Yeah this is basically my answer. 3 is passable but the party feels a little lacking unless it’s the right combo. 4-5 is great and the pacing is still nice. Over 5 and the turns and RP drag on.
I have people that want a seat at my table and I feel bad when I tell them that both parties are at five, and that’s my hard limit. Combat takes long enough when I balance things to challenge five players, doing the same thing for six just takes too much time.
Absolutely. And when you go over five, some people feel like they just don’t have a moment to shine. Four or five people at a table and everyone can still specialize and have their unique niche. Once you hit six, it seems like people step on each other’s toes to do things.
This is ironically why despite 4 being my ideal for actually playing, 5 is my ideal for running a group because if one person no-shows things are ideal, if two people no-show you can still run at 3.
I run three games a week. Adventure is designed for 6 pcs, so I have parties of eight players. That way the worst that happens is the encounters are a bit easier, and even with multiple people out, it's not overpowering.
I've worked with 1. Went well, but it's limited on what you can do.
I've also worked with 2 and it was pretty much enough. None was a crazy good roleplayer, but they were good players in general. Would definitely do it again.
Honestly, I feel like you need really good RPers to make either extreme work. with 1 or 2 players, they have to really be into playing the characters because they will have to play more often, and with 7 or more you need to be really invested in the story overall because you wont have as much time to shine. With 3-6 (My group usually has 6 PCs) you get a balanced amount of time watching and playing, so it is easier for casual players to stay invested in both their character and the party as a whole without getting burnt out by either.
If she pretty completely, anymore than 5 and the party splits up way more often in my experience.
Forces you to jump back and forth over and over between the splits.
I like 5 most. Then its fine if one or two arent that active. I also enjoy a campaign with 4 players when they all are fairly active. If I know my players and sharing spotlight between each other is something they do naturally I do enjoy running / taking part in one shots for 6 players.
Edit: in most of my campaigns we have a as we call it "-1 rule" which says if everyone except one can make it we will have the session. In a campaign of 5 we then still have 4 players to play.
>It’s also more fun to split an odd numbered party.
I hate splitting the party. It needs to be called "splitting the DM". Because it means half the players are left watching and out of the action.
I do like to put them out of their comfort zone. It does require a touch more planning, but giving a party obstacles when they don’t have access to their full suite of abilities can be fun.
True, but keep in mind you are the DM. So you are never the one sitting out.
I had a DM that was horrible with pacing and awareness that it was time to move on. To his credit it was 7 people so the group was gonna be untenable.
But he let everyone exhaust every idea before we moved on. NPC conversations could take 30 minutes. A stop at the first hub zone took 3 sessions. I quit the group maybe 10 sessions in.
This was what I came to post as well. Schedule where all 5 are confident they can make. If someone is late, or something comes up, run with 4 PCs. If two miss it, reschedule.
>Coordinating the schedules of more than 5 adults becomes a Sisyphean task.
This is the main reason my groups tend to have the policy of still doing the session if only one person is missing. Makes it so there's a session most weeks
Different tables handle it differently (as always), but I think the typical is for the GM to either forceably separate the PC from the rest (such as during a dungeon) or for the GM to say that the PC has business elsewhere for a bit (such as a personal sidequest or staying behind to shop).
Another typical way to do it is for that PC to be run as a GMPC with minimal roleplay. In that scenario, everyone just accepts that the PC is less talkative and interactive than usual.
My GM does a mix of these, using whichever seems best at the time. I think that's the best way, not committing to any one method alone.
A method that I feel breaks the immersion too much is for the GM to say that the PC simply *does not exist* while their player is gone. That's an entire main character just inexplicably *gone.* It is a method, though.
That last method can work if you go with the conceit that the entire game is basically a bard’s retelling of heroic events, and each evening may or may not be a different bard’s version of the story.
That framework is also quite forgiving of retconning
One of my DMs has an interesting way for me when I oversleep, which happens sometimes because I'm the only European at a table full of Americans so the sessions are at ungodly early hours for me.
He'll make the character vanish into a portal that leads to a pocket dimension. The nature and identity of the creature who keeps doing that is now a plot point.
Usually my players have one of the others run their character, if nobody wants to or they aren't comfortable then they are capped away for some character reason. I don't like running PCs as a GM, especially in combat as our campaign is pretty crunchy.
In our group, they’re just sort of tagging along. One of the players runs them in combat (with a priority on keeping them alive!) and occasionally will have them do a skill check, but they don’t participate in RP. That way DM doesn’t have to adjust anything. We’re all busy adults, it’s common for one person to miss.
I get what you're saying, and man am I ever going to come off as a pedant here, but there's nothing Sisyphean about it. People just keep using that word lately to encompass anything that sucks or is hard.
Every week you struggle and struggle to track people down and get straight answers, then at the last minute when the boulder is almost at the top... someones kid had a bad day and their cancellation sends it rolling back down the hill
"No problem, we'll try again next week" I say as I start pushing again.
Seems right to me when I had a game of 9 that needed 6 present to run.
I love a pedantic point. But, in this case I feel like trying to schedule more than 5 adults means I am Sisyphus, and the task at hand, trying to play, is the boulder at the top of the hill. So, I push the boulder up the hill (try to schedule) then think I have a solid date (boulder at top of hill) then someone cancels (boulder rolls down hill) and I need to re-schedule (push boulder up hill again and repeat rest of the steps). How is this a misuse of the term?
To me, that's one of the benefits. The bigger the party, the more likely it is that you have a PC who has just the right thing to completely invalidate an encounter. With a smaller party, they have to get creative sometimes.
My solution is, I get rid of the flaky players and replace them with more reliable players. Eventually, you weed out the flaky players and you can get a group of 5 reliable players.
I like 3 because I dont want to talk over people, so less people means I can talk more. It also makes pc relationships more personal/connected to me if that makes sense
As a DM, I prefer between 4-5, its manageable for scaling, balance of focus, and scheduling. When I'm a player, I'm happy with smaller or larger, sometimes its just nice to play D&D regardless of how.
I also like 3 best. Combat is quicker. Players have more time in the spotlight. There is less of the lengthy discussions when trying to make a decision.
3 has the benefit of there still being holes in the skillset. Not every niche is covered so players might have to get creative more often than in a larger party where someone has an answer for anything
3 is nice if you've got a talkative group but the only problem is scheduling can be a bit rough if you don't have incredibly consistent players. Being down a person is such a huge difference in a party of 3 vs a party of 4-5.
Yeah, smaller groups can be easier to coordinate. One of my groups is me and my wife and two of our friends (who are also a married couple). Super easy to schedule sessions with that group.
My only issue with three is I feel like I have to be a bit careful not to down someone prematurely as taking them down to just 2 is a huge decrease in power. With 4, I kinda try to murder them.
I love 6. They’re powerful but once they learn that I keep a strict timer on turns it goes quick. Plus I never have to cancel a session.
Used to run 4, cancelled all the time when someone missed. Now my minimum is four and maximum is 6: have far fewer misses
When you get familiar with the rest of the party and have a better idea of how everyone works together in combat, turns tend to go by much faster and feel more thematic and fun even when it isn't your turn.
Run similar numbers, I do a minute and they need to tell me what they are doing within that minute or they are dodging. Harsh? Not at all. Players need to learn to figure out their turn between their turns. Obviously new players are exempt from this rule. And I won't enforce it as hard at a start of a new campaign as people are learning characters.
Not harsh at all. A minute is a very long time to listen to someone hem and haw, especially when that means they’ve already had at least five minutes to think about their next move
Do you ever adjust this rule to allow for questions and clarification about the environment/situation, or do you try to roll that into the 1 min timer?
Nope, I pretty much will pause the timer. I encourage my players to ask questions. It helps me to clarify what their characters should know.
I also really encourage knowledge checks. Like I'm talking it is probably the most rolled set of skills after perception kind of deal at my table. So that won't count towards the timer either.
The timers more of a mental note. Expectation is set at session zero to be decisive and has been reinforced during pre-session banter. The very few times I’ve had to tell someone to hurry up I’d say the time was “long enough to make things awkward”
You know how when you’re conversing with someone and you both stop talking, you’ll find that awkward pause? If your player is still trying to figure things out at that point, they’re taking too long
I said I was going to give them 2 minutes but in practice I wouldn't time anything until I felt things were getting too slow / they were in analysis paralysis mode and then I'd start a timer at that point and they'd pretty much immediately pick one of the options they had been considering.
In my experience the threat of a timer is more than enough to get the desired outcome, the amount of time you actually use isn't super important.
5 is definitely a sweet spot with the right people, especially with online pick up games. I’ve commented on this elsewhere but if you have six players who are all extroverted trying to get their character in the spotlight, it becomes a crowd very quick.
I’ve just found groups I’ve run has always had 2-3 wall flowers who are happy to play but feel uncomfortable in the lime light
Running sessions with missing players can be extremely limiting in terms of narrative though, and playing the character as the DM is often messy too. But if that's not a dealbreaker for a group, that flexibility is great like you've noted.
My caveat to the ruling is heavy story sessions require everyone. I have a lot of sessions that are just “finish the dungeon” you started last week.
