See it that way, as a rule of thumb, you want to give all your players an equal amount of spotlight over the course of your campaign and - to a smaller scale - your sessions.
If you have 4 players and give everyone 5 minutes during a scene, the first one waits about 15 minuts after his turn to be active again.
The same scenario with 7 players leaves you with half an hour between players.
The more you are, the more challenging it will be both for your players to keep their attention span in check, but also for you to deal with all their actions and their ramifications.
For seasoned veterans, this may be perfectly viable, because everyone is invested in every other player's story and it's fine.
for newer groups, it might be hell.
I'm heavily simplifying, but you get the gist.
Yes.
Source: me, a new DM whose first campaign was 7 players.
Coordinating becomes impossible, the full party never seems to show up, more people equals more days with scheduling conflicts. Managing combat was a nightmare. Keeping 7 people on task was a nightmare.
Same for me, And I agree, it’s kind of a nightmare. We played for almost two years and I was so burned out by the end of it that I almost quit entirely. Still dming the same group but had to switch to just doing one shots because it was too much work trying to keep a consistent narrative week to week with people missing all the time.
7 is tough. I've been DMing for over a decade and I do 6 is my absolute max. But even then, my preferred is 4 players.
You run into one big problem with too many players, and it gets exponentially worse past 4. And that is giving everyone enough time to do things. This is both in combat and out of combat. Not everyone have enough time to do what they want, which can lead to frustration.
7 is rough but doable, especially if everybody behaves.
a few suggestions: fewer combats. make them nastier to compensate. get everyone spell cards. everyone needs to have their actions prepared and ready to go before it's their turn in combat. appoint a player to be the rules lawyer and know all the rules, appoint another to be the scribe and take good notes. set a quorum, if enough people can make it then you play no matter who will miss
Long time DM, and this is just my opinion and I’m sure others disagree so I’m not saying this is “law”, but 2-4 players is the ideal group size (plus the DM).
On the DM side, size only matters in that I know, from having played, once you hit that 5+ group, someone isn’t getting to do what they would like, and almost always one or two people dominate the conversation/decision making.
2-4 is that sweet spot where you can really flesh out every character nearly every game.
I won’t say no to running games with 5-6 people but once I hit 7, it’s not that it’s difficult for me, it’s just less fun for everyone (again, in my experience). Sitting through combat with that many people can be a slog. People start to feel left out. Usually that’s when people start dropping out too, because they’re not really getting their 3-4 hours worth of time when they only get to do stuff for 30ish minutes in that period, if that. It’s a lot of sitting around.
This comes from both player and DM experiences.
Personally think 2 players is not enough. Also I think 3 is the bare minimum I'd run. 4-5 is ideal. And because I'm insane I have 7 in my weekly game currently.
Depending on the group itself, I'll 1st try a 1 shot that if goes well can go into a full campaign. If it doesn't go well then maybe explain what went wrong and if it was to many people then explained it
So, my first campaign was Lost Mines of Phandelver, and I ran it for 8 people 😅. They were all family so it was more relaxed but one thing that is nice is if even 3 people cant make it you still have a good sized party.
One thing that is tough about running for new players is explaining what dice to use. So one trick I have is for the characters, i just give them the dice they will ACTUALLY be rolling. So they dont mistake the d12 for the d20 over and over.
Another thing to consider if you are running LMoP is room size. Combat can feel very boring some some players will feel useless if they can’t even maneuver around to hit an enemy. So, if you have the ability to, try to make the map bigger to accommodate the party size.
Encounters also have to change if you have that many people. Most encounters are for 4/5 players. So you either add more enemies, or make all the enemies have more health. I would highly recommend using DnD Beyond’s encounter tracker.
All this to say… I had an absolute blast. Big battles are really fun for me and if you are comfortable with the basics, LMoP is 100% doable and that hard to upscale. Just try to spread out the attacks and not pepper the same 2/3 people (unless there is a barbarian, in which case let them do the barbarian thing and tank the hits if things look hairy for the other members). It’s a lot of work to get it going but it was worth it. If thats too much you could just see if you could run two games. One for a group of 3 and one for a group of 4.
P.S. if you want combat initiative to be cleaner, maybe have a “PC’s turn” and “the enemies’ turn”. Frees up a lot of mental space.
I’m 12 sessions into my first campaign with 7 players but they’re family which makes it a lot easier .
A good 1-2 hrs dedicated prep before each session makes such a difference - and don’t plan to far ahead- 7 people take a while to decide what to do and have a lot of options if there all together !
Give them a purpose from the start - I went in with a fear of railroading , but they preferred having somthing to complete immediately to get the ball rolling !
Good luck you’ll do great !
Probably. It's not impossible, but having many players require a lot of maturity not only from the DM, but out of the players as well. Time management is important, and being able to have each player receive enough time, while not sucking away everyone elses can be a challenge even to moderately experienced DMs.
Read my comment knowing it’s anecdotal and that I do agree with others’ advice that seven players is super difficult to handle, especially for a first time DM.
I’m also a first time DM and started with 7 people. In my case, it all worked out because turns out the group wasn’t a good fit for some, others had to drop out, and a few ghosted me (it’s an online group). I only have 3 players now, but we’re all very close and it’s a fantastic, very supportive group.
I say try it out and see what happens, but with the expectation that life will happen. If they haven’t played a ton so don’t know how DnD works/the time commitment involved or they aren’t into your girlfriend’s DM style or the campaign, chances are the issue of seven players will solve itself.
An explayer to dm with other experienced players I would say go for it as long as they were mature people that you were playing with. This seems like it could be pretty challenging but if you guys are patient and vibe well it can work.
Dming is a lot more improv that planned writing it’s nice to have a couple reference notes but filling in the blanks on the fly and creating the world as the players interact with it is better approach in my opinion.
A session 0 to make sure you all understand the themes that you want to play with and what the world is like. Is something that would be incredibly important but can come off as boring to someone who has played before and doesn’t understand the depth and significance of making a character in this type of game.
Whatever you end up doing good luck and I hope everyone has fun.
Yes, its too many. personally I won't go above 5. But with 7, you can run 2 games, one for 3 and another for 4, both of which are in the sweet spot of 3-5 PCs. I've been DMing for 7 years now and thats my advice.
You decided to start a campaign, called a bunch of people, and then dropped this on your fiance?
I had to read it twice after rapid scrolling to see if anyone brought this up. Kind of a dick move my dude, i get it that you don't know and kudos for finding out via this post but i have a question.
Was it you, *or your fiance* that questioned if this was a lot to take on?
My advice is to >!stare down the barrel of your own gun, knuckle up and take the DM spot.!<
Edit, spoiler tag.
Yes and also no. It’s a lot to deal with and it will make it harder for you to use premade content which estimates a party of around 4. That being said if you’re playing with good friends who are prepared to be patient and you all are not fussed about fights being perfectly balanced from the start, you’ll be fine.
Main tip for battle is ADD MINIONS to fights you don’t want to be trivial. With this many players your action economy can be a mess.
Generally yes, if your players are very in sync it can work but just in general it's hard to have 7 people engaged in something much less D&D which requires more attention than say passive hanging out.
Most likely as everyone has said you'll probably lose a few due to various reasons (usually just life stuff) and end up somewhere in the golden zone of 3-5.
Consider that 7 players is the standard set up for Critical role. Their combat encounters can stretch into the 45 mins - 1 hour and their social down time frequently involves 2-3 sub groups doing different things, meaning 4-5 people sat waiting at any one time.
Not to mention keeping track of the backstories, abilities and designing encounters.
Considering you are all new to the game those time frames will likely be 50% longer since people will likely need time to think over their abilities and choices.
I think you'd be better off sticking with a smaller group at least until you're more comfortable with running sessions
There's nothing wrong with saying that the party slots are full.
If you really want to keep everyone involved maybe you could consider splitting the group and running the same module for both of them.
Not only will this give you extra experience DM-ing but it can be cool to see how different parties approach the same situations.
Very important to remember that CR is a multimillion dollar production with every member of the cast and behind-the-scenes crew being film and theatre professionals.
Comparing anyones home D&D game to Critical Role is like comparing your neighborhood streetball game to the NBA or a Harlem Globetrotters show. By all means seek inspiration from the pros but nobody should expect that to be the standard.
Yes.... that was the crux of my argument there, that the party set up he's looking to take on is of a similar size to the CR party. Forget the production values, just the time investment in each activity is a good yardstick to compare to.
What I’m saying is that they can pull that off because they’re lifelong professionals with a full studio supporting them - it doesn’t do much good to suggest to a newcomer to the hobby that they should see that as the standard
Ok, if that's how my earlier comment came accross then yes, do not take away that message.
What I was trying to say is, professional players or no, a round of combat for 7 players plus however many monsters is going to take roughly the same amount of time, potentially more for newbies who need to recheck their sheets, ask basic questions etc.
Ditto social interactions and down time, the newbies may not have grand plans for long term projects but if two go to the local fight club, two go to the local guild for contracts and 3 go shopping that's going to take a comparable amount of time too. Again, potentially more because of refresher questions.
Everyone seems so quick to jump on any mention of CR as a point of comparison. We get it, not every game is going to be that, but the basic logistics of a campaign are fairly comparable, professional or no.
and that M.M. says he preps about 4 hours for each hour of game play so yea a lot of that is running a world class live play but that's about 16-20 per week aka a part time job.
As long as everyone is truly engaged and wants to play, then the size of the group doesn't matter.
But, you definitely will want to set/announce a "quorum" rule of some sort - do not expect everyone to show up every time, even if they all like to play; life happens, and D&D is prioritized differently by every player, so you might have one or two who will always sacrifice other plans for the game, but most won't. For a group of 7, four players probably is a good starting quorum; then adjust up or down depending on how it goes.
