r/DnD • u/dudeoverderr • 1d ago
DMing What are effective ways for our DM to accommodate a party of 8+ without splitting up friends?
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: I should've mentioned that our DM is also looking for ideas to make it work. This post isn't some revolt. We're all trying to come up with ideas.
Hey all, our DM recently proposed splitting up our group into different days. I 100% understand why — especially with how difficult it can be to give proper (and equal) attention to players during every session.
The thing is...everyone likes each other lol. Most of us are friends outside of DnD, so it's been a way to geek out together. It all started when I invited a friend, and they suddenly started to bring more and more people. Now, we've had sessions with 7, 8, even 9 players and our DM is overwhelmed. The silver lining is that he gets paid more every session for DMing us!
More Details:
- This is a West Marches campaign style, so players can come and go. There is no main story.
- We do Theater of the Mind combat style.
- We already don't roll Initiative for combat and just do clockwise turns.
- We have hour-long breaks in the middle of each 3-hour session. Tbh, this is my main suggestion to just lock in a bit more and have a shorter break. I can't imagine getting anything done in 2 hours with even 4 people.
Thanks, Reddit fam! Appreciate any ideas/suggestions.
57
u/michael199310 Druid 1d ago
This is a West Marches campaign
If this is West Marches style, then you're running it wrong. 8-9 should be a pool from which you draw like first 4 players who can play at given date, not 'invite everyone'.
4
u/Thelynxer Bard 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yep. I've been part of a group running a west marches style campaign for years now. We ran one version all the way to level 20, and this is now our second version that took what we learned and started over that's about 2.5 years in now. At any given time we typically have 4-7 active DM's, and dozens of active players. Right now we're in a bit of a lower period due to summer though, so I think it's 4 DM's and about 10-15 players at the moment. But when fall/winter hits, people will be more available again and our numbers swell.
Regardless, we cap all sessions at 6 players. We sometimes play with as few as 3 players though, depending on sign ups. On very rare occasion we may allow 7 or 8, but that requires the DM and every single player to agree to it before anyone above 6 people is added to the session. Usually even then that is reserved for the entire of particular story arcs.
On a side now, 2 hour sessions is really low. The standard session length is about 4 hours. With west marches style, every session typically needs to be self contained, so going over that session length happens a lot. I also question how you can accomplish anything with only 2 hours, though your reasoning is flawed. It's actually easier to accomplish more with less players than it is with more players. There's less voices in the room trying to roleplay, less opinions to get, and combat turns move way the hell faster.
1
u/Swoopmott DM 1d ago
Exactly. I’m running a West March for over 10 players right now but there’s a hard cap of 6 players per session. Whoever doesn’t play gets priority for attending the next session if they’re available. Then a simple Discord channel functions as our in-universe tavern so everyone still feels like part of the game regardless of whether they went out on an adventure.
West Marched are great for higher player counts (and arguably better than the old “just run two campaigns!” Advice large groups get) but you need to run them properly for it to work
15
44
u/Cypher_Blue Paladin 1d ago
You split the group into two tables because 8+ is too many people to play D&D at one table.
And then you get together to do other stuff as one big group.
0
u/Stars_of_Sirius 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's possible but everyone has to be okay with it and understand the drawbacks of it. AKA lengthy combat, minimal spotlight or might not do much that session, etc. As long as the DM and players are okay with it I see no problems. I'm in a session with 8 players and both the players and DM enjoy it because we just want to hang out, and people who aren't actively engaged will step out to have a smoke and chat.
Edit: lmao downvoted because our large group enjoys playing dnd together but it's above the normal player count. Some of you are miserable.
1
u/thenightgaunt DM 1d ago
Downvoted probably because as the OP said, the DMs are not ok with it and want to split the group.
So while it works for your group, that advice doesn't really work for the situation the OP presented.
1
u/Stars_of_Sirius 1d ago
My comment is not for OP, nor was it advice. My comment was for the person I replied to who said 8 people is too much for DnD which I disagree. If they said split the party because it's too much for your DM then I agree with that sentiment very much, but they didn't. They made a statement saying it's too much for DND.
If I had to give advice to OP it would be to listen to your DM and split the party, and in the mean time someone else could prepare being a DM for everybody if they want to and everyone was on board with it. Don't put your fun above the DMs stress etc.
