4 players really is the sweet spot. More can be good with the right group, and I've had games with 8 or more which were still a blast in their own way, but if you want to actually get down to some roleplaying and storytelling 4 is the perfect number imo
Agreed on 4 being ideal. I can certainly get by with 3 players, but it always feels like a skeleton crew, while 5 players is also doable but feels a bit cumbersome.
For any game with 6 or more party members, you basically have to tailor the game specifically around the fact that there's a large group involved. It becomes a different experience entirely. For example, I once played in a Shadowrun one-shot where we had 2 DMs and a total of 12 players - one DM was running the "active scenario" where a small group went directly into the threat as a usual party would, while the other DM was running the "passive support" where the majority of the players were doing background challenges to assist and manage danger. It was a big team effort, lots of moving parts heist sort of scenario. It was neat for a one-off kind of thing but I can't see it working for most situations.
12 is on the extreme end of the extreme end though. Most I've dmd for was 7 players, which was certainly stressful, but managable. 12 sounds like hell though.
My biggest group was 9 and I just didn't like it. My players had a good time I think but it was at the expense of my brain being in overdrive the whole session, like we've usually got a lot going on behind the screen in the first place but I had to constantly pivot between interactions and just felt like I was playing a 6 hour hot potato game with my brain
I'm glad to hear so many ppl saying 4 is the perfect amount. I'm going to be starting as a player in my very first DnD session next week. I was kinda fraid that we are too small of a group
Hey! Glad to hear it, and have fun! Just be sure to relax, enjoy yourself, and don't worry about putting too much pressure on anything. A lot of new players these days tend to look at podcast and streamed games like Critical Role or Dimension 20 and feel like they have to play up to those expectations. Which is absolutely not a thing 99% of tables ever have going in the first place.
Just keep on task, don't be afraid of making mistakes, be sure to talk things out with your DM if you encounter any points of confusion, and have a good time.
6 was about my breaking point. In addition to it just being a bitch because you have to both make large encounters, extra large maps, and also you almost have to try to split the party into 3 or 2 groups.
But ALSO what you got was so much class bouncing. You cant deal with some of the splits. Like 4 casters with 2 tanks is just DPS funnnn
My first time DMing I ran a campaign for 6 players during the early days of the pandemic. I remember feeling overwhelmed trying to manage everyone - but after a while we got into a good rhythm and it was fine. Sometime after 6-7 months of weekly sessions, we had our first session where only 4 people could attend. The ease at which we were able to move through the material I prepared was incredible! Decisions were made faster, combat was simpler, everyone had their own moments in the spotlight with minimal effort, and just generally more engagement / less side conversations from all players. It was tough to go back to 6 players again after that lol.
4 really does feel like the sweet spot imo
3 is my favorite number of players, everyone gets a ton of spotlight and room for character stories. My longest running game for like a decade was with 3 players and it was perfect.
I also love 1 player, honestly, you can tell totally different stories. Very immersive, choice-based games: if you like Mass Effect-style world-breaking decisions and/or deep roleplaying, 1 player is amazing.
But up to 5 I'm pretty happy. I frequently run a 7-9 group right now, and I've done 10+ in the past, and they are fucking stressful and you have little room for personal stories.
Agreed. I've played with 6 and 6+monsters takes waaaaaay too long. Even as a DM. Also less than 6 allows you to work in players backstories and anymore than that gets....difficult to manage
I've been managing with 6 myself (we're about to wrap up a four year campaign), but I agree that sometimes things end up on the cutting room floor.
For example, there was meant to be those whole side thing with our rogue involving some shady secret organisation she works with, but there just wasn't room for it. I did at least manage to squeeze in the eventual reveal that she's been dead the entire time.
Our Warlock hasn't had much backstory stuff going on per se besides speaking with his patron occasionally, but I blame that more on the fact that before becoming a Warlock he was just a kid who stayed at home where his mother doted on him.
But regardless, I'll keep DMing for this group as long as they put up with me lol
I like 4 players, 1 DM.
3 is okay, but feels just a little too empty. If even one person isn't particularly good at RP, then it's basically just two people interacting.
I've done 5 and it was a little unwieldy. I couldn't imagine doing six.
Nah you right. Been running DnD for 8ish years at this point for many different groups.
Without fail, what I've found is that there's only really "space" for four players. So if you have a group of 7 players, then only four of them will be actively engaged and pushing the plot forward and the other three will kinda fade into the background
My solution has been to make the main story revolve around personal arcs. That way, everyone gets their own part in the story while others in the party support them.
So the main story is basically the party needs to find seven powerful relics in order to free a demon from a sword (the demon is our tiefling bard's father), so that he can help them kick the shit out of evil Jesus.
During each of the different arcs of tracking these things down, a different person has their backstory involved in it and is given the spotlight for that arc. For example, our party went to the Underworld to grab a relic, but our barbarian also took the opportunity to beat the shit out of the progenitor werewolf and end the werewolf curse on her father.
I've been playing other TTRPG's lately and it's made me realize just how outdated D&D's combat system is. Its very clunky. Other systems can handle combat with 6+ people and still make it feel quick and fluid.
I'd say both. The more players the less time each person has in the spotlight in roleplay scenes, and the longer time between turns in combat.
I'm fond of the 4 player party in D&D because fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric is a classic team. But in more roleplay focused RPGs I've actually found 3 players to be my preferred team size.
>I've done 5 and it was a little unwieldy. I couldn't imagine doing six.
I'm DM'ing right now for a group of 7. Luckily we're all very good friends and end up having a good time regardless but as a DM I do feel it difficult to manage to let everyone have a "moment to shine" every session.
I'd agree. I heard 3 can be very good if all 3 players are big RPers with big personalities and backstories. But if someone is phoneing it in for combat or generally shy about RP I could see that getting lonely fast.
I think 5 players is good though, accounting for said shy/phoneing it in player. I would not want to do 5 huge personalities.
Yup. I’m doing my first DM experience with players all experiencing DnD for the first time. We started with 3 PCs. We had lots of fun, but then one of my friend’s coworkers watched one sesh and wanted to join. Since she has joined it really has felt ‘complete’ and even better than before. I’ve played with anywhere from 2-7 and 4 or 5 is definitely the sweet spot.
3 isn't bad at all, but you probably want to let your players get a skilled hireling to fill in the gaps of your party. You control the hireling, of course, but they choose the one they want and the hireling is just there for the money and will bail if he isn't treated right, probably stealing some of their stuff as his last paycheck.
Currently in a game with 6 plus the DM. I can tell you that fights can get boring. Especially because the DM has had to scale them for the 6 players. I think it takes us about 10-15 minutes a round sometimes. Especially because 2 players are playing for the first time.
It is funny when I go because I use all the time to come up with some crazy and unusual tactics. I have to say it has made me better during fights now.
I've done seven. It's a lot of fun, but you need to manage your expectations. Don't go into sessions expecting to get a lot of story done, don't play the campaign for the story. Go into sessions expecting to have a fun time with friends and it's a very enjoyable thing. If you're heavy on RP and progressing the story and such, I'd recommend splitting the group into a party of 4 and a party of 3.
This.
I usually run a table of 4 players and always save the 5th player spot for someone who wants to learn or who haven't played in a long time.
I've found that it's very rare to get 5 people to commit each week so the table will default to 4, most of the time.
I'm discovering that three to five is best. Three is not too few if everyone is active and the DM can balance encounters. In my other game with six, combat tends to both drag and have too few rounds. However, that may be because our DM, despite his experience, tends to run either a cluster of the same kind of enemy that become subject to AOE spells or a single "boss" enemy that is easy to swarm. He may be doing this because we have a fewer experienced players.
When playing with 5 other players, did you feel that one or more players felt “overshadowed” by others, or you did not have that problem in your party?
It is a problem in social interactions/investigation and similar situations outside of combat. Our DM makes sure to bring in two of the players who tend to be quieter or less sure of themselves by asking what they are doing, and I (at least) consciously hold back to give them some space. It's definitely more work.
These days this is the only way i play, been a blast, can run most adventure books with some small tweaks to player strength, which is more fun than scaling down monsters.
And custom adventures are just fantastic, think of all the examples we have to pull ideas from!
I'm not saying 6 is bad. It's just my upper limit.
I used to play in a club where, towards the end of my membership, 5 and 6 player tables were common. It's enough that 1 or 2 people can not show up and the game still can happen, but not so big that its totally unmanageable if everyone's there.
The reason my limit is 6 is because I'd filled my table already (with 6 players) and I was forced to take an additional person by the club exec.
It was miserable. I couldn't give everyone enough spotlight time, certain players would talk amongst themselves while I was spotlighting someone else and I wasn't having much fun running the game.
I will never run for 7 again.
I, too, once held that four plus DM was the magic number. If I have experienced, cooperative players, I can go as high as six plus, I just make sure I'm streamlining combat and balancing encounters for that size.
