Our other regular Dungeon Masters and subs were unable to make the library "old school D&D" session the other night so I ended up running a 2.5 hour game for 20 players at my table.
I've never had to manage twenty players, but it might work for combat and exploration to have players sit at tables that correspond to the roles of their characters for that scene.
Slightly analogous to a tiered-reference desk, where the librarian is on-call for research-related queries only, and a non-librarian deals with directional, printing, and other non-research-related concerns.
Combat example: melee combatants at one table, archers at another, spell casters at another, healers at another, with a caller for each table. If there are too many of any one role to fit at a table (for example ten melee combatants), they could split into two tables, each with it's own caller (like two separate squads).
Exploration example (roles for each table): checking for mechanical traps; torch bearers; archers on alert for ambushes (with readied actions); melee combatants ready with weapon in hand. Again with one caller per table.
In either case (combat or exploration) there would be three or four callers, each managing their own table to announce intentions and to help the DM resolve damage, spell effects, keep track of conditions like paralysis, fear, etc., so that the DM wouldn't have to keep track of each player. In this case the callers or other member of each table could support the DM with the whiteboard or other tracking system.
Something similar, that I have experienced as a player at conventions, is multi-table games where there is a DM at each table, and they occasionally confer together or report to a Head DM who is keeping track of the overall progress of each group.
Example A: Two groups of adventurers enter a dungeon simultaneously through separate entrances (two tables, two DMs, they confer, no Head DM).
Example B: Adventurers organized by level (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) each engaging in level-appropriate encounters to complete interconnected goals (five tables, five DMs, plus one Head DM (to rule them all), possibly a timekeeper (to in the darkness time them), and maybe even one or two runners to message between DMs).
Group messages can also be sent to each table via cellphone to indicate something has occurred simultaneously for each table, like suddenly there is an earthquake in the dungeon because the stone golem dragon has awoken. For example: in the 4e days, Wizards' D&D "Encounters" organized play system used "Twitter Buffs" during scheduled sessions that were played internationally (I think Paizo used the same approach at that time).
Thanks for your comment, lots of possibilities to consider! A common theme among your suggestions is "multiple callers," which is probably a good idea regardless of how the players are further organized.
I thought about doing some sort of organization by squads (which could make sense given the military nature of their mission), but in the end just went with the one big group for fear that splitting the players might slow things down in play or make things more chaotic. Using multiple callers definitely would have mitigated those concerns.
I've never had to manage twenty players, but it might work for combat and exploration to have players sit at tables that correspond to the roles of their characters for that scene.
Slightly analogous to a tiered-reference desk, where the librarian is on-call for research-related queries only, and a non-librarian deals with directional, printing, and other non-research-related concerns.
Combat example: melee combatants at one table, archers at another, spell casters at another, healers at another, with a caller for each table. If there are too many of any one role to fit at a table (for example ten melee combatants), they could split into two tables, each with it's own caller (like two separate squads).
Exploration example (roles for each table): checking for mechanical traps; torch bearers; archers on alert for ambushes (with readied actions); melee combatants ready with weapon in hand. Again with one caller per table.
In either case (combat or exploration) there would be three or four callers, each managing their own table to announce intentions and to help the DM resolve damage, spell effects, keep track of conditions like paralysis, fear, etc., so that the DM wouldn't have to keep track of each player. In this case the callers or other member of each table could support the DM with the whiteboard or other tracking system.
Something similar, that I have experienced as a player at conventions, is multi-table games where there is a DM at each table, and they occasionally confer together or report to a Head DM who is keeping track of the overall progress of each group.
Example A: Two groups of adventurers enter a dungeon simultaneously through separate entrances (two tables, two DMs, they confer, no Head DM).
Example B: Adventurers organized by level (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) each engaging in level-appropriate encounters to complete interconnected goals (five tables, five DMs, plus one Head DM (to rule them all), possibly a timekeeper (to in the darkness time them), and maybe even one or two runners to message between DMs).
Group messages can also be sent to each table via cellphone to indicate something has occurred simultaneously for each table, like suddenly there is an earthquake in the dungeon because the stone golem dragon has awoken. For example: in the 4e days, Wizards' D&D "Encounters" organized play system used "Twitter Buffs" during scheduled sessions that were played internationally (I think Paizo used the same approach at that time).
Thanks for your comment, lots of possibilities to consider! A common theme among your suggestions is "multiple callers," which is probably a good idea regardless of how the players are further organized.
I thought about doing some sort of organization by squads (which could make sense given the military nature of their mission), but in the end just went with the one big group for fear that splitting the players might slow things down in play or make things more chaotic. Using multiple callers definitely would have mitigated those concerns.