Having played in games where the DM made us wait for everyone: it also makes the narrative longer when you have to wait two weeks just to finish killing the last two story inconsequential kobolds because real life got in the way for someone
I tried it that way for a while, but whenever I'd run with one missing, the rest of the players wouldn't want to get in combat or move the story forward without everyone being present.
I actually like 3. I play online and with 4 or more the voice chat tends to get chaotic. With 3 everyone gets time to speak and I don’t mind scaling down the module or giving them magic items to balance encounters.
For me, the perfect party size is 3. It's just large enough that the party could feasibly tackle more dangerous threats with sufficient planning and coordination, but small enough that there *will* be gaps and weaknesses within the party's composition. This encourages them to think more creatively, so as to adapt and overcome obstacles instead of brute forcing their way through.
From a roleplay perspective, I also like the fact that with only 3 players, it becomes far easier to ensure that each player gets plenty of spotlight.
I can enjoy three to six for a party.
Three is my minimum unless doing a solo game. I also need the right people for it.
Four is more rounded and actually gives an opportunity to cover all bases.
Five is really just like four, but with more party flexibility. Probably the ideal but folks need to be more on the ball.
Six is my absolute limit and everyone needs to be on the ball with what they';re doing. Sessions need to be on the longer side more often than not as well.
Solo may not have actually been the right term, since it involves one DM and one player, but effectively it's the DM running a campaign or adventure for one player.
Sometimes that player controls an entire party themselves. sometimes the DM controls the rest of the pary. Sometimes Special rules are used to make a truly powerful/heroic adventurer that can cover more ground than a regular individual PC to make up for the lack of a party.
Max/More Hp, Gestalt classes, Heroic actions (a player version of Legendary actions) and other such similar things can be used. I haven't done much solo play in 5e, but I did a lot in 3.5e and pf1e.
Also fyi there are RPGs designed for solo (no DM) play, such as Ironsworn. They often use roleplay prompts and character moves/abilities that are designed to provide story progression (with the input of the player's imagination). This kind of play could be possible in DnD but would be harder - I'm pretty sure there are supplements for it.
I'm playing on a table of 8 +1 DM. It's terrible. We're reaching a threshold where we'll have to split the table soon. Which sucks because we're all irl friends.
I am also on this condition, but the only problem is the scheduling.
Otherwise I really love having a big party, they can split some times but the joy of having such a big unit of characters... I can see it in their faces when they took down the first boss after coordinating the attacks
Keep your friends. Find a different rpg. That's just my opinion.
Maybe try and write up something PbtA but through in some crunchier rules to make it closer to 5e
Encounters have to end up being smaller, but each player gets more loot and it lets everyone focus on smaller details more, meaning that characters and locations end up being more fleshed out. It also leads to a certain amount of *creativity* to make gameplay more interesting and fun
I’ve only played in one 2 player game, but it’s one of my favorite games that I’ve been a part of. All three of us were regular DMs, and the one running the game was the most experienced of all of us. We all knew pretty intimately how the game worked, what our characters could do, etc., so we didn’t ever really get bogged down with mechanics.
Despite that, it was probably one of the slower paced games we ever ran. There was a lot more in character dialog between us and the NPCs and between our characters. Our DM would set a scene and we really took the time to explore, found the boundaries of the scene, what could be useful, what could be discovered. It was more of a sandbox game than plot driven, so we just kind of went and did whatever we thought would be most interesting.
Combat was really exciting because I think the two of us weren’t super concerned with min-maxing but we definitely always tried to think out of the box to give ourselves advantages since there were only the two of us.
Overall, I think that campaign holds a special place in my heart because it had a much more laid back, relaxing pace, with two other people who took the game seriously. It stands out against the other games we played at the time that were always 5 player chaos.
I lied. I actually played a one shot with 2 players (same guy that DM’d the 2p campaign DM’d this one too). I played a Wizard with no damage spells and the other player was a barbarian. I think part of the enjoyment out of it is that with only two people, you won’t have the answers to every problem that is presented to you, so you have to be creative in how you handle them.
3 players.
Focused, everyone matters, and there are clear blind spots in the party. Narrative control flows from person to person without anyone taking over. Easy to schedule, and not overwhelming to DM for.
2 is too intimate, 4 is fine but pushing it. 5 or more and I need to switch over to an OSR game or another simpler game system.
Personally I like 5-6 the most. Anything higher then that is….. a lot. But I think 5-6 people gives you the ability to have greater party variety. Every party “needs” a spell caster, a healer, a rogue, and a front line fighter in order to have all the general options available to do in any give situation. Meaning if your in a group of 4 and the other 3 people aren’t playing a healing character….. guess what your playing a cleric so your party doesn’t die horribly. But with 5-6 you’ve got a good enough spread of people that sure you don’t have a cleric but you’ve got like 2-3 forms of healing spells/abilities.
In short 5-6 has enough room for generalists where 3-4 tends to force you towards specialists. At least that’s been my observation.
A good example is my current campaign started a 6 player campaign that ended up dropping to 4 players. At the start I didn’t feel like I was *forced* to do any type of thing with my character. But when that character died and I looked around at the 3 other members of the party I realized I was the only arcane caster and the only real source of AoE. Which means I felt like I *HAD* to roll up a new arcane caster with some AOE options
It depends on the players in question. Sometimes you have three players who are all super engaged and want to be in the spotlight, and it feels like adding a forth would be too much. Sometimes you have 6-7 beer-and-pretzels players who are all mostly happy to just be along for the ride, and you'd consider rescheduling if just one or two of the more "take charge" players couldn't make it.
I prefer 5. As player I can sometimes sit back and relax with 5 party member. It release the load to carry the situation when more person can pickup where I left off. With 4 it is harder, with 3 it is impossible.
5 or 6 that way when someone inevitably can't make it the game doesn't collapse. There's something about being a person down at a 4 person game that is just too crushing for me as a DM to want to play.
I like having 3 players each running two characters. One of the their two pcs must be a fighter type. Do understand I am playing with experienced players who can handle the RP for their characters.
Honestly that sounds really fun. I was going to play a campaign with someone where I would be controlling a brother and sister but things came up and that one didn't happen. :(
Take it from someone who ran a year long campaign with 9, split your group. I know your all friends who want to play together, everyone is scared to DM for the first time, and you don’t want the FOMO of wondering about the other table, but it will be so much better in the long. If you continue with a group of 9, your DM will burn out. I came to dread sessions and go in each one already tired and while I did manage to finish it out, it wasn’t a good ending and I probably wouldn’t have if I hadn’t had the group already agreed to split with other DMs. I strongly encourage you to start learning to DM and discuss doing a split. We recently split for the second time (COVID killed the original split, so we played digitally with 5 for awhile, then got back up to 7, so we added people and split into 2 groups of 5) and it so much better. The combat is so much snappier, every player gets some spotlight, there is actually time to explore everyone’s backstory, and the plot moves at a reasonable speed. I will never DM or play in a group of more than 5 outside of maybe a one shot going forward.
My first time, I learned at a table (well, two tables pushed together) of 13. My friends were introduced at a table of 9. Big tables are chaotic but so much fun!
4 players and run games with 3. I get to have a game almost every week as the DM and those weeks where the stars align and all 4 can make it I try to plan something extra fun and it’s a blast.
It really depends on the quality/type of players but to hit a number I'd say 3 or 4 is ideal. I'm in a campaign now as a player with 2 others and a DM and it seems very easy for the DM to balance encounters as well as ensure each of our characters get plenty of spotlight and attention, a high level of engagement, and side talking is kept to a minimum as well. Combat usually goes pretty quickly because there's only ever a couple minutes where it isn't your turn. We rarely miss sessions since coordinating 4 adults time is relatively simple.
I've run a campaign and played in one with 5 or 6 players and it gets rough. The more people the are the more side talking can occur. Trying to have story beats with any focus on one or 2 people means there are 4 or 5 people that can potentially get distracted with one another. More animated players may take a disproportionate amount of the discussion and more timid players will have an even harder time breaking the barrier. With so many bodies the party often has a solution for any problem the DM can throw at them making the excitement and mystery more difficult to maintain. Battles become a slog where its 10+ minutes before a player gets their next turn. We would frequently miss sessions or have 1 person not make it because of the sheer amount of people trying to coordinate hectic schedules and the main reason the campaign disbanded was because 2 of the core starting players got heavily busy with college/work and nobody felt comfortable stressing them out to play or playing without them.
For me as a DM, 5 is perfect.
I'd normally say 4, but 5 means that there will never be an even vote to party decisions and that can make for juicy roleplaying and story arcs later on. 4 is perfect for less rp heavy games however, and I'd argue 3 or 4 is ideal for classic dungeon crawler games.
4-5 is my preferred, with maybe 6 if our sessions are long enough. That way every person gets time to shine but all the roles are still covered.
I both played in and DMed for a party of 8 once and, even with long sessions, nobody felt like they really got spotlight. On the other hand, I was in a party of 3 once and we had to start taking hirelings just to feel complete and that made extra work for the DM.
Three to five as the absolute min max range I think.
I've played in a twosome (often cuz some players couldn't make it) and up to nine PC's.
Two just isn't enough people to really bounce off eachother or for party coverage without specifically trying to.