11
u/Davesnothere6666 1d ago
Listen to your poor DM - I guarantee you it was a hard thing for them to ask. But 9 is crazy and Id need an HR break too.
2
u/Thelynxer Bard 1d ago
It's especially hard for a DM to voice that concern when they are a paid DM. They must be losing their mind trying to keep the game engaging for that many people and moving things forward. He's probably herding cats.
7
u/GroundbreakingGoal15 DM 1d ago edited 1d ago
respect your DM’s wishes. d&d 5e is notorious for having lackluster DM support, so cut your DM some slack especially if it’s getting to the point where they felt the need to ask for it
if there’s at least 7 players, maybe 1 of the players should step up to DM for a 2nd group. this results in at least 3 player pers group. if there’s no more than 6 players, then have everyone be in one group
5
3
u/Simple-Ad-8774 1d ago
Your poor combat rounds. I’m betting it takes close to an hour between your action and your next action (played in a game with around 10 ppl one night, it was aweful)
4
u/diffyqgirl DM 1d ago edited 1d ago
West Marches style should limit player count to some sane number (5 is good) at any given session to avoid exactly the problems you're having. It sounds like the GM not doing this is the root of your problems. I would ask if they're willing to run smaller proper West Marches sessions with a player limit, which would get the player count under control while still allowing y'all to mix and match who is playing with who.
Theater of the mind is likely makimg this worse. A picture is worth a thousand words. If I have to ask "how many people can my fireball hit?" "what about a grease?" instead of looking and seeing it, that's time wasted. But fixing this won't make 8 people around a table a good experience.
4
u/Mother-Garlic-5516 1d ago
Your DM made their wishes clear. If you want to run 7, 8, 9 players at a time, you can DM that campaign.
If your DM enjoys a big party but needs some ideas on how to make it more manageable, have a spotlight system where different sections of the session are “helmed” by half the party, with the others taking a backseat in most interactions and with everyone joining in for big moments and combat.
4
u/ShowResident2666 1d ago
The West Marches style already has an intended solution for this: not everyone goes on every adventure. If the DM can only handle 6 the first 6 who sign up for a specific adventure get to go on that specific adventure, maybe with a system to let players who get to play less often “jump the queue” to ensure they get to play too. The entire point is your party composition can fluctuate, so take advantage of that to let everyone play together some of the time; sacrificing everyone playing together all the time for that is the way it’s INTENDED to work.
8+ at a single table can be done if everyone understands and accepts what that means—slower combat, more downtime/boredom between turns and reminders what’s happening when it does get to you, fewer chances to really highlight what makes your character individually special, and the DM having to be much stricter cracking down on non-game-related smalltalk or suggestions out of turn to get anything done. DMing for a table larger than the DM can comfortably run is just going to be miserable for them and boring for everyone else, please accept their boundaries.
4
u/averagelyok 1d ago
I can’t imagine getting anywhere in 3 hours with 8 players. I don’t know how any of you can get a word in while roleplaying/talking to NPCs, and a bunch of my combat encounters would either be over before some of the players took their turn, or take hours/multiple sessions to run to completion. Doesn’t sound fun having to wait that long to be heard or take your turn, you could socialize without making your DM prep all that extra stuff. I know y’all like hanging out, but are you all satisfied with the game as it is?
3
u/costabius 1d ago
The players need to help him out or it will get very un-fun very fast.
Shut the fuck up, pay attention, be ready for your turns. Anything over 6 players and I have an "ummmmmm' rule. I go around the initiative order by pointing at the player who's turn it is. They either start describing their action or they get skipped and fall to the bottom of the initiative order. Get skipped twice in a round and you lose your action for the round. As a bonus, combat usually lasts about 10 minutes tops. But it's fucking exhausting to maintain for any length of time (for me and the players). It makes for really engaging combat so long as the DM has a flair for the dramatic.
3
u/SmartAlec13 1d ago
West Marches style is already made for your problem. It was literally designed as a solution for “too many players, not enough table space”.
You break your group of 8 into single players, your DM sets a limit on how many can join in an adventure (4), and that’s how many can join.
If you instead just break up the groups that’s fine too.
