How to run large-number campaigns

[SociopathFriend]

So while I am not the DM, I'm part of a weekly campaign that has multiple players, it's not unusual for us to have eight people show up per session.

Now again, I'm not the DM, but I'm being approached by players, repeatedly, who are airing their concerns with me. As such, there is almost certainly going to be a, "TalkTM" soon about improving the campaign. I can tell this, because we're already at the, "Complaining on social media but insisting it's a joke" stage even though they've told me in private the complaint is real. So eventually this is going to end in a talk and when that happens I'd like to be able to help the DM.

He's run D&D before but he's very much into the gridded part of combat (he dislikes theater of the mind) and he tries very hard to stick to encounters the book offers without ad-libbing as the DM. He also appears very afraid of meta-gaming as whenever a fact that "Everyone won't know without you telling them" is revealed he will take the person aside and speak to them so nobody can hear.

As such, do the boards have any suggestions for how to run a large campaign with a lot of players? I know three of the more repeated concerns I'm getting are:
1 - A concern that we're not progressing gameplay-wise.
We've been level 2 for two (maybe three) months now and only in the last session have some characters finally started hitting level 3. The players feel stifled in that they're basically stuck at doing the same thing every time combat occurs and they're particularly not thrilled about how long it's going to take to hit level 4 and up.

2 - A concern that we're not progressing story-wise.
We're running the Chult jungle module and are just now returning from Camp Vengeance the first time despite playing almost every week since... January? One of the players stopped coming two months ago and recently sat in on a session, and felt like we'd not gotten very far at all since last he played. (He died in the crawling gator dungeon, he saw us start the trip back from Camp Vengeance) In particular he thought it was bad that he could basically fit right back in like no time had passed.
Oh, in-game it's been 10 days, I remember that from last session; 10 days since we set off into the jungle.
I know one bit I was frustrated about slightly was the group took 3 real-life hours to even start clearing the crawling temple as they were stuck at the first obstacle. My character at the time was watching the boats (see goblin part below) with two others and we basically didn't play for those 3 hours.

3 - A concern the battles aren't being gauged correctly.
I don't really know how to explain this, the DM insists he's correctly using the CR system but I can hardly tell myself. However, other players insist the way we're going at it is basically just shy of suicide.
At one point myself and another level 2 adventurer for example ended up fighting two totem-goblins that pretty much become 8 goblins vs us. Luckily I'd prepped the area with a ton of spiked walls for us to put our backs to but still, that was death had another player not showed up (literally walking in the real-life door and announcing he was on the scene in-game) and started shooting them from a distance.
At another point the DM threw a flying snake at a level 1 group of us and pointed out he was originally going to send 5 (I think 5) because the CR supported it- in heavy rain.

So to recap, any advice for running large groups of people would be swell, but any particularly related to those points I know are beneficial. I have some ideas myself but I'm hoping there's some kernels of wisdom around here I can toss in to help.

[Armored Walrus]

1 and 2. That's more a problem of having so many players and not making decisions in a timely manner than it is in DM stye - unless you're expecting your DM to just decide for you rather than let you spend 3 hours discussing how to approach an obstacle.

3. If there are seven players and you end up fighting things with only 2 of you, then you are splitting the party, which is always a bad idea in D&D, and especially more so when you know the DM is running a module. Flying snake is CR 1/8. With 7 level 1 players you can have up to a dozen before the encounter becomes "deadly." The very first combat in my own campaign was 4 level 1 characters vs 5 flying snakes. The rogue went down because he charged right into combat (being new) but they quickly destroyed the snakes and got him back up with no problem whatsoever.

I suggest initiating the "TALKtm" before next session so the party can air their concerns and the DM can react however they need to, but it sounds to me more like ineffective play than bad DMing based on what I've heard so far.

That and Tomb of Annihilation isn't really an "easy-mode" campaign. You all should be prepared for some deaths.

Edited to add:

. I can tell this, because we're already at the, "Complaining on social media but insisting it's a joke" stage even though they've told me in private the complaint is real.