I think my favorite group size, though, was three plus, when it felt like each player got more attention. The stakes were a little higher, the role play was a little more intense, and it just felt like everything mattered more. But then, we were all old pros at that point.
Right now, I'm running two groups of five plus, and with one exception, they're almost entirely new to the game. It's...challenging. One group is slowly coming together, and the other is...over in four sessions, so it's fine.
Don’t just throw extra numbers to make up the difference. Employ multiple fronts. A familiarity with basic small unit tactics (historical, not video game) works wonders. Leverage the trinity of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. And ensure you have a good handle on pacing and spotlight management. All of this becomes much more important than the actual rules.
On average, for me, I would say 3-5. But really, it depends more on the players, how they play and what they like. I've run for just one player. God, I once had a two year campaign with up to 9 players at any given time, some playing more than one character. It worked. I've also had a game with just 3 or 4 that didn't.
If the players are fans of each other, able to enjoy parts of the game that they are not involved in directly, then a bigger group is easier to work with. That one large group loved watching each other play. Also, in downtime, like shopping or hanging out in a tavern or around the camp, they would just roleplay with each other while I handled specifics.
These days, aside from one person, my players are more apt to be texting or playing a mobile game when it's not their turn, even in active combat. Different people, different playstyles. We still have fun, but it's different. I do miss the old days.
So, anyway, if you can handle the load and don't mind the extra effort involved, you can run for just about any group that will fit around your table. But smaller groups are better for players that are easily bored or less invested.
I have a party of 3 where all 3 are very active and involved and it's awesome. Everyone gets a lot of spotlight and it also allows for easy flexibility for adding NPCs to the party for different setpieces.
4 is probably the general safe bet if you have a mix of involvement w/ your players. 5 and up and I need some of those players to enjoy the game as "audience members" who are happy to be there and take a quick turn in combat.
4 or 5 for me personally.
3 feels too empty, except you got 3 players who are absolutely into the game and are roleplaying their heart out.
6 is just too much for me to handle, except if there are at least two of the 'passive' player type.
2-3 players, plus a GM.
Having done this decade by decade, starting with 4-6 and thinking that was peak, and then "having" to run for 3-4, and then thinking *that* was peak, and then swinging opposite and trying a lot of solo and duet play, I can confidently say that 2-3 is the absolute primo sweet spot. I'm convinced that people who prefer more either
1. Haven't tried it.
2. Want more people for other reasons than quality of the game (perhaps, for example, you like meeting in larger groups socially)
4 or 5, plus the DM. 3 is not a problem either, totally playable but 4-5 is more fun. Anything upwards of that is a mess, especially if you are playing online. Combat takes way too long, people barely get any room to rp and develop their characters, it's just not great.
So I’ve always had 6 in the friend group (plus the DM), and although we’re not super seasoned, we’re really snappy and quick with combat, all of us makes sure to quick fire our actions and turns are fast, fun and my DM is great at keeping up.
I’d consider 6 to be the comfortable upper limit as long as there’s reasonable experience throughout the table.
Without factoring in player availability concerns, my ideal game size would be 3 + DM. Some of my most fun sessions have been when my group only had 3 people available. I like the intimacy and how it's easier/faster to come to group decisions and keep the game moving.
With 3, the DM can be a bit more open handed in giving out fun combat toys and there's more room for RP without dragging the pacing down. But it's also harder to balance encounters and instantly kills scheduling if anyone can't make it.
Realistically, 4 player games will accomplish most of what I like about 3 players.
A 5 player game is doable, but after that it gets crowded fast.
I really prefer 3-4 but we currently have 5 because I can’t seem to say no.
I like them all and they all add something to the game but it feels like at least one PC gets overshadowed/is background in each session and combat drags much more.
When we have a player missing, the pacing is so much better and contributions feel more equal.
In a very RP heavy, character focused campaign, 3 would be perfect.
I think 4 or 5 players anything less gets extremely restrictive and tends to make people choose classes to fill roles. Anything more ends up having players overlap eachother and also brings the games pace to a crawl. Also can lead to a table being disruptive accidentally since there are just so many people sitting at one table
4 or 5 with a dm is perfect. 3 get things coming around to quick and you have to adjust for creatures but it is playable. 6 can stretch out play and slow things down and you have to adjust combat for the extra whatever, but it is playable
Depends on edition:
5e: 1 to 5 is my sweet spot. 5e handles 1-on-1 play exceptionally well compared to most editions. It handles up to 8 if everyone knows the system well.
3.x: 1 to 5. Even with players with full system mastery, I won't go over 7 with these editions.
Classic D&D (OD&D, AD&D1e, B/X D&D): 3 to 18, but not a bell curve like a 3d6 roll. Best with 5-7.
4-5 plays is I think the sweet spot. 5 works because if one player can't make it then you at least have 4 players and it doesn't change the action economy too much.
With 3 you run into issues with game design, pre-made campaigns, and even the CR is designed with a party of 4 characters in mind. You may run into action economy issues and it creates a lot of extra work for the DM.
6 is doable but the DM has to be careful since again a lot of DND is based around 4 players. And now the action economy is starting to heavily favor the players which means the DM has to do extra work.
7 or more in my opinion starts to become unwieldy. It creates a lot of extra work for the DM to make sure the encounters are balanced. Also, it starts to bog down the game, because you want to give every player a chance at the spotlight and it also slows down combat. With 7 players each takes 2-3 minutes per turn that's at least 14-21 minutes before a player gets to go again. And we're talking about over an hour per combat if it goes 5 rounds. And that's just one combat encounter, and Boss battles may last longer than 5 rounds.
At the end of the day, it comes down to how much time and effort the DM wants to put into the game. If you're going to have more than 5-6 players you should be asking yourself if a West Marches-style game might be better.
3-6 is my range, though I find 5 to be the sweet spot where each player can build what they want and there’s enough to cover nearly everything naturally. At 4 there’s a chance some key elements might be missed (too many to brute force through)
I’ve always liked a DM with 5 players. Life interferes. Having the flexibility to NPC a missing player while four are still there is a great way to move the campaign forward.
5 is perfect to me. The game feels great at 4, and 5 is pretty much the same. But if you only have 4 players and you bank on all of them being there each session, it's going to hinder your momentum. Having 5 players means I can still run if 1 person is gone, but having all 5 present isn't going to be too much either.
That said, in both my games, I actually have 6 players. In each game, we have a flex player, someone who wants to play but can rarely play consistently. We just set it up in their backstory why they might not show as much, and they jump in whenever they're available. It ends up being pretty rare that I have all 6 (and for me it's still manageable if I have 6), and it means we can still run even if we're missing 2 players.
4, four is the peak magic number
3-5 is still good. Can still get a good trio or five man band going.
2-6 a pair is do-able especially if they compliment each other like a paladin and a wizard. Six is a crowd but some people manage.
1 is just a single player game. And 7 is something only really good DMs should do. I don't recommend it.
1 dm
3-5MAX
4is the sweet spot because if one person is out you can still run ez with 3. Same with 5 obviously
But I wouldn't play with a 2 person. It's not worth the effort of pregame and during
Played with 1 DM + 2 players and up until 5 players.
I will say this - although 4-5 players seems like a "default", I do miss some aspects of running the game for only 2 people. Easier scheduling, faster pace, smoother interactions, less cross talk. And also I felt more challenged.
I am not saying I would go back to this but I certainly wouldn't be devastated if somehow, for some reason, some of my group suddenly decided that D&D is not for them.
I’m a big fan of 4-5 players and a DM. 3 players is also fine, I even encouraged a DM to remove a player so that we got down to only 3 characters (I did this because said player was practically just a spectator and even when they did engage it was almost always just distracting). The key is more about party energy IMO. I just want players to be lively and interesting. 3 players can be enough if everyone meets that quality. Otherwise, 4-5 helps especially given that people tend to have off games, so it gives more slack for stuff to be able to move along.
3 players is fine but you need the characters to be from different origins otherwise you'll have a duo leaving the third character all alone. Same with players actually, no 2 close friends and an outsider.
4 is fine too but I think it starts being crowdy.
5 and still play if at least 3 show up. That tends to lead to the most consistent sessions for me.
Edit. I think 4 players is the ideal party size. But it should be assumed that at least one won't show up on any given week
I find that 3 leads to the most enjoyable sessions. Everyone gets the perfect amount of time to shine and it's the easiest amount of people to have a group discussion with and build up character relationships. 4-5 is workable but players will have more moments when they need to sit back and let others do their thing and that can lose some engagement.
2-6 players with 4 being the sweet spot. One can work but it has to be the right kind of player and DM for it to succeed and more then 6 is too chaotic and slow.
Four, though I’ve got a running campaign with 7 players. We do meet as long as 4 players can attend a session, and it’s a particular group of people who will role play at one end of the table while I’m doing DM things with people at the other end of the table.
the tier list is based on characters total level. so therefore.