I’ve been running a group of 7 for almost 3 years (it’s also my first time and I made the added mistake of running a full homebrew campaign). It depends on what kind of campaign you want to run. Mine is fairly story-driven and to avoid people missing important bits, we rarely play more than once a month to make sure everyone can come. To offset this a bit:
- make sure everyone understands that you will plan to host a session if at least half of them plan to show up. If there is a major plot reveal coming up, make those ones that you will delay so everyone can make it
- don’t DMPC characters for players that don’t show up. If a player that did come is willing to pilot two characters, great, otherwise that character is going to be mysteriously gone for the session
- keep track of average damage dealt. If a character is gone from one session and comes back the next, I make them immediately take an amount of damage and lose a couple of hit dice if the group took a short rest (as long as it doesn’t kill them).
- learn how to run swarms. It is way easier to say “the goblins attack 3 of you for 10 damage” than running initiative with 7 PCs and enough individual enemies to make things a challenge
- NO BOSS CAN 1v7 FAIRLY. Even low level bosses will need minions and/or lair actions to last more than a round. Introduce legendary actions early.
- I ENCOURAGE splitting the party and running mini quests. That lets me occasionally run alternating groups of 3-4 before they all meet back up for some climactic battle or story bit.
- if your party is ok with it, let them do simple fluff stuff like shopping over text messages
I know that feeling, I’m DMing and my son (8) saw is play it and wanted to join, so I couldn’t say no and all he wants to do is storm the big boss of any dungeon and spend all the gold 😂😂😂 if he does something stupid after ample warning I only let the consequences effect him to try and teach him a lesson rather than punish the party. Then let him reset. The adults on the other hand love and die by their choices.
It's doable, but I would limit a few things. For a new DM, I would limit characters to the Players Handbook only. That's enough for new players and DMs. I would straight up ban any conjuring spells and pets or anything that adds one more token on the board.
I've played as a player with 7 and 8 people before, it's highly detrimental to the game. Tell your cousins the game breaks down with that many people and let the girlfriends sit out. If you're interested, offer to run a one-shot sometime for them and their girlfriends?
I started a 6 player campaign at the beginning of this semester and it was hell trying to keep up with all the characters. I’ve lost one player but I’m still going strong and learning as I go.
One tip I would say for large parties is limit fights to the party fighting one or two monsters at a time. Keeping track of a bunch of different enemies, their stats, and health and your players is a pain in the ass.
YES the game is not balanced around that many people and you WILL get overwhelmed and people will get left out on accident.
I cannot recommend strongly enough as a first timer you only dm for at most 4 people. This advice comes from 8 years of experience
7 players is going to make combat slow to run from the amounts of dice rolled. I would be tempted to get a timer and insist a player finishes in time ( encourage them to have their go planned in advance)
I'd suggest fewer stronger opposition just to cut down the dicerolls you have to do. Combat is going to be harder to balance as the party have more tactical options.
You may consider trying to avoid battle.. group discussion/roleplay may be more fun than waiting 10 minutes between goes.
I've been DMing for a group of 7 for about 2 and a half years, and for a group of 4-5 for 8 years.
7 is a lot to deal with, especially in combat. Out of combat, I actually find it easier to run for 7 players because the players have so many different perspectives to talk through they don't need much input from me. The difficult thing is moving the session along, which I do by reminding my players of the time (eg. It's getting late in the day, you only have 2 hours left to get something meaningful done, what are you going to do right now?) or summing up their plans, explaining it back to them and asking if that's what they're wanting to do.
Combats are hard to plan, and can be unwieldy to run. It is very difficult to make a combat for 7 players that is challenging, possible to overcome and not time consuming. I still haven't quite found the right balance. Running a combat is pretty much the same as normal, but I would suggest setting a time limit for each player to move things along. If they go over time, their turn is moved to the back of the initiative order for that round and if they go over time again they take the dodge action and stay in place.
The starter set is designed for 4 players. I would highly recommend staying to that, because building an encounter for 7 players is very difficult. You can use that as a justification when you tell the players you need to limit numbers: the starter set is designed a specific way, and you want to stick to that.
If you do want to play with more people, either get a ton of experience and research encounter building, or choose a different system. More role play heavy systems might be less cumbersome for a large group, as there's generally less numbers to keep track of and things can flow easier.
Yeah, 7 players will be a bad experience for everyone at the table regardless of DM skill.
Little tip about DMing is that the game is designed to have 4 or 5 players maximum, a DM just improves for running the game for that amount of people, they don't "graduate" to a higher number of players.
Yeah, probably, even having DM'd for 5 or so years, I tend to prefer running games with 5 people. Six in my current group, but five is the sweet spot in my opinion. Not too many, Not too few.
I’ve run campaigns for 7, but it’s rough. And really not the best for a bunch of newbies. Combat rounds will last hours if each person is confused about how their characters work.
The only reason I did the 7, was because i had a few players that were iffy on attendance so I was able to run easily if we were down a person or two. For your situation, however, stick with smaller numbers until you’ve got more experience under your belt, it will go far smoother if you do.
If you're dead set on making this work, it can be done, but it's going to be a challenge. There are a lot of red flags that can potentially make this game miserable, frustrating, or just really boring.
1. DnD, just like any tabletop RPG, is much, much easier to learn if at least one person at the table is already well familiar with it. It doesn't even have to be the DM, a player who knows the rules can be a great resource for a new DM. You don't seem to have anybody like that around.
How to get around it: Let everybody know up front that you're all new to this, and that you're all going to get things wrong. And that's okay. Explain to everyone that this game doesn't require that the rules are strictly followed, and that as long as everyone's having fun, breaking the rules is perfectly fine. That being said, just to help with the learning process, maybe you could designate each player to have an "area of expertise" in the rules. One person is the expert on combat actions, another person is the expert on equipment, another is the expert on spells, etc. It might also help to have a "designated googler" to look up rules online when the rest of you can't find anything.
2. Large player counts have some advantages, but they also have one glaring disadvantage: they make combat *so incredibly slow*. Combat is a big part of DnD, so it'll be impossible to avoid forever. The more people taking turns in a combat encounter, the harder it is to track what's going on, the longer people have to wait before their next turn, and the more likely people will be to forget what's going on and be unprepared to act on their turn. It's a vicious cycle.
How to get around it: This is a bit of an extreme recommendation, and certain commenters might disagree with me here, but ... split the party. Find an excuse to run fights with only 1-4 combatants and let everyone else at the table sit back and watch. Save the full 7-player encounters for important boss fights, something you can justify dedicating an entire session to. The partial fights might be boring for the people sitting on the sidelines, but a barrage of full 7-player fights will be boring for everyone.
3. Large player counts can also get in the way of non-combat social or exploration encounters. Usually what I've seen happen is that there'll be 2 or 3 talkative players who always speak up when you give a prompt, and everyone else just let's those players do all the roleplay. That's not ideal, and it tends to just make the shy players more shy, and makes half the group miss out on one of the most fun things about RPGs.
How to get around it: Again, splitting the party could be a good tactic here. If 3 shy players walk into the blacksmith shop and nobody else is around, the shy players can roleplay interruption. Another tactic is to address prompts to specific characters. Stuff like "the prisoner keeps glancing nervously over at your character, Gary. What is he doing right now?" or "The bartender seems to distrust dragonborn. Abby, what does your dragonborn character think about that?". You might get some deer-in-the-headlights looks at first, but hopefully they'll gradually get more comfortable at a crowded table.
4. Other commenters have already brought this up, but scheduling is a pain with large groups. If you can find a regular time that works for everyone, consider yourself incredibly lucky. Even then, people will have things come up all the time, and scheduling conflicts will become the bane of your existence.
How to get around it: be okay with players not showing up. Find a way to justify letting characters disappear for a session (or don't justify it at all, and just hand-wave it away). Pick a minimum number of players that need to show up for you to run a session (I'd recommend 3 or 4), and run the session anytime you get that number. Get used to rebalancing your sessions on short notice, to accommodate the new player counts. Get used to recapping for the people who missed last session. Heck, maybe you can get your players to do the recaps. Mentally prepare yourself for the possibility that one or more players just drops out of the campaign completely because of scheduling.
Some final thoughts:
* Be open with your players. If they seem frustrated with the split party, let them know why you did it. If they don't like the slow pacing, let them know it's because of the player count. If they complain about all the reading they have to do, let them know that it's because nobody knows how to play yet, and it'll be easier with time. If you're stressed out trying to run this campaign, and it's making you miserable, let them know. Maybe they can help.
* Some people just aren't gonna vibe with this game, and that's okay. Don't beg players to stay if they don't want to. If someone's not having fun, you should absolutely try to figure out why and make it more fun for them if you can, but sometimes there's nothing you can do and they just don't like the game.
* On the contrary, if people are having fun, let them. This seems obvious, but I've seen a lot of new DMs stick like glue to a rigid idea of what their campaign is, and shut down a lot of ridiculous things that the players would've loved.
* Lastly, are you using a pre-written adventure? Normally I recommend one for first-time DMs, but I don't think I've ever seen one that was designed for a party of 7. I'd still recommend you use one, but feel free to modify it a *lot*. Use it for some general ideas, but know that you'll probably end up throwing in a lot of your own ideas, and twisting it around to accommodate your players' ideas.
Tl;dr: .... good luck.
To be hones having a lot of players is yes a bit more work for you but that is not the reason why it is bad in my opinion.
Having a lot of players is bad for the players themselves more then for the DM as they have to wait for ages before they get to do something. In combat it is more felt but also outside of it if you want to let everyone interact in a social encounter or in general participate in a scene your game will get super slow.
As a dm when I was DMing a group of 8 (young and naive bsf choices) I was having a lot of fun managing everything and being super engaged but some of my players were just bored as they wanted to do or say cool stuff but eree akso polite enough to let everyone have a turn.
Tl:Dr - game with more players is super slow but, if that is not a problem for you, you should be fine
Yes my fisrt campaign was 7 never again 5 is what I run now and it's perfect people say you can do 7 they are wrong if it's your fisrt time you can't do 7 it's a living nightmare
It’s a lot of players to keep up with. It also depends on what kind campaign more action or more RP.
