Very large party

[Fortinbro]

So my current game I'm DMing has 11 characters counting cohorts. I allowed it as an experiment and as a way to include several friends.

In practice it has made me determined to have my next game be a typical four person party with melee character, stealth character, arcane character, divine character.

Here are some problems I have been having and how I've attempted to remedy them:

1.) Out of combat RP:

I try to create story/plot hooks for every character. Some of them put more thought into working with it than others.

There are some members who are naturally more inclined to rp and will do so without prompting.

Others, I feel like I have to constantly prompt for a response. As the DM, I don't like having to do this. However, if I don't I think they will feel like they're being ignored.


2.) Engrossing players in the setting.

I've created a pretty detailed setting and I always try to give good descriptions of things in game. However, no matter how wicked, mysterious, or powerful an adversary, some party members can't take them seriously.

Sometimes I barely get a chance to introduce a character before people create joke names for them, "ship" them with like 6 other characters, or imagine them as characters in a stupid harem anime.

I feel like they are thinking of things more like friends in a room cracking jokes would than the way people actually experiencing the situations would.

I don't want to "ban fun" but I want people to get into character more.


3.) Combat.

To deal with a party of this size I have had to throw larger numbers of weaker/CR appropriate enemies at them or monsters that are significantly stronger than typical CR. It is still quite difficult to deplete their resources especially with an artificer in the group.

I have also not pulled punches against the cohorts. The higher CR monsters/traps will treat them no different then main characters. This leads to accusations of me going out of my way to kill all the cohorts.

Another problem comes that some of the players are very well optimized while others are less so.

The optimized players continue to try to become more and more optimized to face the stronger monsters. Some of them I feel want to be invincible and get annoyed when things can get around their contingencies and challenge them. Most things of their CR can't even scratch them.

The less optimized players sometimes are ineffectual and resent the more optimized players for causing the power level of encounters to be ramped up. They don't want the optimized players building their characters for them which I can understand.

[Melcar]

Well I have not tried the large party, but the power difference I have. There were two outcomes. the two powergamers continued there character alone, and did their thing. And we started a new group of lov level low optimizations. So now we regular ly play the low level low optimization and then sometimes the powergamers meet and well optimize. It seems to be the best way for us.

[almightycoma]

1 There isn't much you can do about that,especially in such a large group. Some people just don't enjoy that aspect of the game much they'd rather be exploring or fighting. I'd say give them one shot and if there unenthusiastic move on.
3 Try splitting them up.
Something like a few of them (preferably cohorts) need to hold/control levers so room doesn't collapse. Then the BBEG uses crowd control spells to split them even more. That way the lower optimized can fight lower CR mooks and the higher op ones can focus on him or his elite guard.

[Red Fel]

You didn't actually seem to ask a question, so I'm just going to respond with observations.


So my current game I'm DMing has 11 characters counting cohorts. I allowed it as an experiment and as a way to include several friends.

And not counting cohorts? You're not really DMing for cohorts, so much as including them as NPCs. Really, the major hassle comes from adding them into the combat roles (and rolls).


In practice it has made me determined to have my next game be a typical four person party with melee character, stealth character, arcane character, divine character.

Yes but no. Yes, I think it's smart that you're cutting the party size. No, don't dictate to the players that one has to be melee, one stealth, etc. Let them choose their roles and build tactics around them.

But, yeah. Definitely fewer characters. I mean, 11? Sheesh, I'm amazed you can type straight after running that. Kudos.


Here are some problems I have been having and how I've attempted to remedy them:

1.) Out of combat RP:

I try to create story/plot hooks for every character. Some of them put more thought into working with it than others.

There are some members who are naturally more inclined to rp and will do so without prompting.

Others, I feel like I have to constantly prompt for a response. As the DM, I don't like having to do this. However, if I don't I think they will feel like they're being ignored.

The players in the former group sound like they're set. No problem. The players in the latter group sound like a problem. Let me see if I understand your remark - either you push them to engage in RP, in which case they do, or you don't, in which case they feel ignored? That's a problem.

