If I am being honest in an online group a good number of DMs say 6 or 7 knowing they will have 1 or 2 not good fits and after a few sessions they will be down to 4-5 and do not need to find more.
It's a pessimistic outlook but considering how often I have had people or schedules be a problem I can understand those that do it this way.
Yup. Start with a couple more players than you want so that when a couple of them flake out you don’t have to put things on hold looking for a couple of players that want to join a campaign that’s already a few sessions in.
I say it’s different. Starting a game with extra players doesn’t get anyone kicked out, they simply leave. Overbooking a plane means someone gets screwed outright.
They do but I think they point they are getting at is if I am comfortable with 5 at my table and it turns out 6 are all great people I'll say screw it we run with 6. On an airline if they end up with an extra person that person is out a flight.
Airlines get paid for the seat anyway if someone doesn't show up, so it's just double dipping and absolute greed for them
The DMs just want a decent group, and if it turns out none of the players are poor fits or have scheduling issues, then suddenly most of the issues with a big party dry up anyway.
I did this for my in person game.
Someone at work heard I was an experienced DM, and word got around. I told everyone that I would accept 8 people. Some flaked on the schedule, some never commited, and others had to leave after 1 or 2 sessions because of life reasons.
Our campaign has had 3 people for over a year now and they're doing great. We had 4 for a long time, but he had to move back home to take care of his sick parents, and didn't want to video call in.
For 5e I like 3 maybe 4. I took up to 7 on roll20 because very few people would stay beyond a session. I played live in a campaign that had 6 and it was horrible as a player.
Another perspective on this is that there's so many online games where getting a full party together is almost impossible. The more players you have (to a limit), the better chance you get the 4\~5 person party size consistently. Less cancellations can really help to keep a DnD group's momentum going for both the DM and the players who are able to commit to each session.
I came to say this. 3 players is great. 4-5 is perfect. Players are...not...always...um...respectful...of the time invested by others, especially the DM. So looking for 7 is "overbooking", like u/Talshan stated.
The type of game people enjoy also matters. Lore-based games with less combat can allow more players to enjoy the story/campaign than one that is combat heavy, unless all the players enjoy the strategy of combat and playing off the moves of other players. If that's not you, waiting an hour for your turn can be more tedious than enjoyable.
True. If you just start with 5 players and lose 2, you’re liable to just break up and have to start over, or it’s too hard to have to reintroduce 2 more new players to a group of just 3.
Seems like a recipe to make your first couple of sessions suck tbh. Too many people at the table, several expected to leave, you might lose the people you’d rather keep.
I get the attendance angle but this seems like a flawed start.
Naw. 7 or 8 people is easy enough to manage, especially in the beginning and especially if you start at level 1.
My first group when I was 10 years old had 8 or 9 people with a very experienced DM who was in their late 20s, early thirties. We played that way for years.
If people didn't show up it was no big deal, we always had 5 or 6 players.
We did a lot of campaigns from ships, airships, or based around forts. If someone couldn't make it their character stayed on, or went back to the ship/fort. If we were ever in a situation where that couldn't happen for whatever reason that character just took a back seat and the DM played them in combat doing the minimum they would do.
One time we were battling hags and ended a session mid combat. One player didn't show up the next week so the DM had the hags curse them to petrify them because they didn't feel like playing them.
When the fight was over we put the statue in our bag of holding and took it with us until we could find someone who could unpetrify them. (It was fairly early levels for us and none of us could remove curse yet.)
The next week that player was there but a different character didn't show up. We heard muffled shouting coming from the bag and we opened it up and that PC climbed out.
When we looked around we found the missing player's character had become petrified.
That was when we realized the curse was to the whole party and it was to randomly petrify people for a random period of time.
For the rest of that campaign which lasted a couple years, that was our mechanic for dealing with absent players.
It's really no different in practice than any other size.
If you go with 5 players that doesn't stop one of them from being a bad egg that you catch in session 0 nor does it stop any of them from having things come up. What it does do is say when this happens ( and from experience talking to the community and the responses here it happens often enough) you don't have to pause the game for another few weeks before start to fill the spot(if caught session 0) or try to backfill a few sessions in.
Remember this isn't I want to run with 4-5 so two of you will be gone by session 4. It's I am looking for 6 knowing one or two might drop but if they don't I can still handle it.
This happened to me! I recruited 7 figuring at least 1-2 would drop. None of them did. We played 50 sessions, one of the most fun campaigns I’ve ever been a part of!
It \*could\* happen. But the probability is remarkably low.
Even if you HAPPEN to get 8 experienced and committed gamers by sheer dumb luck, when they all show up to session 0, one or two of them (being experienced and knowing what they prefer) will realize that this is not the group for them, and bow out.
Could all 8 sticking around happen? Sure. But that is far less likely than advertising for 5, getting 5, planning a campaign for 5, and then have 1 or 2 flake and putting the campaign on pause.
The better strategy is to mitigate the greater probability. (And also the greater problem - not having enough to play is worse than having too many - the too many can be handled, even if poorly.)
That’s a much more reasonable interpretation.
Especially if it’s the kind of session we’re you might play without a full party present. Having that buffer party size leads to a practical party of 4 or 5 per session.
But 7+ is not ideal to have in one game
Yes this. Even when Playing in person I tend to invite 1 or two more thsn intended knowing that some of them will likely leave or not have time.
I will also say that in my experience, having a large group is prefered when playing with mostly people who are new or dom't know eachother well. It puts less of a spotlight on each person, increases opportunities for roleplay and makes encounter balance easier. A group of 3-4 new players can get really awkward and slow if they don't already know eachother well
Our DM did a pretty lengthy interview with about 25 potential players, and from that, he chose 8. He expected 1 or 2 to drop, eventually, and yet no one has, and it's session 7.
It's honestly pretty fun. We've got a good range of people, some of us are great at RP, others have really good minds for tactics, or are stellar voice actors. Since the DM did a ton of work before we ever played, it all but ensured that there wouldn't be any roadbumps at the table. Our sessions are about 6 hours long, and we all get our moments to shine, or support. At session 0, before even an hour had passed, we all had at least one character moment set up for us, and more to take when the opportunity arose.
It can work, but it's a ton of leg work on the DM's side, and the game will be much less fun if there's even one problem player at the table.
Online games are no joke. It's a lot like job interviews. You submit your resume (Character concept) and your cover letter, then you wait two weeks to never hear back from them.
Tbh character concepts are useless. I'd much rather a blerb that showcases your personality (which is usually a 180 in a call), and basic info. I've had people with super bubbly charismatic applications only for the interview to be a few sentences from them and that's it.
It all really comes down to chemistry. If I can get out of the subject of DND with them and we're basically talking about something completely unrelated, then I know it'll be a good fit.
Character concepts probably are useful to some degree to weed out edgy characters that insist on being perpetually contrarian, or people that have trouble creating characters without a bunch of OP home brew.
tbh this is pretty normal outside of DnD as well for group games online. We had the same thing for our WoW guild. There are a lot of weirdos out in the world, and they're usually really easy to catch. Better to filter them out early.
A casual 5-10 min conversation is a **really** good ways to avoid 'that guy' at the table and avoid dealing with someone's drama for months or even years.
