SyntheticHuman's Guide to DMing for an Inordinately Large Party

[SyntheticHuman]

Hello, friends! For about half a year now, I've been DMing a long running campaign with a party of 7 players. This is, of course, a larger party than most would generally like, and, being the unwise person that I am, I created a campaign that required a companion NPC sidekick to be there as a patron/ally for basically the whole time. This means that I'm basically running a game for a party of 8 characters, 1 of whom is significantly weaker and controlled by me. Over the course of me doing this, I've learned several things about how to make a game engaging and challenging for a large party. This is the place I'm going to compile some things I've learned. If any of you have some advice, please let me know; this campaign has only just finished its first arc and we're going places.

Leveling
I wanted so badly to use XP leveling for this campaign. After all, I was going for a freely developing story and I figured it would be easier to let them level naturally. Unfortunately, the characters were levelling much slower than I wanted as individual combat encounters required a lot of time for larger parties. I finally gave up not too long ago, and switched over to milestone leveling. It's gonna be a tad bit more work figuring out when they deserve to level, especially since I don't really know the path they'll take. However, I do think this is the better option, especially if you have a more rigid story in store.

Combat - Speed
I'm sorry to tell you this, but combat is probably gonna be pretty slow with large parties no matter what. Combat can be really slow with normal sized parties, and adding more players just exacerbates the problem. Here are a few things you can do to try to help:

Allow prerolling. If you need to, you can have other players verify the rolls that people are making. Prerolling means you can cut out a lot of fat from combat, instead just focusing on the actions and the effects.
Know your player's characters. If they have a thing they don't understand, it's gonna be a lot of time to figure it out. You don't need to know everything, but you should have a general idea or at least know where the rule will be, especially if you're not playing with Adventurer's League rules (which, if my Aasimar Conquest Paladin is any evidence, I'm definitely not using those).
Use the Mob Combat rules if you have a lot of monsters. In the DMG Combat section, it explains a way to determine how many hits a character takes from a mob without rolling dice. This has been essential when I've had monsters that can make a lot of attacks or just big ol' hordes. Trust me, your player's don't want to see you rolling 50 dice while they're waiting for their turn.

All in all, my best advice is to just accept that combat will be a little longer. Plan for it. Do combat a little less if necessary, and make sure that every encounter means something.

Combat - Balancing
It is hard to make balanced combat when the players have basically all of the action economy on their side, especially with the challenge rating as... unhelpful as it is. Monsters leveled above them can take out the characters in a single hit, and monsters of an appropriate level get surrounded and pounded. That's why I've been homebrewing a lot of the big bad monsters. So far, I've learned that minions and legendary actions are your friend, as they are in most campaigns. Also, I had the opportunity to make a Modron boss and the fact that it could make like a million attacks per round was very helpful for spreading out the damage across the party.
However, there's one thing that you can do if you REALLY want to mess them up: Rival adventuring party. Heavily inspired by the Linear Guild from everyone's favorite DND webcomic, I created a party of evil opposites and slowly teased them for a while. I used the DMG's homebrew monster guidelines to turn their respective abilities into CR 2-4 monsters (this was for a party of 8 level 5 characters). Turning the action economy against them lead to a heavily stressful, desperate battle that almost killed several characters. It was a good experience, and I recommend it.
All in all, do anything you can to balance the action economy. Legendary actions, minions, monsters with a million attacks, all your friends.

Roleplaying
Having so many characters mean that it's easy for some to hog the spotlight outside of any kind of structure like combat. That's why I usually just go around the table, allowing each person a chance to do their thing before moving on to the next. Respect is key here; do not players interrupt other players. During downtime, I recommend one turn each for establishing their action, then narrating it, then any complications, then resolution.

Story
Oh boy, is it hard to get 7 individual characters to have a personal stake in the story. That's part of why I stole the idea of the Linear Guild; a rival party lets me create a set of villains that every character has a reason to want to take down. In addition, it's important that you give each character's personal story a chance to come into play. Letting the Artificer make magic weapons for the others, letting the Bard earn their stay, or making the burned up ruins of the Outlander's own home a setting for an adventure makes each character personally invested in the story, and you only need to do that once or twice for each person before they become fully invested as well.
In addition, try to limit chances for intraparty conflict. Letting characters go rogue will derail a campaign FAST when you have a lot of them.

[Buufreak]

I first clicked because I was super excited in hind sight, as my first ever party was like... 12ish? That said, thank you for your insights.