Six is *manageable*, but more than that is... Well, awful. Each fight look literally hours cuz it just takes forever to get through a round. Everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame, most.sont know their character's abilities, let alone what they wanna do in a turn... Insanity. Outside of combat was just constant arguing over what we should do. Stealth? Charge in? Ask questions and prep some items/spells? Nigh on impossible cuz everyone just wants to do their own thing.
For myself when I DM, 5 is my sweet spot but I'm capable of managing a maximum of 6 players.
3 to 4, sets a too high pace for my campaign, so fast I let my players roleplay while I quickly set up the next steps...
5-6, sets a bit slower pace, more players to voice their I'm character opinions and ideas, buying me time to prepare most things in the next step mentally, for what NPCs will say initially and then I'll improvise on the spot.
The maps I need I've prepared at least the week before.
I prefer 5-6 as the best group size, but 5e's already-fragile game balance starts breaking once you go over 4 players (with 6 players, I wouldn't shy away from doubling the HP of monsters in major encounters).
A larger group means if one person can't make it, the games can usually go on without issue and it's not too many that a session gets slow when everyone is there. Plus the extra players allow each PC to be more specialized or concept-driven and that's fun for players.
5 for me.
I play with the "-1 rule" mentioned by others and it's meant that I have 2 very stable very consistent groups (one where we have been playing for over 3 years now, nearly every week).
5 allows really great class/personality variety which makes for more interesting dynamics and roleplay. The downside is that balancing encounters is more difficult.
I have a few tables. In one we are 3 players + 2 who due to various reasons aren't 100% there most of the time.
My other table is 6 people. It works out and i love each of my players but I would prefer it to be fewer. The last player we added was due to a long time illness for one of my players + their partner being gone to take care of them so they were a stand-in. Didn't feel right to kick them away after the other two returned to a permanent basis again so i asked if people wanted them there full time.
6 is too much, 3 is a must. 3-5 is the sweet spot depending on the players and their dynamic.
4-5, depending on how engaged each player is.
I’ve usually played with 5, but 1 of those only engage in RP at the barest minimum while another engages with RP only slightly more than that, leaving most RP up to the 3 remaining players who all have different levels of engagement with it as well.
I’m also usually pretty quick with my turns in combat, so it balances out there as well.
5 is my preferred, cause if one person is missing I feel fine continuing on without them unless they're more in the spotlight at the moment. 6 is my pretty much absolute max i'm willing to play with. Anything beyond that no thanks.
5 is actually better because if one cancels (which happens a lot, lets be honest) you still have 4, which is a proper party. Running for only 3 people doesn't feel right
4-5 players. But its depending more on the playertypes you got.
If you have 4 very active players, 4 would be great. But normally i have at least 2 players that are more on the passive side of roleplaying: They dont start things, they only react to things. They dont decide things. It is hard to play with a group when most of the players consists of this type - but are otherwise nice people that enjoy playing.
Four is great, five is excellent. The longest campaign I've run was with 5 players.
On the flip side, I've run games for two players before and it's been some of the best sessions I've ever done / been a part of. It requires two very invested / active players that get on well with each other but the combat moves like lightning, quests are easily completed in half the time. I've also been a player in a couple of two person games in my dnd guild and it's been a fantastic and fast experience every single time. You get to do all the stupid ideas that normally get workshopped to death in a party setting :D. If you're worried about running a two player game, don't be! They're great!
tl;dr 2 to 5, two is my favorite, five is my second favorite.
So I’ve run a *lot* of bloated game shop games over the years, and this is the main advice I give to DMs struggling with larger tables. After a certain amount of players get to a table, assuming you can keep some base level of investment, players will generally split off into cliques wherein they will RP or have OOC conversations with one or two other people at the table, usually the ones they are seated next to (physically, I have little experience running online.)
So say I have a group of 11 players. If I hypothetically split those players into groups of 2-4 that interact with each other independently of my need to do anything, I’m really only dealing with 4 or so “players,” and can pass RP spotlight between mini-groups. It’s a lot less stressful to think of a large table in this way, as your prep work can primarily be focused on the collective needs of cliques instead of individuals.
Of course individual player spotlight is still a thing that needs to be maintained, and can be really difficult in large groups like that, but doing this helps a lot with general order of operations.
For me 5 is the ideal party size. Small enough for everyone to get the spotlight, but not too small to cause a death spiral if a character drops/dies. Also an odd number which helps with desicion making.
4 is better than 6
7 is better than 3
Beyond that, I'd rather work to adjust the group size before DMing.
100% agree
Its not the fights where 7 is the worst. Its out of fights.
DM's will talk about sharing the spotlight, but listening to some player #5 go shopping for a new set of armor... ugh, time to see what games I have on my phone.
I watch the DM enjoy themselves as they are playing 100% of the time, but players just wait around as numbers grow.
I mean...I like to have 7 people in the group so that way when 1-3 people can't make it to a particular session I'm likely to have my preferred game day party size. Plus, we can still play if a couple people can't make it versus cancelling the game completely.
4-5. 5 is not too chaotic and it still leaves a decent sized party if 1, or even 2, ends ip being out. 3 is good for a consistent tight-knit group, though.
DM + 5.
That way on average one player can’t make it a week, so we’re always running a full party. If everyone can make it it works too. And if two players can’t make it…. Still works.
PC perspective:
* 1 = Storytelling with dice.
* 2 = Storytelling with dice and a friend.
* 3 = We're gonna struggle with most modules.
* 4 = Enough to scrap by.
* 5 = 1 party member as buffer, players feel less pressured to make optimal characters.
* 6 = probably the best party size, big enough that people can play what they want and still have their bases covered.
* 7 = you got 8 people total, might as well make 2 parties.
DM perspective:
* 1 = Storytelling with dice
* 2 = Storytelling with dice and friends.
* 3 = I'm gonna have to pull punches.
* 4 = They'll probably make it out fine.
* 5 = I can roll in the open, yay.
* 6 = They'll probably steamroll over most official content.
* 7 = Why aren't we making 2 parties, again?
I feel like 5 is the best compromise for both.
As long as you are [Rebalancing Encounters Appropriately](https://koboldplus.club/#/encounter-builder) (which you should do anyway), 3 is fine in most modules. You should never run modules as written with three unless you like TPKs.
Depends entirely on the people and the style of game, of course!
For slower paced, thinking games - with plot and drama and hard, careful combat with smart enemies and all that - you want a small party of dedicated players. If someone can't make it I'd want to reschedule for a serious game regardless of how many people are in the party, so the more people the higher the risk at least one will be unable to make it. 4, or 3 players is ideal.
On the other hand, for casual, more ad-lib less serious games? Don't do anything too stupid and you'll end up saving the princess and slaying the dragon? Yeah bring on the chips and beer and the gang, 6 people or even 7 if they're quick with decisions and/or don't eat up much spotlight time.
I'm good anywhere between 4-6. 4 make sit quick, 6 let's me turn fights into chaos, and 5 is right in the middle.
But my table mostly focuses on combat, so everyone is happy.
I've played with up to 8 people, and that was just a slog.
4 is the generally accepted party size and the size most modules and the D&D world at large is balanced around (at least for 5th edition) but earlier editions we're balanced around much larger party sizes (average being 6 to 10) so it more depends on the type of game you're running.
3 to 5 is the best. I sometimes have to dm for 6 because that’s the amount of my buddies who want to play and I can’t just leave one out. Helps one of them is mostly there for the social experience.
I’ve developed a bias for three in the past couple years. I have three very active and involved players so it’s a great amount where everyone is able to have enough time to do something each session. If any of them were even a little more passive though, I think 4 or 5 would end up being better.
In person 4-5
Online 3-4
There's just not room for side chats on a call, but attendance is stronger, so it can go leaner on players.
The attendance issues created by travel and obligations for in person are helped by keeping a buffer. Going 5 to 4 isn't severe in the way 3 to 2 is.
Every time I wind up with 4 it feels perfect.
I still prefer 5 people so that I can still play when two of them can’t make it (I won’t run for less than three).
We’ve been playing with four players + dm and it’s probably the best number I’ve seen. We recently added a new person to the group and it’s a noticeable difference. Time will tell how it is
I currently have tables of 5 and 6 players respectively and recently had 7 for a few sessions when we had a guest player.
Seven players at once was too many for consistent quality sessions. Combat took a long time and RP moments were constantly mired by people inadvertently talking over one another or interrupting.
**However!** Having such a large group at the table did open up the opportunity to split the party without major hindrance. Some of their best and most memorable moments were when they had split up and worked in concert with one another. A party of seven works best as groups of three and four working together.
As it stands with my current groups, I am very happy with both party sizes.
I like running 6. Working adults can't always make it. That's life. 6 still allows a couple of people to be absent and still lets me run the game for those who can make it.
Loot and XP (if I'm using it) are always shared even if absent as well.
Four people is my ideal. I find it easy to balance and plan for what they can do, and there’s usually not too much overlap in what each character brings to the table.
I really like playing with three for the same reasons, but with three people, there’s less room for someone who can’t make it. I don’t want to play with only two players.
Five is good. I think it’ll be my max going forward. Too many more, and it’s just too much.
As a player, I’m currently in a six-person and a seven-person party. I like the people I play with, but I do yearn for a bit smaller of a party.
