cliffr
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 69
|
Post by cliffr on Jan 17, 2010 6:49:28 GMT
I'll probably be posting all of that in the campaigns forum in the next day or so.
|
|
PathfinderAP
2nd Incarnation
Reason for Everything, Always a Way
Posts: 28
|
Post by PathfinderAP on Jan 24, 2010 16:14:08 GMT
Hullo, pathfinderap, Optimal including a Time Lord?, just one, The less people involed the better, it makes it more easy to build tension and threats with less people, sure you could do it with ten, but for how long?, I'd max out at say three and a Time Lord, anything more and you will need this to be an epic adventure to justify the larger numbers (and again how long can you keep that up?) Best thing you can do is split this group up in to two teams, This is not like MnM or CoC, larger teams are to be expected, But DW you will get more fun with less people, Going on the assumption that you've read the earlier posts in this thread... While this game is not Mutants & Masterminds or Call of Cthulhu, I think that the number of players needs to be based on the type of campaign and all. Doing a game with a Time Lord and his or her companions would seem to necessitate a game with only three or four players. On the other hand, a game with a UNIT team or a Torchwood team or some other concept along those lines would be more friendly towards a team of five or six players. And it's also a function of what the GM and the players in question can handle. That's all I want to point out here. Now, see, I question the logic of this, sure you can run a Torchwood team with more than a few people, but again the more people, as I have already stated, you have the harder it will be to keep any dergee of suspense or tension (ie see "scary") atmosphere across the game you are going to need fewer people to make that work long term from game to game, And as you have already pointed out, How do you plan on keeping your large group of players engaged in the story everytime you play anyway? Its not just how much a "GM and the players in question can handle" it in whole depends on the story to hand, Your average Who Story x 3 players = easy, x 5 + players = hard (if tried every game) With something like D&D 8+ players is easy, Any DM can run with 5+ players its a breeze due to combat keeping them mostly engaged in game, with little player story interaction But Who on the other hand has not that amount of combat, and a larger degree of story interaction, 5 or more players? good luck with that, cuz chances are sooner or later your game will break down
|
|
|
Post by JohnK on Jan 25, 2010 3:19:03 GMT
Hullo, PathfinderAP, I think you really need to remember that the number of players in a group of DW: AiTaS will be dependent on how many players you have. If you have a group of 5 players, are you really going to ask one or two of them to drop out of the game for a while while you run DW: AiTaS? I think not. That said, this is also largely a degree of whether you can GM a group of five or whatever, and what kind of story you decide to tell. I ran the original FASA DOCTOR WHO rpg back in the 1980's, and I had five players in the group and the campaigns ran for a good length of time. Now, see, I question the logic of this, sure you can run a Torchwood team with more than a few people, but again the more people, as I have already stated, you have the harder it will be to keep any dergee of suspense or tension (ie see "scary") atmosphere across the game DW: AiTaS is not a scary game and the degree of suspense or tension will depend very much on the stories that you are trying to tell in the game. A game with Torchwood as the focus can be scary and have that feel and atmosphere, but so does CALL OF CTHULHU or CHILL, and those games work fine with 5 players or so.
|
|
|
Post by danceswithdaleks on Aug 23, 2010 3:57:19 GMT
while a Time lord +2or3 is best, I currently have a Time Lord +4 to 5, and I have been able to manage that(but thats me.)
|
|