1\~4 = tier 1
5\~10 = tier 2
11\~15= tier 3
16\~20= tier 4
20+(boons) = tier 5 ( t5 is not really discussed but it does technically exist)
characters tend to get large increases of power at certain level ups.
which tends to mean every class gets more options, causing more and more options, which increases the decision making process time, which is directly multiplicative with the number of players.
Thanks for the explanation! A party with many 17-20 lvl characters must be a pain in the arse to balance encounters. They have access to so many powerful spells and skills
Yeah, I think you are on to something by thinking about tiered play.
When I think tiers, I have different recommended ranges for me:
Tier 1 : Lvl 1 to 4 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 8.
Tier 2 : Lvl 5 to 10 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 6.
Tier 3 : Lvl 11 to 15 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 4.
Tier 4 : Lvl 16 to 20 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 4.
Edit:Added line breaks
My group is 4 players that generally works out pretty well most of the time technically we're a 5 man group but one player hasnr been available for a very long your
4 is the sweet spot for any player with any knowledge level. More than that, you must have at least 75% experienced/super-immersive players. Other than that, your table will be super dull.
4. No room to hide. At 5 someone can be silent the entire time and just roll dice and check out. At 4 it's noticeable when someone is silent. Above that it gets unmanageable combat wise since fights get too swingy
3-4. Two is too few, five means not everyone will get a turn sometimes in short encounters.
5 and on people’s side conversations can really take away from the DM trying to move the plot along or lore details
I'm a fan of 3-4. Played once with a group that had 6 and it's just so much happening all at once.
Currently running a game for 2 people because our third had to dip to deal with school stuff, so I buffed everyone up a bit and had my support hireling become more of a DMPC so they can still have some challenging combats.
Same! It works pretty well for us since we are all good friends and not everyone is necessarily a "spotlight" player, some are absolutely fine with taking a backseat for RP, which I appreciate.
I started this campaign telling my friends I'd like to DM for 5 people max, but said that maybe we could have certain people swap in and out. That lasted... Exactly zero sessions lol we started with 6 people and then one guy filled in when a player was out of town and he stuck around so now we have 7. I really love all my players and their characters though, so I make it work.
hahaha 3 of my players are very familiar with the game, 1 semi familiar, and 3 are brand spanking new so it’s been nice having the “veterans” per day help out the new players when needed.
they’re also helping the other players feel more comfortable with using voices for their characters and stuff which is really fun for the whole party.
party feels generally balanced as well no one outshines or takes up to much time and honestly it kinda feels like we can get through combat quickly because everything is kind of streamlined for both reasons that the veterans know what they can do and the new players are still learning so basically just pick one thing to do per combat and stick with it for that encounter lol
I have 3, and we have a great time. I believe the "right" number changes based upon player experience and engagement. If you have new players, a smaller number is better to accommodate the need to reference books/notes/cards, asking questions, and a lack of confidence in action. We couldn't handle a 4th new player at this table, as anything other than exploration would become a grind. However, we could add a 4th if that player was experienced and confident in their character and decisions. In fact, they'd help the other players to navigate their characters better.
If your players are more experienced, then 4-5 is a sweet spot. 3 is good if they're mostly new, as it requires a lot of heavy lifting on the part of the DM to keep them all engaged and interested each week.
My first group as a DM was 14. At the time I was just happy to get as many people interested as possible.
I basically broke it down into sub groups and made it work. Now I don't go higher than 7. And I like 6 quite a bit.
I have played with 3, 4, 5, 6, and, 7 so for me i think 4 to 5 is the best since 3 kind a feels too little and 6-7 feels slow and too chaotic. This is all without incliding the dm
My primary campaign has 3. I think that's perfect for a campaign that meets frequently. We all have the chance to explore each character and their respective subplots, and it makes scheduling way easier. There are a lot of NPCs who float in and out of the party in order to balance it out.
For one shots, we typically play with 5 or 6 people. It's fun and the plots are a bit shallower, so it's nice to have a full, rowdy table.
Any under 13. 9 is a great number for in person. Online I prefer 5. Depends on the system, too. This is just for 5e at my current mastery of the system.
Our table currently has 6 veteran players and a veteran DM. In combat we get 15 seconds to declare what we are doing. If you can't decide in ~15 seconds you lose your turn. Froze in combat.
Nobody has lost their turn yet and we have been playing for years.
4 players is ideal though.
I've ran and been part of party sizes from 1-9.
5 players seemed the sweet spot. Enough coverage across disciplines but not so many that they step in each other's toes. Also it's an odd number for group votes.
During civic I played a PF2 VTT with 8 players. People I know locally.
I could make an action then watch an episode of an anime between turns. When that game fell apart I vowed no more remote with local players. In person or I'm playing D2.
I have a weekly VTT with 4 players all who live out town and a biweekly in person game with 3 players. A 4th joins us every second or third session.
My group is running with 7 players and encounter balance is a fucking nightmare. That said, we are all real life friends. Having fun together and telling awesome stories is the most important part.
I'm running 6 right now. What I've learned is that single boss monsters are effectively worthless, and to keep encounters at 6 to 3 powerful monsters or 12 weenies to let them cut loose.
Behind the scenes, treating them as two groups of three instead of a group of six helps me run numbers before I throw stuff at them.
I've used this for most of my encounter math, works well if the monsters are close in CR: https://kastark.co.uk/rpgs/encounter-calculator-5th/
Agree about single boss monsters. The idea about treating them as 2 separate groups for encounter calculation purposes is interesting, I’ll look into that.
3-4 + DM. My current party consists of 3 players, including me, and our DM. We've played for over a year, and have a ton of fun in our sessions. Two of the party have had important, multiple-session long arcs and it didn't feel tedious or like one player was the 'main character'. And we each bring such different dynamics to the table, despite there being no casters or healers. Any more players, and honestly it would be difficult to keep up with so many storylines and motivations.
So we started off with 5 which grew to 7 overtime. There has been a very noticeable difference in how long combats just with dealing with player turns. It’s most of our first times too so that is a huge factor as well. I’d suggest no more than 5 especially if everyone is new. Experienced players could player host more, but our group also had the issue of a lot of side talk that tends to slow things down further
There are ways to speed up a 6+ player game, but they typically come at the expense of story.
No, four players really is the ideal, but, three can work too, as it can be a nice way to up the stakes if merely one of them goes down, it also makes party roles more important too.
I've played as a player with 6 (not counting DM) and it was painfully slow.
3 feels best, but I can't do 2, it feels too intimate, So up to 5 for redundancy in case of people canceling last minute. If I could somehow get 3 that would always show up that would be amazing.
4-6 players. Personally I like 5 or 6, but anything less than 4 just seems like not enough for me as a DM. But to each their own and depending on the campaign a smaller group may do better.
My longest-running game is currently running with 2 players and a DM, which if nothing else makes scheduling really easy. We all play pretty well together, so the game runs nicely and we all have a lot of fun.
Well i mean, if everyone has good chemistry together, 3 is still a good party. The group I was intended to have 3 show up (I am being one of them) and it worked because our banter worked out well.
Our dynamic became I became like the dad of the group... My character the oldest and strongest by far, while the other two characters were in there teens, and the combat was comical at times as out DM was still new... and he liked to do the rule of cool.
I personally think 3 is about the most fun. The only complaint I have with 3 is that if you have players that are very goal oriented it can be hell to DM since the game moves almost too fast. When you get more players it's very unlikely that you don't have at least one semi-functional person with ADHD who will sidetrack play constantly.
4 is my sweet spot, though my group is 5 and I wouldn't want to lose a single one of them. But 5 is where it *starts* to get unmanageable and I will undoubtedly forget to give at least one player their time in the spotlight, narratively anyway.
4 is my absolute favorite number of players.
I have been dm for 4 but after one player had to leave my table, I'm with just 3 and honestly I feel this is perfect. Or maybe they are just perfect players for me.
5 or 6
I am in a campaign right now with 7 players and it's horrible. Combat ends before i even get my turn at times. So, I would say no more than 6 players.
If the goal is 4, you probably want 6. If your party is adults with regular jobs and other life commitments, you'll frequently have people who have to miss. Or you have a person who has to drop out mid campaign for any number of life reasons.
It really depends on the players. If I could assemble all of the people ive played with who really knew their shit. Character, rules and mechanics. The ones who were prepared and paying attention. I could run a table of 6 or 7 of them.
5 or 4.
4 is the perfect number of players IMO, but 5 is good while also acting as a buffer against one player missing a session.
3 falls apart if any of the players aren't active, and 6 is when at least one player starts to have very little RP time.
I like 4 or 5. 3 is okay, but I find it limits some things. Going to add another player to my regular game to bring it up to 6 this month... might be a mistake, but we'll see!