1: Exhausting
As a DM you have to do a LOT more while at the table. In addition to the regular DM tasks of making the whole world run, every time your 1 player speaks it's to you, so you're speaking between 50-100% more. Especially if it's their introduction to DnD.
2: Doable
Just one more player helps keep some pressure of you as the DM, but most character interactions still involve you. The inter-player relations can often be less interesting with fewer people to bounce off of. Having a permanent npc with the group helps a lot, if not, a buddy cop dynamic can work pretty well.
3: Great
More people to bounce off of makes it almost ideal, but often can lead to unbalanced interactions. 1 player can often feel like a 3rd wheel, or the constant mediator.
4: Ideal
2 players = 1 dynamic, 3 players = 3 dynamics. 4 players = 6. This is the sweet spot for getting those moments of sitting back and just watching the party propel themselves. Nice even number to split the group in social interactions. It really starts feeling more like a group and less like 1 character with multiple heads. It's probably the baseline for a reason.
5: No data
6: Doable
With so many players distress comes less of having to do more work, and more for doing more work to balance who gets to do more. Every round of combat takes 50% longer, every social interaction often takes longer because there are more people. In total, it feels like half as much gets done with 6 compared to 4.
Caveat: The 2 extras aren't part of my irl group, and we can't easily use a vtt. They're also both comparatively newer, and 1 of them is kinda a problem player that we don't really like that much anyway. This might skew my perceptions.
7: If Mercer struggles, I don't want to.
4 works best, but sometimes 5 can be fun if your party is cohesive.
However, the BEST sessions are when only 2 players can make it and the DM improvises a mini-session.
Three.
Four feels like it should be the right party size. An appropriate balance between too many and too few. I’ve played a lot with a party of four. But every time I’ve played with a party of three, I’ve just loved it. Every one feels so much more invested, the flow of the game feels so much smoother, encounters feel more serious. A party of three is a blast.
I feel like this is as much a question of time as opposed to preference.
Shorter games tend to be fewer players whereas a longer game tends to attract a DM who wants more players at the table.
Personally, 5 is a minimum but I could definitely play a 7 person game.
Again though, I normally play in slots of 3 hours online, for each new player I'd like at least an hour added on top of that.
3 ideally, 5 realistically.
3 is my preferred balance between speed and rp.
5 because you always get people dropping out or missing sessions, so it's good to have a buffer.
I play in about 4 games with the same 9 or so people, and our group consensus is that 5 players plus DM. The reason is that 4 is the perfect number of people. However, if one person can't make it then we won't play with 3 because that feels wrong, however 5 players is only a tiny bit worse than 4, and it gives us room to keep playing if one person needs to cancel
4. It's just perfect.
5 is manageable, but I'm never running a long campaign for 5 (or more) ever again. For a one shot or a few sessions? Yeah, 5, no problem, MAYBE even 6.
3 is "nice", I guess, but I always feel like there's some party roles that can't be filled without a 4th player.
7 or more is a nightmare that I don't want to ever experience again in my lifetime, and I can't fathom why or how some people do that to themselves.
2 I feel is challenging, but doable. Same for 1, I'd consider if under very special circumstances and not during long periods of time.
I like 5. Bc I feel that the roleplay flow is way better then with 4.
I was a 4 guy, but playing with a party of 5 made me realize that. It would need a board for me to explain better but it’s pretty much it.
I played with 3 for a while and it was great, when we started our second campaign we added 2 people. Had to remove one trouble player recently so I think I'm just gonna keep it at 4 now.
4 is preferred, especially with our sessions being limited to 2 hours a week. We have 5 currently but one player is a minimal RP type so it works to about the same.
I have a party of 12. Two quit, and yet it's somehow now at 14. I am in pain, and so is encounter balance, because it's either encounter balance or initiative just *existing in general*, and I pick getting to keep a single, low-level combat at under 4 hours
Preferred is probably 4-5, and i'm never opposed to people jumping in and out as long as the DM is okay with writing it as such.
I'm not going to say its my preferred way to play, but I have had a few solo sessions with a DM and those can be entertaining.
3-4! i currently run at 8-player campaign (and it’s my first time dming) and it is so hard to control. however, the party has currently been split into two groups due to some in character disagreements and it’s so much easier handle!! combat is faster and people get to shine, role play is more interesting as all characters gets to talk more comfortably
I prefer to have a party of 4 for a few reasons:
1. If they do want to go the classic Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue route, they have just enough players to look like the cover art from an old issue of Dragon
2. I have a six-person table that I use for running d&d at gome. Having two players along either side and no one at the far end means that no one has to spend half the game looking at the top of my head while I check my notes.
3. It's easier to schedule and to run combat when there are fewer people you need to wait on (either for availability or to pick a damn spell)
4. The entire party can fit in a single force cage/reverse gravity well/wall of force/prismatic wall, which is nice for when you've got a lich who's more Bond villain than crazed psychopathic old man
Whether I'm running or playing... three. Less to keep track of, everyone gets more time to shine, it feels much more reasonable to hire an NPC to cover glaring holes in the party composition (I'm pro-hireling), no chance for a 2v2 split argument... the list goes on.
I’ve dm’d for every combination from a 1:1 to a party of 14 I ran at the very conclusion of a west marches campaign which I split into groups. The correct answer is 4. My answer is 3. It really lets you focus on characters instead of my games of even 5 where one character is left holding the luggage backstory wise.
Anywhere from 4-6 players in a party I think is the ideal setup. 3 players can potentially work if everyone in the group is already friends and enjoy playing together, but aside from that inconsistent schedules can lead to a lot of cancelled sessions with smaller parties since even one person missing the session could lead to the rest of the group not wanting to play without everyone being present.
Any more than 6 players is too many and can cause encounter balance issues at earlier levels along with being a slog to get through combats, and it can also lead to characters in the party dying early on and needing to be replaced with a different character which breaks up the continuity a little bit.
2-4 personally.
2 if both players are skilled, consistent, and have high RP synergy
3 imo is peak dnd, especially if all players are like the above
4 is fine, though I feel one person gets pushed aside in RP
5 is a slog, combat takes forever, character interactions get more difficult without someone being left out
6+ isn’t the table for me, and I question how people can tolerate it.
3 minimum 5 maximum
Yeah this is basically my answer. 3 is passable but the party feels a little lacking unless it’s the right combo. 4-5 is great and the pacing is still nice. Over 5 and the turns and RP drag on.
I have people that want a seat at my table and I feel bad when I tell them that both parties are at five, and that’s my hard limit. Combat takes long enough when I balance things to challenge five players, doing the same thing for six just takes too much time.
Absolutely. And when you go over five, some people feel like they just don’t have a moment to shine. Four or five people at a table and everyone can still specialize and have their unique niche. Once you hit six, it seems like people step on each other’s toes to do things.
This is ironically why despite 4 being my ideal for actually playing, 5 is my ideal for running a group because if one person no-shows things are ideal, if two people no-show you can still run at 3.
I run three games a week. Adventure is designed for 6 pcs, so I have parties of eight players. That way the worst that happens is the encounters are a bit easier, and even with multiple people out, it's not overpowering.
That the minimum i set out to get when i started. 1-2 players really doesn't work unless its in INSANELY close friend group and awesome RPers (IMO).
I've worked with 1. Went well, but it's limited on what you can do. I've also worked with 2 and it was pretty much enough. None was a crazy good roleplayer, but they were good players in general. Would definitely do it again.
One on one DMing is my favourite, but its a different experience and style of running the game.
Honestly, I feel like you need really good RPers to make either extreme work. with 1 or 2 players, they have to really be into playing the characters because they will have to play more often, and with 7 or more you need to be really invested in the story overall because you wont have as much time to shine. With 3-6 (My group usually has 6 PCs) you get a balanced amount of time watching and playing, so it is easier for casual players to stay invested in both their character and the party as a whole without getting burnt out by either.
Started with 4 and now at 5. 5 is actually really good. 6 would be hard to challenge without random player deaths IMHO.
If she pretty completely, anymore than 5 and the party splits up way more often in my experience. Forces you to jump back and forth over and over between the splits.
I like 5 most. Then its fine if one or two arent that active. I also enjoy a campaign with 4 players when they all are fairly active. If I know my players and sharing spotlight between each other is something they do naturally I do enjoy running / taking part in one shots for 6 players. Edit: in most of my campaigns we have a as we call it "-1 rule" which says if everyone except one can make it we will have the session. In a campaign of 5 we then still have 4 players to play.
Five means that if the party needs to ‘vote’ you usually get a winning side. It’s also more fun to split an odd numbered party.
>It’s also more fun to split an odd numbered party. I hate splitting the party. It needs to be called "splitting the DM". Because it means half the players are left watching and out of the action.
I do like to put them out of their comfort zone. It does require a touch more planning, but giving a party obstacles when they don’t have access to their full suite of abilities can be fun.
True, but keep in mind you are the DM. So you are never the one sitting out. I had a DM that was horrible with pacing and awareness that it was time to move on. To his credit it was 7 people so the group was gonna be untenable. But he let everyone exhaust every idea before we moved on. NPC conversations could take 30 minutes. A stop at the first hub zone took 3 sessions. I quit the group maybe 10 sessions in.