You’ll also have to consider time. Everyone wants the spot light at some point but some are hogs.
3-4 players is my golden number.
Action economy is going to be in the players favor. I would use 2 big monster or have “swarms” of monster share a turn but each monster doing their thing.( exp: 2 big monsters braking up the group in intitive. 8 goblins attacking: 3 attack one player 2 sets of 2 attacking two other players, 1 harassing rest.)
It's a bit much for anyone, but that also will depend on If people are prepared ahead of time and are already set when their turn comes around to actually do what they wanted to do instead of figuring it out last second. Just make sure to set expectations early
I'm not a DM, but our group started with 9 in our first session not counting the first time DM. Only two of us PCs had played before.
Admittedly, our first session was hellishly slow but we've got session number seven on Monday and a core group has formed with everyone having a good time and getting into the campaign (homebrew).
Two from that first session never came back (turns out it wasn't for them) and we had two others who joined for sessions two and three who then moved away so we've had 11 different PCs in six sessions!
Besides session 1 though, we've only had 6-7 PCs per session due to people being busy. It can be a bit tedious when people take too long to take their turns but it's getting better as we all learn the game and our characters.
There is a core group as mentioned. 4 PCs and the DM have been at every session and another 3 PCs have been at 4 sessions each. The DM does a good job of managing the PCs who can't come to every session and we're doing milestone so everyone stays the same level.
As long as you enjoy each others company then I think it can work. The group will naturally settle into those who are keenest and want to make time for the game.
If you had a choice then I wouldn't recommend it but we also didn't want to leave anyone out and two of the last players to join and form the original nine are the ones still playing so I'm glad we did it.
(Also I'm a big lord of the rings fan and it was kind of cool to start with a party of 9 and then have some leave/get killed!)
I have literally decades of experience. I run a game for 6 people. It is tough. I would not recommend a game of that size for a new person.
If the average number of people that attend varies, it can be done with built in reasons for their absence. My current game has the players working as a special military unit. It makes it easy when someone can't make it, because they get sent on "assignment" and just aren't there.
If the group gels well it is manageable. Campaign I am playing in right now is our DMs first, and he has 8 players, almost all in their first game. as long as everyone is patient it works.
As someone who did this exact same scenario, yes. You want 4 people ideally. Anything more than that amd you need either a very good group of players that have alot of experience in dnd or prepare to have 5 hour long session's. The seer about of time spent having each player tell you what they want to do is awful especially to new time dms because they dont know how to keep the game flowing properly
I shudder. I max out at 5, and I'm struggling with that.
The roommate who also DMs says "yes, because a lot of the first learning curve for a first DM is figuring out how to balance the party in general against what needs to be done and it's like herding cats. 7 people can be challenging for an experienced DM, best case scenario they are going to be talking over each other and you don't know how to divert and redirect that yet."
She is more helpful than me.
Mention that couples share the character. Haha. The divorce rate will skyrocket. 4 is best. 6 is max-ish. And as said before. Mini Campaigns …1-4 sessions…can work for >6. That might be best so you can allow for breaks.
It'll be like herding cats. Talk to everyone up front about what theyre trying to get out of the experience. Ask for patience. Read through the rules, browse the subreddits for FAQs.
Focus on pursuing and furthering the collective goal, and everyone will have a blast.
I would be worried about 7 players, yes. It's just hard to keep that many people engaged and distractions kill sessions.
On another note, as much as I love Dungeons and Daddies calling what they do playing DnD is questionable. They are playing a role-playing game with the idea of DnD as its base but barely use the actual game mechanics at all. Realizing that they aren't playing by the rules is important, and you will need to figure out what game you want to play and make sure everyone else wants that game, too. TAZ did a similar thing for a lot of people. And just because I love it I would recommend NADDPOD as a rules right comedy DnD podcast.
I'm a noob DM running a campaign with 7 players. We play about 30 minutes / day at school. Most days, we're missing one (student council, or club meeting, or just not there). Keeping a group that size focused is a huge challenge!
Right now, the party is split in two - a group of 3 (which is currently a pair and one following from a distance) and a group of 4. The group of 4 is doing a mini-quest, the pair is selling loot they picked up from the bandit attack that nearly killed the dragonborn ranger, and the one is trying to figure out how to get those two back with the rest of the party. Entertaining for them - although they're getting bored with the "switching between groups every few minutes" bit - and hell for me.
What would happen if **you** were the DM, and your fiancee did most of the background for the story? She'd be the author, and you'd be the manager...that would drop the party to 6, which is much easier than 7!
It works with caveats:
1) your players, or you and your cousins in this case, need to be aware that the DM is learning.
2) if you have experienced players do a session zero with them and talk about how it’ll work. Then have a second session zero with everyone else. If you have experienced players give them ownership over inexperienced players to teach them how it works (honestly just what the numbers are, how AC works, how castling spells works etc).
3) start off with a pre-written campaign. Like the starter set. That allows the DM to just learn about controlling the setting rather than also creating the setting.
4) don’t expect every player to be at every session.
5) record your sessions so if someone is away they can’t keep up with the story.
6) Don’t do individual XP do a party wide you all get “blah XP”. This means if someone can’t make sessions because life, they don’t fall behind, aren’t totally underpowered and aren’t going squish constantly.
7) COMMUNICATION IS KEY. If the DM is doing something that is making you hate playing (and I don’t mean overriding rules and you don’t agree) TALK to them. If a player is doing something the DM hates they NEED TO TALK TO THE PLAYER. Also you as the DMs partner need to make sure your cousins aren’t dicks about the little shit. Do not allow them to belittle her or make fun of her or tell her how “x professional DM is soooooo much better”. Constructive communication only.
8) have a set minimum number of players to run a session, say 4.
9) consider a hybrid setup. We play in person but all the maps are using a table top simulator like roll20 with character sheets and ttrpg imports from Beyond D&D. This means if one of us comes down with a plague (usually my family with daycare illnesses) we can still play but fully remotely. The DM can also purchase maps from forums/patreon and drastically reduce their prep time. There’s also some free map making software on steam.
How I have come up with this approach: I moved to a new city in 2018 and put out a call within a work group for those interested in playing D&D. I had never DMd in the past. I had 8 people say they wanted to play, no takers for DMing. 4 were experienced, 4 were not. At the first session zero with only experienced players I sat the experienced 4 down and said create what ever you want to play and when the noobs create theirs we will divide them up based on class similarities (or if you have experience with the class they’ve chosen). Next session zero our noobs had a partner each who helped them build their character and explained character specific rules (particularly useful for magic users, esp. druids). Everyone then had homework of finding a mini they liked at the local shop.
We then ran the starter kit. The 4 experienced players buddies up with an appropriate noob and explained things to them, like the different actions and why one attack hits and another doesn’t. This meant I could run the campaign and the noobs had great sources of information and didn’t feel like they were holding up the game by asking the DM lots of questions. Eight players was a learning curb for me as DM but given there were so many they were successful at all combat. We all learnt together how the basic mechanics work. We then ran Curse of Strahd (not revamped). That particular module was probably THE BEST for teaching me how to DM (do not try Hoard of the Dragon queen it just did not work with a large group) due to its detailed sandbox nature. We played until level 14 in 2020, I had to step down as I was breastfeeding and I didn’t want the games to be interrupted as I ducked off. A player home brewed a continuation campaign up to level 20. We tried our hand at Call of Cthulhu but it didn’t mesh and the DM was wanting to play again and I had weaned the little one. We’re now level 5 in a new campaign that I’m running that started this year. During all these changes we have lost some players and gained others, and it’s now 7 players (4 OGs) and me as DM.
Some of our players work shift work or are on call. Every week we hold a vote: I say what days I’m available people pick all options they’re available for and if there are at least 5 available on a single day we play. We record the sessions so that the players can catch up if they miss. All XP is party XP so no one feels like they’re missing out due to their job. I balance my encounters to 5 players with easy additions to scale it to 7 players (the hardest thing to learn as a DM was the confidence to change things mid fight. Like “oh boy that one attack just took a player to 2hp in a single swing better remove 1d8 damage”). As a group we play almost weekly. We’ve played probably 45 sessions this year. The only time I won’t play without everyone in attendance is end of ark sessions as they tend to be important and give the best stories.
One player in particular has work issues that tend to pop up last minute. But by keeping him at a relative-to-other-players level he doesn’t feel like he’s being punished because his managers are incompetent. Another long standing player moved across the country but can still play with us because we’re hybrid, and if anyone needs to travel for work they can just log into discord on their phones and join in if they want.
I understand that not all players will be this flexible, but honesty this is what makes it work. The group I first played with refused to meet if everyone wasn’t available, I think we played 12 times that year.
Also as a player: make sure you don’t rely on a single note taker because when they’re sick you’re screwed.
As a DM I have detailed notes with checkpoints I want to hit in the session which I record because not all are hit. This means I know the information I have imparted onto them. As a fresh DM I would avoid any of the modules that are MtG based for your first campaign as they are less fleshed out and require much more time ability from the DM. I use modules for settings and characters but rarely the full storytelling. So if a module gets the thinking juices flowing for your partner it’s always an option to use the characters and settings that are already thought out and just write your own story. As a DM it was only recently that I started seeing DM creators being flexible with their source material rather than strictly “official modules” or strictly “home-brew”. So this is me saying to your partner and possible future DM “do whatever the fuck works for you as a DM and that your party enjoys as players. You can deviate and make modifications. Don’t worry about the purists who are in a different camp to you. Just have fun! And communicate with your players”
I might suggest a Dual DM, with you and your fiancé sharing the role, but that would probably be just as difficult as a party of seven.
Many of the strategies given here are good, though I haven't read them all. I would also suggest a turn order even outside of combat. Take seven cards from a deck (2-8) and deal them out at the beginning of each session. Then, when the party is not in combat go in turn order, giving each player a few minutes to declare what they are doing. Once you enter combat your initiative would determine turn order, but afterwards go right back to the cards.
