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

[alienux]

I use NPCs with the party if I'm DMing a game with less than 4 players, but I follow some fairly strict guidelines:

-The NPC never makes decisions
-The NPC will fight (to help keep CR/Encounter difficulty balanced), but only at a basic level
-The NPC never helps the party do anything they can't already do (outside of aiding in combat at a basic level)
-The NPC never does anything to outshine the players
-The NPC never has more info than the players, unless it would be in the same vain that a normal NPC who is not with the party would have.


Never had a problem in any game with any players doing it this way.

 

[guachi]

My current group is six. It's about as large as I'd like to go as it doesn't bog down too much but it allows 1-2 players to miss a session and not cause too many problems.

Groups of six are sturdier and can withstand a PC dropping to zero basically every combat and still make it through. The group is more likely to have all skills covered.

I tried to enforce a rule where each PC needed some connection to at least two other players. One benefit is that backstory can be included more easily as it isn't solely focused on one PC. Groups of six allow entertaining inter-PC dynamics and there are times where the PCs will talk among themselves and I can sit back and do something else for 5-10 minutes. I love small groups because the focus can be intently upon PC motivations and morality but it can be mentally taxing as a DM so getting a breather is nice.

Front line characters will be more hard-pressed in combat as party size increases so do number (or difficulty) of enemies.

One consequence of a six-person party is much reduced call for NPCs in the party (either DMPCs or henchmen). I did introduce for two sessions of combat a family in their homestead that was under attack by goblins (see module B10 Night's Dark Terror). It was fun as I was able to introduce the NPCs and then the PCs ran them for combat. They were 3rd level at the time and they had fun with the head of the homestead who was a 5th level Champion fighter with GWM. He mowed through the goblins but since they rolled the dice it was like they got to feel powerful and get a taste of what it will be like when they hit 5th level.

I wouldn't want to do more than six unless it was a group of old-timers who could really keep the game moving along.

Oh, and as for NPCs in a party long-term I settled on adding a dog to the party. B10 has a random encounter where they are given a dog by an old guy. I decided the dog could level up like a henchman getting half xp. And dogs are built to obey their masters so any spotlight hogging is because the PCs want the dog to shine.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

My current group is six. It's about as large as I'd like to go as it doesn't bog down too much but it allows 1-2 players to miss a session and not cause too many problems.

Yeah, we have 6 players and the standing rule is that if we can get 4 players and the DM we are good to play and the remaining players manage the rudderless PC. The PC of the missing players for some reason become violently reckless and develop a love of opening doors and chests though....

 

[bkwrm79]

My experience is non-D&D, but generally I find the game itself goes better with a small group (2-3 players) but that's outweighed by the fun of having everyone there (5 players+DM). Sure, we make less progress and spotlight time is split, but there are more ideas and more jokes. I'm pretty sure that would fall apart rapidly if size increased past that.

I'm currently running VTR for 3-4 people but they are working hard to recruit NPCs for what's shaping up to be a big confrontation. If the PCs want NPCs along enough to not only do persuasion checks but also strategize ("if we get the girl to come with us, her brother will also come along to protect her") then NPCs will accompany the party!

 

[Wepwawet]

My favourite number of players is 3, things run much faster, even with chit chat and rules checking, and everyone is much more active in the game. It's amazing how smooth it goes.

But I still think the ideal is 4, not too many, not too few, with a bit of spotlight for everyone.

That said I like to have 5 players in the group, because it's rare that all 5 can make it to the session. It's great if they all come. But if one or two players can't come we can still play.

In the past with other groups we used to play only if everyone was there, which meant that very often 6 people would have their evening cancelled because one couldn't, which is very annoying.

My NPCs serve as a connection and source of info about the world, but they only fight if there are too few players, and they won't use all their actions and bonus actions. Apart from that they always stay in the background.

 

[Pickles III]

It does depend a bit on what you are playing but for classic D&D 41/2 is the best number. 4 5 3 6 are my favourite - I find neither 3 or 6 ideal. My current group is 6 but I expect a drop or two each week so it's 4 or 5.

I never use DM NPCs other than where they relate to the plot & so are usually noncombatants or half hearted support. I might use a foolhardy knight or similar again for plot reasons rather than padding.

I hate watching the GM play against himself, or other players slow the game down trying to run multiple characters.

Mind you in the underdark AP you get saddled with a load of NPCs & sharing them out amongst the players (& leaving the spare really weak ones to hide) worked well.

 

[GameOgre]

One of my groups is a large group of new rpg players and one or two long time players who couldn't min/max out of a paper bag. There are six of them and I run the adventures as is and don't alter a thing for them being six. So yes they level slowly but they would anyway, we run a lot of role playing encounters but only average one combat encounter per night.

Six of these anti-min/max characters seem to be able to put up as much fight as four min/maxed ones so the fights are still fun and hard.

All in all I think it has worked out great!

I'm not running a adventure path but if I was....I would just have them level up with mile stones ect.. and not worry about exp accumulation.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I much prefer four PC parties for the reasons mentioned. Three usually needs augmentation for some party need (healing, spellcasting, melee). Five is okay but strong. Six+ is too much when it comes to good RP opportunities, combat time and presenting challenges. I can run large parties (and usually do) but like them at 4.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It does depend a bit on what you are playing but for classic D&D 41/2 is the best number. 4 5 3 6 are my favourite - I find neither 3 or 6 ideal. My current group is 6 but I expect a drop or two each week so it's 4 or 5.

I never use DM NPCs other than where they relate to the plot & so are usually noncombatants or half hearted support. I might use a foolhardy knight or similar again for plot reasons rather than padding.

I hate watching the GM play against himself, or other players slow the game down trying to run multiple characters.

Mind you in the underdark AP you get saddled with a load of NPCs & sharing them out amongst the players (& leaving the spare really weak ones to hide) worked well.

All those NPC were killing the game so I quickly killed off the first batch and then wrote out the army of NPC you get the second time. Just brutal game killers IMO. One NPC can be fun, like poor little Stool, but man they load you up in that AP..

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I used to be a fan of NPC party members, but have since soured on that. But if you are going to do it, I think this is the right way. The NPC should always be a sidekick, never take the spotlight away from the PCs.

I’ve found that I have more fun using the time and effort that would’ve been spent on an NPC party member to bring the monsters, world, and NPCs to life.

Now, as far as party size goes, I think my preference is 4 – 5 players. You get a good mix of abilities and personalities interacting. I also am a player in what I would call a large group with about nine players. Though there manages to be plenty of role-playing, I think it definitely requires people to “pass the mic” quickly, and be able to get their personality across with an economy of effort. Knowing what your character is going to do in advance is vital, as combat already takes more time without delays.

I use NPCs with the party if I'm DMing a game with less than 4 players, but I follow some fairly strict guidelines:

-The NPC never makes decisions
-The NPC will fight (to help keep CR/Encounter difficulty balanced), but only at a basic level
-The NPC never helps the party do anything they can't already do (outside of aiding in combat at a basic level)
-The NPC never does anything to outshine the players
-The NPC never has more info than the players, unless it would be in the same vain that a normal NPC who is not with the party would have.


Never had a problem in any game with any players doing it this way.