This is passive-aggressive bull**** and I would tell my fellow player to grow up and act like an adult if I were at that table. Just sayin'

[SociopathFriend]

1 and 2. That's more a problem of having so many players and not making decisions in a timely manner than it is in DM stye - unless you're expecting your DM to just decide for you rather than let you spend 3 hours discussing how to approach an obstacle.
3. If there are seven players and you end up fighting things with only 2 of you, then you are splitting the party, which is always a bad idea in D&D, and especially more so when you know the DM is running a module.


I will agree the party doesn't do their best to spend their time constructively either but, from a relatively outside POV, I would also say it's because the DM does not direct them along very well; and the communication is not the best either. The fast that they were stuck at a glorified pit-trap for 3 real life hours was pretty bad- both the DM and the relevant players were not getting what the other was saying plus the players themselves not being decisive. I personally would suggest it's the DM's job not to have so much time wasted and to prod the group along.
"Failure to communicate" is going to be one of the TalkTM subjects for both groups, DM and players.


In that particular scenario in regards to myself and the goblins it was because we knew someone had to stay behind and guard the boats while the majority of the party was gone in the dungeon. We couldn't afford to have them stolen or damaged.




I suggest initiating the "TALKtm" before next session so the party can air their concerns and the DM can react however they need to, but it sounds to me more like ineffective play than bad DMing based on what I've heard so far.

It seems a bit of both from where I sit. I personally have been trying to hint to the DM that certain things like taking everyone aside privately is wasting a lot of time out of basically pure fear of meta-gaming that has not happened in any of his campaigns.
Also when he does ad-lib, he tends to do so inconsistently, such as two players trying to attack beyond their movement and only one being allowed to; which frustrates some players.





This is passive-aggressive bull**** and I would tell my fellow player to grow up and act like an adult if I were at that table. Just sayin'

Ironically I am one of the youngest players sitting at a pretty 25.

[Armored Walrus]

I personally would suggest it's the DM's job not to have so much time wasted and to prod the group along.

Yep, suggesting things to try is a thing DM's can do. On the other hand, many DM's are afraid of having "railroad" screamed at them if they try to influence a solution. But a good moderator and people person knows how to bring a group to a consensus, whether that's a committee in a business department, a group of friends deciding where to go out to eat for the evening, or a group of adventurers trying to get across a pit trap. That skill may not be in your DM's toolkit, though. If it's not, one of the player's needs to assume that role, whether officially or unofficially, and help keep the game from getting sidetracked.



In that particular scenario in regards to myself and the goblins it was because we knew someone had to stay behind and guard the boats while the majority of the party was gone in the dungeon. We couldn't afford to have them stolen or damaged.

As a DM, I'd personally have given you a pass on meta-gaming at about the 5 minute mark if you were able to offer a solution that allowed play to progress. That's some real dedication to sit there for three hours watching your fellow players/DM bumble about - especially for a pit trap of all things.



It seems a bit of both from where I sit. I personally have been trying to hint to the DM that certain things like taking everyone aside privately is wasting a lot of time out of basically pure fear of meta-gaming that has not happened in any of his campaigns.

That may simply be a style choice rather than an actual fear of meta-gaming. how much time are we talking here, when he has to leave the room with someone? If it's excessive, maybe he needs to just shoot them a one line text telling them what they perceive. Or not worry so much about it? ToA is hardly a module that's based around intrigue and inter-party secrets. Or maybe the group needs to not split the party so often so there's less chance of only one person discovering something that no one else discovers?



Also when he does ad-lib, he tends to do so inconsistently, such as two players trying to attack beyond their movement and only one being allowed to; which frustrates some players.

That's a problem that should definitely be addressed. Inconsistency in rulings can be hard to avoid as a DM - we tend to have a lot on our minds - but it's something that a good DM should strive to remove from his/her game.



Ironically I am one of the youngest players sitting at a pretty 25.

Then they all should known better. :P It's just bad behavior.


