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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

With the low AC model in 5e adding in more PC, aka more attacks, will make some monsters that were deadly for a 4 pc group into a joke for a 6 pc group. And the game runs slower the more players you have. Its best to throw dice at people you see on their phones as well.

I run for 6 players. A player wanted to add in his step son and we shot it down due to the game running slow enough as it is now. 4-6 is fine, more is a chore to run for.

 

[I_Cast_Silence]

I like parties of 3-5. I find that they're the easiest sizes to balance for, and I can more easily give each other spotlight for a session or two. I've tried six, and that is too much too handle. People get distracted more often, hard to balance, and it's just not fun for me, and I hate it when it's not fun for me because then it's not fun for the players.
I'm the most comfortable with four, but if another friend wants to join, or if I can't get a fourth person, that's fine by me.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I'm kinda the opposite - I generally love PC-NPC interaction, and having NPCs with the PCs obviously facilitates that. I don't want them to feel like the GM's PC though, that makes me uncomfortable. I usually prefer to stat them with the simplified NPC rules and ensure they don't overshadow the PCs, even if they are occasionally superior in combat. Small PC groups suit NPC companions well, in my online game I find 2-3 PCs and 1-2 NPCs is ideal.

 

[jgsugden]

I prefer to have a 5 PC/player party. We can proceed with a weekly game if someone is missing, the action moves along swiftly enough that people do not get bored waiting for their turn in combat, and the rules are designed for parties about this size.

If I run an NPC with the party, the PC is going to generally be inferior to the rest of the party. The ability array will be something like 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. They'll have inefficient selections of spells, features, etc... They can't be allowed to share the spotlight. Occasionally I'll break this rule and have an NPC travel with the party that is an equal, but it is only if there is a definite purpose and generally only for a short time. That equal NPC likely is going to die. It is an inside joke with my group whenever they see a competent NPC that they need to get him a red shirt.

 

[S'mon]

For online I like 2-3 players. In a traditional tabletop dungeonbash session 4-5 is best, 3 is good but the PCs can be very vulnerable. NPC retainers/henchmen work great in 5e; my online group usually has a couple NPC hangers-on. They almost never have PC classes but they add to the game and the swords & sorcery feel. GMPCs are a bad thing because GMs should not think of an NPC as 'my PC', but NPCs with the party are fine.

 

[Gradine]

My preference is definitely 4 PC's; I've successfully run for 5 before (that's actually been my most common configuration) but things tend to get unwieldy with a group that large; combats start to take too long, players have begin to exhibit wildly different (if not contradictory) play aesthetic preferences. I just find it less fun to run.

I ran a group of 8 for a single session, and it was probably one of the most fun sessions I've ever run. The party split into two groups of four and assaulted an illithid compound in one massive all-out brawl. I think maybe two PCs were still standing by the end? I don't think that large of group would be anywhere close to a sustainable way to run a campaign but for the one adventure we had that many players it was a blast.

The one time I've run for three PCs all three decided to play ranged characters so I had a DMPC (a gnome squire with a big spiked shield with a nasty looking drill on the front). Was never really effective on offense, but he kept the party safe for long enough most of time (though he dropped more times than Nodwick). The important thing was making sure he had a fun rapport with the players. I don't think I would run a DMPC again, even if running for just three people (I would probably steer them towards a more balanced party first), but it can be done well.

 

[Blue]

I prefer running for 4-5, with 3 & 6 being fine but not perfect. I've run 8-12 in other systems in convention setting, I dislike running that many but in a convention you don't need to have as much focused spotlight and character arcs so if the players help keep things moving it's doable.

The current game I DM has 6 players, but we much more often play 4-5 then the full group.

Last time I ran a recurring NPC with the group was D&D 3.0 where I did a somewhat cowardly halfling bard. He'd take cover and play songs to boost the PCs. Even with a character as background and non-spotlight-stealing as that, it upset some players. I wouldn't recommend having an NPC that goes adventuring with the group. (Though I'm breaking that right now for expected 2-3 sessions as a druid whom helped the party many levels back now needs the party's help and is coming along to provide healing. But the cleric's player is out since his wife had a baby, which is part of why they are.)

