I'm going to start running a Pendragon game soon (5th edition), and I'm wondering how many players it can take.
We have a gaming group of about 9 people, and usually we split into two groups playing two different games in the same house. This works well, but from what I know of Pendragon (I have never run, nor played it before) the game is best played as a long-term campaign. Over the long term, the two groups we've split off into don't mix much, and people don't like that.
I would like to be able to run Pendragon with 9 people, as one solid group. I only ever pool everyone together for Amber Dicless, or something else that can handle a larger group. I am certainly incapable of running 9 people with a Dungeons & Dragons system.
So, where does Pendragon fall in suggested number of players? Can it take 9? Would I have to be a superhuman to do it? How big are your Pendragon groups?
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;601798So, where does Pendragon fall in suggested number of players? Can it take 9? Would I have to be a superhuman to do it? How big are your Pendragon groups?
//Panjumanju
I've played a bit of
Pendragon, and have a hard time imagining how it could be fulfilling with any more than 4-5 players. My gut feeling is that ideal number is 3 players. The nature of the game really calls for a deeper roleplaying, testing personality mechanics, etc. and I think a large group would cause you to lose sight of individual characters.
I suppose a campaign could be structured around a larger group, but it might lose a lot of the flavor of what makes
Pendragon the game that it is.
One of the great things about Pendragon is the whole conceit of the game running as one adventure per year. Plus, the down time random events.
What this means, is it's perfect for large groups where not everyone can make every game. You can play through the entire GPC with a revolving suite of characters, as long as there's -some- consistency. Maybe by using a group blog or wiki to keep track of what the 'off-screen' characters are up to.
That being said, I think Jason's right in that at any one session, 3-4 players around the table is the 'sweet spot'.
When I ran the Great Pendragon Campaign (VERY recommended!), I think that over the course of it the largest number of players we had at any one time was 7, the least number was 3.
In my opinion, it works better at the 3-5 player level, because you're doing a lot of stuff with your manors and at court and such (assuming you're running the game as expected), and if you have too many players then these things alone can end up eating up the entire gaming session. This problem only gets worse as a campaign progresses and the PCs get more and more wealth and influence and things they want to do in that phase of the game.
RPGPundit
I am running the Great Pendragon Campaign. I'm not sure if that's too ambitious for my first go at Pendragon, but I'm going to try. I was fortunate to get it and the core rulebook at my local gaming store after only inquiring after them, so I felt somewhat obligated to buy them.
The consensus I'm getting here is that it's possible with many players, but may rob the game of some of its better aspects. Perhaps I shall have to trim some knights into the other playing group, and we'll run two games.
Any suggestions for a first-time Pendragon GM undertaking the Great Pendragon Campaign?
//Panjumanju
Yes: read the WHOLE GPC book once, and then when you start to play the campaign read each chapter and the next chapter at the start of that "age", then make sure that before each session you read the details of the previous, current and next year; and skim through the adventure hooks at the end of the chapter to see if you want to use any that session.
The rest more or less takes care of itself.
RPGPundit
Curse you.
Now I have to get a copy of Pendragon.
Sounds awesome!
We have a stable core of about three, sometimes four, players in our group, with some occasional assistance from other local knights we know (Read: non-regular players), and it works well. It's easy for winters to get out of phase, though - I was out for a block due to exams and child, so now I'm two years behind everyone - but it really doesn't matter that much.
It works well, I'll echo everyone else in saying that you need few enough players that everyone gets plenty of time to exercise their traits, which are the most interesting thing about the game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;602051In my opinion, it works better at the 3-5 player level, because you're doing a lot of stuff with your manors and at court and such (assuming you're running the game as expected), and if you have too many players then these things alone can end up eating up the entire gaming session. This problem only gets worse as a campaign progresses and the PCs get more and more wealth and influence and things they want to do in that phase of the game.
I thought I'd like the landholding aspect of Pendragon, but it's so out-of-phase, I'd rather get it over with to get back to the chivalry; I'd employ a steward to do it for me.
I guess that means it emulates landholding quite well.
Quote from: Bill;602421Curse you.
Now I have to get a copy of Pendragon.
Sounds awesome!
Well, my work here is done...
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;602615Well, my work here is done...
RPGPundit
Once I get a chance to really digest Pendragon, I am curious if it could be used for the Dragon Age setting.
Pendragon is likely a superior game to the darpg, and I can see some parallels in the setting that may make it a somewhat smooth fit.
Monotheistic church, Virtues/Vices in particular.