D&D 5E DM query: Any interesting differences between different party sizes?

[WhosAChaoticGoodBoy]

Hi folks! This post goes out to DM's who have ran games of a few different party sizes.

I. Are there any interesting differences between running campaigns for smaller vs. larger parties? If so, what are they? What constitutes a small or large group?

II. Do you have an ideal number of players you like running games for? If so, what about that number makes it ideal?

Bonus question: What are your overall feelings about running an NPC with your party? (good idea? bad idea?) If you've done it, what things did you like and not like about it?

 

[hastur_nz]

Smaller groups (3-4 players) run faster, and often have better group role-play as there's more available "screen time per person". The down-side is that smaller groups are more "fragile" in combat, as if even a single PC drops the combat can seriously swing towards TPK territory.

Large groups (say 6+ players) can take forever to get anywhere, as combats are bigger and more people need to make decisions, wait for ages before their turn, and generally there's just more chances for people to drift off and not pay attention which wastes even more time.

Personally, I've played and DM'd from 2-6 players, and as a DM I really like sessions with 3-4 players but with only 3 players combat can be tricky to keep balanced, but generally I do prefer around 4 players and I try to keep around 5 people on the assumption that often one person is off sick etc. As a player I feel more people can mean more cool ideas, but with 6 players you do have to be careful you keep things moving or people can get disconnected.

For many years now, I've always hated the idea of having one or more NPCs attached to the party if they are controlled by the DM, i.e. "DM PC". I've had a few DM's who have done this, and I've never enjoyed it, you sit around watching the DM play the game by themself. When I DM, I try to minimise the amount of NPC involvement, as the whole idea of D&D is that it's the players story to run as they see fit, not the DM just telling the players a story. If I do have NPC's involved, for example Curse of Strahd has many NPC's who might join the group at various points, I keep them in the background as much as possible, offering help when asked but not too much, and in combat I very much try and have a player run them so the players are always rolling their own side's dice. In my experience, the idea that the players need an NPC to help them comes from DM's who don't trust their players' competence, and/or have control issues, neither of which is conducive to a good gaming experience.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In a 2 PC game you can easily include backstory of the characters. In a 6 PC game that is a rarity.

 

[MiraMels]

I: I consider three a 'small group' and six or more a 'large group'.

II: Three is my ideal size, honestly. It's much easier for me to create dynamic and challenging encounters for the group, and the parties themselves each feel much more unique and varied. Four is lovely. Five is about most I can handle before I notice my quality start to slip. My biggest party I ever ran was eleven. (They knew what they were getting into and the game came with a hefty disclaimer that I was not going to be at my best.)

Bonus Question: I love running NPCs alongside the party, and I think it's a great idea. They give active players another face to interact with, and they give more passive players someone to react to.
The trick is not to give them class levels. They aren't PCs, so don't just simulate an additional PC playing alongside the party.

 

[Shiroiken]

Definitions: Small group <4, Large group >5

Small groups allow for a lot more in depth character development and roleplay for all players. It becomes hard for a watcher type player to sit on the sidelines when there are so few players, so it forces them to engage. Combats become more swingy, since bad rolls have greater impact, and if a character drops it represents a huge loss of action economy for the PCs. The biggest downside to a small group is if anyone misses a session, it's VERY hard to justify playing, so you lose sessions more frequently.

Large groups give you more variety in characters and backgrounds, allowing more springboards for adventure. It's hard to keep track of everyone's abilities, so expect to be surprised once in a while. You can't keep focus on everyone, so it's best to create story arcs for each player, allowing them a short time in the spotlight (maybe a session or two at a time). Usually one or two players will naturally draw focus to themselves, so you can let them do that work themselves (just run with whatever they want to do periodically). Biggest downsides are longer combats and loss of focus.

As for NPCs, having an NPC with the party isn't terrible, but be very careful. They can't be used as a source of information, so you need to limit their ideas to what the character knows. Also, never add more than 1 combat oriented NPC at a time. I have a group of 4 active players, plus 1 NPC, plus 2 missing player NPCs (players who've left the game, but the characters have no reason to stop being with the group). When I take up 75% of the combat between monsters and NPCs, it really sucks for both me and the players.

 

[Dualazi]

I've run with as few as 3 and as many as 9-10. The ideal number I think is definitely in the advised 4-5 range recommended by the game's base rules.

Small groups are definitely preferable to large ones in my opinion though. Small groups can handle less danger, but they give more individual time for RP and storytelling. That said, they require a lot of work and finesse to keep the game challenging without being incredibly lethal.