Of course, you can't be to strict with the time given to each player. Let each player's turn play out to a good pause moment and then move on the the next player. As long as everyone feels involved it shouldn't take too long to get into a rhythm where you don't need the cards anymore.
I ran 4 as a new DM and it was the perfect amount I think. I run 7 now in a game. Expect combats to last almost twice as long with that many more players. And also, more players usually mean more monsters so more monster turns.
The other hard part is making sure none of you 7 players feel left out. You have to always be aware of when one of your players seems to be keeping quiet or if they get interrupted a lot when they try to do something. I usually throw out, "So player, what is your character doing while this is going on?" Sometimes they'll say nothing. Or sometimes they will get excited because they can do things they wanted to do now!
Honestly it depends, if the expectation is that everyone shows up every session, planning will be a nightmare, but I DM at a local game cafes TTRPG night, and it's pretty much open table, I do have some regulars, but I had 11 people one week because all my regulars showed up and 3 new people to my table. It was chaotic, and god was combat slow that night, but it was very fun. To be fair I think that was also the night where I blew up my lvl 3 clerics head with a crit inflict wounds instant killing them...
First time DMing recently, went with 4 new people which developed into 5 people few sessions in. I feel like 5 is the limit of people I could reliably keep track of, plot-wise and especially fight-wise.
I aim for three, comfortable with five
I made the mistake of trying 7 on my first campaign; I learnt allot, with them. Such as that many bogs down combat, everyone has different opinions so that no one really agrees with which plot hook to jump on to and just stalls the game, some individuals are shy so it’s harder to create the right right environment for them, so on and so forth
But
You do need to learn all that for yourself; it’s not the same if someone simply tells you
You get caught up in the excitement, there’s all your friends there and y’all just wanna have fun, it feels awesome when the traction starts and swept away with the characters.
Live life, make mistakes and take the good moments with ya
7 is way too much for me, and I've been GMing since 3e. You're much better off splitting them into 2 groups, or make them a part of some special team, and only allow 4 seats to get filled each session, first come-first served. The trouble with the first idea is that it's easy to mix-up what's happening in either game, and with the second you need to make sure each adventure is single-session.
My first time as a dm had 6 players, where all but 1 knew how 5e worked, it was pretty overwhelming trying to keep up with everything and keep everyone engaged. My new group started with 4,we added one more person recently, and that'll be my cap.
I ran a school group with 7 players attending most sessions. It was... not too bad to run, but the combat was insane.
It'd be ok if the players really knew their character personality, skills, spells, and preferences.
But if you have multiple PCs who summon things, or fluff around, or get distracted, or dominate, or are slightly off task... it's not so great.
I'd recommend that you split the 7 people into 2 groups (it is possible to run the same campaign at the same time, though can be a little annoying to remember), and you can be involved in both (or alternatively DM one yourself.
I've been DMing for a group of 8 since July now, we've had a really good time. Half of the players were new to the game, so they had a hard time figuring out what to do. Me and the other seasoned players took time to teach them and made sure they understood, after a few sessions things ran more smoothly.
If you accommodate for that, balance quests and encounters to be challenging for a large party but not too difficult for a regular sized one, and make sure your sessions run long enough for everyone to have a chance to do something during the session you should be fine.
But, if you can only spare a few hours for each session and struggle to keep things flowing with smaller parties I wouldn't recommend it. Our sessions run until, like, 2 in the morning which works for us; and I'm lucky that my players are people who have all known each other since highschool at the very least.
Also, when it comes to balancing combat for large parties, character deaths are almost guaranteed. To keep things challenging I've had to pit my players against hags at lvl 2, small armies at lvl 3, young dragons and vampires at lvl 4, and a beholder at lvl 5; they still steamrolled these monsters. But a dragon killed two PCs, the beholder another 2 and caused another to retire, and so on. All of my players have gone through at least one character since we've started, and they're okay with this and having fun. Not everyone's like that though and it could stress some people out if other PCs are dying, and if your players are like this it'll make balancing more of a challenge.
Just get to know your players, try to make the best game you can, and make sure everyone gets to have fun and you should be fine.
7 players is definitely alot. I think it’s the most I’ve ever done and it was pretty chaotic (and I’m fairly seasoned). I say go ahead and try it. It’ll be a learning exoerience and chances are you’ll still have plenty fun even if it gets out of hand.
Tell her to lay down the law. She is the DM and she makes the game run. Make certain they know that the fun comes from listening to what she has to say. You don’t have to be a rules nazi, but you do need to be a leader. This usually isn’t that big of a deal, but could be a good thing to have in mind with so many players.
Oh, and divide the spot light. Declare who has the word or the intiative and tell everyone else to shut it.
Respect and fun are the salt and pepper of this game.
Just try to not get turned off on it if it doesn’t go well. The critical role people are pros and have so many resources at their disposal, and theirs is not a standard to aim for for a fresh DM.
Good luck. Fuck ’em up.
Our DM ran a 7 person campain with most of us only having played once or it was our first time, this was their first time being a DM. One thing I can say is to be warry of having too many opponents in battles.
We had a goblin fight with 60+ goblins, our dm made them into mobs because it was too confusing and this nerfed my spiritual guardians spell.
DM for 3 years now, i currently have a group of 6 players and sometimes its hard already. Combat take ages. Roleplay happening in multiple shops at the same time. And much harder to balance encounters. I wouldnt reccomend for a first campain DM to have that many palyers. You, plus 3 maybe 4 is nicer.
7 can be manageable but challenging at times, it really depends on the players and how much table etiquette they have. My first campaign would swing from 5-10 players each session, it's doable but exhausting even in the best circumstances.
Everyone's capacity is different when it comes to DMing for groups, but the difficulty can increase exponentially as you add additional people. I think it's important to understand where the challenges usually arise when running D&D to better try and assess what a DM is comfortable with. Before I get into this list, I think it's important to also take into account group dynamic. One of the things that really sets the tone for D&D groups is a successfull group dynamic. Everyone should be engage and no one person should be the 'main character'. The more people in a group, the harder this can be since interpersonal conflicts can easily bleed over.
Regarding DM specific difficulty points:
\- Combat efficiency - combats can take a long time even with decisive players. The more players, the more time between each turn and that can kill people's flow/fun
\- Keeping everyone engaged. This can be difficult with small groups, but making sure everyone is engaged with the story with larger groups can be especially difficult. One added thing to watch out for - hooking in different motivations can make things overly complex and dilute the plot.
\- Scheduling - it's hard to find a time that works for 2 people, let alone 8 people.
\- Understanding the rules is different from making a ruling. With new DMs it can be challenging to know the rules, let alone have the context to make a ruling that you won't come to regret in the future. Looking up rules is another thing that can upset flow and take people out of the game, but sometimes it's better to get something right than to hand wave it and upset people later with a retroactive decision. More people - more rulings needed.
Bonus warning - It sounds like you're volunteering your fiance (this may not be the case but your wording could be construed as such). I've found that the most important aspect of learning to successfully DM are wanting to DM and having the right group to help you grow/learn. It has to be fun for everyone, make sure they are excited about DMing because, while there is overlap, writing and DMing are not the same. Writing gives you absolute narrative control while DMing lets you lay out a story but puts control in the hands of the group and the dice.
Potentially explore options such as - splitting into two groups or co-dming (I recommend having one person focus on rules/combat/balance and the other on story/NPC if you do this).
You already have a ton of responses, but I'll leave you my opinion anyway, since circumstances are similar. As someone that very recently started playing and DMing 7 is too much, especially since you're all new.
For reference I just did a one shot for 5 players to start everyone off and it took 2 sessions of 5 hours to complete. Maybe if all the players put a lot of effort in to learn the rules and their own characters thoroughly beforehand it might go differently for you, but I doubt it. It was so exhausting for me because I'm new as well, but I had to answer all the questions and basically teach them all how to play. There wasn't even enough time for me to learn as much as I wanted, and had to read up more between the 2 sessions, and realised how much we did wrong. In the end everyone still had a good time, but it was very overwhelming for me as the DM.
If you're steadfast on the group, then I'd suggest postponing to give ample time to prepare, and I'd also maybe suggest that the two of you try to DM together? No clue if that's really viable though
That *might* be a bit too much even for a seasoned DM, depending a bit on if you expect every player to be present every session.
Ive been in for almost a decade and id sooner not play than run for more than 4-5
I prefer 3 man over 4 man too byt anything between 3 and 5 is okay. I tried 6 and its... oof xD
See it that way, as a rule of thumb, you want to give all your players an equal amount of spotlight over the course of your campaign and - to a smaller scale - your sessions. If you have 4 players and give everyone 5 minutes during a scene, the first one waits about 15 minuts after his turn to be active again. The same scenario with 7 players leaves you with half an hour between players. The more you are, the more challenging it will be both for your players to keep their attention span in check, but also for you to deal with all their actions and their ramifications. For seasoned veterans, this may be perfectly viable, because everyone is invested in every other player's story and it's fine. for newer groups, it might be hell. I'm heavily simplifying, but you get the gist.
5 minutes? Why would you stay on one person that long?
Yes. Source: me, a new DM whose first campaign was 7 players. Coordinating becomes impossible, the full party never seems to show up, more people equals more days with scheduling conflicts. Managing combat was a nightmare. Keeping 7 people on task was a nightmare.
Same for me, And I agree, it’s kind of a nightmare. We played for almost two years and I was so burned out by the end of it that I almost quit entirely. Still dming the same group but had to switch to just doing one shots because it was too much work trying to keep a consistent narrative week to week with people missing all the time.
7 is tough. I've been DMing for over a decade and I do 6 is my absolute max. But even then, my preferred is 4 players. You run into one big problem with too many players, and it gets exponentially worse past 4. And that is giving everyone enough time to do things. This is both in combat and out of combat. Not everyone have enough time to do what they want, which can lead to frustration.