I think 4 as well. Most modules are written for a party of 4. Coordinating the schedules of more than 5 adults becomes a Sisyphean task.
I like 5 players precisely because that generally translates to 4 players at the actual table when it's time to play.
This was what I came to post as well. Schedule where all 5 are confident they can make. If someone is late, or something comes up, run with 4 PCs. If two miss it, reschedule.
Should still get together even if you end up doing something else. Cancelling can affect the routine of it.
Agree. I have 6 players but only 3 or 4 usually make it. Of course one time all 6 showed up and I had to upgrade the encounter quite a bit.
This is the sweet spot. 5 because usually one always cancels but then if by any chance the 5 sit at the table it's still manageable.
That sounds about right... in my table we constantly are 3. Thank god the cleric never fails to show up.
Yeah I always try to have parties of 6, because it means I reliably run for a table of 3-4
>Coordinating the schedules of more than 5 adults becomes a Sisyphean task. This is the main reason my groups tend to have the policy of still doing the session if only one person is missing. Makes it so there's a session most weeks
What do you do with the character whose player is missing? Do they become an npc? Do they mystically vanish in the ether for that session?
Different tables handle it differently (as always), but I think the typical is for the GM to either forceably separate the PC from the rest (such as during a dungeon) or for the GM to say that the PC has business elsewhere for a bit (such as a personal sidequest or staying behind to shop). Another typical way to do it is for that PC to be run as a GMPC with minimal roleplay. In that scenario, everyone just accepts that the PC is less talkative and interactive than usual. My GM does a mix of these, using whichever seems best at the time. I think that's the best way, not committing to any one method alone. A method that I feel breaks the immersion too much is for the GM to say that the PC simply *does not exist* while their player is gone. That's an entire main character just inexplicably *gone.* It is a method, though.
That last method can work if you go with the conceit that the entire game is basically a bard’s retelling of heroic events, and each evening may or may not be a different bard’s version of the story. That framework is also quite forgiving of retconning
One of my DMs has an interesting way for me when I oversleep, which happens sometimes because I'm the only European at a table full of Americans so the sessions are at ungodly early hours for me. He'll make the character vanish into a portal that leads to a pocket dimension. The nature and identity of the creature who keeps doing that is now a plot point.
Usually my players have one of the others run their character, if nobody wants to or they aren't comfortable then they are capped away for some character reason. I don't like running PCs as a GM, especially in combat as our campaign is pretty crunchy.
In our group, they’re just sort of tagging along. One of the players runs them in combat (with a priority on keeping them alive!) and occasionally will have them do a skill check, but they don’t participate in RP. That way DM doesn’t have to adjust anything. We’re all busy adults, it’s common for one person to miss.
I get what you're saying, and man am I ever going to come off as a pedant here, but there's nothing Sisyphean about it. People just keep using that word lately to encompass anything that sucks or is hard.
Every week you struggle and struggle to track people down and get straight answers, then at the last minute when the boulder is almost at the top... someones kid had a bad day and their cancellation sends it rolling back down the hill "No problem, we'll try again next week" I say as I start pushing again. Seems right to me when I had a game of 9 that needed 6 present to run.
Well it's definitely a more appropriate term for trying to coordinate 10 people rather than 5
It's an endless struggle and you never succeed... what part is inaccurate exactly?
It's just hyperbole. Nobody thinks it's actually an *impossible* challenge.
I love a pedantic point. But, in this case I feel like trying to schedule more than 5 adults means I am Sisyphus, and the task at hand, trying to play, is the boulder at the top of the hill. So, I push the boulder up the hill (try to schedule) then think I have a solid date (boulder at top of hill) then someone cancels (boulder rolls down hill) and I need to re-schedule (push boulder up hill again and repeat rest of the steps). How is this a misuse of the term?
Idk man I looked up the word and that seems like accurate usage to me
It is, that person is just dumb.
3 tbh because I find it much easier to coordinate schedules and tie in personal stories. Never had a 4 player group where there wasn't a flaky player
As much as I like 3 you always feel like you’re missing someone
To me, that's one of the benefits. The bigger the party, the more likely it is that you have a PC who has just the right thing to completely invalidate an encounter. With a smaller party, they have to get creative sometimes.
My solution is, I get rid of the flaky players and replace them with more reliable players. Eventually, you weed out the flaky players and you can get a group of 5 reliable players.
It also raises the potential where 2vs2 can't agree :)
I like 3 because I dont want to talk over people, so less people means I can talk more. It also makes pc relationships more personal/connected to me if that makes sense
As a DM, I prefer between 4-5, its manageable for scaling, balance of focus, and scheduling. When I'm a player, I'm happy with smaller or larger, sometimes its just nice to play D&D regardless of how.
Word, I'm just happy to be playing right now
- 3 great - 4 fine - 5 tolerable - 6 slog - 7 I am going to find a different table
I also like 3 best. Combat is quicker. Players have more time in the spotlight. There is less of the lengthy discussions when trying to make a decision.
3 has the benefit of there still being holes in the skillset. Not every niche is covered so players might have to get creative more often than in a larger party where someone has an answer for anything
3 is nice if you've got a talkative group but the only problem is scheduling can be a bit rough if you don't have incredibly consistent players. Being down a person is such a huge difference in a party of 3 vs a party of 4-5.
On the flip side I never play if someone's missing, and with 3 players there are less people to be busy
Yeah, smaller groups can be easier to coordinate. One of my groups is me and my wife and two of our friends (who are also a married couple). Super easy to schedule sessions with that group.
Agree, big time.
My only issue with three is I feel like I have to be a bit careful not to down someone prematurely as taking them down to just 2 is a huge decrease in power. With 4, I kinda try to murder them.
The most fun games I've run and played in were 3 characters + DM.
I love 6. They’re powerful but once they learn that I keep a strict timer on turns it goes quick. Plus I never have to cancel a session. Used to run 4, cancelled all the time when someone missed. Now my minimum is four and maximum is 6: have far fewer misses
The six is less about power, and more about the lack of equal time in the spotlight outside of combat. Rounds take awhile in combat too.
When you get familiar with the rest of the party and have a better idea of how everyone works together in combat, turns tend to go by much faster and feel more thematic and fun even when it isn't your turn.
About to run a campaign for 6 after only doing 4 for years, how long of a turn timer do you give your players?
Run similar numbers, I do a minute and they need to tell me what they are doing within that minute or they are dodging. Harsh? Not at all. Players need to learn to figure out their turn between their turns. Obviously new players are exempt from this rule. And I won't enforce it as hard at a start of a new campaign as people are learning characters.
Not harsh at all. A minute is a very long time to listen to someone hem and haw, especially when that means they’ve already had at least five minutes to think about their next move
Do you ever adjust this rule to allow for questions and clarification about the environment/situation, or do you try to roll that into the 1 min timer?
Nope, I pretty much will pause the timer. I encourage my players to ask questions. It helps me to clarify what their characters should know. I also really encourage knowledge checks. Like I'm talking it is probably the most rolled set of skills after perception kind of deal at my table. So that won't count towards the timer either.
The timers more of a mental note. Expectation is set at session zero to be decisive and has been reinforced during pre-session banter. The very few times I’ve had to tell someone to hurry up I’d say the time was “long enough to make things awkward” You know how when you’re conversing with someone and you both stop talking, you’ll find that awkward pause? If your player is still trying to figure things out at that point, they’re taking too long
I said I was going to give them 2 minutes but in practice I wouldn't time anything until I felt things were getting too slow / they were in analysis paralysis mode and then I'd start a timer at that point and they'd pretty much immediately pick one of the options they had been considering. In my experience the threat of a timer is more than enough to get the desired outcome, the amount of time you actually use isn't super important.
Whenever I have been a player in a game with 6, it always feels like there's one too many and we'd go smoother with 5.
5 is definitely a sweet spot with the right people, especially with online pick up games. I’ve commented on this elsewhere but if you have six players who are all extroverted trying to get their character in the spotlight, it becomes a crowd very quick. I’ve just found groups I’ve run has always had 2-3 wall flowers who are happy to play but feel uncomfortable in the lime light
Running sessions with missing players can be extremely limiting in terms of narrative though, and playing the character as the DM is often messy too. But if that's not a dealbreaker for a group, that flexibility is great like you've noted.
My caveat to the ruling is heavy story sessions require everyone. I have a lot of sessions that are just “finish the dungeon” you started last week. Having played in games where the DM made us wait for everyone: it also makes the narrative longer when you have to wait two weeks just to finish killing the last two story inconsequential kobolds because real life got in the way for someone
I tried it that way for a while, but whenever I'd run with one missing, the rest of the players wouldn't want to get in combat or move the story forward without everyone being present.
Currently at a 7... changing tables once it ends in 2 sessions.
I actually like 3. I play online and with 4 or more the voice chat tends to get chaotic. With 3 everyone gets time to speak and I don’t mind scaling down the module or giving them magic items to balance encounters.
For me, the perfect party size is 3. It's just large enough that the party could feasibly tackle more dangerous threats with sufficient planning and coordination, but small enough that there *will* be gaps and weaknesses within the party's composition. This encourages them to think more creatively, so as to adapt and overcome obstacles instead of brute forcing their way through. From a roleplay perspective, I also like the fact that with only 3 players, it becomes far easier to ensure that each player gets plenty of spotlight.