Edit to add: Don't want to come off sounding like I think your DM is perfect and it's only the players to blame. Just want to make sure the players are looking at their role in how the game isn't living up to their expectations, it's not all on the DM. There are surely things that everyone involved can do to make the experience better. (one of which might be to trim down the player list. 8 players is going to bog down play no matter what)

[SociopathFriend]

That may simply be a style choice rather than an actual fear of meta-gaming. how much time are we talking here, when he has to leave the room with someone? If it's excessive, maybe he needs to just shoot them a one line text telling them what they perceive. Or not worry so much about it? ToA is hardly a module that's based around intrigue and inter-party secrets. Or maybe the group needs to not split the party so often so there's less chance of only one person discovering something that no one else discovers?

It's not that long per person, perhaps 2-5 minutes, but it can add up fairly quickly with so many people. It's typically not perception at all- it'll be things like faction-stuff (which he seems to think is intrigue-ish since "The factions don't necessarily have the same goal") or the group splits up around a camp to try and gather information, or there's a written language only one person knows on a wall; the last time it was the Blue Mist and he had to take everyone aside who failed to tell them and only them what they were going to be afflicted with instead of reading it out to the table at large. I personally (and nicely) tried telling him that was something of a waste of time since we had a Paladin who was not affected and so we'd be cured in at most two days (or one day if one of the Clerics leveled) and so it wasn't going to be a long-lasting affliction but he elected to not take that advice.

We honestly haven't split that often- we can't. Most of the journey has been jungle-travel.





That's a problem that should definitely be addressed. Inconsistency in rulings can be hard to avoid as a DM - we tend to have a lot on our minds - but it's something that a good DM should strive to remove from his/her game.

Luckily the DM asked me later why one of the players (who wasn't allowed to make an attack beyond moving while the other was) seemed mad and I pointed out what he'd done- I don't think he realized it at the time. The scenario in question was pretty bad because the guy who wasn't allowed to do it was a Monk and it actually WAS possible for him to do so, meanwhile the other player absolutely exceeded his movement and still was allowed to make an attack.





Edit to add: Don't want to come off sounding like I think your DM is perfect and it's only the players to blame. Just want to make sure the players are looking at their role in how the game isn't living up to their expectations, it's not all on the DM. There are surely things that everyone involved can do to make the experience better. (one of which might be to trim down the player list. 8 players is going to bog down play no matter what)

He did try early in to get the party to split apart and go two separate ways (so he could DM two different days with smaller groups) but it didn't really take due to the dynamics of the group (boyfriend/girlfriend have to stay together, the brothers have to stay together, etc.)
I agree that the party is just as relevant in this scheme of things- I personally like to think I'm outside of this relationship as even though I'm a player, I take up very little time at the table for both roleplay and battle, I also attempt to guide and assist others in their tasks.
Example: "You have a normal weapon so you won't hurt the swarm much, give advantage to the Paladin on his turn so he can smite and do better damage if he hits."
Even during the dungeon incident I tried helping a bit (despite not physically being present or even knowing about the trap they were facing), but after the first 20 minutes of them still not getting it I resigned myself to my kindle while my partner busted out his engineering homework while the other... I wanna say 5 or 6 players were stumped by a 10 foot wall and a 10 foot pit.

[Armored Walrus]

Player "asides"

Sounds like this is a style choice he's committed to. Not much advice to give here, either you're going to have to live with it or find a different table. Or browbeat the DM into changing his style, which will probably make the game a lot worse.



Luckily the DM asked me later why one of the players...

If he took the correction and didn't repeat the mistake then that's a good sign for everyone. Hopefully he gets better at that kind of stuff as time goes on.



Even during the dungeon incident I tried helping a bit (despite not physically being present or even knowing about the trap they were facing), but after the first 20 minutes of them still not getting it I resigned myself to my kindle while my partner busted out his engineering homework while the other... I wanna say 5 or 6 players were stumped by a 10 foot wall and a 10 foot pit.

Shew... don't know what to tell you here. Obviously the DM should be reacting to completely losing two players for 3 hours. But on the other hand, who are these people? I mean, really, three hours of discussion to get across a pit? At some point the DM can just say "ok, half an hour passes and you manage to cross the pit." Or one of the players needs to take the lead and make a decision. Or something. This is just ludicrous, and it's hard from this vantage point to say how to fix it other than "you all need to agree not to spend three hours negotiating the crossing of a pit." Personally, I would have been rolling random encounters after ten minutes of this, max.

