Did anyone have a full 8 or 12 players at the table?

[Stan Shinn]

In 1977, pre-internet and pre-video-game, roleplaying in many cases was a form of '1st person shooter' gaming. So a game with 30 people amounted to the Referee telling a story and folks getting an occasional shot in when a fight broke out. Not very much like the rich, collaborative story telling of the 4-6 player modern game. Experiences varied, but that's what the 8+ player games tended to run like. At North Texas RPG Con, you still see retro games of 20+ players that run in this style, using old-school D&D games.

 

[ffilz]

I'm not sure how Marc Miller's Taveller games worked out, but it has been pointed out that Gary Gygax also stated large numbers for D&D, but it has been pointed out (by folks that played in his games) that this was the number of players in the campaign, not the number of players in any given session. I wouldn't be surprised if Marc Miller's games were the same way. Certainly Paul Gazis ran this way, with the campaign encompassing multiple different ships (with some players having several PCs so they could participate in almost any game session). This style of play seems to have mostly gone away though I have had as many as 3 groups running in my Wine Dark Rift setting simultaneously, with a total of 5 separate groups tracked in my timeline.

Back in the days when I gamed at MIT, players and GMs would congregate in a big hall and there would be this shuffling about as GMs and players indicated a desire to run a particular game. It was not always the GMs offering games, sometimes a player would say "hey I want to do something with Dagmar in Fred's game, who wants to join me in convincing Fred to run?" Sometimes the GM would have something specific to run, and sometimes the GM would just ask who wanted to play and then he would come up with something for the group who decided to play to do.

Frank

 

[jeffepp]

I had a thought on this, when reading a previous thread on the subject. What if, instead of reading it as 40 players, rather it was 40 characters.

CT has a habit of grinding up and killing characters in creation. But, what if, say 5 players make 4 or 5 characters each (20-25, much more reasonable). But, in the course of the creation phase, some number die off, and some become unplayable, for what ever reason. The rest become a pool to draw from to crew the ship, fill out the team, or what ever.

Those that don't enter play still existed, but become NPCs, or otherwise part of the background story of the group. John Smith the Marine died in his first term, but served with Jim Bean, and his death had some part in why Bean got his commission.

 

[Adam Dray]

I regularly ran AD&D tables of 8-10 players, but that was in the good 'ol days (and it was crazy). I've never had more than 6 players at a table for Traveller.

 

[rhialto]

I usually ref CT for 4 - 6, but this weekend will ref for 8 as a birthday request.

 

[aramis]

It's been 3-4 players for me for 37 years ...

I went from routine 5-9 down to 3-7.

More importantly, advised and designed for group sizes have shrunk.

Most games now have sweet spots in the 3-5 range, while certain in the past worked best with 5-7.. part of the resistance to D&D 4E, for example, was it was five core roles, instead of the "D&D standard 4"... as in the 4E era, most groups in homes were 3-5 players.

Still, while 3-4 is playable in many games from the past, it's always been suboptimal in several. AD&D1 you want 2 combattants (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier) a thief, a cleric, and a wizard; at low levels, add another cleric or a druid, and add another mage or an illusionist. Monks and assassins could kind of supplant the thief... but were better as add-ons.

Gygax and Arneson both would not infrequently have 10+ players show and play...

Meanwhile, L5R has 4 PC roles: Bushi, Shugenja, Courtier, and Monk... Monks have always been "outside the balance"; L5R 5 has made it such that Courtiers and Bushi can cross-train easily and effectively... a 2 player party can handle most storylines.

 

[Lord Kilgore]

Never anywhere close to a big table like that. Virtually all of my Traveller was 2 players, 1 ref back in the day.

 

[saundby]

Our local group tends to run about 7-9 on a typical night, but it's been 11-12 the past month. We have had games with 14-16 typical, which tends to bog down. Normally we try to split into 2 tables when at 9 or more, but that's been harder to do in the past couple of years. We're about to try again, as the higher numbers are making things tough on the ref.

 

[coliver988]

Our local group tends to run about 7-9 on a typical night, but it's been 11-12 the past month. We have had games with 14-16 typical, which tends to bog down. Normally we try to split into 2 tables when at 9 or more, but that's been harder to do in the past couple of years. We're about to try again, as the higher numbers are making things tough on the ref.

That's what our gaming group does. Too many players can slow things down drastically and then you get all the side-conversations. We usually have 2-3 games running per session of 4-8 players.

For me the ideal size is 3-5 players, but it all depends on the players themselves: if you get really active players the game halfway plays itself with just some nudging from the ref. A lot of passive players and it is a lot of work to keep things moving along. I'm lucky that the current group is mostly pretty active players who really participate.

 

[Spenser TR]

My Traveller games usually run with 3-5 players at the table. With DnD or "other" such as d20 Modern or In Nomine I usually sit more - 8 players isn't uncommon with a few turn aways because I don't want a bigger group.

I feel like Traveller requires more player investment ( reading and whatnot ) than DnD does, plus they have to be on board ( heh ) with the idea of rewards not being so obvious as levels-up and gobs of increased abilities. I think this affects the number of peeps who are willing to play in regular games, at least in the places I host in.