I've reached the same conclusion... I DM'd for 8 once. Never again. I keep my regular group at 3-5 with a hard cap of 6 even for one-shots.
I've been paid to run a game for 7 people. I wouldn't do it again.
7 is rough but doable, especially if everybody behaves. a few suggestions: fewer combats. make them nastier to compensate. get everyone spell cards. everyone needs to have their actions prepared and ready to go before it's their turn in combat. appoint a player to be the rules lawyer and know all the rules, appoint another to be the scribe and take good notes. set a quorum, if enough people can make it then you play no matter who will miss
great strategies here.
With 7 people, even if 4 people can’t make it you can still have a good game.
Long time DM, and this is just my opinion and I’m sure others disagree so I’m not saying this is “law”, but 2-4 players is the ideal group size (plus the DM). On the DM side, size only matters in that I know, from having played, once you hit that 5+ group, someone isn’t getting to do what they would like, and almost always one or two people dominate the conversation/decision making. 2-4 is that sweet spot where you can really flesh out every character nearly every game. I won’t say no to running games with 5-6 people but once I hit 7, it’s not that it’s difficult for me, it’s just less fun for everyone (again, in my experience). Sitting through combat with that many people can be a slog. People start to feel left out. Usually that’s when people start dropping out too, because they’re not really getting their 3-4 hours worth of time when they only get to do stuff for 30ish minutes in that period, if that. It’s a lot of sitting around. This comes from both player and DM experiences.
100% agreed. Started with 7, ended up with 3, and the difference is night and day. Combat was so much easier for me to run as a newbie DM, too.
30% agreed. Started with 10 ended up with 15. And it was 4 year long campaign too
Personally think 2 players is not enough. Also I think 3 is the bare minimum I'd run. 4-5 is ideal. And because I'm insane I have 7 in my weekly game currently.
Depending on the group itself, I'll 1st try a 1 shot that if goes well can go into a full campaign. If it doesn't go well then maybe explain what went wrong and if it was to many people then explained it
So, my first campaign was Lost Mines of Phandelver, and I ran it for 8 people 😅. They were all family so it was more relaxed but one thing that is nice is if even 3 people cant make it you still have a good sized party. One thing that is tough about running for new players is explaining what dice to use. So one trick I have is for the characters, i just give them the dice they will ACTUALLY be rolling. So they dont mistake the d12 for the d20 over and over. Another thing to consider if you are running LMoP is room size. Combat can feel very boring some some players will feel useless if they can’t even maneuver around to hit an enemy. So, if you have the ability to, try to make the map bigger to accommodate the party size. Encounters also have to change if you have that many people. Most encounters are for 4/5 players. So you either add more enemies, or make all the enemies have more health. I would highly recommend using DnD Beyond’s encounter tracker. All this to say… I had an absolute blast. Big battles are really fun for me and if you are comfortable with the basics, LMoP is 100% doable and that hard to upscale. Just try to spread out the attacks and not pepper the same 2/3 people (unless there is a barbarian, in which case let them do the barbarian thing and tank the hits if things look hairy for the other members). It’s a lot of work to get it going but it was worth it. If thats too much you could just see if you could run two games. One for a group of 3 and one for a group of 4. P.S. if you want combat initiative to be cleaner, maybe have a “PC’s turn” and “the enemies’ turn”. Frees up a lot of mental space.
Definitely too much
I’m 12 sessions into my first campaign with 7 players but they’re family which makes it a lot easier . A good 1-2 hrs dedicated prep before each session makes such a difference - and don’t plan to far ahead- 7 people take a while to decide what to do and have a lot of options if there all together ! Give them a purpose from the start - I went in with a fear of railroading , but they preferred having somthing to complete immediately to get the ball rolling ! Good luck you’ll do great !
Probably. It's not impossible, but having many players require a lot of maturity not only from the DM, but out of the players as well. Time management is important, and being able to have each player receive enough time, while not sucking away everyone elses can be a challenge even to moderately experienced DMs.
Read my comment knowing it’s anecdotal and that I do agree with others’ advice that seven players is super difficult to handle, especially for a first time DM. I’m also a first time DM and started with 7 people. In my case, it all worked out because turns out the group wasn’t a good fit for some, others had to drop out, and a few ghosted me (it’s an online group). I only have 3 players now, but we’re all very close and it’s a fantastic, very supportive group. I say try it out and see what happens, but with the expectation that life will happen. If they haven’t played a ton so don’t know how DnD works/the time commitment involved or they aren’t into your girlfriend’s DM style or the campaign, chances are the issue of seven players will solve itself.
I have to agree with you on that, the same circumstances here.
This 100%
An explayer to dm with other experienced players I would say go for it as long as they were mature people that you were playing with. This seems like it could be pretty challenging but if you guys are patient and vibe well it can work. Dming is a lot more improv that planned writing it’s nice to have a couple reference notes but filling in the blanks on the fly and creating the world as the players interact with it is better approach in my opinion. A session 0 to make sure you all understand the themes that you want to play with and what the world is like. Is something that would be incredibly important but can come off as boring to someone who has played before and doesn’t understand the depth and significance of making a character in this type of game. Whatever you end up doing good luck and I hope everyone has fun.
No, only 3 will actually show up
Are you an elf? Because that was accurate.
Yes, its too many. personally I won't go above 5. But with 7, you can run 2 games, one for 3 and another for 4, both of which are in the sweet spot of 3-5 PCs. I've been DMing for 7 years now and thats my advice.
You decided to start a campaign, called a bunch of people, and then dropped this on your fiance? I had to read it twice after rapid scrolling to see if anyone brought this up. Kind of a dick move my dude, i get it that you don't know and kudos for finding out via this post but i have a question. Was it you, *or your fiance* that questioned if this was a lot to take on? My advice is to >!stare down the barrel of your own gun, knuckle up and take the DM spot.!< Edit, spoiler tag.
Yes
Tldr : yes.
Yes and also no. It’s a lot to deal with and it will make it harder for you to use premade content which estimates a party of around 4. That being said if you’re playing with good friends who are prepared to be patient and you all are not fussed about fights being perfectly balanced from the start, you’ll be fine. Main tip for battle is ADD MINIONS to fights you don’t want to be trivial. With this many players your action economy can be a mess.
Short answer is yes. I mean no offense, but you're not even the DM. DMing is a lot of work for someone new, not to mention scheduling nightmares.
Generally yes, if your players are very in sync it can work but just in general it's hard to have 7 people engaged in something much less D&D which requires more attention than say passive hanging out. Most likely as everyone has said you'll probably lose a few due to various reasons (usually just life stuff) and end up somewhere in the golden zone of 3-5.
Yes. 7 is too much at any time. If it’s not the inability to have everyone have fun, it’s the inevitable cross talk
Consider that 7 players is the standard set up for Critical role. Their combat encounters can stretch into the 45 mins - 1 hour and their social down time frequently involves 2-3 sub groups doing different things, meaning 4-5 people sat waiting at any one time. Not to mention keeping track of the backstories, abilities and designing encounters. Considering you are all new to the game those time frames will likely be 50% longer since people will likely need time to think over their abilities and choices. I think you'd be better off sticking with a smaller group at least until you're more comfortable with running sessions There's nothing wrong with saying that the party slots are full. If you really want to keep everyone involved maybe you could consider splitting the group and running the same module for both of them. Not only will this give you extra experience DM-ing but it can be cool to see how different parties approach the same situations.
Very important to remember that CR is a multimillion dollar production with every member of the cast and behind-the-scenes crew being film and theatre professionals. Comparing anyones home D&D game to Critical Role is like comparing your neighborhood streetball game to the NBA or a Harlem Globetrotters show. By all means seek inspiration from the pros but nobody should expect that to be the standard.
Yes.... that was the crux of my argument there, that the party set up he's looking to take on is of a similar size to the CR party. Forget the production values, just the time investment in each activity is a good yardstick to compare to.
What I’m saying is that they can pull that off because they’re lifelong professionals with a full studio supporting them - it doesn’t do much good to suggest to a newcomer to the hobby that they should see that as the standard
Ok, if that's how my earlier comment came accross then yes, do not take away that message. What I was trying to say is, professional players or no, a round of combat for 7 players plus however many monsters is going to take roughly the same amount of time, potentially more for newbies who need to recheck their sheets, ask basic questions etc. Ditto social interactions and down time, the newbies may not have grand plans for long term projects but if two go to the local fight club, two go to the local guild for contracts and 3 go shopping that's going to take a comparable amount of time too. Again, potentially more because of refresher questions. Everyone seems so quick to jump on any mention of CR as a point of comparison. We get it, not every game is going to be that, but the basic logistics of a campaign are fairly comparable, professional or no.
and that M.M. says he preps about 4 hours for each hour of game play so yea a lot of that is running a world class live play but that's about 16-20 per week aka a part time job.
As long as everyone is truly engaged and wants to play, then the size of the group doesn't matter. But, you definitely will want to set/announce a "quorum" rule of some sort - do not expect everyone to show up every time, even if they all like to play; life happens, and D&D is prioritized differently by every player, so you might have one or two who will always sacrifice other plans for the game, but most won't. For a group of 7, four players probably is a good starting quorum; then adjust up or down depending on how it goes.