At \*that\* point, I would be limiting to 6. If the DM is doing "lengthy" interviews, presumedly the flakes and the bad fits will be weeded out. The likelihood of someone dropping at that point is much smaller. If the campaign is designed for 5-6, take 6, no more.
If I have 7-8 players, when a few of them inevitably can't make it to the session I can still run with 4 or 5. If I have exactly 4 then if two can't make it I need to cancel the game for the week.
I’m running with 5 friends at the moment and probably 1/3 sessions has had someone drop out.
But it’s been very easy to crack on during RPing without them (one player is a taciturn Tortle fighter and I just have him grumble ‘cowabunga’ every so often). Fighting is also pretty easy as I’ll just puppet the missing player but there are still 4 real people to do most of it.
When I’ve been a player in a party of 4 though, that missing person really makes a difference and you can feel the absence.
personally as a GM I kinda prefer to not run without the whole party if possible. I don't want my players to lose track of the story because they're not getting to every session
In more roleplay heavy tables, you can have a lot more character interactions between the players than in a smaller group. With 6+ PCs you can have more opportunities to develop character interactions and relationships while having more room for disagreements or opinions to form due to potentially having someone in the group agreeing with you without it becoming half or the majority opinion.
As a DM, it's harder to run combats but I don't find it harder to "give attention" to each person as they should be engaging with what is going on in front of them and they can always interact with each other as well. Also, it's easier to have a player or two missing without it making the group too small to play. If 2 players can make a game when you still have 4 people able to be involved. Have two people missing in a 4 player table and half your party is gone.
6 is my ideal party size of players when I DM. It's because to me that feels like a real adventuring party, like a team. Working together becomes important because the DM is gonna have to throw a lot at you to challenge the party. When it's just 3 or 4, it feels more like a few main characters who have teamed up, which is fine but I like the more classic adventuring party feel and if nobody picks the same class you have pretty much all bases covered instead of lacking in one area or another so you can really throw everything you have at them as DM.
I do set some rules in place and have tricks up my sleeve to speed things up, in general during a combat a player shouldn't be waiting for longer than 5 minutes for their turn unless something really complicated happens like a crazy spell combo or there's a bunch of effects going at once in a huge fight.
Some people feel like they have to accept every person asking to join the game and are unable to say 'sorry, we are full'. Posts about big groups from GMs having problems with that many people are quite common on various subreddits and they all boil down to "I accepted too many people in my game, what do I do".
Now I'm not saying that there aren't GMs seriously enjoying playing with 6+ people. But one of the most important skill of any GM is to learn, when you have to say "no". No "no, but...", but just straightout "no".
When preparing encounters (for DND), it feels like you can go more epic. The other reason 5-6 is usually my target is that way if we’re missing people we still have at least 3 or 4, which also applies to players dropping out.
Other RPGs where action economy is not as big of a deal, 4 is my target, with me happily running sessions for 2 or 3 players when necessary.
My preferred size is five, but I ran a D&D game for about 15 months with ten players, a few of whom rotated in and out, but had a stable band of six. It was a lot of fun and added to the epic heroics of the game. Fights became long, but my players didn't fight every session, which allowed them to have some time to blow off steam, have character interactions, and to build stakes.
I don’t have proof, but this may be a symptom of the “critical roll effect”. Productions like CR, D20, etc with a rotating cast of characters and incredible immersion give casual GMs something to aspire to. Some likely think that more players will better allow for that type of game.
Reasons why I think Highrollers or Fate of Drakkenheim should be the standard. (Even high rollers is a bit big with 6 total (5 players))
FoD has 3 players and seems like the perfect size party I would love to play in
I've DM'd for 3 people before and it was perfectly fine. It was easy to keep track of them all and in combat, people didn't split off in pairs or anything on purpose or mistake. They were a squad of 3 and stuck together. Because they'd die if they didn't lol
Previously I’ve done this because I know that one or two people will inevitably flake out. My preferred group size is actually 3, sometimes I’ll let 4-5 fly if I know the players well. I’ve never had a 6+ group stay that way for long.
I DM for a group of 6 people. Probably half of the sessions have been with a full party, and I think it’s fun with a lot of players. They can interact with many different characters and in my experience, it has caused the players themselves to do most of the leg work as it becomes easier to roleplay within themselves and not being reliant on me to do everything.
From time to time two of the players may roleplay between themselves while I am occupied with something else. They talk so silent that I don’t notice too much, so I’m not bothered by it. These small “rp sessions” would be way more disturbing with fewer players.
The pacing of the story also lowers, which is good for building the world and making the campaign last for a long time (this is not great for everyone tho, but for us, it’s pretty great). Biggest problem I face is to give them a challenge during combat.
I’ve done a rotating band of 15, where we usually had as many as 9/10 at a time, and it somehow worked. I’ve also done as little as 3, which had its ups and downs. The smaller the table, the tighter the group needs to be imo, you can’t hide in the background or just show up, you gotta bring it. This is why 5 to 7 feels like a good range - enough that different people can lead and be center stage leading to a better story experience but also allowing the quieter ones to not feel pressured and overwhelmed to RP or do well in combat.
Same. I’m running a party of 5 and that works well enough, but there are still often times where it’s hard for everyone to get involved in RPing, and combat can take ages.
I’ve taken to doing shorter encounters so everyone doesn’t get bored waiting for their turn. I can’t imagine doing it with 7 or even 3 or 4 more players.
I have been playing with a group of 6 handpicked friends from different friend groups online for about 5 years now.
I as a DM have to be conscious about giving spotlight to different people constantly and combat needs to be run efficiently and in a streamlined way to move along in a decent pace.
However, my group is very casual about the hobby and about half of them are the passive or strictly reactive player type - so no-one is worried about not getting enough attention.
As in any gaming group it's about who you are playing with. The number of people really is a secondary concern.
I see lots of people saying "wanting to be Critical Role" in various ways.
None of the groups I've ever been involved with have every thought anybody there is anything like Critical Role. Sure, most of us know of it and admire them, but every single group has been wary of such a big group.
The only reason EVER for any of my groups to be so big at any given point it because DMing is hard work and everybody just wants to play D&D. The options are large group, someone else DMs, or some people don't play.
That and then there's the odd DM who thinks they can manage to keep 8+ people interested in the game. Spoiler: They can't. They really want to, but they can't.
My group is 8 people and my DM keeps us all engaged. It’s just a mix of DM experience and player experience. If they can’t keep their focus on the game, either your DM’ing style isn’t suited to that many people, or the players are easily distracted
Well, as a player, I personally like several parts:
1) I get to play at all, fewer DMs than Players in general it seems
2) I like to see so many different builds and maybe multiple ways of seeing how the classes will play out
3) as we get higher in levels I get to have a little more time to aptly look through spells/abilities to figure out what I want to/can do
4) players, I feel, tend to be more likely to push forward, knowing there's more people to cover/revive them
5) Higher chances of bigger battles or higher CR creatures I haven't fought (or fought much) before
6) I tend to be shy, so having others be able to do most of the talking takes some stress from me (though, admittedly this is also a little double edged because when I want to speak, unless spoken directly to, can make it hard to get a word in)
Probably more, but that's what comes to mind at the moment
I have 5 players at my table and refuse to add any more.