[opaopajr]

First, large parties (such as your party of 8,) are notoriously hard to challenge let alone gauge. CR is at best a guess-timate. Add in varying class tactics and player competence and you have a mess.

Any GM's best bet is to split up this massive group, even if you guys pad it out later with Skilled Servants to buffer your combat. Two groups of Four PCs with NPCs will often be faster than One group of Eight PCs. Just sheer "too many cooks in the kitchen" logistics say so.

Next, 1) Add additional forms of XP, especially Explore and Social. Also introduce 1/2 or 1/4 XP for surviving an Encounter, AND not all Encounters have to have combat. Changes things tremendously!

2) Have Secret Clues written ahead of time on 3x5 index cards and handed out -- faster than player asides. Any impromptu Secret Clues, just write fast and pass along. Dock 5 XP for non-targets peeking, 20 XP for metagaming (or bullying out of a player). Shut up and play mature already, players, I have too many things to do to bother parenting your bullsh**.

3) Splitting up manages the adjusted CR suck. CR was never an exact science, and adjusting it moreso. Also Alternate XP mitigates caring about CR anyway, since you can just run away.

Also allow Encounters to offer sources of info if things are dragging, either in Social (negotiating, rumors), Explore (following, mimicking), or Combat (clues left on/in corpse).

That should help.

[Pelle]

It's not that long per person, perhaps 2-5 minutes, but it can add up fairly quickly with so many people. It's typically not perception at all- it'll be things like faction-stuff (which he seems to think is intrigue-ish since "The factions don't necessarily have the same goal") or the group splits up around a camp to try and gather information, or there's a written language only one person knows on a wall; the last time it was the Blue Mist and he had to take everyone aside who failed to tell them and only them what they were going to be afflicted with instead of reading it out to the table at large. I personally (and nicely) tried telling him that was something of a waste of time since we had a Paladin who was not affected and so we'd be cured in at most two days (or one day if one of the Clerics leveled) and so it wasn't going to be a long-lasting affliction but he elected to not take that advice.


I find keeping of secrets to be obnoxious, and as a DM I prefer to give all the info to all players. If only one character would know, I rather trust the players to not metagame, or to metagame in a way that will increase everyones enjoyment.

If the DM want to stick with the secrecy, just agree with the rest of the players to announce all the secret information to everyone in the party, so that the DM eventually realizes it is pointless?




Luckily the DM asked me later why one of the players (who wasn't allowed to make an attack beyond moving while the other was) seemed mad and I pointed out what he'd done- I don't think he realized it at the time. The scenario in question was pretty bad because the guy who wasn't allowed to do it was a Monk and it actually WAS possible for him to do so, meanwhile the other player absolutely exceeded his movement and still was allowed to make an attack.


Fair, as long as the DM is listening and tries to improve this is fine, making mistakes should be acceptable. It's not always easy for DMs to handle all of these situations. Some players will be annoyed if the DM is too strict with the rules, and some if the DM is too flexible.




Even during the dungeon incident I tried helping a bit (despite not physically being present or even knowing about the trap they were facing), but after the first 20 minutes of them still not getting it I resigned myself to my kindle while my partner busted out his engineering homework while the other... I wanna say 5 or 6 players were stumped by a 10 foot wall and a 10 foot pit.

This is most definitely a player issue, although a good DM might improve it by moving the action along. When the DM asks "what do you do", it's the players' responsibility to make a decision. If you as an observing player is bored because the others spend too much time, it is your responsibility to make them aware. Just say "hey guys, it is really boring for me to sit here, can you please make a decision soon so that I also get a chance to enjoy myself?". You being passive-aggressive about it is usually not enough for people to notice in my experience. Some people really like to take things in their own pace if they are allowed. Or you could suggest to the DM that maybe a random encounter is in order, in spite of being bad for the party.

These things also get worse with many players, so some players really need to take leadership, or the initiative and start doing something without the approval of everyone in the party.