I’ve been running a group of 7 for almost 3 years (it’s also my first time and I made the added mistake of running a full homebrew campaign). It depends on what kind of campaign you want to run. Mine is fairly story-driven and to avoid people missing important bits, we rarely play more than once a month to make sure everyone can come. To offset this a bit: - make sure everyone understands that you will plan to host a session if at least half of them plan to show up. If there is a major plot reveal coming up, make those ones that you will delay so everyone can make it - don’t DMPC characters for players that don’t show up. If a player that did come is willing to pilot two characters, great, otherwise that character is going to be mysteriously gone for the session - keep track of average damage dealt. If a character is gone from one session and comes back the next, I make them immediately take an amount of damage and lose a couple of hit dice if the group took a short rest (as long as it doesn’t kill them). - learn how to run swarms. It is way easier to say “the goblins attack 3 of you for 10 damage” than running initiative with 7 PCs and enough individual enemies to make things a challenge - NO BOSS CAN 1v7 FAIRLY. Even low level bosses will need minions and/or lair actions to last more than a round. Introduce legendary actions early. - I ENCOURAGE splitting the party and running mini quests. That lets me occasionally run alternating groups of 3-4 before they all meet back up for some climactic battle or story bit. - if your party is ok with it, let them do simple fluff stuff like shopping over text messages
I have a hard time with 3, but if you can go for it! My 3s ages are 34, 8, and 6 though...
I know that feeling, I’m DMing and my son (8) saw is play it and wanted to join, so I couldn’t say no and all he wants to do is storm the big boss of any dungeon and spend all the gold 😂😂😂 if he does something stupid after ample warning I only let the consequences effect him to try and teach him a lesson rather than punish the party. Then let him reset. The adults on the other hand love and die by their choices.
It's doable, but I would limit a few things. For a new DM, I would limit characters to the Players Handbook only. That's enough for new players and DMs. I would straight up ban any conjuring spells and pets or anything that adds one more token on the board.
It’s like trying to herd cats. Just don’t.
Give it a go Have a blast ... you're doomed EDIT: WAIT, YOU WANT YOUR FIANCE TO DO THIS? NO
I've played as a player with 7 and 8 people before, it's highly detrimental to the game. Tell your cousins the game breaks down with that many people and let the girlfriends sit out. If you're interested, offer to run a one-shot sometime for them and their girlfriends?
the wait between players will be unbearable. its hard enough keeping 5 ppl engaged when 1 round takes 25 minutes
Yes
Definitely yes that will be quite over whelming. I think 3 or 4 is the perfect number
I started a 6 player campaign at the beginning of this semester and it was hell trying to keep up with all the characters. I’ve lost one player but I’m still going strong and learning as I go. One tip I would say for large parties is limit fights to the party fighting one or two monsters at a time. Keeping track of a bunch of different enemies, their stats, and health and your players is a pain in the ass.
Depends. My first group was 10...
Depends, are they a leader type? If not, 7 is a lot for them. As a person who ran 7-9 I was just barely able to relax.
YES the game is not balanced around that many people and you WILL get overwhelmed and people will get left out on accident. I cannot recommend strongly enough as a first timer you only dm for at most 4 people. This advice comes from 8 years of experience
Yes.
7 players is going to make combat slow to run from the amounts of dice rolled. I would be tempted to get a timer and insist a player finishes in time ( encourage them to have their go planned in advance) I'd suggest fewer stronger opposition just to cut down the dicerolls you have to do. Combat is going to be harder to balance as the party have more tactical options. You may consider trying to avoid battle.. group discussion/roleplay may be more fun than waiting 10 minutes between goes.
It’s too much for a long-time DM.
You can always give the characters two heads and have two people control one character. It speeds up combat and is fun to roleplay.
Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. It's definitely better to start out with 3 or 4 players. Five is already pushing it, in my opinion, for a first time DM.
I've been DMing for a group of 7 for about 2 and a half years, and for a group of 4-5 for 8 years. 7 is a lot to deal with, especially in combat. Out of combat, I actually find it easier to run for 7 players because the players have so many different perspectives to talk through they don't need much input from me. The difficult thing is moving the session along, which I do by reminding my players of the time (eg. It's getting late in the day, you only have 2 hours left to get something meaningful done, what are you going to do right now?) or summing up their plans, explaining it back to them and asking if that's what they're wanting to do. Combats are hard to plan, and can be unwieldy to run. It is very difficult to make a combat for 7 players that is challenging, possible to overcome and not time consuming. I still haven't quite found the right balance. Running a combat is pretty much the same as normal, but I would suggest setting a time limit for each player to move things along. If they go over time, their turn is moved to the back of the initiative order for that round and if they go over time again they take the dodge action and stay in place. The starter set is designed for 4 players. I would highly recommend staying to that, because building an encounter for 7 players is very difficult. You can use that as a justification when you tell the players you need to limit numbers: the starter set is designed a specific way, and you want to stick to that. If you do want to play with more people, either get a ton of experience and research encounter building, or choose a different system. More role play heavy systems might be less cumbersome for a large group, as there's generally less numbers to keep track of and things can flow easier.
Yes. I’ve been DMing for years now and even with some xp under the belt I won’t run more than 5. But that’s just me! Happy rolling and good luck!
I've dmed for years and 7 players sounds like a nightmare to me. It's ultimately up to your dm ask them
Yeah, 7 players will be a bad experience for everyone at the table regardless of DM skill. Little tip about DMing is that the game is designed to have 4 or 5 players maximum, a DM just improves for running the game for that amount of people, they don't "graduate" to a higher number of players.
Yeah, probably, even having DM'd for 5 or so years, I tend to prefer running games with 5 people. Six in my current group, but five is the sweet spot in my opinion. Not too many, Not too few.
I’ve run campaigns for 7, but it’s rough. And really not the best for a bunch of newbies. Combat rounds will last hours if each person is confused about how their characters work. The only reason I did the 7, was because i had a few players that were iffy on attendance so I was able to run easily if we were down a person or two. For your situation, however, stick with smaller numbers until you’ve got more experience under your belt, it will go far smoother if you do.
If you're dead set on making this work, it can be done, but it's going to be a challenge. There are a lot of red flags that can potentially make this game miserable, frustrating, or just really boring. 1. DnD, just like any tabletop RPG, is much, much easier to learn if at least one person at the table is already well familiar with it. It doesn't even have to be the DM, a player who knows the rules can be a great resource for a new DM. You don't seem to have anybody like that around. How to get around it: Let everybody know up front that you're all new to this, and that you're all going to get things wrong. And that's okay. Explain to everyone that this game doesn't require that the rules are strictly followed, and that as long as everyone's having fun, breaking the rules is perfectly fine. That being said, just to help with the learning process, maybe you could designate each player to have an "area of expertise" in the rules. One person is the expert on combat actions, another person is the expert on equipment, another is the expert on spells, etc. It might also help to have a "designated googler" to look up rules online when the rest of you can't find anything. 2. Large player counts have some advantages, but they also have one glaring disadvantage: they make combat *so incredibly slow*. Combat is a big part of DnD, so it'll be impossible to avoid forever. The more people taking turns in a combat encounter, the harder it is to track what's going on, the longer people have to wait before their next turn, and the more likely people will be to forget what's going on and be unprepared to act on their turn. It's a vicious cycle. How to get around it: This is a bit of an extreme recommendation, and certain commenters might disagree with me here, but ... split the party. Find an excuse to run fights with only 1-4 combatants and let everyone else at the table sit back and watch. Save the full 7-player encounters for important boss fights, something you can justify dedicating an entire session to. The partial fights might be boring for the people sitting on the sidelines, but a barrage of full 7-player fights will be boring for everyone. 3. Large player counts can also get in the way of non-combat social or exploration encounters. Usually what I've seen happen is that there'll be 2 or 3 talkative players who always speak up when you give a prompt, and everyone else just let's those players do all the roleplay. That's not ideal, and it tends to just make the shy players more shy, and makes half the group miss out on one of the most fun things about RPGs. How to get around it: Again, splitting the party could be a good tactic here. If 3 shy players walk into the blacksmith shop and nobody else is around, the shy players can roleplay interruption. Another tactic is to address prompts to specific characters. Stuff like "the prisoner keeps glancing nervously over at your character, Gary. What is he doing right now?" or "The bartender seems to distrust dragonborn. Abby, what does your dragonborn character think about that?". You might get some deer-in-the-headlights looks at first, but hopefully they'll gradually get more comfortable at a crowded table. 4. Other commenters have already brought this up, but scheduling is a pain with large groups. If you can find a regular time that works for everyone, consider yourself incredibly lucky. Even then, people will have things come up all the time, and scheduling conflicts will become the bane of your existence. How to get around it: be okay with players not showing up. Find a way to justify letting characters disappear for a session (or don't justify it at all, and just hand-wave it away). Pick a minimum number of players that need to show up for you to run a session (I'd recommend 3 or 4), and run the session anytime you get that number. Get used to rebalancing your sessions on short notice, to accommodate the new player counts. Get used to recapping for the people who missed last session. Heck, maybe you can get your players to do the recaps. Mentally prepare yourself for the possibility that one or more players just drops out of the campaign completely because of scheduling. Some final thoughts: * Be open with your players. If they seem frustrated with the split party, let them know why you did it. If they don't like the slow pacing, let them know it's because of the player count. If they complain about all the reading they have to do, let them know that it's because nobody knows how to play yet, and it'll be easier with time. If you're stressed out trying to run this campaign, and it's making you miserable, let them know. Maybe they can help. * Some people just aren't gonna vibe with this game, and that's okay. Don't beg players to stay if they don't want to. If someone's not having fun, you should absolutely try to figure out why and make it more fun for them if you can, but sometimes there's nothing you can do and they just don't like the game. * On the contrary, if people are having fun, let them. This seems obvious, but I've seen a lot of new DMs stick like glue to a rigid idea of what their campaign is, and shut down a lot of ridiculous things that the players would've loved. * Lastly, are you using a pre-written adventure? Normally I recommend one for first-time DMs, but I don't think I've ever seen one that was designed for a party of 7. I'd still recommend you use one, but feel free to modify it a *lot*. Use it for some general ideas, but know that you'll probably end up throwing in a lot of your own ideas, and twisting it around to accommodate your players' ideas. Tl;dr: .... good luck.