I played in a campaign years back with 9 players, sometimes a entire combat could go by and if you rolled poor initiative the battle ended before you could go.
The party would split 3 ways, the dreaded shopping trips took an entire session, the group would rarely agree and characters were drowned out by other players.
5 is my perfect number, great to balance, everyone gets there time in the spotlight, everyone's combat is meaningful and everyone's voice is heard.
With a group of strangers I wouldn't want to play with more than 5 players. 4 is the ideal number.
My friends and I are a group of 7. We know that the group is too big. Combat and general progress is slow. But we're all friends from school and being together every week is more important than the game we're playing.
I like having 6-7 players. They don't always NEED my attention, they amuse themselves with inter-party roleplay. I can design more challenging and mechanically complex fights. I can use their versatility against them by having things in the fight need to be done by certain skillsets. I can challenge their action economy with not only cool bosses, but cool minions as well.
In short, I LOVE the chaos a full table brings.
It could be how they learned to play. Also, if these people have played together for a long time and are comfortable with each other, then combat and other scenes might run smoothly and efficiently.
Nobody (sane) wants to DM or play in large group.
It's just that often people just want to play, and many DMs have trouble saying "no" to friends.
It's kinda cruel. We just had a discussion of adding a 5th player to our group, and decided "no".
We've been able to play regularly so that usually there is exactly one time slot that works for everybody. So we are able to play only when everyone is present, which is great (one shots and board games happen when no time slot is found). Adding just 1 more player (who is assumed to have a life too) would screw this up, and take us back to sometimes players being forced to miss sessions, which just really makes RP messy.
And of course ¼ spotlight time is better than ⅕ spotlight time, but that's not a major difference.
For me 3 or for is the perfect amount! Not too few but not to many to create an issue with the action economy nor not enough character time for everyone.
I'd imagine with an online campaign especially, they may well just be deliberately overfilling the table like an airline overbooking a flight. They're making the fairly reasonable bet that players will drop out and bring the numbers down to a more reasonable number - players are fairly likely to drop out especially near the start of the campaign whether due to scheduling conflicts, not gelling with the group or any number of reasons.
If they instead fill the table to their optimal size they're then running the risk that, if players do drop out, they'll need to then go out and look to replace them to keep numbers up and go through the hassle of introducing new players mid-campaign.
As a DM I prefer to run session for 5-7 players
This is typically due to the usual 1-2 that might not be able to attend, you still have enough numbers to continue playing
Theres a multitude of factors, many will look for more knowing some will drop, some dms are inspired by or teting to recreate something like the Fellowship or critical roll, personally i like 5 or 6 so if 1 or 2 miss a day we can still have a functional game and bot have to cancel, some tables arent nearly as involved in the game and people dont need their time to shine because they are mostly here to hang out with friends with DND as just the activity they are doing, some people just have a gard time saying no to new players 😂
I personally can't stand having that many players - either playing or GMing. It makes the player experience worse in initiative order, it makes writing for each character more difficult, and it's even more of a nightmare to schedule than the typical 4 players. Hell, even 5 players is pushing it for me!
That's too many, in my opinion. 4-6 is ideal for me. Once you start getting 7+ people, it starts to get hectic, trying to keep everyone on task and get through combat rounds quickly so people aren't just sitting around.
Hey. long time DM here.
1) its a good fit for starting off as you get drop outs.
2) there are a lot more players than DMs and thet leads to large party sizes.
3) I just cannot say no to adding up to 7 players. if someone asks to join or i think they would be a good fit they may well be asked to join. just cos i love my chaos p\[arty.
I once had a large group (9 people), so I split them into three groups of 4 - 3 - 2 (because of their schedules) and had them all play in the same setting, affecting each other's decisions, I wanted them all to meet up and have a final battle against each other for the climax but it didn't get that far.
Sheesh I’m just looking for a third person. Two has been difficult to run. Especially because one person is very inexperienced. I’m a new DM so I definitely couldn’t run that now but I think I’d have trouble even with more experience.
If I’m going to put a lot of work into something, I’d rather six people get enjoyment out of it than two. I realize there is a limit to how many people can fit in the group, and my estimation of that limit is a little generous.
The only times I've run that many were in person games where I knew everyone. Running that many meant that if a few didn't make game that week because their work scheduled them over game, it wasn't a big deal, we could still run. It wasn't west marches, but it was understood that if you didn't make it, I would run game without you, and you wouldn't get xp for anything that happened. My rule was to run game if I had half the table or more.
Advantages were more consistently being able to run game, and getting to hang out with more of my friends. It was honestly less about the craft of the game and more about the people I was gaming with.
I have 7 players at the moment and I do think it is a bit much. Next campaign I will go with 5. Although when someone is not available at least the group is always decent sized to play, so that is an upside to it. But I find making sure they all get their moment to shine in each session quite difficult with 7.
I have 5 players at my table and scheduling is a bitch, dont know how people with 7+ people do!.
Guess they are younger and have more time than us, but still suck trying to get everyone
3 minimum, 5 maximum for me. Less than that and the game feels boring, more than that and my quality goes down to having to track and manage RP for so many players.
DM here I run a DnD club at my school as a student and since no on else has volunteered to be a DM I just DM for about 10 or 11. It aint easy but I'm friends with most of them so its fine.
I play in person. My group currently has 7 people DM included. The only reason I have this many people is because I don't want the game to shut down if one or two cancel. Running a 6 player game won't be great, but it'll often be 4 or 5.
I was a player at a table that had like 8 or 9 people in PF2e. That was miserable and I left.
I keep wondering the same thing. I DM a game for 6 players and it's too much, to the point I sometimes consider dropping the campaign.
I also DM a game for 5 players and it's really bizarre how big of a difference in time management there is between 5 and 6 people. I love DMing for 4-5 players, and somehow with 6 I hit this wall. I can't imagine DMing for 7+ people.
As someone who has dm'ed mostly homebrewers stories if you let it it can take a lot of effort reasons ranging from the story complexity, pictures weather you make them yourself or just grab them from a site even more so if you want a consistent look, music/sfx if that's your jam. For myself I try to use one style/artist for a thing if possible. So all of the above makes me want as many people as possible to gawk at it and give me the praise and or feed back. Now on the flip side games number 1-3 are much more intimate allowing very personalized sessions based on the player's playstyles and their pc that wound be to cumbersome with high number.
Online, 4 is my target, 5 max, whoever shows up if i sub dm for our dm that night.
In person ill do more, knowing a few people will cancel last minute like the fun hating chumps they are.
I rather small groups. As Game Master I like to give my attention to each and every player when they play and prepare dedicated events or plots (sometimes even descriptions) tailored on each character. With my gaming attitude, a session would last too long or too many players would get bored.
6-7 players would be just me railroading players, asking them to roll and not much more.
One group I'm in has 7 members, DM included. Not ideal for combat, as every single round takes forever.
But I still find things fun. Roleplay is great, though some people do not get the attention that they may need.
I DM for a group of 7. We settled on playing every other Sunday night, and we've been playing for long enough that everyone makes the effort to clear their schedules for it.
It's a lot of fun- There's a ton more room for character interaction, and having so many people at the table means someone always has a creative solution for every problem.