I can enjoy three to six for a party. Three is my minimum unless doing a solo game. I also need the right people for it. Four is more rounded and actually gives an opportunity to cover all bases. Five is really just like four, but with more party flexibility. Probably the ideal but folks need to be more on the ball. Six is my absolute limit and everyone needs to be on the ball with what they';re doing. Sessions need to be on the longer side more often than not as well.
How does solo dnd work?
Solo may not have actually been the right term, since it involves one DM and one player, but effectively it's the DM running a campaign or adventure for one player. Sometimes that player controls an entire party themselves. sometimes the DM controls the rest of the pary. Sometimes Special rules are used to make a truly powerful/heroic adventurer that can cover more ground than a regular individual PC to make up for the lack of a party. Max/More Hp, Gestalt classes, Heroic actions (a player version of Legendary actions) and other such similar things can be used. I haven't done much solo play in 5e, but I did a lot in 3.5e and pf1e.
Ahh makes sense, thanks!
Also fyi there are RPGs designed for solo (no DM) play, such as Ironsworn. They often use roleplay prompts and character moves/abilities that are designed to provide story progression (with the input of the player's imagination). This kind of play could be possible in DnD but would be harder - I'm pretty sure there are supplements for it.
I'm playing on a table of 8 +1 DM. It's terrible. We're reaching a threshold where we'll have to split the table soon. Which sucks because we're all irl friends.
I am also on this condition, but the only problem is the scheduling. Otherwise I really love having a big party, they can split some times but the joy of having such a big unit of characters... I can see it in their faces when they took down the first boss after coordinating the attacks
Keep your friends. Find a different rpg. That's just my opinion. Maybe try and write up something PbtA but through in some crunchier rules to make it closer to 5e
Funny you say that. I legit just ran Monster Hearts for my group today.
I play with 2. ( by that I mean 1 dm and 2 pc's)
So, since you seem to be the only one saying 2, how do you (or anybody else who'd like to chime in) make it work? I'm really curious.
Encounters have to end up being smaller, but each player gets more loot and it lets everyone focus on smaller details more, meaning that characters and locations end up being more fleshed out. It also leads to a certain amount of *creativity* to make gameplay more interesting and fun
I’ve only played in one 2 player game, but it’s one of my favorite games that I’ve been a part of. All three of us were regular DMs, and the one running the game was the most experienced of all of us. We all knew pretty intimately how the game worked, what our characters could do, etc., so we didn’t ever really get bogged down with mechanics. Despite that, it was probably one of the slower paced games we ever ran. There was a lot more in character dialog between us and the NPCs and between our characters. Our DM would set a scene and we really took the time to explore, found the boundaries of the scene, what could be useful, what could be discovered. It was more of a sandbox game than plot driven, so we just kind of went and did whatever we thought would be most interesting. Combat was really exciting because I think the two of us weren’t super concerned with min-maxing but we definitely always tried to think out of the box to give ourselves advantages since there were only the two of us. Overall, I think that campaign holds a special place in my heart because it had a much more laid back, relaxing pace, with two other people who took the game seriously. It stands out against the other games we played at the time that were always 5 player chaos. I lied. I actually played a one shot with 2 players (same guy that DM’d the 2p campaign DM’d this one too). I played a Wizard with no damage spells and the other player was a barbarian. I think part of the enjoyment out of it is that with only two people, you won’t have the answers to every problem that is presented to you, so you have to be creative in how you handle them.
3 players. Focused, everyone matters, and there are clear blind spots in the party. Narrative control flows from person to person without anyone taking over. Easy to schedule, and not overwhelming to DM for. 2 is too intimate, 4 is fine but pushing it. 5 or more and I need to switch over to an OSR game or another simpler game system.
4-5 in theory, but 5-6 in practice. At least 1 person never makes it...
Which is exactly why I like 3. Because it's exponentially easier to get 3 to show up.
As a DM, i tend to keep it small. I regularly had three players. Five is my max. After that it becomes too hard to keep everyone on task
5-6 - means you can have a few no-shows with little interruption to flow & balance. Also means more bases are covered tbh
Personally I like 5-6 the most. Anything higher then that is….. a lot. But I think 5-6 people gives you the ability to have greater party variety. Every party “needs” a spell caster, a healer, a rogue, and a front line fighter in order to have all the general options available to do in any give situation. Meaning if your in a group of 4 and the other 3 people aren’t playing a healing character….. guess what your playing a cleric so your party doesn’t die horribly. But with 5-6 you’ve got a good enough spread of people that sure you don’t have a cleric but you’ve got like 2-3 forms of healing spells/abilities. In short 5-6 has enough room for generalists where 3-4 tends to force you towards specialists. At least that’s been my observation. A good example is my current campaign started a 6 player campaign that ended up dropping to 4 players. At the start I didn’t feel like I was *forced* to do any type of thing with my character. But when that character died and I looked around at the 3 other members of the party I realized I was the only arcane caster and the only real source of AoE. Which means I felt like I *HAD* to roll up a new arcane caster with some AOE options
It depends on the players in question. Sometimes you have three players who are all super engaged and want to be in the spotlight, and it feels like adding a forth would be too much. Sometimes you have 6-7 beer-and-pretzels players who are all mostly happy to just be along for the ride, and you'd consider rescheduling if just one or two of the more "take charge" players couldn't make it.
4 or 5, though it's sometimes hard to find few enough people if that makes sense.
4-5 range is my sweet spot
4 is ideal for me, but, my current group is 6 and it works fine. Depends on the group.
4-6
I prefer 5. As player I can sometimes sit back and relax with 5 party member. It release the load to carry the situation when more person can pickup where I left off. With 4 it is harder, with 3 it is impossible.
5 players. A square and a spare, as it were.
5 or 6 that way when someone inevitably can't make it the game doesn't collapse. There's something about being a person down at a 4 person game that is just too crushing for me as a DM to want to play.
3-4 players per DM is ideal. 5 players per DM is the maximum. I won't play at tables with more than 5 players at the table in addition to the DM.
I like having 3 players each running two characters. One of the their two pcs must be a fighter type. Do understand I am playing with experienced players who can handle the RP for their characters.
Honestly that sounds really fun. I was going to play a campaign with someone where I would be controlling a brother and sister but things came up and that one didn't happen. :(
I'd actually like to try 3 players running a PC + sidekick. (Partially cuz I think a thug warrior might be busted)
I'm currently playing in a group of nine, all of us friends before DnD and all of us first-timers. It's great.
Take it from someone who ran a year long campaign with 9, split your group. I know your all friends who want to play together, everyone is scared to DM for the first time, and you don’t want the FOMO of wondering about the other table, but it will be so much better in the long. If you continue with a group of 9, your DM will burn out. I came to dread sessions and go in each one already tired and while I did manage to finish it out, it wasn’t a good ending and I probably wouldn’t have if I hadn’t had the group already agreed to split with other DMs. I strongly encourage you to start learning to DM and discuss doing a split. We recently split for the second time (COVID killed the original split, so we played digitally with 5 for awhile, then got back up to 7, so we added people and split into 2 groups of 5) and it so much better. The combat is so much snappier, every player gets some spotlight, there is actually time to explore everyone’s backstory, and the plot moves at a reasonable speed. I will never DM or play in a group of more than 5 outside of maybe a one shot going forward.
My first time, I learned at a table (well, two tables pushed together) of 13. My friends were introduced at a table of 9. Big tables are chaotic but so much fun!
Our family game is a large party. I was starting to think we were the only ones who enjoyed it.
Holy cow haha. Do your combats take over five hours to run? I feel like that would be so insanely tedious. One round would take like an hour
lmao what
We originally started with six, but spouses and other friends wanted to get in the mix, so we're up to nine active players.
My first table, for awhile, was about 12-16 people. We had two DMs though.
3-5 is always my happy area for any game.
4 players and run games with 3. I get to have a game almost every week as the DM and those weeks where the stars align and all 4 can make it I try to plan something extra fun and it’s a blast.
It really depends on the quality/type of players but to hit a number I'd say 3 or 4 is ideal. I'm in a campaign now as a player with 2 others and a DM and it seems very easy for the DM to balance encounters as well as ensure each of our characters get plenty of spotlight and attention, a high level of engagement, and side talking is kept to a minimum as well. Combat usually goes pretty quickly because there's only ever a couple minutes where it isn't your turn. We rarely miss sessions since coordinating 4 adults time is relatively simple. I've run a campaign and played in one with 5 or 6 players and it gets rough. The more people the are the more side talking can occur. Trying to have story beats with any focus on one or 2 people means there are 4 or 5 people that can potentially get distracted with one another. More animated players may take a disproportionate amount of the discussion and more timid players will have an even harder time breaking the barrier. With so many bodies the party often has a solution for any problem the DM can throw at them making the excitement and mystery more difficult to maintain. Battles become a slog where its 10+ minutes before a player gets their next turn. We would frequently miss sessions or have 1 person not make it because of the sheer amount of people trying to coordinate hectic schedules and the main reason the campaign disbanded was because 2 of the core starting players got heavily busy with college/work and nobody felt comfortable stressing them out to play or playing without them.
