative- and character-driven game. The larger games work well for dungeon crawls or goofier content (and are MUCH easier when using a faster system like DCC or Savage Worlds), but it's much harder to make a cohesive story that way. They still have fun -- it's just more memorable vignettes rather than the detailed plot lines you can naturally develop in smaller games.

[@morticai23000]

Hey guys, I have a group of about eight people and one thing I found is as long as I do my due diligence I’m able to keep my part of the game flowing quickly, but what I struggle with most a lot of these guys we work with each other in a social setting and a lot of them just want to socialize and hang out more than actually get into the game. How can I keep them? Interested

[@msmascare]

I handle multiple players by breaking them up into teams that have leaders. The team leaders call out who on their team acts during combat and work with their members to develop tactics. Initiative is based on who rolls highest in the team and enemies roll initiative with advantage to help balance the initiative rolls.

[@adamarcher3089]

i have run a game for 9 players the mental load is crushing and DM burnout is so rapid it takes me about 6 months to recover after running for a year. thankfully the group i play with has 4 experienced DM's. but even then we split to 2 groups of 4 players with a 9 player game every 4 weeks. the smaller groups are online the big one is face to face.

[@njflyersfan74]

PINEAPPLE on PIZZA..!!! That's an outrage sir! But I agree with your premise about too many players or particularly if they are strangers. (Weird for me to say as I play exclusively online with a VTT these days, but I do have core players who's played many games and over a year - five years with me). There's something to be said about long term players as well. I don't like recruiting new players I'll just say it, not because I hate people or anything...(only when driving) but having players that stick with you campaign after campaign year after year...is GOLD! Those players are super valuable. They learn your DM style, they learn each other's playstyles. ITs just a beautiful thing. New players when absolutely needed but then they have to get used to each other and you to them.

[@billeaton6495]

I find that the old school D&D systems (B/X) are much better at handling larger parties - in fact they were designed that way - much simpler combats and less rules-based character options. Great fun, too

[@angrysmileyface4204]

I have a group of 6 and I find it more comfortable than smaller groups, mainly because it allows the focus to not be on me more as they roleplay amongst each other. But, to be fair, that stands or falls with how well the table works together, and I consider myself very lucky that my players are so good at that❤

[@cassie2615]

I’ve recently started my Drakkenheim campaign and my group of 4-5 is about halfway through Tierhaven. It’s a weird dynamic but one player was a package deal with another, and frequently won’t be able to attend. Yeah, it is a bit of a struggle. Not really sure how it will work out. 😢

[@Rhyder77]

I Cap my table for a given campaign at 6. That's my max, but I also have several years of dming experience, and most of my players I've known for a long while

[@xkukubax]

I’m currently preparing for my first Cyberpunk Red campaign that will also be my first GMing experience. While I wanted to invite 4 PC’s initially, my friend with GMing experience convinced me to scale down to three. Hearing from you now guys I think it was a good choice.

[@ajw5708]

I just started my campaign a couple months ago. I have over a dozen players and instead of figuring out everyones schedules. I decided to run a West Marches style game. Made a world with a loose plot, made a discord page for everyone to communicate about anything campaign related. Now as long as i have enough warning, they lmk who wants to play and when and it works great for me.