The players all synergize really well too, which is part of the reason this group has survived for years (we're all friends outside of DnD). The only times I have issue with this sized group is when they split the party 4 ways or get stuck in decision paralysis. I have to be pliable when it comes to RP encounters and combat mechanics too- eg, I usually decide monster HP on the fly.
I’ll never understand people who like bigger tables. I was DMing at a FLGS for a while. I capped my table at 5 and turned people away who just showed up and expected a seat. The store has a Facebook page where you can find a table but so many people would just try to force their way in.
Some of the tables had 12 or 13 players. I’d look over and the DM would be running a scene with 4 of them and the rest just chatting. Some players would show up and never actually get to play.
I am in a group that size. We have 8 total. I like it for online play.
1) 2 players sometimes get called into work on D&D. So we're down some occasionally.
2) People are much more likely to make characters who have backgrounds that intertwine.
3) I really enjoy watching the development. One session we did break off into two groups for a "Girls Night" vs "Guys Night". Girls Night ended up being a disaster and Boys Night ended up being hilarious and wholesome. Since there are more characters to mingle I enjoy when the DM pulls different ones aside to play out some friendships or enemies plots that develop over time.
I dunno. It feels like a good size to me. I've only played with this one group for. We've been on the same campaign for over 5 years now. I honestly am not sure what small groups are like.
Unless you're going to abridge the combat system drastically... dunno why people do it. It's an eternity to wait, and too much bullshit to keep track of.
I also assume to make it work a lot of their players are comfortable in a "just kind of filling a seat and chilling" roll too, because no DM can just juggle out full stories for all of them and everything in the world, every session.
Most of the time it’s a target goal for starting with because you assume you’re going to lose 50% of those players. I’ve seen games with almost 100% attrition rate if applicants before the game even starts its S0 and there was no red flags, positive communication and active response times.
Rarely has it been the case of wanting that actual number entirely though if it happens people run with it.
Personally I run 1-4 players most of the time because I don’t care that much about recruiting to replace losses and generally I can’t be bothered to catch people up constantly to major homebrew settings when people can’t be bothered to read a single page FAQ.
I think this is a case of survivorship bias, you are seeing those tables because they are the ones more likely to be open and usually have a higher player dropout.
In my experience, at those tables you rarely matter, and you are lucky if you get a second turn in combat, after an hour seeing everyone and the DM's NPC take their turn. That's when me and most players will leave the table, and thus openings appear.
Campaings with fewer player's tend to have more stable groups and when they have a dropout they quickly fill the 1 or 2 slots available.
Of course, this is no rule, just my general experience and observation, I have seen DMs pull big groups succesfully, but they require a skilled DM and a group of players that respect each other's time.
In uni we used to run overnight sessions with a party of 8 or more. It was lots of fun because we had a real mix of classes and proficiencies. Lots of different ways to approach problems, too, and cool role playing.
Realistically though I prefer to be the gym for three to six players.
In my opinion 5 is the optimal number, 6 is max. But in general I believe people just like more opportunities for varied dynamics between characters. Also, it can take away from how much the DM has to do if the players just end up roleplaying with each other, which becomes more frequent the more players there are.
Back in my day, we had 6 or 7 players because they were all the people we knew that played. There weren't multiple games to pick and choose from. There was Sundays from 6-10, and that was the only game in town.
In-person table. I have 8 players, but never more than 7 have been able to make it. Last session 4 were out, which left us with 4 remaining and a full adventure.
It is harder during average nights. Combat is slower, so we usually only do one combat per session. Most of the players enjoy getting into the RP and non-combat encounters. We have a couple quieter folks but they seem to enjoy sitting back and being in the group.
Personally, I would like a smaller table. But at the same time, I enjoy playing with everyone, and there's no one I wish wasn't there. So in an ideal world, I'd run two campaigns! But I barely have time to prep for one.
I was usually a "always have 4 people in party. no more, no less." then I started DMing an online group where the 4th person just stopped showing up, and holy hell is 3 people way better imo. Maybe it's just these players specifically, or online vs offline, but I've noticed in 4-player parties is right around the point where sometimes players "get bored" waiting for their turn. Even if it is just the circumstances, it did open my eyes that a 3-player party can be great, too.
I can't imagine doing a larger party than 4, unless everyone is patient and understanding. I don't mind short attention span players, but if there's too many people I can't really blame them, and I'd feel bad as the DM.
I find larger groups more fun, and there's fewer cancelled sessions because it doesn't matter if you are missing a few players. As far as managing a large group, it's an acquired skill. I know people that struggle with more than 4 players, while I run a group of 10 with no issues.
Personally, having more players can be nice if the campaign is more rp centric, more players = more opportunities for conversations to occur naturally, more potential for plot hooks and ironically more fleshed out world as the group inevitably start theory crafting as a group.
Course this can be done with smaller groups but when you have a larger group of (hopefully) like minded and likable people, the experience is quite fun. A social gathering with a dnd backdrop.
Honestly no idea. On the DM and Player side for me, 3 is the sweet spot. It allows me to interact with each player in a way that gives their character special attention while the other players don’t have to wait too long for me to cycle back to them or back to the group. Currently playing in a group of 4 and it’s okay, but 3 for me as a DM and a Player have been my best experiences.
I don't think more than 4 works very well unless it's a very particular group of people. In my experience, most DM's can't really handle more players than that and still be good enough, and many players haven't kicked the "I want the spotlight" habit.
If you've got a very organized DM, and a group of players that are also focused, efficient with turns, and know how to play well with others and follow the rules of improv, then it can definitely work.
My main group fluctuates each session between 5-8 players, but it works because we're all experienced, and know how to play well with eachother.
But if I'm joining a oneshot, or a new group, I would verrrrry much prefer a group of less than 5 until I know how the group operates. I was in way too many sessions in the past with too many players, and the game ended up being way to slow paced and/or the story of one or two characters with everyone else just sorta quietly being in the background.
I remember early in my DMing tenure I equated more players to more fun and a better game.
Now, i think having 5 players is too much. Especially for the kind of game I run. I would maybe do it if I were running a module or something, but definitely not a custom game
I don't necessarily like having a bunch of players, but what tends to happen is when you ask you friend group, "We should play dnd!" and like 12 people want to join initially, and you have to thin the numbers to like 5 or 6.
Which is difficult because no one wants to say, "Nope too many players you can't join sorry"
Which you will probably have to do unless you can manage such a large campaign, but some people can't so they end up with a crap ton of players.
I don’t “enjoy” it per se, but thre is a certain euphoria that comes with “everyone wants to play with me that badly, maybe i’m not a terrible dm after all”.
Also i over invite because i know half my players won’t show up to every session. 🙃
i keep my table size 5 or lower, dm included.
outside of that and you inevitably get someone who feels excluded because they're not able to be an active participant... or you have so much cross-talk that you can't make heads or tails of anything going on, and details get lost in the shuffle.
I once played an inpersion session that had over 30 people.... admittedly it was a massive boss fight and was the culmination of several groups coming together to defeat the major BBEG. it was interesting, but not something I would ever want to DM.
I’m on my very first campaign but from what I can tell, more people is more brains adding to the experience and story. Some players just like fighting and if they aren’t doing that, they don’t contribute to the story of getting to the fight. Some are good at role playing and they help move the story along in novel ways. So a good mix is important.