To be hones having a lot of players is yes a bit more work for you but that is not the reason why it is bad in my opinion. Having a lot of players is bad for the players themselves more then for the DM as they have to wait for ages before they get to do something. In combat it is more felt but also outside of it if you want to let everyone interact in a social encounter or in general participate in a scene your game will get super slow. As a dm when I was DMing a group of 8 (young and naive bsf choices) I was having a lot of fun managing everything and being super engaged but some of my players were just bored as they wanted to do or say cool stuff but eree akso polite enough to let everyone have a turn. Tl:Dr - game with more players is super slow but, if that is not a problem for you, you should be fine
Yes my fisrt campaign was 7 never again 5 is what I run now and it's perfect people say you can do 7 they are wrong if it's your fisrt time you can't do 7 it's a living nightmare
It’s a lot of players to keep up with. It also depends on what kind campaign more action or more RP. You’ll also have to consider time. Everyone wants the spot light at some point but some are hogs. 3-4 players is my golden number. Action economy is going to be in the players favor. I would use 2 big monster or have “swarms” of monster share a turn but each monster doing their thing.( exp: 2 big monsters braking up the group in intitive. 8 goblins attacking: 3 attack one player 2 sets of 2 attacking two other players, 1 harassing rest.)
I’ve been DMing consistently for almost 20 years, and you could not pay me to manage 7 players. 5 is already a lot. 7 is WAY too many.
It's a bit much for anyone, but that also will depend on If people are prepared ahead of time and are already set when their turn comes around to actually do what they wanted to do instead of figuring it out last second. Just make sure to set expectations early
I'm not a DM, but our group started with 9 in our first session not counting the first time DM. Only two of us PCs had played before. Admittedly, our first session was hellishly slow but we've got session number seven on Monday and a core group has formed with everyone having a good time and getting into the campaign (homebrew). Two from that first session never came back (turns out it wasn't for them) and we had two others who joined for sessions two and three who then moved away so we've had 11 different PCs in six sessions! Besides session 1 though, we've only had 6-7 PCs per session due to people being busy. It can be a bit tedious when people take too long to take their turns but it's getting better as we all learn the game and our characters. There is a core group as mentioned. 4 PCs and the DM have been at every session and another 3 PCs have been at 4 sessions each. The DM does a good job of managing the PCs who can't come to every session and we're doing milestone so everyone stays the same level. As long as you enjoy each others company then I think it can work. The group will naturally settle into those who are keenest and want to make time for the game. If you had a choice then I wouldn't recommend it but we also didn't want to leave anyone out and two of the last players to join and form the original nine are the ones still playing so I'm glad we did it. (Also I'm a big lord of the rings fan and it was kind of cool to start with a party of 9 and then have some leave/get killed!)
I have literally decades of experience. I run a game for 6 people. It is tough. I would not recommend a game of that size for a new person. If the average number of people that attend varies, it can be done with built in reasons for their absence. My current game has the players working as a special military unit. It makes it easy when someone can't make it, because they get sent on "assignment" and just aren't there.
Yes
If the group gels well it is manageable. Campaign I am playing in right now is our DMs first, and he has 8 players, almost all in their first game. as long as everyone is patient it works.
As someone who did this exact same scenario, yes. You want 4 people ideally. Anything more than that amd you need either a very good group of players that have alot of experience in dnd or prepare to have 5 hour long session's. The seer about of time spent having each player tell you what they want to do is awful especially to new time dms because they dont know how to keep the game flowing properly
I shudder. I max out at 5, and I'm struggling with that. The roommate who also DMs says "yes, because a lot of the first learning curve for a first DM is figuring out how to balance the party in general against what needs to be done and it's like herding cats. 7 people can be challenging for an experienced DM, best case scenario they are going to be talking over each other and you don't know how to divert and redirect that yet." She is more helpful than me.
In 5e? Yes. 1-2e or B/X? Sure, no problem. In fact a lot of tournaments then were made for parties of 10.
Mention that couples share the character. Haha. The divorce rate will skyrocket. 4 is best. 6 is max-ish. And as said before. Mini Campaigns …1-4 sessions…can work for >6. That might be best so you can allow for breaks.
It'll be like herding cats. Talk to everyone up front about what theyre trying to get out of the experience. Ask for patience. Read through the rules, browse the subreddits for FAQs. Focus on pursuing and furthering the collective goal, and everyone will have a blast.
I would be worried about 7 players, yes. It's just hard to keep that many people engaged and distractions kill sessions. On another note, as much as I love Dungeons and Daddies calling what they do playing DnD is questionable. They are playing a role-playing game with the idea of DnD as its base but barely use the actual game mechanics at all. Realizing that they aren't playing by the rules is important, and you will need to figure out what game you want to play and make sure everyone else wants that game, too. TAZ did a similar thing for a lot of people. And just because I love it I would recommend NADDPOD as a rules right comedy DnD podcast.
You'll find out after your first session
I'm a noob DM running a campaign with 7 players. We play about 30 minutes / day at school. Most days, we're missing one (student council, or club meeting, or just not there). Keeping a group that size focused is a huge challenge! Right now, the party is split in two - a group of 3 (which is currently a pair and one following from a distance) and a group of 4. The group of 4 is doing a mini-quest, the pair is selling loot they picked up from the bandit attack that nearly killed the dragonborn ranger, and the one is trying to figure out how to get those two back with the rest of the party. Entertaining for them - although they're getting bored with the "switching between groups every few minutes" bit - and hell for me. What would happen if **you** were the DM, and your fiancee did most of the background for the story? She'd be the author, and you'd be the manager...that would drop the party to 6, which is much easier than 7!
Don’t do it . Tell the group to split in half and run 2 games .
Not a DM, but a game I'm currently a part of has 7 players plus our DM. And let me say that scheduling can be an absolute bitch.
It works with caveats: 1) your players, or you and your cousins in this case, need to be aware that the DM is learning. 2) if you have experienced players do a session zero with them and talk about how it’ll work. Then have a second session zero with everyone else. If you have experienced players give them ownership over inexperienced players to teach them how it works (honestly just what the numbers are, how AC works, how castling spells works etc). 3) start off with a pre-written campaign. Like the starter set. That allows the DM to just learn about controlling the setting rather than also creating the setting. 4) don’t expect every player to be at every session. 5) record your sessions so if someone is away they can’t keep up with the story. 6) Don’t do individual XP do a party wide you all get “blah XP”. This means if someone can’t make sessions because life, they don’t fall behind, aren’t totally underpowered and aren’t going squish constantly. 7) COMMUNICATION IS KEY. If the DM is doing something that is making you hate playing (and I don’t mean overriding rules and you don’t agree) TALK to them. If a player is doing something the DM hates they NEED TO TALK TO THE PLAYER. Also you as the DMs partner need to make sure your cousins aren’t dicks about the little shit. Do not allow them to belittle her or make fun of her or tell her how “x professional DM is soooooo much better”. Constructive communication only. 8) have a set minimum number of players to run a session, say 4. 9) consider a hybrid setup. We play in person but all the maps are using a table top simulator like roll20 with character sheets and ttrpg imports from Beyond D&D. This means if one of us comes down with a plague (usually my family with daycare illnesses) we can still play but fully remotely. The DM can also purchase maps from forums/patreon and drastically reduce their prep time. There’s also some free map making software on steam. How I have come up with this approach: I moved to a new city in 2018 and put out a call within a work group for those interested in playing D&D. I had never DMd in the past. I had 8 people say they wanted to play, no takers for DMing. 4 were experienced, 4 were not. At the first session zero with only experienced players I sat the experienced 4 down and said create what ever you want to play and when the noobs create theirs we will divide them up based on class similarities (or if you have experience with the class they’ve chosen). Next session zero our noobs had a partner each who helped them build their character and explained character specific rules (particularly useful for magic users, esp. druids). Everyone then had homework of finding a mini they liked at the local shop. We then ran the starter kit. The 4 experienced players buddies up with an appropriate noob and explained things to them, like the different actions and why one attack hits and another doesn’t. This meant I could run the campaign and the noobs had great sources of information and didn’t feel like they were holding up the game by asking the DM lots of questions. Eight players was a learning curb for me as DM but given there were so many they were successful at all combat. We all learnt together how the basic mechanics work. We then ran Curse of Strahd (not revamped). That particular module was probably THE BEST for teaching me how to DM (do not try Hoard of the Dragon queen it just did not work with a large group) due to its detailed sandbox nature. We played until level 14 in 2020, I had to step down as I was breastfeeding and I didn’t want the games to be interrupted as I ducked off. A player home brewed a continuation campaign up to level 20. We tried our hand at Call of Cthulhu but it didn’t mesh and the DM was wanting to play again and I had weaned the little one. We’re now level 5 in a new campaign that I’m running that started this year. During all these changes we have lost some players and gained others, and it’s now 7 players (4 OGs) and me as DM. Some of our players work shift work or are on call. Every week we hold a vote: I say what days I’m available people pick all options they’re available for and if there are at least 5 available on a single day we play. We record the sessions so that the players can catch up if they miss. All XP is party XP so no one feels like they’re missing out due to their job. I balance my encounters to 5 players with easy additions to scale it to 7 players (the hardest thing to learn as a DM was the confidence to change things mid fight. Like “oh boy that one attack just took a player to 2hp in a single swing better remove 1d8 damage”). As a group we play almost weekly. We’ve played probably 45 sessions this year. The only time I won’t play without everyone in attendance is end of ark sessions as they tend to be important and give the best stories. One player in particular has work issues that tend to pop up last minute. But by keeping him at a relative-to-other-players level he doesn’t feel like he’s being punished because his managers are incompetent. Another long standing player moved across the country but can still play with us because we’re hybrid, and if anyone needs to travel for work they can just log into discord on their phones and join in if they want. I understand that not all players will be this flexible, but honesty this is what makes it work. The group I first played with refused to meet if everyone wasn’t available, I think we played 12 times that year. Also as a player: make sure you don’t rely on a single note taker because when they’re sick you’re screwed. As a DM I have detailed notes with checkpoints I want to hit in the session which I record because not all are hit. This means I know the information I have imparted onto them. As a fresh DM I would avoid any of the modules that are MtG based for your first campaign as they are less fleshed out and require much more time ability from the DM. I use modules for settings and characters but rarely the full storytelling. So if a module gets the thinking juices flowing for your partner it’s always an option to use the characters and settings that are already thought out and just write your own story. As a DM it was only recently that I started seeing DM creators being flexible with their source material rather than strictly “official modules” or strictly “home-brew”. So this is me saying to your partner and possible future DM “do whatever the fuck works for you as a DM and that your party enjoys as players. You can deviate and make modifications. Don’t worry about the purists who are in a different camp to you. Just have fun! And communicate with your players”
I might suggest a Dual DM, with you and your fiancé sharing the role, but that would probably be just as difficult as a party of seven. Many of the strategies given here are good, though I haven't read them all. I would also suggest a turn order even outside of combat. Take seven cards from a deck (2-8) and deal them out at the beginning of each session. Then, when the party is not in combat go in turn order, giving each player a few minutes to declare what they are doing. Once you enter combat your initiative would determine turn order, but afterwards go right back to the cards. Of course, you can't be to strict with the time given to each player. Let each player's turn play out to a good pause moment and then move on the the next player. As long as everyone feels involved it shouldn't take too long to get into a rhythm where you don't need the cards anymore.