 

[Celebrim]

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?

Party size is everything. It's so important, that I'm inclined to say that the entire 'Indy Gaming' movement was inspired running games for by small party sizes.

1) 1 Player - You can go into as much gritty slice of life detail as you like. The game is primarily about the characters emotional and moral change, and the PC can have very intimate meaningful relationships with NPCs. Player agenda is the absolutely most important part of the game.
2) 2-3 Players - You can have some gritty slice of life detail. The game is primarily about the relationship between the PCs, and a few NPCs that the group relates to. Play involving the relationship between one PC and an NPC is difficult, and really you are limited to only a few cases. Player agenda is important, but some concession must be made to an agreed upon purpose of the group. Sand box and dynastic play is very viable.
3) 4-6 Players - Gritty slice of life detail is less and less important and generally has to be handwaved to off stage events unless it is of the greatest importance. The game is primarily about the goals of the group, which may or may not be largely set by the referee. NPCs serve typical game roles like foils, mentors, quest givers, and enemies, but there isn't a lot of time to explore relationships between the party and the NPC - much less the individual. Intra-party dynamics is increasingly less important compared to pursuit of the overall group agenda, and individual player agenda's must take increasingly small portions of play. PC's may evolve in terms of their role within the setting, but evolution of the PC's emotional or moral life is largely a secondary consideration. Intra-party conflict is less and less viable as a focus of play, and much more likely to be anti-social and destructive.
4) 7-10 players - Group agenda is everything. There is almost no time for exploration of individual goals. Because such a large group likely can't agree on an agenda, pure sandbox play is increasingly unviable and group agenda is largely set by the referee's plot. NPCs however fleshed out and interesting largely have little role in shaping play other than as plot mechanics. By and large, only play that can easily be shared as a duty across the whole group - such as combat - is really viable. Long sessions of RP or other sorts of play draw too much spotlight to single PCs and with it, single players.
5) 11+ players - Chaos reigns unless the DM maintains the strictest discipline. A party leader has to be officially created to act as caller and mediate much of the groups collective interaction with the DM. The DM is basically forced into an 'us against them' format, and largely acts as the parties chief foil and adversary. It is necessarily to tightly govern the scope of play as simply getting anything done with such a large group is difficult. Since you are likely to have a rotating cast of players, some trope of play explaining why this PC or that is not available needs to be created or else there needs to be a very rigorously enforced social contract with players designating who has control of their PC when they aren't available. It is strongly suggested to adopt an old school style Haven/Mega-Dungeon structure. Close reading of the advice in the 1e DMG is strongly recommended, as it will suddenly start to make sense with groups this large.

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

4-6, but smaller groups allow for more intense role-play and more literary styles. Compare the aspirations of Tolkien in 'Fellowship' to his aspirations when the story is reduced down to Frodo, Sam, and Sméagol for an interesting analogy.

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?

NPC's shouldn't steal spotlight ever. An NPC with the party should largely be an appendage of one of the PCs of some sort.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

My normal party size is 5- it's really clear that "Legendary" monsters were built with the expectation of a party of 4, so I normally have to give a hit point boost to make up for the extra characters damage output. Story wise, I find with a party of 5 it's easy to come up with plot hooks, since a variety of hooks are coming from a variety of directions.

I had two players take a break, so I was running for 3 for about two months. The big difference in combat was, I could use solo creatures without them having to have Legendary abilities or minions- a solo creature of a few CRs above the party would get enough turns in to be an interesting combat, in a group of 5 they just get focus fired too fast to have any fun with. Story wise, I found a group of 3 stayed focused on the core plot more, there were less divergences for character based stuff.

 

[Azurewraith]

I think 3-4 is the magic number for group size I have ran for 8players once... it was awful just so much going on.

Dm npcs are normally a bad idea, I mean what purpose do they serve? If they can do something the PC's can't well there stealing the spotlight and preventing your players from thinking outside the box. If they don't do anything special why are they there?