[RPG] How to quickly adjust encounters for variable party sizes

absent-playersdnd-5eencounter-designgm-preparationgroup-scaling

Problem

I'm running a campaign with 6 players, but they can't always show up1. That, by itself, would not be a problem, if I knew how many would come with enough time to prepare for it. The thing is: sometimes we simply discover someone is coming (or is not coming any more) 1 hour before the session. We have agreed that our quorum is 3 players, especially because some players come from a 2 hours travel to play, so I don't want to waste their time, but I can't run with only 2 players. (If only 2 players show up, we just play video games and hope that it wasn't wasted time :P)

So, essentially, the number of players is almost a uniform random variable from 3 to 6 players. I want to be able to quickly (less than 1 hour) adjust the encounters (designed for a fixed number size, say 4) for these party sizes, while (roughly) maintaining the desired difficulty.

Solutions I've tried but still present problems

Some things I have been doing, and I'll explain why they aren't exactly working.

  • Prepare all the encounters for 3 to 6 characters. Problem: Takes too much time. It's fine for sessions with high-roleplay, low-combat. It is not fine for the dungeon crawling sessions. I have plenty of free time, but not that much.
  • Prepare the encounter for how many players were supposed to come, handwave the unexpected absences/show ups, run the encounter as it was prepared. Problem: the encounter is unbalanced, especially when the 6 players become 5 or vice-versa. Who doesn't show up also slightly changes how difficult it is.
  • Adjust the encounters on the run. Problem: It seems I don't have that much experience, and although it worked sometimes, it also led to near-TPKs or walks through the park encounters other times.

Solutions that don't fit our social contract

  • Preparing for 6 characters and running the characters of absent players as NPCs or letting other players control them. Problem: The players want only themselves to play their own characters, so they handle the consequences of their choices, but only their own choices.
  • Preparing for 6 charaters and adding random NPCs to fill the absences. Problem: Well… either we would have recurring NPCs or random NPCs. Making the party simply trust them every time (or not finding extremely awkward that the recurring ones appear and go randomly) is annoying. We already have a lot of suspension of disbelief with the PCs magically disappearing in the middle of a dungeon that they couldn't possibly exit normally. I don't want to add NPCs to that Deus Ex mix and my players don't like ally-NPCs either.

What do I do?

So, the question is: What do I do? I believe some DMs here probably had to go through this problem at least once, not recurring as my case, but could provide useful experienced answers. Maybe someone had the same problem as well.


Answers explaining simply how to make encounters won't help (I read the DMG :P) unless they can explain how that can be quickly (quickly here refers to less than 1 hour) adjusted to a different party size when needed.

While answers explaining how to design encounters that are easily changed to different party sizes would help me, a more helpful answer can be applied in existing encounters from published adventures. This is not a pre-requisite, but a huge bonus.

One possible good answer I can see is adjusting the HP and damage of the monsters, without actually changing the number at all. I'm not sure how to do that consistently, though.

Answers defying the social contract are… well, not exactly helpful, unless it's the only possible solution.


1 We are all in tight schedules that sometimes get unexpected additions to them (e.g. huge problem came up in one player's company, he has to solve it this week, overworking a lot). This is awkwardly common for us, and usually simply there isn't something that we can actually do. A sudden deadline change risking the career is more important than the weekly D&D (for us).

Generally, when someone can't show up, they simply aren't able to play anyway, because they are busy (i.e. it's not actually a problem of being able to come and play, it's a schedule problem). That means even online gaming is an option that can't be used.

Best Answer

First, a caveat.

There are no rules, per se, to tell you how to do what you want to do. You mention the DMG, which does have section on customizing monsters, including ideas like what I suggest here. (It also has a section on building encounters.) However, the systems in the DMG take time and thought, and you're asking for a quicker, dirtier method. So while I would certainly encourage you to internalize the DMG's guidance, what I am presenting here is a method for use on the fly. It is all based on personal experience.

For what it's worth, I have used both of the two approaches I offer here while running, e.g., Adventurer's League modules for tables of anywhere from 2 to 8 players, never knowing exactly how many I'll have.

Option 1: Scale the number of foes.

The single easiest method to scale 5e encounters is to focus on the action economy. In 5e's fine-tuned mechanics, whichever side gets to act more often has a major advantage. That is the reasoning behind, e.g., the legendary actions that some big solo threats in the Monster Manual have -- it's hard to make a solo threat, even a "big" one, feel truly threatening if it is totally outnumbered by the PCs. The very fact that it is outnumbered and unable to act as often as the PCs act means it's likely to get walloped. Legendary actions help to level the playing field.

By the same reasoning, you can make an encounter workable for a variable number of PCs simply adjusting the number of foes they'll face. More foes equals more actions equals more challenge. It's not a foolproof approach; some monsters have abilities that make them disproportionately difficult as their numbers increase. (Quick example off the top of my head: monsters with Pack Tactics get advantage if an ally is within 5 feet of their target, so the more of them there are on the field, the more likely it is they'll have advantage on any given turn.) But this approach does have the advantage of requiring essentially zero additional preparation. If you're writing an encounter with, say, zombies, you're only preparing zombies whether it's 2 or 5 or 20.

A very general rule of thumb is to pit the PCs against an equal number of foes, adding or subtracting 1 or 2 if the foes are very weak or very strong, respectively.

Option 2: Scale defenses, particularly AC, saves, and HP.

Sometimes adjusting the number of foes isn't feasible or desirable. Maybe you have in mind an encounter against a big solo monster or some specific named NPC. In that circumstance, your best bet is to scale defenses.

Combat is, in a sense, a zero-sum game. The longer it takes you to defeat a foe, the more chances (i.e., turns) that foe has to defeat you first. The PCs' offensive capabilities are generally a known quantity in a given encounter. You'll know roughly how much damage the raging barbarian's axe or the wizard's fireball is likely to do. By tweaking their foe's defenses upward, you'll buy the baddies a little additional time to be relevant before they're beaten.

However, be careful not to adjust those defense figures too much. The "bounded accuracy" model underpinning 5e's mechanics makes a +1 to AC meaningful. I have found that adjusting HP by 10-20% per extra/missing PC is generally workable. It is enough to make the difference palpable but not overwhelming. YMMV, of course.

You might be tempted to also adjust the foe's offenses upward. Unless you are really trying to either clobber or coddle your PCs, resist that temptation. Monster CRs are balanced such that raw damage output is matched to PCs of a given level. In other words, if you double the damage your zombies are doing, there's a good chance you could one-shot a PC, or two, or the whole party. If you halve the damage the zombies can do, your players are likely to breeze through the encounter. It is safer simply to increase a foe's defenses and thereby give it more opportunities to hit.

If you are feeling a little creative, you can even add some flavor to represent the adjustments you've made. Those zombies might be wearing scraps of armor (reflecting a better AC), or might be especially old, decomposed, and unsteady (reflecting worse saves and/or HP).

Related Topic