New answers tagged

0

This answer is more for completeness to this issue, giving another answer which someone may find useful. As should be noted in the tone of this answer, I do not encourage the original poster to follow this. 4 Words, and an idea stolen from Blizzard Entertainment: Homebrewed Two Headed Ogre. It can be any creature which could conceivably have two heads in ...


1

I regularly run groups of up to 6 and have even run 7 or 8 on occasion (I prefer to keep it to 6 or under just to make sure it's easier for everyone to have something to do). Just make sure you have an easy way to keep track of hit points etc, that you balance the encounters appropriately, and that everyone is aware the game will play more slowly due to more ...


6

Having players sharing a character something I might think a highly experienced GM might be able to hazard a middling job at handling. For a new GM, I'd have to say no freaking way. It will be much easier, and much more interesting for your players, to play one per character, even if the group was large enough to be unwieldy. I'd suggest you instead ...


11

Possibly but this is unlikely to solve your problem. The problem is that the players are the ones playing the game and no matter how you structure this there are 6 players wedged into the same amount of playing time. In theory this means that each player gets 33% less time to play than in a 4 player game, however, in practice it is much more complicated ...


35

Two players could play one character, but probably it would be too boring. They could agree all the character's action, and they could take turns when role playing him. But that would be less interesting and exciting than having one character. Also, it can lead to discussions when the two players are agreeing what to do, so the game can be even slower than ...



Top 50 recent answers are included