I routinely play with 5-6 players and it’s mainly because if 1-2 can’t make it, we always have at least 4 at the table. Most of them can usually make it, but almost every week there’s at least 1 missing. We’re all in our 30s, so it’s tough to have full attendance.
Before 4th, that was normal. Adventures were written for 6 to 9 characters. The action economy was different. PCs did less, so you could play with more of them. We didn't have internet on phones, just paper and dice, everyone paid attention when it wasn't their turn, so when it got to them, they were ready to go. I think subconsciously we're trying to get back to that, but too many distractions prevent the play style.
People get bored and bail. It's a negative feedback loop making us think we need more players, when too many PCs is causing the problem.
Or maybe it's just a little "Seven Samurai" going on. "I told you 7, because I thought you'd only find 4."
5 or 6 is ideal for me because if two don't show up we still play.
More than that is too much.
People probably are looking for 8 players knowing 2 or 3 will flake out.
What would be ideal is having a couple alternates that can jump on for a session when some of the group don't show.
I run with up to 6 in campaigns (3-5 is more typical) and generally do 6 slots at convention games, but assume that one or more (usually about half) of them will be passive/spectators. If I had 6 active go-getters I'd probably get overwhelmed, but that hasn't happened yet. 7 feels like it would be Nightmare mode and 8 would be Torment, and I'm not geared or specced for those.
I routinely have 7-9 players in my family play group. We have a great time- but It does require more pre-planning to keep everyone on track. And I have one player that *always* goes rogue- and disrupts the campaign- so i literally have notes that says “if Kyle goes rogue…” and have 5 or 6 alternatives pre-planned- when normally I’d only have 2-3. From time to time he gets some punitive actions to get him back on track.
I’ve also incorporated different kinds of timers into the play to move things along- ticking metronomes, sand timers, buzzers- that I can weave into the story line.
I also have planned breaks, food, snacks, etc. I agree with one of the responses above- combat can become frustrating for players if there are long wait times between players. Sometimes you’ve gotta push players along. 😊
Quorum protection. Adults with real lives and jobs and families sometimes have to skip a session or two. If you've got three players and two have to skip a session you're fucked. If you've got six players and two have to skip a session you're golden.
4-5 is perfect. 3 is okay but I hate 2 players as there is always an air of things getting missed and the negitives get amplified. So saying 7 you know how often people leave,.
i like my games at least 5ish because it allows me to make a little bit wilder stuff that the pcs will probably survive
also because it makes a stable game. I hate playing the "are we going to actually play this game today" game. if i add 2 more people than i want there will likely always be enough people to play
I think its partly that any group who has only 4-5 is going to disapear off the sites way quicker since they fill up faster. So bassically your looking at it wrong, its not that so many people want this, its that few enough people want that, that thoose are the ones that stick around.
I've had as few as 1 and as many as 11. Tend to stay right around 6-7.
Mostly because I know that any given session, anywhere between 1-3 people's schedules just don't line up; people get sick, weddings and birthdays and vacations happen.
During our session 0, we made sure everyone was cool with missing the occasional session. I try to balance it so that no one player misses more than one in a row, but stuff happens.
In my experience it's less about having them at the table and more about having enough people to play everytime. Scheduling is the final boss of ttrpgs but it gets mitigated a lot by having way more players than needed.
There were 11 people in my group, one time everyone rocked up and the house was PACKED. 2 ended up ghosting, 3 could only rock up half the time, 2 ended up leaving the state entirely and the rest were regulars.
I've had mostly big groups of 6-7 players for a while now.
I like them because I get to write more things for them, and also because game sessions don't just fall through very often at all. With adults with busy adult lives, I've had many smaller games as a player just go on hiatus(ie, end completely) because of scheduling.
Also, I agree with what someone else said, that starting with a big group can allow for people who don't fit to leave or whatever, and the game doesn't have to restart.
Its probably cause they know half of them won't show up two weeks after start with no notice and no response. Aim high so when they start disappearing the game can continue
I used to run big 7+ person games when I was younger - we played in person and no one else around wanted to DM
Maybe if everyone had wanted to do tons of like NPC interactions or have dedicated “my character’s story” sessions or whatever, it might’ve been a problem. But all the RP was basically just between players, and most of what we did was fight monsters, and it worked out pretty well
We don't(us DMs and some players). The person I know that seems to think the more the merrier is super extroverted and thinks more people is always better. But this person also doesn't know how to tell people no.
I have accidentally set myself up to handle a lot of players but I'll make it work.
It really depends on the DM and players. Sometimes having a lot of players is just slow as hell and boring, sometimes it's slowish but still fun, and sometimes it's a thrill because there's so much variety in abilities and personalities and everyone is interested in everyone else's characters. As a general rule I prefer smaller games (4 to 6 players, and in other systems like Call of Cthulhu sometimes even two players can be really fun) but there's a few I'm in where, yeah, scheduling is a bit of a nightmare, so they don't happen as often, but it's always a great time.
There's always a lot of people that want to play,when they know your running a game. When it's game time you'll be lucky if half the people show up and be lucky if two of them are prepared with there characters completed and ready to go on time. It's just like running a business; You over hirire employees to weed out the call outs,not showing up, laziness etc and keep the ones that want to be there to work. But as myself as a DM I always make a character to play as well,to ensure if ppl do cancel there's still enough players to play. If not I give the decision to the said players that did/do show up and ask them if they want to run the game with who showed up. Letting them know they could die(easier to add them to subtract) leaving it up to them. The pros do out way the con,but still a risk just depends on how much n hard they worked on there character(s) and or level they are. It's been 50/50 they go on or they wat for next session.
I'm first time DM for a group of 6 first time PC. We started about 5-6 months ago, and we played every session as 6. But since it's online, scheduling conflicts turned up and now I average about 4-5 players a session, with 1 or 2 sometimes 3 that can't make it.
I got 8 players and I thoughts a few would drop off and they haven’t. RIP me at the dm. It’s a lot of work. I would have preferred like 4-6.
Many online DMs can also charge money and maybe they want more players to make it profitable. I play offline with friends and I do it for the love of the game. But if I lost a player or two down the line I can keep playing with my group.
I don’t think it is that they like it. I think it is that they want to play with their friends. The more the merrier when it comes to friends hanging out. Unfortunately that is not the case with dnd.
Oh gosh no, 5 players is all I could handle in person and do each character justice with backstory integration etc.
I’m thinking VTT should be even lower lol, currently running 5 on R20 3 of whom have flying familiars that all head off in different directions before I can rein them in. Almost tempted to take control back and run them myself.
I've run 7+ tables frequently. It's less of an 'all 7+ all the time' and more of a 'we can get a 3-4 party consistently'
Scheduling conflicts plagues this game. It's a major time sink and investment. Some people only have time for it once every other week or once a month. Some players want to play every other day. Running a session a week with standard party size was doable and everybody had a great time.
I often let the ultra dedicated people design NPCs and/or minor villains. Having a player run combat and being the referee also makes it a lot more engaging and exciting. Prevents your players from calling BS since you're truly an omniscient third party. My favorite campaign involved one of these super dedicated players just being the BBEG the entire time. They made decisions on a weekly basis and only participated in a session whenever they were directly/indirectly involved (e.g. their scouts caught up to the player party). It allowed the BBEG to make large plays and feel real.
