Balancing a game for 8 players

I face the same problem: now I'm facing an 11-member group (I'd say between 10-12 players total).

I've found out the hard way that 1 higher CR opponent vs. a lot of lower-level PCs is nasty. High death counts, in some cases. Then again, it sorta fits the group of weaker foes banding together to fight a bigger threat; they may succeed, but some of their number will die trying.

And, with some situations/modules, upping numbers is a problem due to space--combat space is limited as it is (esp. with the optimized design for a party of 4-5 PCs). However, upping the number of foes seems to be a better solution than upping the HD/CR of a small number of foes (or a single foe).

If I had more time available, I'd consider splitting the large group into 2 smaller groups, but unfortunately, that's not very viable ATM (or for a while, it would seem).

It's strange--back in the OD&D/AD&D heyday, my group was the optimal size for 3.X games (about 4-5 regulars); now, with the 3.X version, I have a group that's optimal for the old OD&D/AD&D orientation. :confused:

And no, I don't have any of my OD&D/AD&D stuff left, so I won't switch to running that instead.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

IME a party of 8 PCs that successfully employ a modicum of teamwork can handle 3X as many foes as the same level party of 4 with the same effort/risk.

With more bodies, it is easier for the PCs to control the shape of the battle, protect spellcasters or the wounded.
 

Crothian said:
THe biggest issue though is just keepoing 8 people involved in the game. THat can be hard.

I can keep six people involved, sort of, but 7+ can be just too much for one GM.

You might think about adding a second GM if you are expecting 8 players. The second GM could be an assistant, helping to run monsters and handle rules interpretations while the main GM handles the main plotline. Or maybe one GM is a Judge and one GM is a Storyteller.

Don't worry too much about the CRs of more powerful monsters. I have faced Ogres many times as a first level character. I even remember facing Ogres in AD&D1e where the GM tossed down as many Ogres as we had PCs. (Thank the Lord for 18/percentile strength and two handed swords/heavy lances).
 
Last edited:

Kafkonia said:
Hah, I don't have that kind of money.

If you can get me a new computer (some how) I'll give you my copy in trade.

If not that, then consider Age of Worms. It's more balanced but still tough at many levels.
 

In the campaign I run we have 8 PCs amongst four players.

Best advice I found came from Sean K. Reynold's website, which talks about treating 8 PCs as basically two 4th level PC groups, so a DM can at minimum simply double what would be a challenge for 4 PCs to have enough for the whole group.

This has worked as a great baseline rule for my Forgotten Realms game.

J. Grenemyer
 


I run a game with 7 to 9 PCs showing up any given week. I make no changes, whatsoever. Instead I rely on my greedy, greedy players continually biting off more than a smaller group would dare to. My expectations run to them tackling more encounters per day, actual play is often more encounters at once, but that's not (exactly) my fault...
 


The biggest problem I've had with groups of 8 is not balance but that players minds tend to wander when the focus isn't on them. This means that they generally aren't ready for thier action and weren't paying attention when their turn in the round occurs, which means extra explaining, questioning, dithering, and delay which means that the other players minds wander even more.

Keep eight people entertained simultaneously is tough. I think 4-6 is ideal, and I thought so even back in 1st edition.

Another big problem with eight players is social dynamics. Nine people is a fairly large group, and typically they split into two circles of closer friends. Character and sometimes player rivalry can be a big issue, even with good friends. Even if it just stays IC, party cohesion can be a serious problem if you've got more than one 'Chaotic Greedy' character/player, and more than one person with a e dominate personality. Expect alot of debates about what to do. I strongly suggest you force these debates to be IC.

But as for balance...

Eight players will wipe out any single low ac creature very very rapidly, regardless of how many hit points it has. Equally, anything big enough to challenge eight characters simultaneously by itself will smash any character it gets its claws on.

The best bet is to either double the number of foes you'd usually offer, or else add a couple of minions or companions to divide the players attention. If previously you'd challenge the players with an CR 8, add four CR 4 minions to divide the party up. That way you are less likely to overwhelm any one player but you give them all something to do.

Word of advise though. The CR system is not at all accurate. In particular when it comes to increasing the number of monsters, IME doubling the number of creatures with a CR more than one lower than the players level doesn't really double the challenge or increase the EL by two. It's really more like increasing the EL by one. Large numbers of mooks are generally speaking just a large number of mooks, and present no really harder challenge whether there are 16 or 32 of them. Depending on how skilled your players are, six CR 4 minions plus a CR 8 might be more like twice the challenge.

Now, there is one more issue and I almost hestitate to bring it up as I think its something of a dirty little secret of DMing. As a DM, you can't always play the monsters as 'smart' as you are capable of. For one thing, if the monster is low intelligence, its not even appropriate. But even if the monster is reasonably intelligent, there are some things that the DM should avoid particularly with large groups. I reasonably skilled large group will concentrate thier attacks on a single opponent, preferably one that represents the greatest threat, and of those preferably the one with the lowest hitpoints or lowest armor class. The goal will be to deny the opponents actions by killing them. By all means resist the temptation to do that to PC's with the monsters unless the players are just getting too cocky. While it is or ought to be the monsters goal to kill the PC's, it certainly shouldn't be your goal. The PC's will do plenty to get themselves killed if you are doing your job right without certain sorts of ruthlessness on your part. This is one of them. Not only will you certainly kill characters if you just set out to do it, but in my experience some players will take monsters ganging up on them and thier character being singled out personally. It's just not worth it. Distribute the foes about so that everyone gets banged on somewhat equally unless someone is sticking out like such a sore thumb that not ganging up on him will give the fact that you are metagaming away.

Celebrim's rule of DMing #159: PC's should only die when thier player feels that in some way they earned it.

In a since though, not perfectly coordinating your monsters isn't metagaming. In the real world, its almost impossible to perfectly coordinate any large group. In reality, there isn't a puppetteer pulling all the strings with perfect knowledge of the situation. So not perfectly coordinating your attacks is really part of playing the monsters well. But even if it wasn't, I'd still recommend against it except when the flavor of the monster really warrants it (Modrons, axiomatic creatures, high intelligence lawful outsiders in general).

Which is another way that the CR system is just wrong. Played well, or what I think constitutes playing a creature well, a creatures intelligence is very much part of its CR. Zombies, oozes, plants, animals and the like probably should get lower CR simply because played well, they aren't going to be tactical masterminds. Equally, while the players encounter a high intelligence being, they should notice how much more cunning and skillfully it conducts itself.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top