Last night I was reading the original D&D rules and laughed when I read the advice that a "referee" can handle up to *50* players (though it does say ideally you'd want a 1:20 ref:player ratio).  Can you imagine?!

Actually, there is one game where 50 players might be great - Dungeon Crawl Classics!  You could run an extremely brutal, trap-laden dungeon and let each person run a single 0-level character, and when they're dead, they're out.

At the reverse end of the extreme, I've been struggling to adjust an adventure to 2 players.  I end up having to pull a lot of punches.  At least with 50, I wouldn't feel bad dishing out consequences.

I ran about 12-16 (depending on availability) through a 3rd edition game of Weird Wars 2.  We played the full American campaign in North Africa from landing in Morocco to Rommel's final surrender.  It mostly worked due to the fact that it was pretty much straight up combat and they were running a unit of 36 characters in the big set pieces and team favorites for the smaller patrols and raids.  Definitely do not expect deep character studies -- combat shaped the character of the favorites and then personality followed later.

Quote from: KingCheops on February 18, 2021, 10:02:13 AM
Definitely do not expect deep character studies -- combat shaped the character of the favorites and then personality followed later.

I agree. I'm sure a 50-player game would be all attacks, saves, or death rattles.  I suppose it would get easier and gain more depth as you whittled down the players.

The Living Arcanis campaign (3.5e based organized play) would hold "Battle Interactives" at the major cons where up to 200 players would bring their PCs to fight together in a massive battle. The first, if I recall, involved the players holding the walls of a city against an invasion with different DMs handling different sections of the walls and periodically conferring with each other to record overall results.

Later Battle Interactives even allowed the PCs to pick which side of the battle they wanted to serve on and, while the PCs of opposing sides mostly fought in different parts of the battle so they were facing NPCs, how well and how quickly each side accomplished their objectives determined the victor.

Permanent deaths happened, particularly if you volunteered for more dangerous missions, and sometimes the losers lost magic items and suffered other ills in escaping the battle with their lives.

And the GMs were flexible. In one of those two sided fights where my PC legitimately felt both sides were in the wrong my PC played on a side of one (all 199 others picked a side) serving with the Beltinian Hospitalers (basically neutral Red Cross healers who ministered to the wounded) throughout the event (I even got a handwritten certificate marking my membership in the Hospitalers from one of the Arcanis team for playing my character's legitimate moral stand... it didn't have any mechanical effect, but I was able to bring it up a couple times in later modules to get an RP advantage out of it).

Long story short, its certainly doable, but needs a LOT of coordination to pull off.

That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 18, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
The Living Arcanis campaign (3.5e based organized play) would hold "Battle Interactives" at the major cons where up to 200 players would bring their PCs to fight together in a massive battle. The first, if I recall, involved the players holding the walls of a city against an invasion with different DMs handling different sections of the walls and periodically conferring with each other to record overall results.

Later Battle Interactives even allowed the PCs to pick which side of the battle they wanted to serve on and, while the PCs of opposing sides mostly fought in different parts of the battle so they were facing NPCs, how well and how quickly each side accomplished their objectives determined the victor.

Permanent deaths happened, particularly if you volunteered for more dangerous missions, and sometimes the losers lost magic items and suffered other ills in escaping the battle with their lives.

And the GMs were flexible. In one of those two sided fights where my PC legitimately felt both sides were in the wrong my PC played on a side of one (all 199 others picked a side) serving with the Beltinian Hospitalers (basically neutral Red Cross healers who ministered to the wounded) throughout the event (I even got a handwritten certificate marking my membership in the Hospitalers from one of the Arcanis team for playing my character's legitimate moral stand... it didn't have any mechanical effect, but I was able to bring it up a couple times in later modules to get an RP advantage out of it).

Long story short, its certainly doable, but needs a LOT of coordination to pull off.

that sounds absolutely amazing!