Large groups, in my experience, have few upsides and a lot of downsides. You have to rule with an iron fist to keep people getting through turns quickly, there's less time for people to RP their characters, and designing encounters for them is a huge challenge due to the threat of focus fire, both for and against the players. Likewise, there's going to be some overlap in roles and character concepts, which can bleed over into arguments about who gets what item or loot. The big upside is that large groups will almost certainly have every role and skill at least somewhat covered, so you're free to design as you like.

DMPCs are pretty much poison though, unless handled extremely well. They should never have meaningful combat ability though, there are loads of stories floating around of bad DMs with overpowered DMPCs stealing the spotlight and leading to player apathy, and it's better for the temptation to not be present at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One interesting facet I've found in my groups is that "planning" actually goes faster the larger the party. In a smaller group, when every person can get a chance to speak (and oftentimes speak at length), the talk will go on and on and on with everyone throwing in their 2 cents with what they should do. Whereas in a larger party, many members know they aren't going to get a word in edge-wise so they don't participate much at all. As a result, it gives the impression that those players are possibly getting bored, and thus the others talking realize the discussion shouldn't go on for very long. One or two throw out ideas, one or two counter-ideas are offered, two or three other players take no stance whatsoever, and the ones that spoke just quickly come to a consensus so as to not piss off the others.

Suffice it to say... it's one of the few places I've found where having more players actually speeds things up.

 

[aco175]

I would echo much of what everyone has said about size and ease of play. I wanted to comment on DMPCs. I tend to play with only 2-3 players and tend to round off the party with a PC that I play- the DMPC. I find it easy to create and have him tag along to fit the niche he was created for. Right now, the party needed a thief so they have a NPC one. Not quite as powerful as an optimized one, but able to contribute. Last time they needed a mage, so I had one with more buff magic than blasting.

I also like the idea that I can use the NPC to feed information to the party if things start to go astray. It may be a bit of railroading, but gets things moving again. If the PCs break up in town to do things on their own, I can have the NPC get some bits of information and feed it to the players when they get back together.

I can also see the warning of having a DM controlled PC if he is not a second string character. Making them more powerful than the PCs is never a good idea. This will only make the other players feel like they are a minor part of the story and not the main focus.

You can also have revolving NPCs where they stay for one or two modules before another takes over. This allows you to make sure the PCs are the main focus of the game. It is also fun to have a few come back in a few levels to spend another adventure with them. You can use this idea to have these contacts as plot hooks where they may need rescuing or they could be part of another group trying to get the McGruffin before the PCs do.

 

[iserith]

Hi folks! This post goes out to DM's who have ran games of a few different party sizes.

I. Are there any interesting differences between running campaigns for smaller vs. larger parties? If so, what are they? What constitutes a small or large group?

II. Do you have an ideal number of players you like running games for? If so, what about that number makes it ideal?

Bonus question: What are your overall feelings about running an NPC with your party? (good idea? bad idea?) If you've done it, what things did you like and not like about it?

Larger parties will tend to slow things down quite a bit. Because I am always concerned about the pace of my games, I try to avoid larger parties. In my current setup, I have 10 players in a pool. For any given session, we need a minimum of 4 sign-ups and a maximum of five. Anyone has to sit out that week. Running for four is my preference, but I gave a little ground and will take up to 5 in this campaign. Four players seems to be the perfect amount of party capability versus pace in my view.

I'm not a huge fan of running an NPC with the party, but I do it from time to time when it makes sense. NPCs with the party take spotlight time away from the players and since the DM already controls two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game, I really don't think the DM needs spotlight. If I do have an NPC accompany the party, I try to make that a tool I use to impart necessary exposition to help the party make informed decisions. I try not have them be participants in combat to the extent that makes sense. If I do include them in a combat, I like protecting the NPC to be part of the challenge of the combat scene.

 

[CydKnight]

I. I feel like if a party is too small, it is less interesting. D&D is supposed to be about collective story telling so having more than a couple of story tellers should make the story more interesting though exceptions are always possible. Too many players and the game starts to bog down especially if you have inexperienced players. Some players start to disconnect if the game slows down too much. It's also going to depend on other factors such as what type of campaign you are running or the class make-up of the group.

II. For me I have found that my campaigns run smoother with 4 to 5 players. In my experience, as noted above, my games start to drag a bit more with more than 5 and then players start to disengage from what's going on. Less than 4 and, while the game may move faster, it starts to feel more scripted and static with less contributors to the idea pool.

Bonus: I think sooner or later, if you DM enough, you will have to run an NPC with your party. It will probably be sooner than later too. There are a variety of reasons for this not the least of which would be keeping the game more interesting, guiding the players through certain parts of the game, or simple dungeon fodder. It's not really an issue for me to run an NPC or two but if you have several, you can always have your players run at least some of the NPCs after they have been properly introduced and if they are vital to the flavor of your game.