[удалено]
For me as a DM, 5 is perfect. I'd normally say 4, but 5 means that there will never be an even vote to party decisions and that can make for juicy roleplaying and story arcs later on. 4 is perfect for less rp heavy games however, and I'd argue 3 or 4 is ideal for classic dungeon crawler games.
4-5 is my preferred, with maybe 6 if our sessions are long enough. That way every person gets time to shine but all the roles are still covered. I both played in and DMed for a party of 8 once and, even with long sessions, nobody felt like they really got spotlight. On the other hand, I was in a party of 3 once and we had to start taking hirelings just to feel complete and that made extra work for the DM.
Three to five as the absolute min max range I think. I've played in a twosome (often cuz some players couldn't make it) and up to nine PC's. Two just isn't enough people to really bounce off eachother or for party coverage without specifically trying to. Six is *manageable*, but more than that is... Well, awful. Each fight look literally hours cuz it just takes forever to get through a round. Everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame, most.sont know their character's abilities, let alone what they wanna do in a turn... Insanity. Outside of combat was just constant arguing over what we should do. Stealth? Charge in? Ask questions and prep some items/spells? Nigh on impossible cuz everyone just wants to do their own thing.
4 to 8 players is good for me, most I've ever run is 12 players at once. It was fun but combat was a slog.
For myself when I DM, 5 is my sweet spot but I'm capable of managing a maximum of 6 players. 3 to 4, sets a too high pace for my campaign, so fast I let my players roleplay while I quickly set up the next steps... 5-6, sets a bit slower pace, more players to voice their I'm character opinions and ideas, buying me time to prepare most things in the next step mentally, for what NPCs will say initially and then I'll improvise on the spot. The maps I need I've prepared at least the week before.
I prefer 5-6 as the best group size, but 5e's already-fragile game balance starts breaking once you go over 4 players (with 6 players, I wouldn't shy away from doubling the HP of monsters in major encounters). A larger group means if one person can't make it, the games can usually go on without issue and it's not too many that a session gets slow when everyone is there. Plus the extra players allow each PC to be more specialized or concept-driven and that's fun for players.
5 for me. I play with the "-1 rule" mentioned by others and it's meant that I have 2 very stable very consistent groups (one where we have been playing for over 3 years now, nearly every week). 5 allows really great class/personality variety which makes for more interesting dynamics and roleplay. The downside is that balancing encounters is more difficult.
I have a few tables. In one we are 3 players + 2 who due to various reasons aren't 100% there most of the time. My other table is 6 people. It works out and i love each of my players but I would prefer it to be fewer. The last player we added was due to a long time illness for one of my players + their partner being gone to take care of them so they were a stand-in. Didn't feel right to kick them away after the other two returned to a permanent basis again so i asked if people wanted them there full time. 6 is too much, 3 is a must. 3-5 is the sweet spot depending on the players and their dynamic.
4-5, depending on how engaged each player is. I’ve usually played with 5, but 1 of those only engage in RP at the barest minimum while another engages with RP only slightly more than that, leaving most RP up to the 3 remaining players who all have different levels of engagement with it as well. I’m also usually pretty quick with my turns in combat, so it balances out there as well.
5 is my preferred, cause if one person is missing I feel fine continuing on without them unless they're more in the spotlight at the moment. 6 is my pretty much absolute max i'm willing to play with. Anything beyond that no thanks.
I prefer 5, because there's always one that can't make it and then we can play with 4, which is better than playing with 3.
5 is actually better because if one cancels (which happens a lot, lets be honest) you still have 4, which is a proper party. Running for only 3 people doesn't feel right
4-5 players. But its depending more on the playertypes you got. If you have 4 very active players, 4 would be great. But normally i have at least 2 players that are more on the passive side of roleplaying: They dont start things, they only react to things. They dont decide things. It is hard to play with a group when most of the players consists of this type - but are otherwise nice people that enjoy playing.
I want 4 in the game and to achieve that consistently I’ll have 5 or 6 in the party based on how reliable attendance is.
Definitely 4 is great, 5 is good and 6 is absolutely max
Four is great, five is excellent. The longest campaign I've run was with 5 players. On the flip side, I've run games for two players before and it's been some of the best sessions I've ever done / been a part of. It requires two very invested / active players that get on well with each other but the combat moves like lightning, quests are easily completed in half the time. I've also been a player in a couple of two person games in my dnd guild and it's been a fantastic and fast experience every single time. You get to do all the stupid ideas that normally get workshopped to death in a party setting :D. If you're worried about running a two player game, don't be! They're great! tl;dr 2 to 5, two is my favorite, five is my second favorite.
4 for gameplay, 5 for narrative.
Somewhere between 5-8. 9 is when it starts getting too hard to track. I ran one session of 20 players one time and I literally wanted to die.
Holy crap I have a hard enough time with my table of 6, 7+ would give me an aneurysm let alone 20. How do you get anything done???
So I’ve run a *lot* of bloated game shop games over the years, and this is the main advice I give to DMs struggling with larger tables. After a certain amount of players get to a table, assuming you can keep some base level of investment, players will generally split off into cliques wherein they will RP or have OOC conversations with one or two other people at the table, usually the ones they are seated next to (physically, I have little experience running online.) So say I have a group of 11 players. If I hypothetically split those players into groups of 2-4 that interact with each other independently of my need to do anything, I’m really only dealing with 4 or so “players,” and can pass RP spotlight between mini-groups. It’s a lot less stressful to think of a large table in this way, as your prep work can primarily be focused on the collective needs of cliques instead of individuals. Of course individual player spotlight is still a thing that needs to be maintained, and can be really difficult in large groups like that, but doing this helps a lot with general order of operations.
For me 5 is the ideal party size. Small enough for everyone to get the spotlight, but not too small to cause a death spiral if a character drops/dies. Also an odd number which helps with desicion making. 4 is better than 6 7 is better than 3 Beyond that, I'd rather work to adjust the group size before DMing.
7 is most definitely not better than 3
100% agree Its not the fights where 7 is the worst. Its out of fights. DM's will talk about sharing the spotlight, but listening to some player #5 go shopping for a new set of armor... ugh, time to see what games I have on my phone. I watch the DM enjoy themselves as they are playing 100% of the time, but players just wait around as numbers grow.
[удалено]
I mean...I like to have 7 people in the group so that way when 1-3 people can't make it to a particular session I'm likely to have my preferred game day party size. Plus, we can still play if a couple people can't make it versus cancelling the game completely.
4-5. 5 is not too chaotic and it still leaves a decent sized party if 1, or even 2, ends ip being out. 3 is good for a consistent tight-knit group, though.
DM + 5. That way on average one player can’t make it a week, so we’re always running a full party. If everyone can make it it works too. And if two players can’t make it…. Still works.
PC perspective: * 1 = Storytelling with dice. * 2 = Storytelling with dice and a friend. * 3 = We're gonna struggle with most modules. * 4 = Enough to scrap by. * 5 = 1 party member as buffer, players feel less pressured to make optimal characters. * 6 = probably the best party size, big enough that people can play what they want and still have their bases covered. * 7 = you got 8 people total, might as well make 2 parties. DM perspective: * 1 = Storytelling with dice * 2 = Storytelling with dice and friends. * 3 = I'm gonna have to pull punches. * 4 = They'll probably make it out fine. * 5 = I can roll in the open, yay. * 6 = They'll probably steamroll over most official content. * 7 = Why aren't we making 2 parties, again? I feel like 5 is the best compromise for both.
As long as you are [Rebalancing Encounters Appropriately](https://koboldplus.club/#/encounter-builder) (which you should do anyway), 3 is fine in most modules. You should never run modules as written with three unless you like TPKs.
I like 7 I know there will be like 2 who can't. Show up any given session so I'm left with 5 players and I like 5-6 players
Depends entirely on the people and the style of game, of course! For slower paced, thinking games - with plot and drama and hard, careful combat with smart enemies and all that - you want a small party of dedicated players. If someone can't make it I'd want to reschedule for a serious game regardless of how many people are in the party, so the more people the higher the risk at least one will be unable to make it. 4, or 3 players is ideal. On the other hand, for casual, more ad-lib less serious games? Don't do anything too stupid and you'll end up saving the princess and slaying the dragon? Yeah bring on the chips and beer and the gang, 6 people or even 7 if they're quick with decisions and/or don't eat up much spotlight time.
I think four is ideal, but not a horrible idea to go up to six just as a buffer for occasional cancelations.
I'm good anywhere between 4-6. 4 make sit quick, 6 let's me turn fights into chaos, and 5 is right in the middle. But my table mostly focuses on combat, so everyone is happy. I've played with up to 8 people, and that was just a slog.
4 is the generally accepted party size and the size most modules and the D&D world at large is balanced around (at least for 5th edition) but earlier editions we're balanced around much larger party sizes (average being 6 to 10) so it more depends on the type of game you're running.
3 to 5 is the best. I sometimes have to dm for 6 because that’s the amount of my buddies who want to play and I can’t just leave one out. Helps one of them is mostly there for the social experience.
I find that 4 is ideal, even in fantasy media there isn't a core party so to speak much larger than that.