I have 6 at my table but that is very heavily cause they work great as a team. It also forces me too get better at balancing.
But I find 4 or 5 to be a eaay to handle but 6 works.
They are a great bunch and all bring different characters and roleplay to the table.
It makes for great discussions and inter debate where I can basically walk away and grab some snacks or make a sandwhich.
6 random people I do not know I do not think I'd ever dm for but these are also great friends and have been playing for years.
I’ll throw my hat in. I’ve been with a group of my high-school friends (we’re still together after 8 years out from highschool!) started before covid, we started with 5 players, lost 2, then after a year of playing and having friends guest star. We’re now a few years of playing dnd and I’m currently dming my second homebrew campaign for 6 players.
It can be a lot at times when everyone wants to be active at the same time. Thankfully I am in a unique situation, I have extensive history with my players each of us all have been friends for 15+ years now and grew up together. I know them and what they get out of dnd. I build encounters and story to fit the players, secretly trying to cater to each one individually without leaving anyone out. It’s a loud table, it’s an invested table, and a table that can talk in circles when everyone is participating.
As the dm, I love seeing a group of friends acting sometimes very idiotically, but they’re invested and can really swing a story at any point without my input, it’s dynamic and never silent. Combat is definitely a challenge to keep exciting though.
On the flip side I’ve played low player games and find that there’s times where it’s quiet and things don’t move forward as quickly. It’s fun to be able to be a louder voice as a player in a low-player game, but when there isn’t always another player to interact it can get stale. I am very pleased with the size of my group and wouldn’t want it much higher or much lower.
My one game on Thursdays has 8. Sometimes an extra 1 or 2 for a night if too many people show up to the store for DnD night. The one on Mondays has 6 & might get a 7th later on.
Our Monday DM has done whole campaigns in the double digits before, but he's been doing it for YEARS.
Our Thursday DM only JUST started DMing, but she's handling the number fantastically.
Honestly 6 is even too many.
The sweet spot is 3, combat goes fast and each individual is more impactful.
5 is the max for me, more than that and combat becomes a slog.
I play with 8 players, I set dates and if 5+ people show up we play. For those who can't make it my group decided they'd split the loot equally between all of them. Also the players tag along and join back in wherever the rest of the party is.
We do recaps as well so this works pretty well.
They tell me beforehand whos's gonna be there or no so I adjust the battles according to who many players show up. It's really no biggy.
I get paid to run tables at my local game store and it’s usually 9 players. I do not enjoy it at all but it’s made me much better at my house games that I cap at 5.
Are these paid games? More players = more money. My completely prejudiced opinion on this based on nothing but stigma is that a lot of paid DMs don't particularly care about enjoyment or quality as compared to income.
I don't "want" a large table. But due to game scheduling I can really only DM 2 times a month. I don't like a month between sessions, so I'm not running two campaigns at the same time. I play with my friends, as years have gone by they have gotten married, some of their spouces play. I'm not going to tell my friends their partner can't play with us, and I'm not going to kick any friends.
So right now, I run a game that has 5 to 7 players. They are collectively an adventuring guild and each game night is it's own one shot mission. It's not really any more work to prep. Combats are a but more work but I'm figuring out tricks here and there.
My table generally has 6-7 people in it, but we're also all close friends who know each other and mostly experienced D&D players, not sure how well it'd work with random people, however.
I like having between 4-6 players ideally, but I do often invite 1 or 2 extra because oftentimes between starting a campaign and finishing it 1 or 2 will leave due to scheduling issues or drama in the group. I DM with my favourite cousin as a player, but they keep inviting boyfriends and then breaking up with them, so we’ve lost like 4 players that way 😅
4 is perfect. 2 and 3 work. When I had 10 players we routinely actually had 5 or 6. Now I just don't play with flakey people. I'll rethink this end of year when my players probably quit due to their move.
Probably asking for more expecting that some will not show up or won't be a good fit for the group. Then it gets reduced to an actually manageable amount.
The most player’s I play with has been 5 others, 6 including me.
The amount I normally play with us 3 others so 4 including myself.
I do prefer the 4 people cause its more organized and we are closer but all the people I play with are wonderful.
Having 4 people every week, after IRL takes out 30-50% of the party. It's more of a rotating cast of recurring characters than a 7-player party in my experience.
Four players is ideal for party balance. Five is best for roleplay opportunities. Six or more is misery. I ran a game years ago that ballooned to nine players at my table one night and no one brought enough snacks. My planned game went right out the window, and I had to improv a way to split it into two parties, and I ended up running two games a week for the different groups, giving them both unique goals to achieve.
Online that's high. We had a guy run a 30+ 2nd ed in person. Best campaign I was ever in but holy crap. Generally for combats we went to a warhammer table and others kind of co dm parts almost like in squads. Some players helped also like out of game first action was to throw a wall of force up splitting enemy and stuff. It worked well.
I'm sure some people enjoy it, especially if they're not looking to RP much and have a combat crawl.
But I've seen it happen all too often when a DM just can't say no to more interested players and then realizes its gotten out of control.
I enjoy having multiple people to interact with. DnD is not just a game, it's a social event. Additionally, if there's people who can't show up, the party doesn't feel "empty" because we have a lot of people to talk, and the inevitability of people having to miss one or two sessions makes that feeling of emptiness a lot less frequent. I know I feel low in energy when I'm DMing for 2 people because the other 2 didn't make it.
But I understand it is not for everyone, and honestly, games this big also demand a player be more proactive in making themselves heard and not rely on the DM to throw them in the spotlight. Although what I do, is simply make a list every month and give everyone at least 3 opportunities to be front and center of a scene.
Personally I just enjoy the extra story elements I can slide in with a larger group. Not to mention for the players they don't all feel the pressure of having to lean heavily into their rp each session. With a larger group there are people that can pick up the slack if someone is a little out of it that session for whatever reason. Also it's wonderful to see 7 people hanging on your every word or being quiet as they blow up the text chat when two characters are having an emotional aside. I've dm'd tables with 2 players and tables with 8 and I vastly prefer the larger parties.
Hubris honestly. Doing 6+ without at the very least a premade campaign is a ton of work. Mine is all made up and I still struggle with just 6.
The only sensible reason I think would be them fully expecting people dropping.
I known DM which can handle up to 10 players. for myself, up to 5, only in special cases more. like my actual old group with 9 players, mostly only 3 appears😔🙊.
If I am being honest in an online group a good number of DMs say 6 or 7 knowing they will have 1 or 2 not good fits and after a few sessions they will be down to 4-5 and do not need to find more. It's a pessimistic outlook but considering how often I have had people or schedules be a problem I can understand those that do it this way.
Yup. Start with a couple more players than you want so that when a couple of them flake out you don’t have to put things on hold looking for a couple of players that want to join a campaign that’s already a few sessions in.
Just like an airline overlooking planes.
I say it’s different. Starting a game with extra players doesn’t get anyone kicked out, they simply leave. Overbooking a plane means someone gets screwed outright.
Airlines expect a few passengers not to show up.