[Quertus]

So, pre-roll, “around the table” / “while he’s doing that, what are you doing”, minions / don’t let the PCs hog the action economy - those all match my experiences with best practices for actual large parties (double digit players, up to 3 PCs each, for example).

However, I have some concerns with a few things where your experiences differ greatly from my own.

The main one is XP. IME, larger pairs can handle significantly more changing / significantly more numerous threats, such that they level faster per “balanced encounter” than smaller parties. Like, imagine putting them up against a dire threat. Let’s pretend a score of ogres led by a pair of Ogre shaman would qualify, and would drop several party members before finally being dispatched. Now imagine splitting the part in half, and have a new group take on half of that encounter. In my experience, one or both of the new parties will suffer a TPK. The reasons for this include the obvious (AoE damage / buffs / debuffs are more effective in the larger group) and the less obvious (larger party has more overlap / suffers less from the loss of a single member (see also “lost our only healer”)). IME, unless the party is outmatched on AoE effects and coordination, a larger party can handle earning more XP per character per per encounter than their smaller counterparts. So I’m curious and concerned why you would report experiencing the opposite of what I’ve experienced.

The other is more a stylistic difference: you claim that, in a large party, it’s important for the GM to know the PCs; I, OTOH, consider that a colossal waste of GM head space. That is, I might concede that it’s more important for the GM to know the rules in a larger party (for several reasons I’ll get into if asked), but that, at the extreme (say, 8 billion PCs), it’s more important for the GM to outsource, and more important for the players to know their characters, and be able to play their characters quickly and efficiently.

I’ll ponder and see if I can come up with any additional advice for “large party best practices”.

[SyntheticHuman]

Now that I think about it, the reason the characters were levelling too slow was probably less splitting the XP and more the fact that combat is more expensive time-wise for larger parties. Where with smaller groups one can easily have random combat encounters and dungeons filled with minions, when you have a lot of players it's a massive time commitment even for easy encounters. I'll update my original post to reflect my new thoughts.
I can also see how, on very large scales, it must be the player's responsibility to know their characters. However, I would still argue the DM has a responsibility to know their characters so they can help move combat smoothly and quickly by providing rule reminders and any help the players need.

[Quertus]

Now that I think about it, the reason the characters were levelling too slow was probably less splitting the XP and more the fact that combat is more expensive time-wise for larger parties. Where with smaller groups one can easily have random combat encounters and dungeons filled with minions, when you have a lot of players it's a massive time commitment even for easy encounters. I'll update my original post to reflect my new thoughts.

Ah, that makes sense. It does also (as I re-read your OP and realize my reading comprehension failed me again, as usual) makes sense that, if you're on the rails of a pre-determined set of encounters (such as modules that don't have rebalancing / scaling guidelines, or modules that you just choose not to scale), as opposed to a scaling or open-ended module, or the GM creating intentionally "sporting" encounters, or the party seeking out proper challenges in a Sandbox environment, that a large party could leave you under-leveled for its "intended flow". But that just opens a big can of worms about different playstyles and the concept of an "intended flow", and I'm not sure if you want to go into details about how the effects of big parties change based on playstyle.


I can also see how, on very large scales, it must be the player's responsibility to know their characters. However, I would still argue the DM has a responsibility to know their characters so they can help move combat smoothly and quickly by providing rule reminders and any help the players need.

Alternately, you can be a **** like me, and (for extreme cases) show the player to the door, or (for less extreme cases) just run chess-clock-like timers for each player, and let their "ignorant of their own character rules look-up time" count against their spotlight time budget. So while the Fey Rogue got to talk to the local Druid about the plague infesting the Dryads in their homeland, and the Half-Ogre Wizard got to write letters to Hogwarts about their application for admission, the Bone Crusader spent his spotlight time looking up his maneuvers, and the velocity of an unladen swallow. Again, playstyle affects the implementation; but the root truth might be something like, "time is shared among more people, delays can feel longer, leading to a desire for tech to minimize delays or make them costly". That said, I prefer groups where such delays are a good thing. By which I mean, groups where resolving rules issues is actually more of a group project than taking someone's turn is. Groups where a rules question actually increases people focus on and engagement in the game, rather than decreasing it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hello, friends! For about half a year now, I've been DMing a long running campaign with a party of 7 players. We had this set up, from 6, to 7 to 8 players, for over four years in my brother's world. (We share DMing duties).
I think we should have done milestone leveling. I finally switched to that as the PCs got into early Tier 3 with the seven (now 5) that I am DMing for. Their current problem is that the Fire Giant King has put out a contract on them, and for their own reasons they have chosen to not head for that adventure site (the third of TftYP's Against the Giants) as there is a refugee problem thanks to a Crystal Dragon taking over a nearby region as its private hunting preserve ... but we are finally down to five players, as RL has taken my nephew and the Monk player out of the mix. The 8th player was on and off with the party, and then moved back to the West Coast from Wisconsin and is no longer in a time zone where he can join us.