Players should be at least somewhat self-motivated. You shouldn't be forcing them to do anything, let alone RP, unless you're willing to abandon pretense and become a railroad tycoon. If they don't want to RP, obviously, they would do better in an RP-light campaign. If, however, the issue isn't that they don't want RP, but rather that they want to occupy your attention, this requires a sit-down. The game is a social activity, and everyone is involved; the DM belongs to no player in particular, not even the DM's GF. (At least not at the table.)

I suggest talking to these players. Ask them what it is they want, what they're looking for. Explain that while you want to encourage RP, you can't spend too much time focusing on just them; you need to give everyone some time. See if they follow that and are willing to step up to the plate.


2.) Engrossing players in the setting.

I've created a pretty detailed setting and I always try to give good descriptions of things in game. However, no matter how wicked, mysterious, or powerful an adversary, some party members can't take them seriously.

Sometimes I barely get a chance to introduce a character before people create joke names for them, "ship" them with like 6 other characters, or imagine them as characters in a stupid harem anime.

I feel like they are thinking of things more like friends in a room cracking jokes would than the way people actually experiencing the situations would.

I don't want to "ban fun" but I want people to get into character more.

Are they cracking jokes in-character or out-of-character? If they're doing it out-of-character, the problem is immersion. If they're doing it in-character, the problem is tone. I will explain.

When players crack jokes out-of-character, it means that they have a certain level of distance between themselves and the characters they play. Some players never fully immerse in their characters; that's not uncommon. But others have the capacity to dive right in, when the world draws them in. Towards that end, if they're cracking jokes out of character, you can cut back on that kind of behavior by making the world more immersive. This doesn't mean adding details, mysteries, or powerful enemies - it means creating an emotional connection to people, places, and plot. I would suggest looking over each character's backstory to introduce things that are of importance to that character, and tying them into the overarching plot. I would also watch for places and NPCs that the players seem to love or hate; make them more central. By playing up what the players seem to enjoy most, you'll incentivize them to spend more time in character.

When players crack jokes in-character, it means that their characters are at ease. If the campaign is a social, diplomatic, or light setting, that's understandable. If it's a horror, apocalyptic, or similarly dark setting, jokes tend to be infrequent, grim, and uncomfortable. If players are making jokes in-character, it means that they believe the tone to be light. If it is, fine; let them have their fun. If it's not, then clearly they aren't horrified enough yet. Teach them how dark your setting can be, and the jokes will evaporate.

A little joking at the table isn't a bad thing all the time; but I acknowledge, in some cases (i.e. horror campaigns) too much levity can spoil the mood.


3.) Combat.

To deal with a party of this size I have had to throw larger numbers of weaker/CR appropriate enemies at them or monsters that are significantly stronger than typical CR. It is still quite difficult to deplete their resources especially with an artificer in the group.

I have also not pulled punches against the cohorts. The higher CR monsters/traps will treat them no different then main characters. This leads to accusations of me going out of my way to kill all the cohorts.

Now, do you control the cohorts - as is usually the practice of DMs - or do you let players control them? I think your treatment of cohorts in combat is fair, particularly if you're controlling them and not making them behave like idiots. That said, if your players get argumentative over your treatment of cohorts, remind them that Leadership is a privilege, not a right - and, frankly, I would recommend that you revoke that privilege in future campaigns, if only to spare yourself a lot of time and pain.

If they still get ornery, ask them if it's fair that they go out of their way to kill all of your NPCs. That argument is so stupid it should stun them into silence long enough for you to move the scene along.


Another problem comes that some of the players are very well optimized while others are less so.

The optimized players continue to try to become more and more optimized to face the stronger monsters. Some of them I feel want to be invincible and get annoyed when things can get around their contingencies and challenge them. Most things of their CR can't even scratch them.

The less optimized players sometimes are ineffectual and resent the more optimized players for causing the power level of encounters to be ramped up. They don't want the optimized players building their characters for them which I can understand.

This is the classic Tier-based arms race. If you're not familiar with the Tier system, research it. If you are, continue.

Basically, it's recommended that you advise players to remain within a single spectrum of Tiers - for example, advise them to play classes between Tiers 2 and 4, inclusive. Advocating for a range of powers does several things. It prevents some players from grossly overshadowing others (some overshadowing is inevitable). It allows you to plan more evenly for challenges, because everyone will be at a similar level of versatility. And it gives lower-op players a guideline for where they want to be, rather than simply letting them go nuts and wind up with a Truenamer comparatively weak class.