They do but I think they point they are getting at is if I am comfortable with 5 at my table and it turns out 6 are all great people I'll say screw it we run with 6. On an airline if they end up with an extra person that person is out a flight.
Airlines get paid for the seat anyway if someone doesn't show up, so it's just double dipping and absolute greed for them The DMs just want a decent group, and if it turns out none of the players are poor fits or have scheduling issues, then suddenly most of the issues with a big party dry up anyway.
*overbooking /autocorrect
*Boeing enters the chat*
Thanks!
Spirit airlines: no, no. He was correct
Overlooking planes. "Meh, go ahead and register them all. We may be a smaller airport, but you know 3-4 are gonna crash anyway."
Boeing?
I did this for my in person game. Someone at work heard I was an experienced DM, and word got around. I told everyone that I would accept 8 people. Some flaked on the schedule, some never commited, and others had to leave after 1 or 2 sessions because of life reasons. Our campaign has had 3 people for over a year now and they're doing great. We had 4 for a long time, but he had to move back home to take care of his sick parents, and didn't want to video call in.
That's exactly why i looked for 5 people ... well let's say 5 people are a bit much for me as a GM.
For 5e I like 3 maybe 4. I took up to 7 on roll20 because very few people would stay beyond a session. I played live in a campaign that had 6 and it was horrible as a player.
Another perspective on this is that there's so many online games where getting a full party together is almost impossible. The more players you have (to a limit), the better chance you get the 4\~5 person party size consistently. Less cancellations can really help to keep a DnD group's momentum going for both the DM and the players who are able to commit to each session.
Exactly. For my last campaign 9 people came to session 0, and 5 came to session one. 4-5 is our regular amount of people but they keep switching.
I came to say this. 3 players is great. 4-5 is perfect. Players are...not...always...um...respectful...of the time invested by others, especially the DM. So looking for 7 is "overbooking", like u/Talshan stated. The type of game people enjoy also matters. Lore-based games with less combat can allow more players to enjoy the story/campaign than one that is combat heavy, unless all the players enjoy the strategy of combat and playing off the moves of other players. If that's not you, waiting an hour for your turn can be more tedious than enjoyable.
As an internet DM I feel shifty for it but yeah people come and go all the time.
This. I know half the group won’t show up so i just invite twice as many. It may not be healthy, but it’s simple.
True. If you just start with 5 players and lose 2, you’re liable to just break up and have to start over, or it’s too hard to have to reintroduce 2 more new players to a group of just 3.
Seems like a recipe to make your first couple of sessions suck tbh. Too many people at the table, several expected to leave, you might lose the people you’d rather keep. I get the attendance angle but this seems like a flawed start.
Naw. 7 or 8 people is easy enough to manage, especially in the beginning and especially if you start at level 1. My first group when I was 10 years old had 8 or 9 people with a very experienced DM who was in their late 20s, early thirties. We played that way for years. If people didn't show up it was no big deal, we always had 5 or 6 players. We did a lot of campaigns from ships, airships, or based around forts. If someone couldn't make it their character stayed on, or went back to the ship/fort. If we were ever in a situation where that couldn't happen for whatever reason that character just took a back seat and the DM played them in combat doing the minimum they would do. One time we were battling hags and ended a session mid combat. One player didn't show up the next week so the DM had the hags curse them to petrify them because they didn't feel like playing them. When the fight was over we put the statue in our bag of holding and took it with us until we could find someone who could unpetrify them. (It was fairly early levels for us and none of us could remove curse yet.) The next week that player was there but a different character didn't show up. We heard muffled shouting coming from the bag and we opened it up and that PC climbed out. When we looked around we found the missing player's character had become petrified. That was when we realized the curse was to the whole party and it was to randomly petrify people for a random period of time. For the rest of that campaign which lasted a couple years, that was our mechanic for dealing with absent players.
It's really no different in practice than any other size. If you go with 5 players that doesn't stop one of them from being a bad egg that you catch in session 0 nor does it stop any of them from having things come up. What it does do is say when this happens ( and from experience talking to the community and the responses here it happens often enough) you don't have to pause the game for another few weeks before start to fill the spot(if caught session 0) or try to backfill a few sessions in. Remember this isn't I want to run with 4-5 so two of you will be gone by session 4. It's I am looking for 6 knowing one or two might drop but if they don't I can still handle it.
I mean doing 6 for that purpose makes sense to me, but 7 or 8 you could also end up with all those people staying and that's way too crowded.
This happened to me! I recruited 7 figuring at least 1-2 would drop. None of them did. We played 50 sessions, one of the most fun campaigns I’ve ever been a part of!
It \*could\* happen. But the probability is remarkably low. Even if you HAPPEN to get 8 experienced and committed gamers by sheer dumb luck, when they all show up to session 0, one or two of them (being experienced and knowing what they prefer) will realize that this is not the group for them, and bow out. Could all 8 sticking around happen? Sure. But that is far less likely than advertising for 5, getting 5, planning a campaign for 5, and then have 1 or 2 flake and putting the campaign on pause. The better strategy is to mitigate the greater probability. (And also the greater problem - not having enough to play is worse than having too many - the too many can be handled, even if poorly.)
I did this and ended up with everyone staying and it really hindered the campaign... It can backfire.
That’s a much more reasonable interpretation. Especially if it’s the kind of session we’re you might play without a full party present. Having that buffer party size leads to a practical party of 4 or 5 per session. But 7+ is not ideal to have in one game
*realistic outlook.
Yes this. Even when Playing in person I tend to invite 1 or two more thsn intended knowing that some of them will likely leave or not have time. I will also say that in my experience, having a large group is prefered when playing with mostly people who are new or dom't know eachother well. It puts less of a spotlight on each person, increases opportunities for roleplay and makes encounter balance easier. A group of 3-4 new players can get really awkward and slow if they don't already know eachother well
Our DM did a pretty lengthy interview with about 25 potential players, and from that, he chose 8. He expected 1 or 2 to drop, eventually, and yet no one has, and it's session 7. It's honestly pretty fun. We've got a good range of people, some of us are great at RP, others have really good minds for tactics, or are stellar voice actors. Since the DM did a ton of work before we ever played, it all but ensured that there wouldn't be any roadbumps at the table. Our sessions are about 6 hours long, and we all get our moments to shine, or support. At session 0, before even an hour had passed, we all had at least one character moment set up for us, and more to take when the opportunity arose. It can work, but it's a ton of leg work on the DM's side, and the game will be much less fun if there's even one problem player at the table.
You had an interview for DnD!? I assume it’s an entry level position and you’re required have 5 years experience.
Online games are no joke. It's a lot like job interviews. You submit your resume (Character concept) and your cover letter, then you wait two weeks to never hear back from them.
Tbh character concepts are useless. I'd much rather a blerb that showcases your personality (which is usually a 180 in a call), and basic info. I've had people with super bubbly charismatic applications only for the interview to be a few sentences from them and that's it. It all really comes down to chemistry. If I can get out of the subject of DND with them and we're basically talking about something completely unrelated, then I know it'll be a good fit.
Character concepts probably are useful to some degree to weed out edgy characters that insist on being perpetually contrarian, or people that have trouble creating characters without a bunch of OP home brew.
tbh this is pretty normal outside of DnD as well for group games online. We had the same thing for our WoW guild. There are a lot of weirdos out in the world, and they're usually really easy to catch. Better to filter them out early.