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

Quote from: critical_fumble on February 18, 2021, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

I haven't either. And I'd also like to.

I could see it being done in a "West Marches" style of game.  In fact, I think it is not that uncommon for them to have way more than the usual number of players.

I like the "West Marches" concept a lot but scheduling seems like it would be a huge challenge.
Schools having a big pool of players must help.

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:50:03 AM

Quote from: critical_fumble on February 18, 2021, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

I haven't either. And I'd also like to.

It's great fun! Though my campaign was not 50 strong but rather 12 to I think 18 at the max, it was very cool to have different players playing their characters with different players as opposed to fixed parties rotating in and out. I first did this in late junior high - early high school and then again a few years later while in the military. It was really cool because I had use of a semi permanent play area and we had the campaign world map on the wall with changes and updates for all to see. Being military we all were used to rotating in and out of availability so this style of play really fit us well. It probably didn't hurt that we were still playing 1e and 2e later on.

The thing we tried to maintain was that you would go out on your adventure with your team of the day and do your thing and then try to be back at the town by the end of the session/play days in order to make for easier pick up next session and less time keeping problems. For example team A didn't  make it back to town and therefore are stuck in the dungeon or en route to town. Team B gets to play but several players are from Team A as well so you have to fudge the travel to the location of Team A so that those characters available for play or have people play other people's characters (which is far more trouble than it's worth). A good solution to that problem is to have everyone have two or more characters so while Jim's paladin is still stuck in the dungeon because they didn't make it back to town Jim can still play next time he's available if the rest of his paladin's dungeon team as still stuck in the field on exercise and some of the other players are ready and available.

Having players get back to town also helps greatly with time keeping as any delays between sessions can pass as normal days for the characters as opposed to being stuck frozen in time in the dungeon.

Now I really want to do this again...

Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 01:45:44 PM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:50:03 AM

Quote from: critical_fumble on February 18, 2021, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

I haven't either. And I'd also like to.

It's great fun! Though my campaign was not 50 strong but rather 12 to I think 18 at the max, it was very cool to have different players playing their characters with different players as opposed to fixed parties rotating in and out. I first did this in late junior high - early high school and then again a few years later while in the military. It was really cool because I had use of a semi permanent play area and we had the campaign world map on the wall with changes and updates for all to see. Being military we all were used to rotating in and out of availability so this style of play really fit us well. It probably didn't hurt that we were still playing 1e and 2e later on.

The thing we tried to maintain was that you would go out on your adventure with your team of the day and do your thing and then try to be back at the town by the end of the session/play days in order to make for easier pick up next session and less time keeping problems. For example team A didn't  make it back to town and therefore are stuck in the dungeon or en route to town. Team B gets to play but several players are from Team A as well so you have to fudge the travel to the location of Team A so that those characters available for play or have people play other people's characters (which is far more trouble than it's worth). A good solution to that problem is to have everyone have two or more characters so while Jim's paladin is still stuck in the dungeon because they didn't make it back to town Jim can still play next time he's available if the rest of his paladin's dungeon team as still stuck in the field on exercise and some of the other players are ready and available.

Having players get back to town also helps greatly with time keeping as any delays between sessions can pass as normal days for the characters as opposed to being stuck frozen in time in the dungeon.

Now I really want to do this again...

Yeah. Multiple characters per player facilitates this kind of campaign.

Now you know what Gygax was going on about in "Time In The Campaign" in the 1e DMG.

Quote from: Greentongue on February 18, 2021, 01:44:46 PM
I could see it being done in a "West Marches" style of game.  In fact, I think it is not that uncommon for them to have way more than the usual number of players.

I like the "West Marches" concept a lot but scheduling seems like it would be a huge challenge.
Schools having a big pool of players must help.

It was years before I ever knew what a West Marches game was and when I found out I just laughed as that was exactly what we had been doing all a long. I can very much see your point regarding schools being conducive as that was exactly where we first played this style followed by while in the military. Both have the same sort of like minded people and availability what with being on a base or confined to a building as a group.