In future campaigns, I would advise you to encourage your players to remain within a band of Tiers, rather than picking classes at random. That's encourage, not require; unless you feel strongly, I wouldn't actively ban Tier 1 classes, I'd simply suggest slightly less overpowered alternatives.

[Fortinbro]

@Red Fel:

I've actually been letting them control and play their own cohorts. In future games I might consider giving them an NPC based on what they try to attract. I've never seen that approach, but I'll try it. My next game will have no cohorts, though I'm not banning it outright.

I don't want to railroad at all with this game. My intent is for it to be open world. It's kind of the aftermath of a somewhat more railroaded game where the party had to prevent an apocalypse as it was actually happening.

I've tried to make connections with most of them. It was actually a pre-req. to entering the game to include ties and such in back story. At this point I wanted to see them go out and make their own, but maybe I will try to introduce a few specifically for a few people. Maybe that little extra attention will help push things along.

It's usually pretty easy to get my attention. I go around the table and ask what each person will do in a scenario. If one person is talking in character I make everyone else shuts up so they can be heard.

I'm fairly convinced that it is either impossible to horrify my players or that they're all numb to it.

There was one point in my last game where the party entered a drow city in which the males had overthrown the priestesses. They had removed their hands and tongues and forced them to walk around naked as horribly abused slaves. If they failed their masters, they were tortured and killed in live carnival shows and and then cooked and eaten. These drow had turned to cannibalism due to scarce resources and to prevent their dead from rising as during an active world-wide undead apocalypse.

There was barely a reaction from the party. They disguised themselves and went around clothes shopping.

As far as the supposed tiers system goes, I'm not sure that's really the issue. I've played in a few games where I was a pure fighter and I was the strongest pc. It's more some players have an encyclopedic knowledge of feats and magic items or research the hell out of them and others simply don't.

[DrDeth]

I'd get rid of the cohorts.

Appoint two players to act as assistants. One of them is there is run init, announce who is next, etc. The other checks for AoO, and etc.

[Amphetryon]

I've run for very large parties before (more than 12 Players showed up a few couple times, if memory serves).

My takeaway from the experience:


Non-combat Encounters are Nigh Impossible: All too often, it was either everyone talking over everyone else in an effort to roleplay the scenario, or, conversely, it was the two social Characters participating while everyone else twiddled their thumbs or pulled out other things to do until 'their turn' came up.

Steps Must Be Taken to Minimize OOC Chatter: It can be very difficult to properly adjudicate an encounter when neither side can hear the other well enough to actually grasp what actions and backdrop are being described.

Piles of Mooks are Infinitely Better Than a BBEG: The action economy is skewed in the PCs favor against a lone BBEG in 'standard' 4-person parties; tripling the size of the party makes a solo bad guy's actions almost inconsequential, with combat unlikely to give said bad guy two Full Round Actions worth of stuff to do. Increasing the lone baddie's CR to try to give him a fighting chance doesn't help if his Initiative is poor, and if it's higher than the PC's collectively, the increase in BBEG power makes one-shotting a PC a very likely outcome.

[Falcon X]

This is a tough problem, but I've seen it before. Let me tell you what my DM did:

She split the party:
All quests were multi-faceted, so while one group was holding off the enemy storming in from the docks, the other was sneaking around to burn the ships.
- She had planned speeches to draw people into the setting.
- She moved between the two groups, so while one group was doing the action, the other group was planning their strategy.
- Obviously, there was little chance to role-play with NPCs, but plenty of chance to role-play with each other. We grew as individuals because we had too much time to debate with each other about strategy, but also grew as a group because we had teamwork on our side.

Split the group:
I also knew of another group that just let the players take over. They had an overall goal of rescuing a friend from the Lower Planes. The DM set what needed to happen in a session and passed it off to a sub-DM who was also a player. When they had done each session, they reported to the DM, who modified the story based on what happened.

[DrDeth]

Never split the party. if you have to do that, have two games.