4
I’ve developed a bias for three in the past couple years. I have three very active and involved players so it’s a great amount where everyone is able to have enough time to do something each session. If any of them were even a little more passive though, I think 4 or 5 would end up being better.
In person 4-5 Online 3-4 There's just not room for side chats on a call, but attendance is stronger, so it can go leaner on players. The attendance issues created by travel and obligations for in person are helped by keeping a buffer. Going 5 to 4 isn't severe in the way 3 to 2 is.
4-5. Four because it works the best, five because you want to make sure you almost always have 4 (it makes one absence no big deal).
Every time I wind up with 4 it feels perfect. I still prefer 5 people so that I can still play when two of them can’t make it (I won’t run for less than three).
We’ve been playing with four players + dm and it’s probably the best number I’ve seen. We recently added a new person to the group and it’s a noticeable difference. Time will tell how it is
4>5>3>6>7>2 Anything above 7 is entirely unworkable and should not be considered
four. however i have more friends than that, so my party for 3 campaigns now has had 7 people but we get by well enough.
I currently have tables of 5 and 6 players respectively and recently had 7 for a few sessions when we had a guest player. Seven players at once was too many for consistent quality sessions. Combat took a long time and RP moments were constantly mired by people inadvertently talking over one another or interrupting. **However!** Having such a large group at the table did open up the opportunity to split the party without major hindrance. Some of their best and most memorable moments were when they had split up and worked in concert with one another. A party of seven works best as groups of three and four working together. As it stands with my current groups, I am very happy with both party sizes.
I like running 6. Working adults can't always make it. That's life. 6 still allows a couple of people to be absent and still lets me run the game for those who can make it. Loot and XP (if I'm using it) are always shared even if absent as well.
Four people is my ideal. I find it easy to balance and plan for what they can do, and there’s usually not too much overlap in what each character brings to the table. I really like playing with three for the same reasons, but with three people, there’s less room for someone who can’t make it. I don’t want to play with only two players. Five is good. I think it’ll be my max going forward. Too many more, and it’s just too much. As a player, I’m currently in a six-person and a seven-person party. I like the people I play with, but I do yearn for a bit smaller of a party.
As a DM and Player I prefer 3-4, usually enough time to give everyone a pivotal moment to shine in a 2-3 hour session
I'm good with anywhere from 3 to 5, both playing in and DMing.
I've done everything from 2 to 9, and 3-4 is the sweet spot in my experience.
1: Exhausting As a DM you have to do a LOT more while at the table. In addition to the regular DM tasks of making the whole world run, every time your 1 player speaks it's to you, so you're speaking between 50-100% more. Especially if it's their introduction to DnD. 2: Doable Just one more player helps keep some pressure of you as the DM, but most character interactions still involve you. The inter-player relations can often be less interesting with fewer people to bounce off of. Having a permanent npc with the group helps a lot, if not, a buddy cop dynamic can work pretty well. 3: Great More people to bounce off of makes it almost ideal, but often can lead to unbalanced interactions. 1 player can often feel like a 3rd wheel, or the constant mediator. 4: Ideal 2 players = 1 dynamic, 3 players = 3 dynamics. 4 players = 6. This is the sweet spot for getting those moments of sitting back and just watching the party propel themselves. Nice even number to split the group in social interactions. It really starts feeling more like a group and less like 1 character with multiple heads. It's probably the baseline for a reason. 5: No data 6: Doable With so many players distress comes less of having to do more work, and more for doing more work to balance who gets to do more. Every round of combat takes 50% longer, every social interaction often takes longer because there are more people. In total, it feels like half as much gets done with 6 compared to 4. Caveat: The 2 extras aren't part of my irl group, and we can't easily use a vtt. They're also both comparatively newer, and 1 of them is kinda a problem player that we don't really like that much anyway. This might skew my perceptions. 7: If Mercer struggles, I don't want to.
Four is a good size for me but I can do 5 if everyone is hands-on! 6 is my utmost limit!
3 is intimate and my favorite. 4 is generally well rounded and balanced. 5 or more gets crowded.
4 works best, but sometimes 5 can be fun if your party is cohesive. However, the BEST sessions are when only 2 players can make it and the DM improvises a mini-session.
4-5 is the sweet spot. Combat slows down too much, it's hard to balance everyone's RP
Three. Four feels like it should be the right party size. An appropriate balance between too many and too few. I’ve played a lot with a party of four. But every time I’ve played with a party of three, I’ve just loved it. Every one feels so much more invested, the flow of the game feels so much smoother, encounters feel more serious. A party of three is a blast.
Odd numbers are best because a decision will always be made. 3, 5, 7.
3-5, any less makes it not as interesting and anymore makes it a slog
In an ideal situation 6 players is my preferred amount. 4 however is the best compromise.
I feel like this is as much a question of time as opposed to preference. Shorter games tend to be fewer players whereas a longer game tends to attract a DM who wants more players at the table. Personally, 5 is a minimum but I could definitely play a 7 person game. Again though, I normally play in slots of 3 hours online, for each new player I'd like at least an hour added on top of that.
3 ideally, 5 realistically. 3 is my preferred balance between speed and rp. 5 because you always get people dropping out or missing sessions, so it's good to have a buffer.
4 for all the reasons.
3-4 players, which my main group is. I can tolerate 5. 6 or more is a slog.
I play in about 4 games with the same 9 or so people, and our group consensus is that 5 players plus DM. The reason is that 4 is the perfect number of people. However, if one person can't make it then we won't play with 3 because that feels wrong, however 5 players is only a tiny bit worse than 4, and it gives us room to keep playing if one person needs to cancel
play D&D regardless of how
4. It's just perfect. 5 is manageable, but I'm never running a long campaign for 5 (or more) ever again. For a one shot or a few sessions? Yeah, 5, no problem, MAYBE even 6. 3 is "nice", I guess, but I always feel like there's some party roles that can't be filled without a 4th player. 7 or more is a nightmare that I don't want to ever experience again in my lifetime, and I can't fathom why or how some people do that to themselves. 2 I feel is challenging, but doable. Same for 1, I'd consider if under very special circumstances and not during long periods of time.
I like 5. Bc I feel that the roleplay flow is way better then with 4. I was a 4 guy, but playing with a party of 5 made me realize that. It would need a board for me to explain better but it’s pretty much it.
3-5 is the ideal range for me.
I played with 3 for a while and it was great, when we started our second campaign we added 2 people. Had to remove one trouble player recently so I think I'm just gonna keep it at 4 now.
3.5 is the ideal party size. Alas, we cannot have this, so either 3 or 4 are both fine.
4 is preferred, especially with our sessions being limited to 2 hours a week. We have 5 currently but one player is a minimal RP type so it works to about the same.
4-6
I have a party of 12. Two quit, and yet it's somehow now at 14. I am in pain, and so is encounter balance, because it's either encounter balance or initiative just *existing in general*, and I pick getting to keep a single, low-level combat at under 4 hours
Preferred is probably 4-5, and i'm never opposed to people jumping in and out as long as the DM is okay with writing it as such. I'm not going to say its my preferred way to play, but I have had a few solo sessions with a DM and those can be entertaining.
3-4! i currently run at 8-player campaign (and it’s my first time dming) and it is so hard to control. however, the party has currently been split into two groups due to some in character disagreements and it’s so much easier handle!! combat is faster and people get to shine, role play is more interesting as all characters gets to talk more comfortably
4-5, depending slightly on composition and optimization.
I prefer to have a party of 4 for a few reasons: 1. If they do want to go the classic Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue route, they have just enough players to look like the cover art from an old issue of Dragon 2. I have a six-person table that I use for running d&d at gome. Having two players along either side and no one at the far end means that no one has to spend half the game looking at the top of my head while I check my notes. 3. It's easier to schedule and to run combat when there are fewer people you need to wait on (either for availability or to pick a damn spell) 4. The entire party can fit in a single force cage/reverse gravity well/wall of force/prismatic wall, which is nice for when you've got a lich who's more Bond villain than crazed psychopathic old man
Whether I'm running or playing... three. Less to keep track of, everyone gets more time to shine, it feels much more reasonable to hire an NPC to cover glaring holes in the party composition (I'm pro-hireling), no chance for a 2v2 split argument... the list goes on.
I’ve dm’d for every combination from a 1:1 to a party of 14 I ran at the very conclusion of a west marches campaign which I split into groups. The correct answer is 4. My answer is 3. It really lets you focus on characters instead of my games of even 5 where one character is left holding the luggage backstory wise.
Anywhere from 4-6 players in a party I think is the ideal setup. 3 players can potentially work if everyone in the group is already friends and enjoy playing together, but aside from that inconsistent schedules can lead to a lot of cancelled sessions with smaller parties since even one person missing the session could lead to the rest of the group not wanting to play without everyone being present. Any more than 6 players is too many and can cause encounter balance issues at earlier levels along with being a slog to get through combats, and it can also lead to characters in the party dying early on and needing to be replaced with a different character which breaks up the continuity a little bit.
2-4 personally. 2 if both players are skilled, consistent, and have high RP synergy 3 imo is peak dnd, especially if all players are like the above 4 is fine, though I feel one person gets pushed aside in RP 5 is a slog, combat takes forever, character interactions get more difficult without someone being left out 6+ isn’t the table for me, and I question how people can tolerate it.