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 01:48:49 PM

Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 01:45:44 PM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:50:03 AM

Quote from: critical_fumble on February 18, 2021, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

I haven't either. And I'd also like to.

It's great fun! Though my campaign was not 50 strong but rather 12 to I think 18 at the max, it was very cool to have different players playing their characters with different players as opposed to fixed parties rotating in and out. I first did this in late junior high - early high school and then again a few years later while in the military. It was really cool because I had use of a semi permanent play area and we had the campaign world map on the wall with changes and updates for all to see. Being military we all were used to rotating in and out of availability so this style of play really fit us well. It probably didn't hurt that we were still playing 1e and 2e later on.

The thing we tried to maintain was that you would go out on your adventure with your team of the day and do your thing and then try to be back at the town by the end of the session/play days in order to make for easier pick up next session and less time keeping problems. For example team A didn't  make it back to town and therefore are stuck in the dungeon or en route to town. Team B gets to play but several players are from Team A as well so you have to fudge the travel to the location of Team A so that those characters available for play or have people play other people's characters (which is far more trouble than it's worth). A good solution to that problem is to have everyone have two or more characters so while Jim's paladin is still stuck in the dungeon because they didn't make it back to town Jim can still play next time he's available if the rest of his paladin's dungeon team as still stuck in the field on exercise and some of the other players are ready and available.

Having players get back to town also helps greatly with time keeping as any delays between sessions can pass as normal days for the characters as opposed to being stuck frozen in time in the dungeon.

Now I really want to do this again...

Yeah. Multiple characters per player facilitates this kind of campaign.

Now you know what Gygax was going on about in "Time In The Campaign" in the 1e DMG.

I learned that lesson very early on even with only a few players. Being voted the best DM (whatever that means) meant that my friends wanted to play their characters in what was becoming my campaign rather than have some of our other friends DM for them. (I'm sure we've all had bad experiences with poor GMing). At first I didn't care if Joe wanted to play his wizard for this session of Castle Amber even though his wizard was still stuck in the forest near The Keep on the Borderlands but as I settled into the Forever DM role explaining away those anomalies became a lot harder to do and still have a believable world. Of course, back then we also all had multiple characters and didn't have hissy fits when they died either but it helped to enjoy the game without Joe's wizard being in two places at once and suddenly vanishing from one when he dies at the other location.

Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 02:00:16 PM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 01:48:49 PM

Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 01:45:44 PM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:50:03 AM

Quote from: critical_fumble on February 18, 2021, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

I haven't either. And I'd also like to.

It's great fun! Though my campaign was not 50 strong but rather 12 to I think 18 at the max, it was very cool to have different players playing their characters with different players as opposed to fixed parties rotating in and out. I first did this in late junior high - early high school and then again a few years later while in the military. It was really cool because I had use of a semi permanent play area and we had the campaign world map on the wall with changes and updates for all to see. Being military we all were used to rotating in and out of availability so this style of play really fit us well. It probably didn't hurt that we were still playing 1e and 2e later on.

The thing we tried to maintain was that you would go out on your adventure with your team of the day and do your thing and then try to be back at the town by the end of the session/play days in order to make for easier pick up next session and less time keeping problems. For example team A didn't  make it back to town and therefore are stuck in the dungeon or en route to town. Team B gets to play but several players are from Team A as well so you have to fudge the travel to the location of Team A so that those characters available for play or have people play other people's characters (which is far more trouble than it's worth). A good solution to that problem is to have everyone have two or more characters so while Jim's paladin is still stuck in the dungeon because they didn't make it back to town Jim can still play next time he's available if the rest of his paladin's dungeon team as still stuck in the field on exercise and some of the other players are ready and available.

Having players get back to town also helps greatly with time keeping as any delays between sessions can pass as normal days for the characters as opposed to being stuck frozen in time in the dungeon.