Combat - Speed
All that I can do is stick with my "if you can't make up your mind, you dodge" and the tried and true "ask two (sometimes three) questions and then make a decision. It has taken me a number of years to get the players on board with that pattern to substantially reduce dead time in combat.

Know your player's characters.
Yes. Have to. There are a lot of details that our group's players tends to forget. I have been delegating the "OK, go look up how that works while I take care of the next player" stuff since my nephew - who was very rules savvy - had to drop out. He had my back so many times.


Use the Mob Combat rules if you have a lot of monsters.
I clump the monsters in groups of three to five. I do mental math fast and roll bundles of d20's at a time.

and make sure that every encounter means something. Yes!. That helps keep the party interested.

Combat - Balancing
It is hard to make balanced combat when the players have basically all of the action economy on their side, especially with the challenge rating as... unhelpful as it is. Monsters leveled above them can take out the characters in a single hit,
once you have a few levels, that usually means dropping to 0 HP, not "Dead Dead" due to massive HP. I usually make all encounters hard to deadly, and a few of them deadly.
Using Legendary Actions is important when there are six or seven PCs. Yes.


Roleplaying
Having so many characters mean that it's easy for some to hog the spotlight outside of any kind of structure like combat. That's why I usually just go around the table, allowing each person a chance to do their thing before moving on to the next. Respect is key here; do not players interrupt other players. During downtime, I recommend one turn each for establishing their action, then narrating it, then any complications, then resolution.
Good suggestion.

Story
Oh boy, is it hard to get 7 individual characters to have a personal stake in the story. That's part of why I stole the idea of the Linear Guild; a rival party lets me create a set of villains that every character has a reason to want to take down. In addition, it's important that you give each character's personal story a chance to come into play. Letting the Artificer make magic weapons for the others, letting the Bard earn their stay, or making the burned up ruins of the Outlander's own home a setting for an adventure makes each character personally invested in the story, and you only need to do that once or twice for each person before they become fully invested as well.
In addition, try to limit chances for intraparty conflict. Letting characters go rogue will derail a campaign FAST when you have a lot of them. Rather than have a story, have a goal, and have situations. The story becomes "what they did" ...or you can use prepublished adventures. I have run them through the first two giants modules, sunless citadel, Forge of Fury, Shrine of Tamoachan, White Plume Mountain, and a number of custom goal oriented side quests (including a journey into the void/far realms) and a few battled in and near towns that they cared about, which were raided by giants ...

[False God]

Leveling
Yep, when I ran a large party, milestone leveling was the way to go. Now, on the flip side, eveyone gets much less XP, but they can also take on much bigger threats. It works, but its always disappointing to say "oh, you get like 30XP".


Combat - Speed
Generally speaking, I found success in putting more responsibility on the players to act quickly. Getting them to recognize the rest of the game was waiting on them was more effective than helping them make good choices. It's a tough skill to learn for some folks, but in the long run it meant I had to do less work, and when you get a party of 7+, less work is ultimately the primary goal.


Combat - Balancing
Pretty much the same conclusions, lots of custom Big Bads, lots of minions (zombie/kobold/skeleton/bandit hordes were great) and careful not to simply just level them up as yeah, you'll one-shot your party real fast. Though occasional fights where that's a real threat on the table make for a good switch up.


Roleplaying
Yeah, roleplaying needs to be treated just like combat. You get a "Thing", a "Bonus Thing" and some movement. It's real easy for some roleplayers to just go on and on and on and while it can be enjoyable roleplay, it's important to make sure everyone gets some time. I'd say abig trick though is learning to read the room. That long-winded roleplayer? Maybe the other players want them to keep at it! I did allow players to basically yield their turn to someone else during roleplay to give that person more time.