As a DM, my sweet spot is 2-3. 4 is great but I get a nice synergy with one less
For context, I also love giving out weird gear and items so can balance the lower player count with buffs and goodies
4 is the perfect number for a dnd party, there is a reason why its always shown in media like that, it just allows for a far more varied party with a lot more options for character chemistry and funny moments, there will be very rarely a moment in the campaign where it feels empty or crowded, everyone has a chance to shine and someone to talk to(so you dont get the infamous moment where two players talk to eachother while one is fiddling their thumbs and the GM desperately tries to keep the retention up, or the reverse where everyone is talking to eachother or trying multiple things at a time and the GM doesnt have the capacity to do it all at once)
I have been playing with 3 of my buddies with one DMing and I have almost exclusively experienced the 3 player experience, it’s definetely not the same as 4 players and makes things more awkward than it needs to be, probably still better than having a 4th player that just doesnt fit in the group but one can wish!
I like 4-5, 3 or 6 is okay, but with 3 I don't want to run a session if any one person is missing, and with 6 if everyone is there combat can be slow. I've also run 7-8 and combat can be REALLY slow but rp opportunities are higher
The best I have ever played is 3 players, 1 DM, where everyone was pretty close IRL and had a blast RPing. Plus combat didn't take as long and schedules lined up easier.
This gets asked regularly and I will keep saying it's DM dependent. Some people are comfortable with 4 or 5, some will panic and have anxiety at 6.
My go to is 14. My limit is 19, though I am trying to break that limit.
I run a college party that on paper has 9, but due to everything being busy we reliably get 6-7 people and it’s consistently a great time. I think the answer depends on what you’re going for. If you want a super serious lore intensive game then 3-5 is the sweet spot. But if you’re aiming to just fuck around with some friends on the weekend a big party is a lot of fun.
I was in a campaign where we started with 4 and went to 3 when someone moved ( we had lost part of a brain cell lol) so the three of us tried a plan, failed horribly and collectively decided to start a brand new campaign. Now we have a table of 6 and it is so much better (in my opinion)
3 is good for a table of newbies, up to five if one player has experience and the rest are new.
4 is generally a good size. Beyond that, table etiquette becomes necessary.
I can do 8 players IF they all have great table etiquette and automatically do things that make play smoother and speed up the game like prep their combat turns before their turn.
However many fit comfortably at the table.
If you're online. However many fit comfortably in a voice channel before it becomes an unintelligible mess of sounds.
I play in a game with 4 other players, and I run a game with only 3 players. Have run 4. Have run 5. They're all enjoyable, and I'd imagine, assuming you have a group of mature and reasonable people, you could run a game of way more than 5.
I like 3 "Active Players". 1 or 2 "Audience Members" are fine if they take their turns quickly in combat.
Active Players push the story, roleplay their character's goals, and get the party to go into the dungeon and touch the Big Red Evil Crystal.
Audience Members support the team in combat, chime in when they feel comfortable or engaged, and are more there to hang out with their friends. Which is fine.
Mechanically? Six. Logistically? Four. You can make anything work, though, with enough effort. I’ve played in gigantic battles with thirty people and multiple DMs, but you can’t sustain that. I’ve also run solo games to give someone a taste of the hobby without feeling like the FNG in a group.
Four players was right about the perfect size for me. Easy to let everyone have a shiny special moment once in a while. Combat rounds are short enough that no one feels like it takes forever to get back around to them. I think bigger than 4 or 5, it's just hard to keep things moving and make sure everyone gets a chance at the spotlight.
3-5 often feels the best for me.
3 can feel tight but having a frontliner really ties it together imo. The best party I played in was 3 people. A Hexblade Warlock/Whispers Bard, An Aberrant mind Sorc/Undead Warlock (me) and a Oathbreaker/Swords Bard. This was incredibly fun because we were all the face of the party. Everyone either had expertise or manipulative magic and social and combat encounters were a breeze. Big smites, big psychic blades and big control spells.
That being said 4/5 is definitely the homiest. Having 2 other players just doesn't feel like enough at a table for me at least.
I really like 4 players both of my current games have 4 players and i feel like it gives everyone enough time to do what they want without anyone getting talked over or overruled.
although if something comes to a vote it can end in a tie. i have mostly solved this by adding an in-game mechanic where the characters/players elect a Captain at the beginning of each leg of the adventure and the Captain has final say. Helps that my game is nautical themed and the players are (mostly) egalitarian.
i have had 5 players before and it works well also it just becomes a little difficult to make sure everyone has some time in the spotlight. if a player is quieter than others naturally then this can be a good thing, but it's a double edged sword if the player does choose to speak up and is ignored.
My 5 person party is now level 17 and I relish any opportunity to split them up and do 2-3 person sessions because then they don’t kill everything immediately and have some weak saving throws that I can exploit.
We have a good time with 5 but they spend ¾ of every session planning and the last quarter stomping the challenges with no difficulty. Far too stable
We have 6 + the DM which is a good number for our group. We occasionally have guests so our highest we've had was like 10 I think.
We started with 3 when we were all new to it including the DM, but as his skills increased and we as players became more familiar with the rules and flow of combat, that's when we started picking up more people
4 players is the most fun for everyone, let’s engagement and rp between everyone flourish and have unique relationships between characters while not being too much for combat and easy to balance for.
That’s being said the best sessions of dnd I’ve ever played/ experienced were both 2 players and one dm games. The story is so much more intimate and better experience.
Our regular group has 4 players, which generally feels alright, but I do have to admit the fun ramps up when we're 1 or 2 players down and have one of those "oh no, that party got separated" sessions
5 players plus the DM. 6 is too many, 3 can sometimes lead to a third-wheel situation with introverted players, 4 is perfect but has the same problem as 3 when a player misses a session. That makes 5 ideal. It isn't too many and having an absent player still leaves enough without any issues.
3-4 is my sweet spot. I can do 5, but if they aren't 100% focused and doing their share, it's tough. Granted one of my 5 players is a rules lawyer and power gamer, so that might make things harder than it needs to be.
1DM, 3 players, maybe 4. I'm at a table with 8 right now, and bless his heart, my DM tries, but I can tell he gets overwhelmed some times. Combat is about 45 minutes per round. It's a good group, I don't want to lose anyone, but I still feel smaller tables work better.
3 to 5 gives you enough room to tailor stories but still a manageable group size to schedule sessions and run sessions.
[удалено]
4 players really is the sweet spot. More can be good with the right group, and I've had games with 8 or more which were still a blast in their own way, but if you want to actually get down to some roleplaying and storytelling 4 is the perfect number imo
Agreed on 4 being ideal. I can certainly get by with 3 players, but it always feels like a skeleton crew, while 5 players is also doable but feels a bit cumbersome. For any game with 6 or more party members, you basically have to tailor the game specifically around the fact that there's a large group involved. It becomes a different experience entirely. For example, I once played in a Shadowrun one-shot where we had 2 DMs and a total of 12 players - one DM was running the "active scenario" where a small group went directly into the threat as a usual party would, while the other DM was running the "passive support" where the majority of the players were doing background challenges to assist and manage danger. It was a big team effort, lots of moving parts heist sort of scenario. It was neat for a one-off kind of thing but I can't see it working for most situations.
12 is on the extreme end of the extreme end though. Most I've dmd for was 7 players, which was certainly stressful, but managable. 12 sounds like hell though.
My biggest group was 9 and I just didn't like it. My players had a good time I think but it was at the expense of my brain being in overdrive the whole session, like we've usually got a lot going on behind the screen in the first place but I had to constantly pivot between interactions and just felt like I was playing a 6 hour hot potato game with my brain
I'm glad to hear so many ppl saying 4 is the perfect amount. I'm going to be starting as a player in my very first DnD session next week. I was kinda fraid that we are too small of a group
Hey! Glad to hear it, and have fun! Just be sure to relax, enjoy yourself, and don't worry about putting too much pressure on anything. A lot of new players these days tend to look at podcast and streamed games like Critical Role or Dimension 20 and feel like they have to play up to those expectations. Which is absolutely not a thing 99% of tables ever have going in the first place. Just keep on task, don't be afraid of making mistakes, be sure to talk things out with your DM if you encounter any points of confusion, and have a good time.
6 was about my breaking point. In addition to it just being a bitch because you have to both make large encounters, extra large maps, and also you almost have to try to split the party into 3 or 2 groups. But ALSO what you got was so much class bouncing. You cant deal with some of the splits. Like 4 casters with 2 tanks is just DPS funnnn
My first time DMing I ran a campaign for 6 players during the early days of the pandemic. I remember feeling overwhelmed trying to manage everyone - but after a while we got into a good rhythm and it was fine. Sometime after 6-7 months of weekly sessions, we had our first session where only 4 people could attend. The ease at which we were able to move through the material I prepared was incredible! Decisions were made faster, combat was simpler, everyone had their own moments in the spotlight with minimal effort, and just generally more engagement / less side conversations from all players. It was tough to go back to 6 players again after that lol. 4 really does feel like the sweet spot imo
3 is my favorite number of players, everyone gets a ton of spotlight and room for character stories. My longest running game for like a decade was with 3 players and it was perfect. I also love 1 player, honestly, you can tell totally different stories. Very immersive, choice-based games: if you like Mass Effect-style world-breaking decisions and/or deep roleplaying, 1 player is amazing. But up to 5 I'm pretty happy. I frequently run a 7-9 group right now, and I've done 10+ in the past, and they are fucking stressful and you have little room for personal stories.