Now I really want to do this again...

Yeah. Multiple characters per player facilitates this kind of campaign.

Now you know what Gygax was going on about in "Time In The Campaign" in the 1e DMG.

I learned that lesson very early on even with only a few players. Being voted the best DM (whatever that means) meant that my friends wanted to play their characters in what was becoming my campaign rather than have some of our other friends DM for them. (I'm sure we've all had bad experiences with poor GMing). At first I didn't care if Joe wanted to play his wizard for this session of Castle Amber even though his wizard was still stuck in the forest near The Keep on the Borderlands but as I settled into the Forever DM role explaining away those anomalies became a lot harder to do and still have a believable world. Of course, back then we also all had multiple characters and didn't have hissy fits when they died either but it helped to enjoy the game without Joe's wizard being in two places at once and suddenly vanishing from one when he dies at the other location.

Miscommunication mine. Plural "you" - i.e. all readers - intended, not singular.

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 02:03:39 PM

Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 02:00:16 PM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 01:48:49 PM

Quote from: Samsquantch on February 18, 2021, 01:45:44 PM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:50:03 AM

Quote from: critical_fumble on February 18, 2021, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: RandyB on February 18, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
That was 50 players in the whole campaign, not in a single adventure. Multiple groups of player characters at different places - and times - in the same campaign setting. Different groups of players in different play sessions.

This was before the days of "campaign = all player characters are in a single party", etc.

Well now, that makes more sense.  I've never experienced this sort of campaign, but I'd like to.

I haven't either. And I'd also like to.

It's great fun! Though my campaign was not 50 strong but rather 12 to I think 18 at the max, it was very cool to have different players playing their characters with different players as opposed to fixed parties rotating in and out. I first did this in late junior high - early high school and then again a few years later while in the military. It was really cool because I had use of a semi permanent play area and we had the campaign world map on the wall with changes and updates for all to see. Being military we all were used to rotating in and out of availability so this style of play really fit us well. It probably didn't hurt that we were still playing 1e and 2e later on.

The thing we tried to maintain was that you would go out on your adventure with your team of the day and do your thing and then try to be back at the town by the end of the session/play days in order to make for easier pick up next session and less time keeping problems. For example team A didn't  make it back to town and therefore are stuck in the dungeon or en route to town. Team B gets to play but several players are from Team A as well so you have to fudge the travel to the location of Team A so that those characters available for play or have people play other people's characters (which is far more trouble than it's worth). A good solution to that problem is to have everyone have two or more characters so while Jim's paladin is still stuck in the dungeon because they didn't make it back to town Jim can still play next time he's available if the rest of his paladin's dungeon team as still stuck in the field on exercise and some of the other players are ready and available.

Having players get back to town also helps greatly with time keeping as any delays between sessions can pass as normal days for the characters as opposed to being stuck frozen in time in the dungeon.

Now I really want to do this again...

Yeah. Multiple characters per player facilitates this kind of campaign.

Now you know what Gygax was going on about in "Time In The Campaign" in the 1e DMG.

I learned that lesson very early on even with only a few players. Being voted the best DM (whatever that means) meant that my friends wanted to play their characters in what was becoming my campaign rather than have some of our other friends DM for them. (I'm sure we've all had bad experiences with poor GMing). At first I didn't care if Joe wanted to play his wizard for this session of Castle Amber even though his wizard was still stuck in the forest near The Keep on the Borderlands but as I settled into the Forever DM role explaining away those anomalies became a lot harder to do and still have a believable world. Of course, back then we also all had multiple characters and didn't have hissy fits when they died either but it helped to enjoy the game without Joe's wizard being in two places at once and suddenly vanishing from one when he dies at the other location.

Miscommunication mine. Plural "you" - i.e. all readers - intended, not singular.

No worries at all, mate. I didn't take it as directed solely at me.