RPG Evolution: Oh No, Everyone's Here!

Our group is balanced to have six players so that when one or two can’t play, we still have enough to move forward. But sometimes everyone shows up, and that can be overwhelming.

Portrait courtesy of ePic Character Generator and Bob Ash.​

The Gang’s All Here​

My Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons group consists of the following player characters: a tiefling sorceress and her clone brother, a tiefling hexblade; a gnome artificer; a human rogue; and an elven druid and ranger. The hexblade does most of the tanking with support from the rogue, while the artificer and druid (and, in dire need, the ranger) manage healing. Mostly, the party keeps monsters off the sorceress until she can start slinging fireballs.

The steadiest players are the sorceress, hexblade, artificer, and druid. The ranger and rogue show up on occasion as their time permits. Those two extra players deal significant damage (at a distance and up close, respectively) and can strongly swing things in the party’s favorite if they win initiative … which the rogue often does.

We play over Zoom for about three hours each week, but regularly cancel due to not having enough players or my own schedule not accommodating our game time. Each session is self-contained, a game show-style contest with occasional role-playing interludes “off camera” in between.

The session in question involved a Breakout-style combat with rows of descending blocks and a giant flying stone head, guarded by smaller stone heads, behind those blocks. The idea was to shoot through the seams of the blocks, which gave cover to whoever was on the other side.

That’s not how it played out.

"You're still here?"​

As the blocks began to descend, two things became apparent: for one, the ranger had an oathbow and once she swore the main bad guy as her enemy, the arrows ignored cover. The bad guy’s main defense was totally circumvented. For another, the hexblade dimension doored the rogue over to the monster, bypassing all the blocks and guardians to deliver a very stabby assassin right in the enemy’s face.

The other heroes busily blasted away at the descending blocks. The sorceress got off two fireballs to open a hole in the defenses while the druid and artificer worked to protect her.

The combination of the ranger’s punishing strikes that ignored cover and the hexblade/rogue combination eliminated the main monster in three rounds. And just like that the players defeated the main bad guy.

I had a decision to make.

"It's Over."​

There were a few considerations at play.

Our heroes have been in punishing situations before where they barely survived. They needed a win. The game before, the three players who showed up (sorceress, druid, artificer) came through by the skin of their teeth, but they really enjoyed that game.

In this session, two of our players weren’t feeling well and wouldn’t be able to play for very long.

And the party did everything right. The head monster’s death caused the blocks from above to fall in one final strike for those who were still underneath them, but all told the game was short (just an hour in total).

I decided to call it a win and end that session.

"Go Home!"​

Each of these sessions is an experiment in terrain and tactics. Some sessions play to their strengths while others capitalize on their weaknesses. A similar battle involving Space Invader-style monsters descending from above was much harder because there were only three characters present; with the additional characters, this game was a lot easier.

And that’s okay. The players were having a rough day, the characters rightfully outsmarted my (admittedly dumb) monsters, and they circumvented the obstacles using the powers at their disposal. The players greatly enjoyed the win and had a laugh at how quickly they overcame the obstacles.

That said, I didn’t end the session without careful consideration. Because we play weekly, we always have another chance at a longer session. If we didn’t get together as often I might have come up with more content to play.

Conversely, as busy adults with households that are often sick or stressed, I’m grateful when we can get together at all. Sometimes that time together is necessarily short, and that’s okay.

But mostly it was about putting my ego aside as a DM. The heroes did everything right, I was experimenting with a different set of monster tactics, and they “solved the puzzle” quickly and efficiently. That deserved a reward in feeling like a hero. There will be other opportunities for long, drawn-out battles … and sure enough the next session was just that.

Your Turn: What happens when you get more players than you planned for?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And, yeah, as DM, I don't sweat the ego thing. I'm the Washington Generals to the players' Harlem Globetrotters. I'm there to give them a spirited game but I'm expecting them to beat me.

100%

 

[pogre]

I potentially have a table of 9. We play in person weekly for four hours. I have 3 very regular players and 3 more mostly regular players. I usually have 5 or 6 at the table, which is good for me, but occasionally, like once every few months I have 8 or 9 at the table. My favorite thing to do to the larger group is throw two encounters at the party at once - it does not always have to be combat encounters. I'll try to combine social encounters or exploration problems or any combination of the three. I want the action to be crazy, fast-paced, and fun!

So, yeah, I guess I do make some pretty big adjustments when we get the big table, but it is always a good time.

Now, online is a totally different situation. Online is better than not gaming, but I much prefer in person. Online, six gets to be just too many for me and I find it exhausting. Three or four is a perfect number for an online game for me. My online games just do not have the same level of energy that my in-person games do and they wear me out.