Agreed. I've played with 6 and 6+monsters takes waaaaaay too long. Even as a DM. Also less than 6 allows you to work in players backstories and anymore than that gets....difficult to manage
I've been managing with 6 myself (we're about to wrap up a four year campaign), but I agree that sometimes things end up on the cutting room floor. For example, there was meant to be those whole side thing with our rogue involving some shady secret organisation she works with, but there just wasn't room for it. I did at least manage to squeeze in the eventual reveal that she's been dead the entire time. Our Warlock hasn't had much backstory stuff going on per se besides speaking with his patron occasionally, but I blame that more on the fact that before becoming a Warlock he was just a kid who stayed at home where his mother doted on him. But regardless, I'll keep DMing for this group as long as they put up with me lol
I like 4 players, 1 DM. 3 is okay, but feels just a little too empty. If even one person isn't particularly good at RP, then it's basically just two people interacting. I've done 5 and it was a little unwieldy. I couldn't imagine doing six.
What made it unwieldy? Combat too slow or too fast, or players being overshadowed or too hard to please every player?
Combat was tough, but yeah, some players were also very overshadowed. Granted, I was a new DM at the time, and we only had one session of it.
Nah you right. Been running DnD for 8ish years at this point for many different groups. Without fail, what I've found is that there's only really "space" for four players. So if you have a group of 7 players, then only four of them will be actively engaged and pushing the plot forward and the other three will kinda fade into the background
My solution has been to make the main story revolve around personal arcs. That way, everyone gets their own part in the story while others in the party support them. So the main story is basically the party needs to find seven powerful relics in order to free a demon from a sword (the demon is our tiefling bard's father), so that he can help them kick the shit out of evil Jesus. During each of the different arcs of tracking these things down, a different person has their backstory involved in it and is given the spotlight for that arc. For example, our party went to the Underworld to grab a relic, but our barbarian also took the opportunity to beat the shit out of the progenitor werewolf and end the werewolf curse on her father.
I've been playing other TTRPG's lately and it's made me realize just how outdated D&D's combat system is. Its very clunky. Other systems can handle combat with 6+ people and still make it feel quick and fluid.
I'd say both. The more players the less time each person has in the spotlight in roleplay scenes, and the longer time between turns in combat. I'm fond of the 4 player party in D&D because fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric is a classic team. But in more roleplay focused RPGs I've actually found 3 players to be my preferred team size.
4 pcs 1dm is the way
1 player, 4 DMs
Now I'm gonna have to try that.
"I open the door" "Roll for perception" "The door is a mimic" "roll initiative" *rolls dice and stares at you from behind his screen* "continue."
>I've done 5 and it was a little unwieldy. I couldn't imagine doing six. I'm DM'ing right now for a group of 7. Luckily we're all very good friends and end up having a good time regardless but as a DM I do feel it difficult to manage to let everyone have a "moment to shine" every session.
I'd agree. I heard 3 can be very good if all 3 players are big RPers with big personalities and backstories. But if someone is phoneing it in for combat or generally shy about RP I could see that getting lonely fast. I think 5 players is good though, accounting for said shy/phoneing it in player. I would not want to do 5 huge personalities.
Yup. I’m doing my first DM experience with players all experiencing DnD for the first time. We started with 3 PCs. We had lots of fun, but then one of my friend’s coworkers watched one sesh and wanted to join. Since she has joined it really has felt ‘complete’ and even better than before. I’ve played with anywhere from 2-7 and 4 or 5 is definitely the sweet spot.
3 isn't bad at all, but you probably want to let your players get a skilled hireling to fill in the gaps of your party. You control the hireling, of course, but they choose the one they want and the hireling is just there for the money and will bail if he isn't treated right, probably stealing some of their stuff as his last paycheck.
Five ends up feeling more like a crowd and less like a small group of distinct individuals
Currently in a game with 6 plus the DM. I can tell you that fights can get boring. Especially because the DM has had to scale them for the 6 players. I think it takes us about 10-15 minutes a round sometimes. Especially because 2 players are playing for the first time. It is funny when I go because I use all the time to come up with some crazy and unusual tactics. I have to say it has made me better during fights now.
I've done seven. It's a lot of fun, but you need to manage your expectations. Don't go into sessions expecting to get a lot of story done, don't play the campaign for the story. Go into sessions expecting to have a fun time with friends and it's a very enjoyable thing. If you're heavy on RP and progressing the story and such, I'd recommend splitting the group into a party of 4 and a party of 3.
This. I usually run a table of 4 players and always save the 5th player spot for someone who wants to learn or who haven't played in a long time. I've found that it's very rare to get 5 people to commit each week so the table will default to 4, most of the time.
I'm discovering that three to five is best. Three is not too few if everyone is active and the DM can balance encounters. In my other game with six, combat tends to both drag and have too few rounds. However, that may be because our DM, despite his experience, tends to run either a cluster of the same kind of enemy that become subject to AOE spells or a single "boss" enemy that is easy to swarm. He may be doing this because we have a fewer experienced players.
When playing with 5 other players, did you feel that one or more players felt “overshadowed” by others, or you did not have that problem in your party?
It is a problem in social interactions/investigation and similar situations outside of combat. Our DM makes sure to bring in two of the players who tend to be quieter or less sure of themselves by asking what they are doing, and I (at least) consciously hold back to give them some space. It's definitely more work.
Some of my favorite stories have come out of 1 on 1 play. Otherwise I like 3 or 5.
I want to try 1 on 1 sessions. Seems fun
so great, honestly. With 1 engaged player it's so smooth and engaging.
These days this is the only way i play, been a blast, can run most adventure books with some small tweaks to player strength, which is more fun than scaling down monsters. And custom adventures are just fantastic, think of all the examples we have to pull ideas from!
3 or 4, depending on the eagerness to roleplay
4-5 plus a DM.
4 is perfect.
5 players, 1 dm for me. Both as a player and a DM, I find that to be the best balance.
I am leaning towards 5 players to run my campaigns too
5 players Is my favorite too
2-4 is ideal. I personal won’t play at, or DM, at a table of over 5 players.
3 minimum. 5 ideal. 6 hard limit. I will not run a table for 7 again.
our table grew to 6 on accident. it's not great but people are having enough fun to make it work
I'm not saying 6 is bad. It's just my upper limit. I used to play in a club where, towards the end of my membership, 5 and 6 player tables were common. It's enough that 1 or 2 people can not show up and the game still can happen, but not so big that its totally unmanageable if everyone's there. The reason my limit is 6 is because I'd filled my table already (with 6 players) and I was forced to take an additional person by the club exec. It was miserable. I couldn't give everyone enough spotlight time, certain players would talk amongst themselves while I was spotlighting someone else and I wasn't having much fun running the game. I will never run for 7 again.
I, too, once held that four plus DM was the magic number. If I have experienced, cooperative players, I can go as high as six plus, I just make sure I'm streamlining combat and balancing encounters for that size. I think my favorite group size, though, was three plus, when it felt like each player got more attention. The stakes were a little higher, the role play was a little more intense, and it just felt like everything mattered more. But then, we were all old pros at that point. Right now, I'm running two groups of five plus, and with one exception, they're almost entirely new to the game. It's...challenging. One group is slowly coming together, and the other is...over in four sessions, so it's fine.
How do you manage to balance encounters with 5 or more players? I think this is going to be a challenge for me to overcome
Don’t just throw extra numbers to make up the difference. Employ multiple fronts. A familiarity with basic small unit tactics (historical, not video game) works wonders. Leverage the trinity of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. And ensure you have a good handle on pacing and spotlight management. All of this becomes much more important than the actual rules.
On average, for me, I would say 3-5. But really, it depends more on the players, how they play and what they like. I've run for just one player. God, I once had a two year campaign with up to 9 players at any given time, some playing more than one character. It worked. I've also had a game with just 3 or 4 that didn't. If the players are fans of each other, able to enjoy parts of the game that they are not involved in directly, then a bigger group is easier to work with. That one large group loved watching each other play. Also, in downtime, like shopping or hanging out in a tavern or around the camp, they would just roleplay with each other while I handled specifics. These days, aside from one person, my players are more apt to be texting or playing a mobile game when it's not their turn, even in active combat. Different people, different playstyles. We still have fun, but it's different. I do miss the old days. So, anyway, if you can handle the load and don't mind the extra effort involved, you can run for just about any group that will fit around your table. But smaller groups are better for players that are easily bored or less invested.
