candidate games
Candidate games for a large group, a random list. Again, written in chunks because I so rarely have half an hour of contiguous time anymore.
Also, in boldface, I'm having an awesome time in Bob's game and don't want to stop playing it. I've just been thinking, idly, about the logistical issues associated with a large group because they are issues we haven't had in a long time.
Ars Magica: Could work -- it's set up around a large group of PCs and associated quasi-NPC characters, and encourages the group to have GMs rotate among the players. Downside: greenlion would rather stab me in the eye than play it, due to some bad experiences with cuh-razy AM players back in the day. Also due to a lack of desire to want to learn the necessary history. She didn't have that problem with the Vampire game, though. I think she just hates me.
Champions: No no a thousand times no. The Speed chart guarantees that if you have a spread of Speed scores, a slow, Hulk-or-Thing-like character will have to wait for ten or more other actions between every action he takes. It is the very antithesis of "good for large groups."
Changeling (the new one): The setting and the rules -- like all WW games -- nicely support the characters being parts of disparate social groups, giving them independent sets of NPCs to hang out with and talk to, and thereby develop independent goals to act on. And the WoD rules are pretty familiar to us as a group, so it wouldn't be a big challenge to get going with it.
D&D 4: Seems really to be designed to encourage group participation in combat encounters. The skill challenge rules seem expressly designed to encourage group participation in non-combat challenges, as well. Downside: We're doing a D&D 3.5 game right now and we may be tired of hitting orcs with sticks.
Exalted: Exalted combats aren't quick. Worse, to my way of thinking, is that individual Exalts are really tough. So a combat encounter that would challenge a group of Exalts would require something humongously tough. As much as I like the setting and the concepts, I don't think this would work well as a large-group game. The only exception I can see is an all-Dragon-Blood game.
Savage Worlds: There's a Savage Worlds space opera setting that is really tempting to me, and apparently princeofcairo is working on some kind of crazy SW setting of his own. We know from previous experience that Savage Worlds plays really fast but still has some depth to the rules. This one is pretty tempting.
SIFRP: Certainly has setting support for characters with independent goals, while still providing a unifying framework through the house. As a GM you'd need to make sure to provide a wide range of encounter types in every session, because characters can be Very Very Good at what they're good at and Very Very Bad at what they're bad at and you'd like to give every player a chance to do what they're good at.
Weapons of the Gods: I really don't remember anymore. Sorry hapes.
Also, in boldface, I'm having an awesome time in Bob's game and don't want to stop playing it. I've just been thinking, idly, about the logistical issues associated with a large group because they are issues we haven't had in a long time.
Ars Magica: Could work -- it's set up around a large group of PCs and associated quasi-NPC characters, and encourages the group to have GMs rotate among the players. Downside: greenlion would rather stab me in the eye than play it, due to some bad experiences with cuh-razy AM players back in the day. Also due to a lack of desire to want to learn the necessary history. She didn't have that problem with the Vampire game, though. I think she just hates me.
Champions: No no a thousand times no. The Speed chart guarantees that if you have a spread of Speed scores, a slow, Hulk-or-Thing-like character will have to wait for ten or more other actions between every action he takes. It is the very antithesis of "good for large groups."
Changeling (the new one): The setting and the rules -- like all WW games -- nicely support the characters being parts of disparate social groups, giving them independent sets of NPCs to hang out with and talk to, and thereby develop independent goals to act on. And the WoD rules are pretty familiar to us as a group, so it wouldn't be a big challenge to get going with it.
D&D 4: Seems really to be designed to encourage group participation in combat encounters. The skill challenge rules seem expressly designed to encourage group participation in non-combat challenges, as well. Downside: We're doing a D&D 3.5 game right now and we may be tired of hitting orcs with sticks.
Exalted: Exalted combats aren't quick. Worse, to my way of thinking, is that individual Exalts are really tough. So a combat encounter that would challenge a group of Exalts would require something humongously tough. As much as I like the setting and the concepts, I don't think this would work well as a large-group game. The only exception I can see is an all-Dragon-Blood game.
Savage Worlds: There's a Savage Worlds space opera setting that is really tempting to me, and apparently princeofcairo is working on some kind of crazy SW setting of his own. We know from previous experience that Savage Worlds plays really fast but still has some depth to the rules. This one is pretty tempting.
SIFRP: Certainly has setting support for characters with independent goals, while still providing a unifying framework through the house. As a GM you'd need to make sure to provide a wide range of encounter types in every session, because characters can be Very Very Good at what they're good at and Very Very Bad at what they're bad at and you'd like to give every player a chance to do what they're good at.
Weapons of the Gods: I really don't remember anymore. Sorry hapes.