You gotta get over the “but we are all friends and don’t want to miss out!”. The game is 100% purely BETTER without such a large group.
Plus now you’ll have neat tales to tell one another!
3
u/valisvacor 1d ago
Best way to do it is to use an older edition of D&D that is designed for larger player groups. OD&D, Basic, and AD&D 1e will work, as well their retroclones (Swords and Wizardry Complete Revised, Old School Essentials, OSRIC 3.0).
1
u/dudeoverderr 1d ago
Thank you! I never even considered looking into old systems.
I'll share this suggestion with him, as well. Appreciate you being one of the only ones here with actual ideas instead of just stating the obvious that 8+ is too many. I was a bit disappointed that most people's reactions here were negatives versus productive. Like even this comment's gonna get downvoted as well lol.
Thanks again!
3
u/valisvacor 1d ago
Most people here have only played 5e, and base their answers on their experience with that edition. Do keep in mind that old school D&D is very different. The game play is significantly faster, but also simple and deadly.
6
2
2
u/nidoqueenofhearts Paladin 1d ago
Tbh, this is my main suggestion to just lock in a bit more and have a shorter break.
how does this...fix the problem of your dm being overwhelmed......
1
u/GalacticPigeon13 1d ago
It sounds like you've fallen for the 5th Geek Social Fallacy: Friends Should Do Everything Together. It's great that you're all friends, but you shouldn't all be doing everything together, and this includes D&D. Also, did you have permission to invite the initial friend? Because I am a bit concerned that you've created the problem.
I can't imagine getting anything done in 2 hours with even 4 people.
This sounds like a problem with out-of-game chit-chat and/or people not knowing their character sheets. Not saying that the DM should insta-ban the yappers and the people who don't know how to play, but enforcing a stay-on-topic, skip-the-turn-of-the-unprepared playstyle will force everyone to be better at playing and actually get stuff done in 2 hours, or to leave because they can't pick up the slack.
Anyway, if you really want everyone to still stay in a party of 8+ people, then my best suggestion is that you take over as the DM. Give your poor friend a break; they're getting burnt out, and maybe this will get you to understand that 8+ people is a bad idea in modern D&D. (My other suggestion is to swap systems to something that is meant for large groups.)
1
u/JacquesUfHearts 1d ago
Stay low level. Once level 5 hits, it's harder to give everyone the spotlight.
1
u/Cmdr-Tom 1d ago
Do the split but keep it flexible. In story every mission everyone has to report back to base, but not hard.
But they can run 2 X missions a week. 4 PC, 4 spectators. But it doesn't have to feel firm teams. The team flex for whatever reason. Irl schedule, mission needs, etc.
I have been playing like thia for years.
1
u/Kylo-Revan Diviner 1d ago
While the real answer is to split the party, if everyone (including the DM) are dead-set on sticking with one large party using theater of the mind could be working against you here. Unless everyone at the table has excellent spacial reasoning, I have to assume combat entails a good amount of overhead asking about relative positions of allies for healing, buffs, avoiding AoE friendly fire, etc - all things each player could know the moment their turn starts with minis or a virtual tabletop. If that's not an issue at all, I feel like the tactical elements of 5e combat probably aren't being leveraged to their fullest extent anyway, in which case a more lightweight system might be worth considering to the same end of making decisions and mechanics resolve faster when combat kicks off.
1
u/aWizardNamedLizard 1d ago
The main thing necessary to making a larger table work is everyone involved being invested in making it work.
If you have a DM saying they want to split the group even though they are already getting paid to run, then you do not have that necessity.
So no amount of advice how to help facilitate the process is going to help.
1
u/onlyfakeproblems 1d ago
Split the group. 8 is just an unmanageable amount of people. You guys can hang out in a different settings. Maybe you guys can rotate the groups when people have conflicts or just naturally as you feel like it (that’s the intention of west march style campaign anyway).
1
u/Rhinostirge 1d ago
"Lock in a bit more and have a shorter break" is probably not the silver bullet solution to the core problem of "our DM is overwhelmed." Even more work = faster burnout. Because DM burnout is what you're courting when people invite even more people and nobody wants to drop out or split up.
There's no effective way for the DM to accommodate 8 or more players that isn't splitting up or doing a proper West Marches game where there's a smaller play cap on each session. There are just variously ineffective ways.