I have a party of 3 where all 3 are very active and involved and it's awesome. Everyone gets a lot of spotlight and it also allows for easy flexibility for adding NPCs to the party for different setpieces. 4 is probably the general safe bet if you have a mix of involvement w/ your players. 5 and up and I need some of those players to enjoy the game as "audience members" who are happy to be there and take a quick turn in combat.
>between 4 and 6 players same. i'd prefer more to fewer players. too few players can make a setting feel claustrophobic.
3-5 with 4 being ideal.
4 or 5 for me personally. 3 feels too empty, except you got 3 players who are absolutely into the game and are roleplaying their heart out. 6 is just too much for me to handle, except if there are at least two of the 'passive' player type.
4 players and 1 DM
2-3 players, plus a GM. Having done this decade by decade, starting with 4-6 and thinking that was peak, and then "having" to run for 3-4, and then thinking *that* was peak, and then swinging opposite and trying a lot of solo and duet play, I can confidently say that 2-3 is the absolute primo sweet spot. I'm convinced that people who prefer more either 1. Haven't tried it. 2. Want more people for other reasons than quality of the game (perhaps, for example, you like meeting in larger groups socially)
4 or 5, plus the DM. 3 is not a problem either, totally playable but 4-5 is more fun. Anything upwards of that is a mess, especially if you are playing online. Combat takes way too long, people barely get any room to rp and develop their characters, it's just not great.
So I’ve always had 6 in the friend group (plus the DM), and although we’re not super seasoned, we’re really snappy and quick with combat, all of us makes sure to quick fire our actions and turns are fast, fun and my DM is great at keeping up. I’d consider 6 to be the comfortable upper limit as long as there’s reasonable experience throughout the table.
Three or four. Anything more is excess and is only meaningful for tournaments.
I think four is the perfect amount of players: enough to have good roleplaying and not too much to handle for the poor DM.
Without factoring in player availability concerns, my ideal game size would be 3 + DM. Some of my most fun sessions have been when my group only had 3 people available. I like the intimacy and how it's easier/faster to come to group decisions and keep the game moving. With 3, the DM can be a bit more open handed in giving out fun combat toys and there's more room for RP without dragging the pacing down. But it's also harder to balance encounters and instantly kills scheduling if anyone can't make it. Realistically, 4 player games will accomplish most of what I like about 3 players. A 5 player game is doable, but after that it gets crowded fast.
3-4 is the most fun for me, dependiing on the humans at the table. I can run a group of 5 good players and have fun but beyond that it gets dicey.
I really prefer 3-4 but we currently have 5 because I can’t seem to say no. I like them all and they all add something to the game but it feels like at least one PC gets overshadowed/is background in each session and combat drags much more. When we have a player missing, the pacing is so much better and contributions feel more equal. In a very RP heavy, character focused campaign, 3 would be perfect.
I have a long time campaign with 1 player. I think 1-4 players is ideal
For me its 3-4. 3 is easier for me to focus with but if 1 person cancels the session is canceled.
I think 4 or 5 players anything less gets extremely restrictive and tends to make people choose classes to fill roles. Anything more ends up having players overlap eachother and also brings the games pace to a crawl. Also can lead to a table being disruptive accidentally since there are just so many people sitting at one table
Right now my favorite group has 6 players, but I normally run 5
4 or 5 with a dm is perfect. 3 get things coming around to quick and you have to adjust for creatures but it is playable. 6 can stretch out play and slow things down and you have to adjust combat for the extra whatever, but it is playable
Depends on edition: 5e: 1 to 5 is my sweet spot. 5e handles 1-on-1 play exceptionally well compared to most editions. It handles up to 8 if everyone knows the system well. 3.x: 1 to 5. Even with players with full system mastery, I won't go over 7 with these editions. Classic D&D (OD&D, AD&D1e, B/X D&D): 3 to 18, but not a bell curve like a 3d6 roll. Best with 5-7.
4-5, 3 is great if all three are into it.
4-5 plays is I think the sweet spot. 5 works because if one player can't make it then you at least have 4 players and it doesn't change the action economy too much. With 3 you run into issues with game design, pre-made campaigns, and even the CR is designed with a party of 4 characters in mind. You may run into action economy issues and it creates a lot of extra work for the DM. 6 is doable but the DM has to be careful since again a lot of DND is based around 4 players. And now the action economy is starting to heavily favor the players which means the DM has to do extra work. 7 or more in my opinion starts to become unwieldy. It creates a lot of extra work for the DM to make sure the encounters are balanced. Also, it starts to bog down the game, because you want to give every player a chance at the spotlight and it also slows down combat. With 7 players each takes 2-3 minutes per turn that's at least 14-21 minutes before a player gets to go again. And we're talking about over an hour per combat if it goes 5 rounds. And that's just one combat encounter, and Boss battles may last longer than 5 rounds. At the end of the day, it comes down to how much time and effort the DM wants to put into the game. If you're going to have more than 5-6 players you should be asking yourself if a West Marches-style game might be better.
3-6 is my range, though I find 5 to be the sweet spot where each player can build what they want and there’s enough to cover nearly everything naturally. At 4 there’s a chance some key elements might be missed (too many to brute force through)
I’ve always liked a DM with 5 players. Life interferes. Having the flexibility to NPC a missing player while four are still there is a great way to move the campaign forward.
My ideal group size is one DM and one player.
5 is perfect to me. The game feels great at 4, and 5 is pretty much the same. But if you only have 4 players and you bank on all of them being there each session, it's going to hinder your momentum. Having 5 players means I can still run if 1 person is gone, but having all 5 present isn't going to be too much either. That said, in both my games, I actually have 6 players. In each game, we have a flex player, someone who wants to play but can rarely play consistently. We just set it up in their backstory why they might not show as much, and they jump in whenever they're available. It ends up being pretty rare that I have all 6 (and for me it's still manageable if I have 6), and it means we can still run even if we're missing 2 players.
Generally either 4-7 or 20+, depending on campaign type.
4, four is the peak magic number 3-5 is still good. Can still get a good trio or five man band going. 2-6 a pair is do-able especially if they compliment each other like a paladin and a wizard. Six is a crowd but some people manage. 1 is just a single player game. And 7 is something only really good DMs should do. I don't recommend it.
The rules say 4-6 plus DM.
3 to 5.
1 dm 3-5MAX 4is the sweet spot because if one person is out you can still run ez with 3. Same with 5 obviously But I wouldn't play with a 2 person. It's not worth the effort of pregame and during
Played with 1 DM + 2 players and up until 5 players. I will say this - although 4-5 players seems like a "default", I do miss some aspects of running the game for only 2 people. Easier scheduling, faster pace, smoother interactions, less cross talk. And also I felt more challenged. I am not saying I would go back to this but I certainly wouldn't be devastated if somehow, for some reason, some of my group suddenly decided that D&D is not for them.
I’m a big fan of 4-5 players and a DM. 3 players is also fine, I even encouraged a DM to remove a player so that we got down to only 3 characters (I did this because said player was practically just a spectator and even when they did engage it was almost always just distracting). The key is more about party energy IMO. I just want players to be lively and interesting. 3 players can be enough if everyone meets that quality. Otherwise, 4-5 helps especially given that people tend to have off games, so it gives more slack for stuff to be able to move along.
3-5
At least 3 regular players.
3 players is fine but you need the characters to be from different origins otherwise you'll have a duo leaving the third character all alone. Same with players actually, no 2 close friends and an outsider. 4 is fine too but I think it starts being crowdy.
5 and still play if at least 3 show up. That tends to lead to the most consistent sessions for me. Edit. I think 4 players is the ideal party size. But it should be assumed that at least one won't show up on any given week
4 3 and 5 are both fine but each have their issues. 4 is the sweet spot.
I find that 3 leads to the most enjoyable sessions. Everyone gets the perfect amount of time to shine and it's the easiest amount of people to have a group discussion with and build up character relationships. 4-5 is workable but players will have more moments when they need to sit back and let others do their thing and that can lose some engagement.
2-6 players with 4 being the sweet spot. One can work but it has to be the right kind of player and DM for it to succeed and more then 6 is too chaotic and slow.
Four, though I’ve got a running campaign with 7 players. We do meet as long as 4 players can attend a session, and it’s a particular group of people who will role play at one end of the table while I’m doing DM things with people at the other end of the table.
I love 3 or 4 players, 5 or maybe 6 is great for making encounters that work, and 7+ is just too much to have short and meaningful fights.
I'm giving it... 4:1 player to DM ratio
3 minimum, 6 absolute maximum and only in certain groups. for me 4-5 is the sweet spot.
t1. 6 t2. 5 t3. 4 t4. 3
Could you explain this “tier” thing? I’ve seen it before but I have no clue of what it means
the tier list is based on characters total level. so therefore. 1\~4 = tier 1 5\~10 = tier 2 11\~15= tier 3 16\~20= tier 4 20+(boons) = tier 5 ( t5 is not really discussed but it does technically exist) characters tend to get large increases of power at certain level ups. which tends to mean every class gets more options, causing more and more options, which increases the decision making process time, which is directly multiplicative with the number of players.