 

[talien]

And, yeah, as DM, I don't sweat the ego thing. I'm the Washington Generals to the players' Harlem Globetrotters. I'm there to give them a spirited game but I'm expecting them to beat me.

For the context of my "ego" statement, I didn't mean it was about "beating" the players. I consider myself the host, and I want to show them a good time. But this is not a simple social gathering, there are goals, and getting to the end of the goal early potentially ends the fun.

It's a bit like planning food/drink for a regular party, inviting a lot of folks, and then being unprepared when everyone shows up. I had some slush built into the system assuming not everyone would show, and now we have an awkward conclusion where I tell everyone "sorry folks, we've run out, we have to wrap up early, party's over."

When I mentioned putting my ego aside, it was in the context of feeling like I failed to prepare appropriately. I think it's great the players jumped ahead, but the downside is if I don't have more content ready to go, that evening is essentially over. I don't want players to feel punished for "winning quickly." Conversely, I made the judgement call that ending quickly was in the best interest of most of my group because they had a rough night before and day ahead. But surely, not everyone was thrilled that the game ended that fast.

There are plenty of nights where this is the opposite, where things drag on so much we either have to speed things up or pause awkwardly in mid-combat (and then worry about picking things up potentially weeks later). So in the big scheme of things this is rare, and there are plenty of fun-filled games. But it does happen, and I think there's value in discussing what to do when it does and why it may be okay sometimes to end the game early.

 

[talien]

We're all busy. When we reserve time to play, I am hesitant to end early. It is not uncommon for people to have sacrificed other options in order to be with us and play - and calling the session short can be less than generous to them as a reward for their faith in the game.

Thank you for this. This is exactly what I meant about my ego being wrapped up in showing them a good time, and feeling like I failed my group somehow by ending it early.

 

[talien]

For the last few years, I've just been creating encounters based on the game world the PCs are exploring without tinkering too much based on the party. Depending on the composition of the party that shows up - ours is a West Marches style of game and we might have between 3 to 7 PCs of various levels at any given session - a challenge might be trivial or the party might be in over their heads or it might be a nice, even, Goldilocks encounter. Key to all this is the DM telegraphing danger severity so the party can make an informed decision of how to handle things. As DM, I'm rooting for the PCs but I'm not pulling any punches either. I play the baddies according to their goals and motivations. Being forced to retreat is not a complete loss either as the party will very likely have learned something via the encounter that could help them strategize the next time they venture to that same location.

Some of the challenge in this is real life constraints. We have a very limited time to play with a group of adults who all have responsibilities, so it's a balance between providing challenges as a DM and having the party meet those challenges in time allotted (which can unfortunately vary depending on what's going on in everyone's lives).

 

[iserith]

Thank you for this. This is exactly what I meant about my ego being wrapped up in showing them a good time, and feeling like I failed my group somehow by ending it early.

Is there no way to just move on to the next planned content for the campaign?

 

[DND_Reborn]

When I mentioned putting my ego aside, it was in the context of feeling like I failed to prepare appropriately. I think it's great the players jumped ahead, but the downside is if I don't have more content ready to go, that evening is essentially over. I don't want players to feel punished for "winning quickly." Conversely, I made the judgement call that ending quickly was in the best interest of most of my group because they had a rough night before and day ahead. But surely, not everyone was thrilled that the game ended that fast.

Thanks for the clarification! That makes a lot more sense given the context.

But still seeing more players show up than planned did you adjust your boss encounter to handle it? You could have easily (I would think) made things harder to accommodate everyone being there.

I am not a fan of adjusting things once the scene is set, but if the party had not yet reached the boss, I feel free to adjust things in whatever fashion I think to make it more or less challenging, depending on my needs.

 

[talien]

Sorry, but IMO the DM should never have an ego. This isn't you against the players. I get you want to present what you hope will be a challenging encounter, and if it isn't because the players did everything right, etc., you learn from it and try to do better next time. If nothing else, you hopefully learn to celebrate their success as well as when you lament their failure. It's just a game.

I agree with all this except for the fact that humans have egos, and being aware of it is important (at the minimum, so we can recognize it in ourselves). In my case it was feeling like I let some of the other players down who maybe were ready to keep playing, but the game ended earlier than they anticipated.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree with all this except for the fact that humans have egos, and being aware of it is important (at the minimum, so we can recognize it in ourselves). In my case it was feeling like I let some of the other players down who maybe were ready to keep playing, but the game ended earlier than they anticipated.

LOL see my above post.

 

[talien]

Is there no way to just move on to the next planned content for the campaign?

We have about four hours to play, and the sessions are generally made to be addressed/resolved in that time. Starting something new would mean ending mid-way, potentially with players dropping out later if they can't make the next session. I try to stop at natural stopping points since players drop in and out, so that's a consideration as well to not continue if they "finished" that session.