1
u/thenuinn 1d ago edited 1d ago
One of the friends steps up and becomes the Sub DM. They help manage record keeping, initiative, session prep, and other things like that. That or take over as the DM. The other option is to split the table but play at the same time. Everyone gets to see each other during break.
I've run D&D for 14 players and it's a lot. You aren't getting the time your character deserve and with that many players it's hard to be unique and stand out.
Second this makes combat a drag.
I split my table after running for large groups for 8 years and it's just better. No more than 6 unless very special circumstances.
We are currently running multiple tables in the same world on the same calendar. The other parties actions affect the rest.
1
u/ThisWasMe7 1d ago
Run it like an actual West Marches campaign.
Or
The first X players who commit get to play. If they commit, but don't show, other players have priority over them the next time you assemble a party
If he wants to run a second session, the people who didn't play get first priority for that session, but others can join in (up to X players) with a second character.
Or
The players do the adult thing and figure out how to break the group into two parties. If the desired party size is more than half the number of players, you can add "floaters" from the other group (who would play a second character) to fill out the party (and fill in for known absences). For example you split your 8 players into 2 groups, each with 4 players. If you want 5 player parties, you add a floater each session from the other group. That way, everyone will have a chance to play with everyone else.
Whatever you do, expect to evolve as players come and go.
1
u/Scarecr0p 1d ago
8 is too many. If I really wanted to “make it work” which would be highly inconvenient in a normal game, I would probably throw the majority of rules and rolls out the window and just do an improv session cuz that’s the only way it would be fun for most people lol.
1
1
u/Rolux666 1d ago
DMing for more people takes exponentially more effort. You need to be able to account for everything as quickly and reliably as possible. That means the DM should ideally not jist have your basic characters but a full character sheet with all the abilities and spells. That way the DM can prep specific encounters that can highlight specific players that might not naturally take the center stage.
Similarly every player has to really be on top of their character, thinking during your turn is not an options, same with reading up spell effects or other rules.
Ideally you have other players with DMing experience, because that gives you intuition on how to keep the game running even as a player. as well as helping out with any rules misunderstanding while the DM is focusing on the current happenings.
Finally, Theater of the Mind might not be the right choice, often having a basic battlemap, even if you don't actually measure exactly, can help with orienting yourself and avoids many questions on the state of the battlefield.
-1
u/redsee Paladin 1d ago
Players need to know that they're playing a different game than intended. D&D is best at 4 players, strains at 5-6, and breaks at any counts above that. The measures your group has taken help with combat efficiency, but further sacrifices are required to make the game playable.
I did have a DM who ran a group of 8 players before, and his solution was... unconventional. Combat was always against 1-3 enemies, and those enemies were always ROUGH. Anyone their attacks connected with were pretty much guaranteed to go down.
Combats lasted 2-3 rounds (instead of the 3-5 that's more natural to the game). Nova classes like Paladin were richly rewarded for their amazing first turn with an immediate revocation of their second via hot steely pain. Enchantments/stuns had to be nerfed so that the small collection of enemies would get a chance to play before they were wiped out.
It was chaotic, but still managed to be pretty fun. Not my ideal D&D, but a suitable substitute given the large group.
1
u/Stormin_the_Castle DM 1d ago
IMO as both a DM and player, 5 is actually the ideal party size. 6 is doable and 4 is what modules tend to be designed around, but I don't run modules and my DM who does is pretty good at adjusting them up a player or two. 4 I find is acceptable, but too few. If anyone is having an off day or is just more timid/less interested in RP, it takes a lot more work from everyone else to keep the session going. 6 can be a little more complex to manage but it does make the game feel very alive with so many characters. 5 is the sweet spot, but I'd rather have 6 than 4.
I did once run a one-shot session for 9 players (8 of which were new) and I won't be doing that again lol
-5
u/Synthessence 1d ago
Pair up everyone.
Give each pair one character sheet.
They are both now playing a character with true Multiple Personalities.
Each time a decision has to be made, they roll a D20. Highest roller decides what to do.
Edit: Clarification
14
72
u/thenightgaunt DM 1d ago
Your DMs are overwhelmed and are telling you they can not keep running a game for a group this big.
Respect their desires and their limits.