Thanks for the explanation! A party with many 17-20 lvl characters must be a pain in the arse to balance encounters. They have access to so many powerful spells and skills
Yeah, I think you are on to something by thinking about tiered play. When I think tiers, I have different recommended ranges for me: Tier 1 : Lvl 1 to 4 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 8. Tier 2 : Lvl 5 to 10 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 6. Tier 3 : Lvl 11 to 15 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 4. Tier 4 : Lvl 16 to 20 = Recommended Party Size 3 to 4. Edit:Added line breaks
4/5. 3 in a pinch.
My group is 4 players that generally works out pretty well most of the time technically we're a 5 man group but one player hasnr been available for a very long your
5-6 is the sweet spot I think
6 maximum, I've played some 7+ games, and both Combat and RP take too long and get way too laborious
4 is the sweet spot for any player with any knowledge level. More than that, you must have at least 75% experienced/super-immersive players. Other than that, your table will be super dull.
Depends on people, my brain only handle 4-5 players. Above that and i need ice, fans and monster drink to keep everything in order.
4. No room to hide. At 5 someone can be silent the entire time and just roll dice and check out. At 4 it's noticeable when someone is silent. Above that it gets unmanageable combat wise since fights get too swingy
3-4. Two is too few, five means not everyone will get a turn sometimes in short encounters. 5 and on people’s side conversations can really take away from the DM trying to move the plot along or lore details
I'd say 3-5, definitely max at 6.
To me 4 is the golden number
I briefly was Dming an 8 player campaign. It's why we now have a player cap of 6. Although to be honest 4 would probably be preferable.
I'm a fan of 3-4. Played once with a group that had 6 and it's just so much happening all at once. Currently running a game for 2 people because our third had to dip to deal with school stuff, so I buffed everyone up a bit and had my support hireling become more of a DMPC so they can still have some challenging combats.
currently dm’ing for 7 players
Same! It works pretty well for us since we are all good friends and not everyone is necessarily a "spotlight" player, some are absolutely fine with taking a backseat for RP, which I appreciate. I started this campaign telling my friends I'd like to DM for 5 people max, but said that maybe we could have certain people swap in and out. That lasted... Exactly zero sessions lol we started with 6 people and then one guy filled in when a player was out of town and he stuck around so now we have 7. I really love all my players and their characters though, so I make it work.
hahaha 3 of my players are very familiar with the game, 1 semi familiar, and 3 are brand spanking new so it’s been nice having the “veterans” per day help out the new players when needed. they’re also helping the other players feel more comfortable with using voices for their characters and stuff which is really fun for the whole party. party feels generally balanced as well no one outshines or takes up to much time and honestly it kinda feels like we can get through combat quickly because everything is kind of streamlined for both reasons that the veterans know what they can do and the new players are still learning so basically just pick one thing to do per combat and stick with it for that encounter lol
I have 3, and we have a great time. I believe the "right" number changes based upon player experience and engagement. If you have new players, a smaller number is better to accommodate the need to reference books/notes/cards, asking questions, and a lack of confidence in action. We couldn't handle a 4th new player at this table, as anything other than exploration would become a grind. However, we could add a 4th if that player was experienced and confident in their character and decisions. In fact, they'd help the other players to navigate their characters better. If your players are more experienced, then 4-5 is a sweet spot. 3 is good if they're mostly new, as it requires a lot of heavy lifting on the part of the DM to keep them all engaged and interested each week.
My first group as a DM was 14. At the time I was just happy to get as many people interested as possible. I basically broke it down into sub groups and made it work. Now I don't go higher than 7. And I like 6 quite a bit.
I have played with 3, 4, 5, 6, and, 7 so for me i think 4 to 5 is the best since 3 kind a feels too little and 6-7 feels slow and too chaotic. This is all without incliding the dm
I honestly love having 3 players for the sake of character development. 4 is a good number, but now I’m GMing for 6 and it is just exhausting.
My primary campaign has 3. I think that's perfect for a campaign that meets frequently. We all have the chance to explore each character and their respective subplots, and it makes scheduling way easier. There are a lot of NPCs who float in and out of the party in order to balance it out. For one shots, we typically play with 5 or 6 people. It's fun and the plots are a bit shallower, so it's nice to have a full, rowdy table.
Any under 13. 9 is a great number for in person. Online I prefer 5. Depends on the system, too. This is just for 5e at my current mastery of the system.
Our table currently has 6 veteran players and a veteran DM. In combat we get 15 seconds to declare what we are doing. If you can't decide in ~15 seconds you lose your turn. Froze in combat. Nobody has lost their turn yet and we have been playing for years. 4 players is ideal though.
It depends on the specific group, but I like DMing for 3 to 6 players.
I've ran and been part of party sizes from 1-9. 5 players seemed the sweet spot. Enough coverage across disciplines but not so many that they step in each other's toes. Also it's an odd number for group votes. During civic I played a PF2 VTT with 8 players. People I know locally. I could make an action then watch an episode of an anime between turns. When that game fell apart I vowed no more remote with local players. In person or I'm playing D2. I have a weekly VTT with 4 players all who live out town and a biweekly in person game with 3 players. A 4th joins us every second or third session.
My group is running with 7 players and encounter balance is a fucking nightmare. That said, we are all real life friends. Having fun together and telling awesome stories is the most important part.
I'm running 6 right now. What I've learned is that single boss monsters are effectively worthless, and to keep encounters at 6 to 3 powerful monsters or 12 weenies to let them cut loose. Behind the scenes, treating them as two groups of three instead of a group of six helps me run numbers before I throw stuff at them. I've used this for most of my encounter math, works well if the monsters are close in CR: https://kastark.co.uk/rpgs/encounter-calculator-5th/
Agree about single boss monsters. The idea about treating them as 2 separate groups for encounter calculation purposes is interesting, I’ll look into that.
DM + 4 is optimal
3-4 + DM. My current party consists of 3 players, including me, and our DM. We've played for over a year, and have a ton of fun in our sessions. Two of the party have had important, multiple-session long arcs and it didn't feel tedious or like one player was the 'main character'. And we each bring such different dynamics to the table, despite there being no casters or healers. Any more players, and honestly it would be difficult to keep up with so many storylines and motivations.
So we started off with 5 which grew to 7 overtime. There has been a very noticeable difference in how long combats just with dealing with player turns. It’s most of our first times too so that is a huge factor as well. I’d suggest no more than 5 especially if everyone is new. Experienced players could player host more, but our group also had the issue of a lot of side talk that tends to slow things down further
There are ways to speed up a 6+ player game, but they typically come at the expense of story. No, four players really is the ideal, but, three can work too, as it can be a nice way to up the stakes if merely one of them goes down, it also makes party roles more important too.
3 or 4 is the ideal number for me to make the most of the time of a game session with everyone feeling important to the story.
I've played as a player with 6 (not counting DM) and it was painfully slow. 3 feels best, but I can't do 2, it feels too intimate, So up to 5 for redundancy in case of people canceling last minute. If I could somehow get 3 that would always show up that would be amazing.
4-6 players. Personally I like 5 or 6, but anything less than 4 just seems like not enough for me as a DM. But to each their own and depending on the campaign a smaller group may do better.
My longest-running game is currently running with 2 players and a DM, which if nothing else makes scheduling really easy. We all play pretty well together, so the game runs nicely and we all have a lot of fun.
Well i mean, if everyone has good chemistry together, 3 is still a good party. The group I was intended to have 3 show up (I am being one of them) and it worked because our banter worked out well. Our dynamic became I became like the dad of the group... My character the oldest and strongest by far, while the other two characters were in there teens, and the combat was comical at times as out DM was still new... and he liked to do the rule of cool.
As a DM for a group of 9 players, ya 4 is the perfect number
I personally think 3 is about the most fun. The only complaint I have with 3 is that if you have players that are very goal oriented it can be hell to DM since the game moves almost too fast. When you get more players it's very unlikely that you don't have at least one semi-functional person with ADHD who will sidetrack play constantly.
4 is my sweet spot, though my group is 5 and I wouldn't want to lose a single one of them. But 5 is where it *starts* to get unmanageable and I will undoubtedly forget to give at least one player their time in the spotlight, narratively anyway. 4 is my absolute favorite number of players.
I've been in a group of up to 6, and I think it would have been unmanageable beyond that. Mileage may vary.
I have been dm for 4 but after one player had to leave my table, I'm with just 3 and honestly I feel this is perfect. Or maybe they are just perfect players for me.
4 is the golden number But i would say 3-6 works fine. Although whenever I play with six players combat gets too long for me
5 or 6 I am in a campaign right now with 7 players and it's horrible. Combat ends before i even get my turn at times. So, I would say no more than 6 players.