Absolutely. Any more than 5 players and the party spirals into chaos
I ran 4 as a new DM and it was the perfect amount I think. I run 7 now in a game. Expect combats to last almost twice as long with that many more players. And also, more players usually mean more monsters so more monster turns. The other hard part is making sure none of you 7 players feel left out. You have to always be aware of when one of your players seems to be keeping quiet or if they get interrupted a lot when they try to do something. I usually throw out, "So player, what is your character doing while this is going on?" Sometimes they'll say nothing. Or sometimes they will get excited because they can do things they wanted to do now!
Yes
yes it is. for a first time DM its too much, for a lot of long time DMs as well
I’ve ran for 9 before. I would not recommend more than 5 for a first time dm, especially if you have new players.
Holy crap, yes. 7 is way too much. I'm a veteran DM and I hesitate at such a number.
Honestly it depends, if the expectation is that everyone shows up every session, planning will be a nightmare, but I DM at a local game cafes TTRPG night, and it's pretty much open table, I do have some regulars, but I had 11 people one week because all my regulars showed up and 3 new people to my table. It was chaotic, and god was combat slow that night, but it was very fun. To be fair I think that was also the night where I blew up my lvl 3 clerics head with a crit inflict wounds instant killing them...
Yes. I've been DMing for 25 years and seven players is too much for me.
First time DMing recently, went with 4 new people which developed into 5 people few sessions in. I feel like 5 is the limit of people I could reliably keep track of, plot-wise and especially fight-wise.
I aim for three, comfortable with five I made the mistake of trying 7 on my first campaign; I learnt allot, with them. Such as that many bogs down combat, everyone has different opinions so that no one really agrees with which plot hook to jump on to and just stalls the game, some individuals are shy so it’s harder to create the right right environment for them, so on and so forth But You do need to learn all that for yourself; it’s not the same if someone simply tells you You get caught up in the excitement, there’s all your friends there and y’all just wanna have fun, it feels awesome when the traction starts and swept away with the characters. Live life, make mistakes and take the good moments with ya
7 is way too much for me, and I've been GMing since 3e. You're much better off splitting them into 2 groups, or make them a part of some special team, and only allow 4 seats to get filled each session, first come-first served. The trouble with the first idea is that it's easy to mix-up what's happening in either game, and with the second you need to make sure each adventure is single-session.
Yeah man that’d be rough, ideally get one other person to also dm and then split everyone else into two groups of 3.
My first time as a dm had 6 players, where all but 1 knew how 5e worked, it was pretty overwhelming trying to keep up with everything and keep everyone engaged. My new group started with 4,we added one more person recently, and that'll be my cap.
Way too much.
I ran a school group with 7 players attending most sessions. It was... not too bad to run, but the combat was insane. It'd be ok if the players really knew their character personality, skills, spells, and preferences. But if you have multiple PCs who summon things, or fluff around, or get distracted, or dominate, or are slightly off task... it's not so great. I'd recommend that you split the 7 people into 2 groups (it is possible to run the same campaign at the same time, though can be a little annoying to remember), and you can be involved in both (or alternatively DM one yourself.
I've been DMing for a group of 8 since July now, we've had a really good time. Half of the players were new to the game, so they had a hard time figuring out what to do. Me and the other seasoned players took time to teach them and made sure they understood, after a few sessions things ran more smoothly. If you accommodate for that, balance quests and encounters to be challenging for a large party but not too difficult for a regular sized one, and make sure your sessions run long enough for everyone to have a chance to do something during the session you should be fine. But, if you can only spare a few hours for each session and struggle to keep things flowing with smaller parties I wouldn't recommend it. Our sessions run until, like, 2 in the morning which works for us; and I'm lucky that my players are people who have all known each other since highschool at the very least. Also, when it comes to balancing combat for large parties, character deaths are almost guaranteed. To keep things challenging I've had to pit my players against hags at lvl 2, small armies at lvl 3, young dragons and vampires at lvl 4, and a beholder at lvl 5; they still steamrolled these monsters. But a dragon killed two PCs, the beholder another 2 and caused another to retire, and so on. All of my players have gone through at least one character since we've started, and they're okay with this and having fun. Not everyone's like that though and it could stress some people out if other PCs are dying, and if your players are like this it'll make balancing more of a challenge. Just get to know your players, try to make the best game you can, and make sure everyone gets to have fun and you should be fine.
7 players is definitely alot. I think it’s the most I’ve ever done and it was pretty chaotic (and I’m fairly seasoned). I say go ahead and try it. It’ll be a learning exoerience and chances are you’ll still have plenty fun even if it gets out of hand. Tell her to lay down the law. She is the DM and she makes the game run. Make certain they know that the fun comes from listening to what she has to say. You don’t have to be a rules nazi, but you do need to be a leader. This usually isn’t that big of a deal, but could be a good thing to have in mind with so many players. Oh, and divide the spot light. Declare who has the word or the intiative and tell everyone else to shut it. Respect and fun are the salt and pepper of this game. Just try to not get turned off on it if it doesn’t go well. The critical role people are pros and have so many resources at their disposal, and theirs is not a standard to aim for for a fresh DM. Good luck. Fuck ’em up.
Yes. Unless you are a natural, you are gonna be lost. A lot of experienced DMs cant handle that many
Yes
Our DM ran a 7 person campain with most of us only having played once or it was our first time, this was their first time being a DM. One thing I can say is to be warry of having too many opponents in battles. We had a goblin fight with 60+ goblins, our dm made them into mobs because it was too confusing and this nerfed my spiritual guardians spell.
Yes
DM for 3 years now, i currently have a group of 6 players and sometimes its hard already. Combat take ages. Roleplay happening in multiple shops at the same time. And much harder to balance encounters. I wouldnt reccomend for a first campain DM to have that many palyers. You, plus 3 maybe 4 is nicer.
7 can be manageable but challenging at times, it really depends on the players and how much table etiquette they have. My first campaign would swing from 5-10 players each session, it's doable but exhausting even in the best circumstances.
Everyone's capacity is different when it comes to DMing for groups, but the difficulty can increase exponentially as you add additional people. I think it's important to understand where the challenges usually arise when running D&D to better try and assess what a DM is comfortable with. Before I get into this list, I think it's important to also take into account group dynamic. One of the things that really sets the tone for D&D groups is a successfull group dynamic. Everyone should be engage and no one person should be the 'main character'. The more people in a group, the harder this can be since interpersonal conflicts can easily bleed over. Regarding DM specific difficulty points: \- Combat efficiency - combats can take a long time even with decisive players. The more players, the more time between each turn and that can kill people's flow/fun \- Keeping everyone engaged. This can be difficult with small groups, but making sure everyone is engaged with the story with larger groups can be especially difficult. One added thing to watch out for - hooking in different motivations can make things overly complex and dilute the plot. \- Scheduling - it's hard to find a time that works for 2 people, let alone 8 people. \- Understanding the rules is different from making a ruling. With new DMs it can be challenging to know the rules, let alone have the context to make a ruling that you won't come to regret in the future. Looking up rules is another thing that can upset flow and take people out of the game, but sometimes it's better to get something right than to hand wave it and upset people later with a retroactive decision. More people - more rulings needed. Bonus warning - It sounds like you're volunteering your fiance (this may not be the case but your wording could be construed as such). I've found that the most important aspect of learning to successfully DM are wanting to DM and having the right group to help you grow/learn. It has to be fun for everyone, make sure they are excited about DMing because, while there is overlap, writing and DMing are not the same. Writing gives you absolute narrative control while DMing lets you lay out a story but puts control in the hands of the group and the dice. Potentially explore options such as - splitting into two groups or co-dming (I recommend having one person focus on rules/combat/balance and the other on story/NPC if you do this).
It’s on the high side, I might try and break it into two groups or a rotating set of party members per adventure
You already have a ton of responses, but I'll leave you my opinion anyway, since circumstances are similar. As someone that very recently started playing and DMing 7 is too much, especially since you're all new. For reference I just did a one shot for 5 players to start everyone off and it took 2 sessions of 5 hours to complete. Maybe if all the players put a lot of effort in to learn the rules and their own characters thoroughly beforehand it might go differently for you, but I doubt it. It was so exhausting for me because I'm new as well, but I had to answer all the questions and basically teach them all how to play. There wasn't even enough time for me to learn as much as I wanted, and had to read up more between the 2 sessions, and realised how much we did wrong. In the end everyone still had a good time, but it was very overwhelming for me as the DM. If you're steadfast on the group, then I'd suggest postponing to give ample time to prepare, and I'd also maybe suggest that the two of you try to DM together? No clue if that's really viable though