Recently I've been looking through AD&D modules for session ideas. Something I've noticed is that many of the modules were designed for more player characters than I've generally seen in one gaming group. For example Ravenloft (I6) and Day of Al'Akbar (I9) are both designed for 6-8 player characters. Was there an assumption that AD&D groups had more people? Or was it perhaps standard for players to play multiple characters at once?

up vote 16 down vote accepted

For the most part, it’s the former: AD&D groups often had six, eight, or more people playing. When those adventures were written, tabletop gaming, and AD&D in particular, were extremely popular. You could find RPG clubs just about anywhere, and when the clubs met it was not uncommon to have ten gamers to a table. And remember, when they say 6 to 8 player characters, they really mean 7 to 9 players, because the DM isn’t counted.

It’s hard to find exact numbers, but for TSR products specifically, I found some circulation figures for Dragon that indicate the year after Ravenloft, 1984, saw the high-water mark for Dragon subscriptions. Some caveats, of course: back then, Dragon (as well as other magazines published by companies that also published their own games) covered more than just their own game.

According to Acaeum, adventures in the eighties were selling between 50,000 and 150,000 unitsper adventure. The number has dropped considerably since then.

There were a lot of people playing, and so the culture supported larger gaming groups. In 1982 when I started college, our core group was seven people—brought together by the Dungeon Master walking the floor at the beginning of the year, looking for who was unpacking gaming books and inviting them to join his game. Others would join the core irregularly. We considered ourselves a relatively small group!

Unfortunately, since cameras were not as ubiquitous at the time, and pretty much none of them were digital, there isn’t a lot of photographic evidence online. However:

Because of the way people thought of cameras at the time, most photographs from the period are staged. So we don’t know, without additional evidence, that the Pingry School Dungeons & Dragons Club of 1984, for example, played with seven players to a game (plus DM), but it’s a good guess they occasionally did. And this Dungeons & Dragons Club (1983) may have been posed with everyone at the table, but it looks like they’re fairly experienced bringing enough chairs to the table.

Another source for number of gamers per game are the old Dungeon Master’s Adventure Logs. Here’s a log from Donald Colton, circa 1985, that lists nine players, not including the Dungeon Master. And the Rythlondar Chronicles lists group sizes from 7 to 15, with an average group size of 11.

While researching this answer, a whole lot of photos popped up from 2 Warps to Neptune, which looks like a great compilation of historical photos.

“And with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark. That place where the dice finally broke, and rolled back.”

  • 7
    Yeah, worth mentioning that the rules were a lot lighter back then so 6-8 was feasible; in 3e+ groups also got smaller because running more than 4-6 made a single combat take an entire game session. – mxyzplk Aug 8 '15 at 18:29
  • 1
    Anecdotally, the gaming groups I have been/am in since 1982 and 1984 respectively usually had 7-9 players throughout the 80s and early 90s. That was also the heyday of my convention-going, and most of the games there seemed to be for about that many players. – LAK Aug 10 '15 at 21:38
  • Quite a few of the earlier modules were designed for tournament play as well which accounts for they high player numbers. – James Culshaw Jan 22 '16 at 16:46
  • I was playing mainly in the late 80's and we routinely had 6-8 players at the table (+DM). – Lucien Stals Feb 22 '16 at 3:04
  • Check out the player pictured in the top row of the photo here: 2warpstoneptune.com/2013/04/16/… - a very young Tom Morello from Rage Against The Machine. – RobertF Feb 22 '16 at 14:33

This answer make me the feel like the crusty old DM. AD&D was far more based on roleplay than dicerolling (see What are the big differences between the D&D editions? ). Because of that it was fun and easy to get a group of friends together and play with a great deal of flexability and imagination.

As an example the AD&D answer to this question (Is there any edition where it's possible to play as Animated Armor?) in campaigns I ran is, "No problem Bob, but use the fighter tables and you'll have to have another character help you oil yourself periodically or make a save vs rust roll" Bob would also be hearing sounds of rust monsters, and I'd roll ever so often to see if one shows based on what was going on. Things like that are exactly how worlds like Greyhawk, the forgotten realms, blackmoor came about. It was a organic environment then without a ton of rule lookups making the gameflow relatively fast. In fact in my group had 1 DMG and 2 PHB copies, and we had about 8 -10 players that came in and out with 6 of us "core" players.

New players new nothing and frankly didn't need to - that's the DM's job to adjudicate. You could be Puff the magic dragon for all we cared as long as you had a great story idea behind it. Most of the time while you would roll your character, the players and DM would weave the "finding Puff" adventure into the campaign. (for those of you playing the home game Puff used the cleric tables since dragons don't need books to memorize spells). All in all it was both new and easy to play, as well as fun. I suspect under 3rd ed. or later rules we'd still be rolling dice, trying to save the great Bahpoo of the lizardmen's tribe that lived outside of town daughter.

In short the modules were designed with what was common for the game at the time.

  • I feel combat was a lot faster with early versions of D&D (at least in the Basic Moldvay version I played) despite having large groups. Both sides rolled 1d6 for initiative; on their turn all of the players simultaneously decided what they were doing & the DM sorted it out. In the 3.5e/5e games I've played combat is much more structured - the DM goes around the table asking what each player is doing, but it also takes forever to resolve. – RobertF Feb 22 '16 at 15:06
  • Agreed, in the case of my own kids (and their friends)that are starting to get into tabletop RPG, its an interesting mix. The min/max combat ones love the structured approach, the ones that are looking for role play love AD&D for the simplicity and ability to react to whatever the others throw at them without digging thru a pile of tables. – Jim B Feb 22 '16 at 17:05

For another perspective, it was a basic assumption that every PC would have 1 or more NPC henchmen. So having 6-8 characters did not assume that they would all be player characters.

  • 1
    Really? The module specifically says, "player characters". Did this phrasing use to include a player characters retinue? – Ceribia Aug 9 '15 at 18:43
  • 1
    umm what??? DND has always been about players playing the game. You didn't get henchmen for a long time in the first and second editions. – Jim B Aug 10 '15 at 4:16
  • @Ceribia Really? I do not have these particular modules but all the 1e ones I do have say for "X characters of Y levels" – Dale M Aug 10 '15 at 11:10
  • 3
    @JimB you didn't get followers for along time, you could hire henchmen up to your charisma limit from level 1 – Dale M Aug 10 '15 at 11:14
  • @Dale M ... per p. 39 AD&D 1e PHB, there was a distinction between henchmen and hirelings. Henchmen are limited in number by your charisma score ("A henchman is a more or less devoted follower of a character"); hirelings were as many as you could afford beginning at level 1. They both cost you gold, for wage, upkeep, etc. The assumptions you mention varied per campaign. None of the early TSR modules I have addresses henchmen. Clerics, Druids, Monks, Rangers, Assassins attracted a special kind of follower. – KorvinStarmast Aug 10 '15 at 15:24

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.