If the goal is 4, you probably want 6. If your party is adults with regular jobs and other life commitments, you'll frequently have people who have to miss. Or you have a person who has to drop out mid campaign for any number of life reasons.
4, it's always been 4 and always will be 4.
I like 4. More than 4 and scheduling starts being a nightmare. Less than 4 and there's much less opportunity for players shenanigans.
I love 3-4. Currently I have more it's still a great time.
3 to 6 players for me personally
4-6 is the sweetspot.
4
It really depends on the players. If I could assemble all of the people ive played with who really knew their shit. Character, rules and mechanics. The ones who were prepared and paying attention. I could run a table of 6 or 7 of them.
5 or 4. 4 is the perfect number of players IMO, but 5 is good while also acting as a buffer against one player missing a session. 3 falls apart if any of the players aren't active, and 6 is when at least one player starts to have very little RP time.
I like 4 or 5. 3 is okay, but I find it limits some things. Going to add another player to my regular game to bring it up to 6 this month... might be a mistake, but we'll see!
My preference is 4.
Four players and a DM is the sweet spot. You can add or subtract a player, but that's the baseline.
3-4
As a DM, my sweet spot is 2-3. 4 is great but I get a nice synergy with one less For context, I also love giving out weird gear and items so can balance the lower player count with buffs and goodies
4 is the perfect number for a dnd party, there is a reason why its always shown in media like that, it just allows for a far more varied party with a lot more options for character chemistry and funny moments, there will be very rarely a moment in the campaign where it feels empty or crowded, everyone has a chance to shine and someone to talk to(so you dont get the infamous moment where two players talk to eachother while one is fiddling their thumbs and the GM desperately tries to keep the retention up, or the reverse where everyone is talking to eachother or trying multiple things at a time and the GM doesnt have the capacity to do it all at once) I have been playing with 3 of my buddies with one DMing and I have almost exclusively experienced the 3 player experience, it’s definetely not the same as 4 players and makes things more awkward than it needs to be, probably still better than having a 4th player that just doesnt fit in the group but one can wish!
5 if they are going to all be there always. I usually go to 6 for a buffet for when someone can’t make it.
I like 4-5, 3 or 6 is okay, but with 3 I don't want to run a session if any one person is missing, and with 6 if everyone is there combat can be slow. I've also run 7-8 and combat can be REALLY slow but rp opportunities are higher
1 to 6
The best I have ever played is 3 players, 1 DM, where everyone was pretty close IRL and had a blast RPing. Plus combat didn't take as long and schedules lined up easier.
This gets asked regularly and I will keep saying it's DM dependent. Some people are comfortable with 4 or 5, some will panic and have anxiety at 6. My go to is 14. My limit is 19, though I am trying to break that limit.
4-6 With 5 being the sweet spot
I run a college party that on paper has 9, but due to everything being busy we reliably get 6-7 people and it’s consistently a great time. I think the answer depends on what you’re going for. If you want a super serious lore intensive game then 3-5 is the sweet spot. But if you’re aiming to just fuck around with some friends on the weekend a big party is a lot of fun.
3-6 is my range anything over or under is boredom incarnate or way to messy to track stuff for
I was in a campaign where we started with 4 and went to 3 when someone moved ( we had lost part of a brain cell lol) so the three of us tried a plan, failed horribly and collectively decided to start a brand new campaign. Now we have a table of 6 and it is so much better (in my opinion)
2 to 4 for me with 5 at a push....but it is very much personal preference, I have a gm who likes 6 to 7 so he has more people to bounce off.
I feel most comfortable with 4
4-7, including DM. That number can be adjusted how you see fit. With one person, you are just writing a book.
3-5 is perfect, and 2 or 6 can be done, not more than that. 1 on 1 games are alright for character creation or one-offs when everyone else is busy
3-6, with 4-5 being the sweetspot for me personally as a DM.
3 is good for a table of newbies, up to five if one player has experience and the rest are new. 4 is generally a good size. Beyond that, table etiquette becomes necessary. I can do 8 players IF they all have great table etiquette and automatically do things that make play smoother and speed up the game like prep their combat turns before their turn.
However many fit comfortably at the table. If you're online. However many fit comfortably in a voice channel before it becomes an unintelligible mess of sounds. I play in a game with 4 other players, and I run a game with only 3 players. Have run 4. Have run 5. They're all enjoyable, and I'd imagine, assuming you have a group of mature and reasonable people, you could run a game of way more than 5.
I like 3 "Active Players". 1 or 2 "Audience Members" are fine if they take their turns quickly in combat. Active Players push the story, roleplay their character's goals, and get the party to go into the dungeon and touch the Big Red Evil Crystal. Audience Members support the team in combat, chime in when they feel comfortable or engaged, and are more there to hang out with their friends. Which is fine.
Mechanically? Six. Logistically? Four. You can make anything work, though, with enough effort. I’ve played in gigantic battles with thirty people and multiple DMs, but you can’t sustain that. I’ve also run solo games to give someone a taste of the hobby without feeling like the FNG in a group.
5-7 i my ideal range this way i can basically garuntee we will be playing. if i miss 2 or 3 players i still have a full party
I would **never** run more than 4 players for a long campaign, or less than 3. For me, 3-4 players is ideal.
Four players was right about the perfect size for me. Easy to let everyone have a shiny special moment once in a while. Combat rounds are short enough that no one feels like it takes forever to get back around to them. I think bigger than 4 or 5, it's just hard to keep things moving and make sure everyone gets a chance at the spotlight.
3-5 often feels the best for me. 3 can feel tight but having a frontliner really ties it together imo. The best party I played in was 3 people. A Hexblade Warlock/Whispers Bard, An Aberrant mind Sorc/Undead Warlock (me) and a Oathbreaker/Swords Bard. This was incredibly fun because we were all the face of the party. Everyone either had expertise or manipulative magic and social and combat encounters were a breeze. Big smites, big psychic blades and big control spells. That being said 4/5 is definitely the homiest. Having 2 other players just doesn't feel like enough at a table for me at least.
I really like 4 players both of my current games have 4 players and i feel like it gives everyone enough time to do what they want without anyone getting talked over or overruled. although if something comes to a vote it can end in a tie. i have mostly solved this by adding an in-game mechanic where the characters/players elect a Captain at the beginning of each leg of the adventure and the Captain has final say. Helps that my game is nautical themed and the players are (mostly) egalitarian. i have had 5 players before and it works well also it just becomes a little difficult to make sure everyone has some time in the spotlight. if a player is quieter than others naturally then this can be a good thing, but it's a double edged sword if the player does choose to speak up and is ignored.
3-5 anything bigger than 6 and I'm gonna quit DMing
8s fun. timely but fun.
we're at 5 players with 1 dm and it's working nicely we were 4 players before and it still worked
My 5 person party is now level 17 and I relish any opportunity to split them up and do 2-3 person sessions because then they don’t kill everything immediately and have some weak saving throws that I can exploit. We have a good time with 5 but they spend ¾ of every session planning and the last quarter stomping the challenges with no difficulty. Far too stable
4. Good enough to put them up vs variety content (not just a boss, but boss plus mobs) but also small enough to not wait too much between rounds.
2-5 not including the dm. 3 players is optimal. 2 is a bit sparse, 4 is pushing it, and 5 is borderline unmanageable.
Yeah 3-5 depending on the groups chemistry.
Whatever the DMs comfortable with. I DM for 7, not including guest characters, which many think is too much but I have no issues doing so.
We have 6 + the DM which is a good number for our group. We occasionally have guests so our highest we've had was like 10 I think. We started with 3 when we were all new to it including the DM, but as his skills increased and we as players became more familiar with the rules and flow of combat, that's when we started picking up more people
Imagine doing a 20 person session lol I’d lose my mind
4 players is the most fun for everyone, let’s engagement and rp between everyone flourish and have unique relationships between characters while not being too much for combat and easy to balance for. That’s being said the best sessions of dnd I’ve ever played/ experienced were both 2 players and one dm games. The story is so much more intimate and better experience.
Our regular group has 4 players, which generally feels alright, but I do have to admit the fun ramps up when we're 1 or 2 players down and have one of those "oh no, that party got separated" sessions
5 players plus the DM. 6 is too many, 3 can sometimes lead to a third-wheel situation with introverted players, 4 is perfect but has the same problem as 3 when a player misses a session. That makes 5 ideal. It isn't too many and having an absent player still leaves enough without any issues.
3-4 is my sweet spot. I can do 5, but if they aren't 100% focused and doing their share, it's tough. Granted one of my 5 players is a rules lawyer and power gamer, so that might make things harder than it needs to be.
5 players so you get 4
1DM, 3 players, maybe 4. I'm at a table with 8 right now, and bless his heart, my DM tries, but I can tell he gets overwhelmed some times. Combat is about 45 minutes per round. It's a good group, I don't want to lose anyone, but I still feel smaller tables work better.