Story
Yeah, keep the story tight. Not exactly rails, but those old RPGs like KOTOR where you were basically on a path and everything interesting was in front of you, but you got to move forward at your own pace was a lot of my design basis. Also I leaned heavily on "Schrodinger's Plot", yes, the party may have turned left and avoided "the plot" but oh sorry to your left you'll also find the plot but wearing a different hat.

Some adds:
Secondary DM's are great help, anyone who is experienced and willing to help those who are not to prepare their turn. I ran a large group (at its height, 15 players) in early 5E, and anyone who caught on to the material was quickly asked to help, but not required.

KISS. Keep It Simple & Straightforward. It can seem a little dull at times, but I would not recommend a highly complex or intrigue-based game for a large party unless you know they're REALLY good at keeping track of that kind of stuff.

[gbaji]

Gonna second some other comments. 7 is not an "inordinately large" party, but it is "large". Probably the minimum number at which you start to really run into issues (most balacing tools assume parties in the 4-6 PC range).

Combat stuff. Yeah. I don't get it. With my players everyone is anxiously awaiting their turn, dice in hand, and instantly are like "Ok. I do this, and that, and roll <die result>. Do <whatever> effect...". I've read lots of posters talk about this, so it must actually be a problem, but it frankly baffles me that there are players out there, who choose to play the game, choose to show up, have a character sheet in front of them, presumably know their character, are in a combat situation with said character, yet their turn comes around and they're just now thinking about what they should do. But yeah, we all see the folks who get up to the front of the grocery store line, wait for their stuff to be rung up, wait to be told how much it is, and only just then start looking for their cash/card, and spend a couple minutes fumbling around. Like they didn't know the whole time that they'd need to have payment for their stuff or something.

So yeah. I get that this happens. But honestly? It would happen like once at my table. You aren't ready when you turn comes around, we skip you: "Your character is confused and unsure what to do. You get bumped down in the initiative order until you can figure it out". Move on. Players should be paying attention to the game the entire time, and be thinking about what their character is going to do in response to those things that whole time as well. If they do this, then when it's their turn, there's no time taken thinking about anything. You just state what you've already decided to do, and then roll whatever dice are required. Done. Again though, maybe I'm just blessed, but I've never had a player that did this. Lots of other things, but not this one.


I tend to agree that "horde of minions plus X tougher foes" tends to work well as a formula for handling larger parties of adventurers. Keeps the amount of GM focus/time on a smallish number of opponents who may have special abilities or whatever, while keeping a good portion of the party more or less bogged down swimming through minions, while one or two "primary opponents" are being faced. I've also found that creating a structured combat tends to work well for larger parties. By structured I mean configuring the battlefield such that it somewhat forces the party to engage with multiple groups of opponents at the same time, and/or deal with multiple threats at the same time. So most of the party is fighting the bad guys in the courtyard, A couple members run up onto a landing to fight their way through some bad guys guarding a gate house that has the lever/crank that opens the gate at the far end. Meanwhile a group of spell casters has appeared on another landing above, so the party has to deal with them or get blasted. That sort of thing. It requires the party to divide up their members into different sections to deal with multiple things at the same time.

What you don't want to do is have fights in hallways with large groups. Like ever. Sure. Seems like bottlenecking them might be a great idea, but from a player fun point of view? Bad idea. Just trust me on this.


As to the scenario/adventure itself? I tend to agree with the "give them a goal" approach. Trying to create individual motivations and objectives for each and every member of the party is going to be really tricky. Just put enough stuff in during the intro session(s) to give the PCs a reason to be working together on something, and then send them off to deal with that something. If you want to tie in some additional PC specific stuff along the way, go ahead. But it honestly will feel contrived to the players if each and every PC's backstory just happens to come into play in the course of dealing with the adventure in front of them. Some will slot in naturally. Don't force others though. If the players feel like you are willing as a GM to make major changes to the adventure on the fly to fit in some new/interesting twist dealing with a characters backstory, this will lead them to wonder what other conditions you are willing to make major changes to the adventure for as well. Like, if the players come up with a great idea, will you just "adjust" what the NPCs are doing in order to make it work, or maybe make it not work? No bueno. The players need to know that you are at least mostly playing the game straight, or you will lose their trust.

So too much, or too many obvious "adjustments" to "make things work" can actually erode the players confidence in your game. And this can become increasingly both "too much" and "too obvious" as the number of PCs increases.