When playing with a large group, do you personally find it more fun to fight a lot of enemies or just a few really really strong enemies? I'm trying to figure out if it makes more sense to build encounters where my players fight 1-3 really really strong enemies, or if it's more fun to have them fight a mini horde and have to deal with having the action economy turned against them....
When playing with a large group, do you personally find it more fun to fight a lot of enemies or just a few really really strong enemies? I'm trying to figure out if it makes more sense to build encounters where my players fight 1-3 really really strong enemies, or if it's more fun to have them fight a mini horde and have to deal with having the action economy turned against them....
Both.
It is, in my opinion, better to vary the encounters as much as you possibly can.
That is to say, both can be good. And both can be bad. The mini horde encounters can devolve into a drag due to having just a ton of activations every round with the players twiddling their thumbs, and the maxi monster encounters can become slogfests with the players whitling down a mound of hit points for however many rounds it takes. As Golaryn says, vary your encounters - but take care to make them interesting in the first place. Maybe use minion rules or fixed damage instead of rolls for fights against mass mobs, or give the PCs tactical options to try and control the fight. For big powerful monsters, make sure they have engaging things they can do most every round and that if the party plays their cards well it doesn't take two dozen rounds to kill the critter. Encounters will be fun because you make them fun, not because you pick a theoretically optimal number of things for the party to fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Play with quantity, strength, size, timing, theme, etc.
Encounters ought to range from predictable to fantastical. Sometimes that means a small number of trivial opponents who don't realize what they've gotten themselves into and other times that means fighting a living mountain that really can't be beaten directly.
Personally, I enjoy dynamic encounters that require the players to explore a hazardous space while in soft-initiative. Their choices will influence the next wave of opponents.
For your current game, see the above advice. If it's a Session 0, ask the players how they might feel. Granted, they might end up wanting too much of a good thing so you'll still need to vary it up, but by all means ask what kind of ratio of big:wide your players would like. I personally like wide myself, but I can't deny I had an epic experience with my party's most challenging foe yet (a wraith). By asking they may know the scope (or may have a good guess), but they won't know what awaits within that scope. If you want to be a bit more subtle about it, just ask for feedback on how they're finding the current combat encounters - the topic of big versus wide is bound to come up if your group is comfortable being vocal with feedback and criticism!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
As a DM both can be made challenging but it is important to realise when the battle is over, that may be different to when everyone is dead. For instance a horde of 15 goblins attacking a party of 8, as soon as the goblins get reduced to about 5 in number the fight is effectively over. At that point I would probably narrate the end rather then force the players to keep rolling dice.
This depends on your group and also how tough to kill those last few enemies are. A lot of players enjoy reveling in their imminent victory as they roll those dice to squash the last few varmints. I'd say to get a read on your players mood before making that call. If the battle has been drawing on for a while and they're obviously getting bored then go for a quick cut-away to dead goblins or whatnot but if they're cheering each other's damage rolls and colorfully describing how they slice, dice, and squash said goblins like a dog excitedly gnawing on a squeaky chew toy then you don't want to take the toy away until they've finished with it.
Variety is good. So long as you can keep things moving.
If you have a horde of enemies they should all be very simple and only have like one, maybe two things they can do. So that the DM isn't stopping to consider their options too much. If you ahve 4-5 PCs and 10-12 enemies as a swarm, IMO you should make sure those 10 or so enemies get through their turns quickly and don't drag down the pace.
When you have fewer but stronger options, that can buy a bit more time to consider a handful of options for what they do without dragging the pace down too much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When playing with a large group, do you personally find it more fun to fight a lot of enemies or just a few really really strong enemies? I'm trying to figure out if it makes more sense to build encounters where my players fight 1-3 really really strong enemies, or if it's more fun to have them fight a mini horde and have to deal with having the action economy turned against them....
Both.
It is, in my opinion, better to vary the encounters as much as you possibly can.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Both is good.
That is to say, both can be good. And both can be bad. The mini horde encounters can devolve into a drag due to having just a ton of activations every round with the players twiddling their thumbs, and the maxi monster encounters can become slogfests with the players whitling down a mound of hit points for however many rounds it takes. As Golaryn says, vary your encounters - but take care to make them interesting in the first place. Maybe use minion rules or fixed damage instead of rolls for fights against mass mobs, or give the PCs tactical options to try and control the fight. For big powerful monsters, make sure they have engaging things they can do most every round and that if the party plays their cards well it doesn't take two dozen rounds to kill the critter. Encounters will be fun because you make them fun, not because you pick a theoretically optimal number of things for the party to fight.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Variety is the spice of life."
Play with quantity, strength, size, timing, theme, etc.
Encounters ought to range from predictable to fantastical. Sometimes that means a small number of trivial opponents who don't realize what they've gotten themselves into and other times that means fighting a living mountain that really can't be beaten directly.
Personally, I enjoy dynamic encounters that require the players to explore a hazardous space while in soft-initiative. Their choices will influence the next wave of opponents.
For your current game, see the above advice. If it's a Session 0, ask the players how they might feel. Granted, they might end up wanting too much of a good thing so you'll still need to vary it up, but by all means ask what kind of ratio of big:wide your players would like. I personally like wide myself, but I can't deny I had an epic experience with my party's most challenging foe yet (a wraith). By asking they may know the scope (or may have a good guess), but they won't know what awaits within that scope. If you want to be a bit more subtle about it, just ask for feedback on how they're finding the current combat encounters - the topic of big versus wide is bound to come up if your group is comfortable being vocal with feedback and criticism!
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
As a DM both can be made challenging but it is important to realise when the battle is over, that may be different to when everyone is dead. For instance a horde of 15 goblins attacking a party of 8, as soon as the goblins get reduced to about 5 in number the fight is effectively over. At that point I would probably narrate the end rather then force the players to keep rolling dice.
This depends on your group and also how tough to kill those last few enemies are. A lot of players enjoy reveling in their imminent victory as they roll those dice to squash the last few varmints. I'd say to get a read on your players mood before making that call. If the battle has been drawing on for a while and they're obviously getting bored then go for a quick cut-away to dead goblins or whatnot but if they're cheering each other's damage rolls and colorfully describing how they slice, dice, and squash said goblins like a dog excitedly gnawing on a squeaky chew toy then you don't want to take the toy away until they've finished with it.
Variety is good. So long as you can keep things moving.
If you have a horde of enemies they should all be very simple and only have like one, maybe two things they can do. So that the DM isn't stopping to consider their options too much. If you ahve 4-5 PCs and 10-12 enemies as a swarm, IMO you should make sure those 10 or so enemies get through their turns quickly and don't drag down the pace.
When you have fewer but stronger options, that can buy a bit more time to consider a handful of options for what they do without dragging the pace down too much.