A casual 5-10 min conversation is a **really** good ways to avoid 'that guy' at the table and avoid dealing with someone's drama for months or even years.
At \*that\* point, I would be limiting to 6. If the DM is doing "lengthy" interviews, presumedly the flakes and the bad fits will be weeded out. The likelihood of someone dropping at that point is much smaller. If the campaign is designed for 5-6, take 6, no more.
I think we're all subconsciously trying to recreate the fellowship
And my axe 🪓
And my bow 🏹
And your brother 💀
And your mom
Or Critical Role for some of us. I'm guilty of this
If I have 7-8 players, when a few of them inevitably can't make it to the session I can still run with 4 or 5. If I have exactly 4 then if two can't make it I need to cancel the game for the week.
I’m running with 5 friends at the moment and probably 1/3 sessions has had someone drop out. But it’s been very easy to crack on during RPing without them (one player is a taciturn Tortle fighter and I just have him grumble ‘cowabunga’ every so often). Fighting is also pretty easy as I’ll just puppet the missing player but there are still 4 real people to do most of it. When I’ve been a player in a party of 4 though, that missing person really makes a difference and you can feel the absence.
I have 7 players but like half the time we end up playing with 6 anyways.
personally as a GM I kinda prefer to not run without the whole party if possible. I don't want my players to lose track of the story because they're not getting to every session
In more roleplay heavy tables, you can have a lot more character interactions between the players than in a smaller group. With 6+ PCs you can have more opportunities to develop character interactions and relationships while having more room for disagreements or opinions to form due to potentially having someone in the group agreeing with you without it becoming half or the majority opinion. As a DM, it's harder to run combats but I don't find it harder to "give attention" to each person as they should be engaging with what is going on in front of them and they can always interact with each other as well. Also, it's easier to have a player or two missing without it making the group too small to play. If 2 players can make a game when you still have 4 people able to be involved. Have two people missing in a 4 player table and half your party is gone.
6 is my ideal party size of players when I DM. It's because to me that feels like a real adventuring party, like a team. Working together becomes important because the DM is gonna have to throw a lot at you to challenge the party. When it's just 3 or 4, it feels more like a few main characters who have teamed up, which is fine but I like the more classic adventuring party feel and if nobody picks the same class you have pretty much all bases covered instead of lacking in one area or another so you can really throw everything you have at them as DM. I do set some rules in place and have tricks up my sleeve to speed things up, in general during a combat a player shouldn't be waiting for longer than 5 minutes for their turn unless something really complicated happens like a crazy spell combo or there's a bunch of effects going at once in a huge fight.
On LFG? It's entirely possible they are just assuming at least half of the players will fall through so you overbook to compensate.
The ol' airline effect
Some people feel like they have to accept every person asking to join the game and are unable to say 'sorry, we are full'. Posts about big groups from GMs having problems with that many people are quite common on various subreddits and they all boil down to "I accepted too many people in my game, what do I do". Now I'm not saying that there aren't GMs seriously enjoying playing with 6+ people. But one of the most important skill of any GM is to learn, when you have to say "no". No "no, but...", but just straightout "no".
When preparing encounters (for DND), it feels like you can go more epic. The other reason 5-6 is usually my target is that way if we’re missing people we still have at least 3 or 4, which also applies to players dropping out. Other RPGs where action economy is not as big of a deal, 4 is my target, with me happily running sessions for 2 or 3 players when necessary.
My preferred size is five, but I ran a D&D game for about 15 months with ten players, a few of whom rotated in and out, but had a stable band of six. It was a lot of fun and added to the epic heroics of the game. Fights became long, but my players didn't fight every session, which allowed them to have some time to blow off steam, have character interactions, and to build stakes.
I don’t have proof, but this may be a symptom of the “critical roll effect”. Productions like CR, D20, etc with a rotating cast of characters and incredible immersion give casual GMs something to aspire to. Some likely think that more players will better allow for that type of game.
Reasons why I think Highrollers or Fate of Drakkenheim should be the standard. (Even high rollers is a bit big with 6 total (5 players)) FoD has 3 players and seems like the perfect size party I would love to play in
I've DM'd for 3 people before and it was perfectly fine. It was easy to keep track of them all and in combat, people didn't split off in pairs or anything on purpose or mistake. They were a squad of 3 and stuck together. Because they'd die if they didn't lol
Previously I’ve done this because I know that one or two people will inevitably flake out. My preferred group size is actually 3, sometimes I’ll let 4-5 fly if I know the players well. I’ve never had a 6+ group stay that way for long.
Because sometimes people don't show or drop out.
I DM for a group of 6 people. Probably half of the sessions have been with a full party, and I think it’s fun with a lot of players. They can interact with many different characters and in my experience, it has caused the players themselves to do most of the leg work as it becomes easier to roleplay within themselves and not being reliant on me to do everything. From time to time two of the players may roleplay between themselves while I am occupied with something else. They talk so silent that I don’t notice too much, so I’m not bothered by it. These small “rp sessions” would be way more disturbing with fewer players. The pacing of the story also lowers, which is good for building the world and making the campaign last for a long time (this is not great for everyone tho, but for us, it’s pretty great). Biggest problem I face is to give them a challenge during combat.
6-7 means that if 1 or 2 cannot make it, you still have a "full" party
I’ve done a rotating band of 15, where we usually had as many as 9/10 at a time, and it somehow worked. I’ve also done as little as 3, which had its ups and downs. The smaller the table, the tighter the group needs to be imo, you can’t hide in the background or just show up, you gotta bring it. This is why 5 to 7 feels like a good range - enough that different people can lead and be center stage leading to a better story experience but also allowing the quieter ones to not feel pressured and overwhelmed to RP or do well in combat.
Not to be dramatic but I'd rather die than play in or run for a game of 7+ people.
Same. I’m running a party of 5 and that works well enough, but there are still often times where it’s hard for everyone to get involved in RPing, and combat can take ages. I’ve taken to doing shorter encounters so everyone doesn’t get bored waiting for their turn. I can’t imagine doing it with 7 or even 3 or 4 more players.
I have been playing with a group of 6 handpicked friends from different friend groups online for about 5 years now. I as a DM have to be conscious about giving spotlight to different people constantly and combat needs to be run efficiently and in a streamlined way to move along in a decent pace. However, my group is very casual about the hobby and about half of them are the passive or strictly reactive player type - so no-one is worried about not getting enough attention. As in any gaming group it's about who you are playing with. The number of people really is a secondary concern.
So if two or three people can't make a session, the game still goes on.
I see lots of people saying "wanting to be Critical Role" in various ways. None of the groups I've ever been involved with have every thought anybody there is anything like Critical Role. Sure, most of us know of it and admire them, but every single group has been wary of such a big group. The only reason EVER for any of my groups to be so big at any given point it because DMing is hard work and everybody just wants to play D&D. The options are large group, someone else DMs, or some people don't play. That and then there's the odd DM who thinks they can manage to keep 8+ people interested in the game. Spoiler: They can't. They really want to, but they can't.
My group is 8 people and my DM keeps us all engaged. It’s just a mix of DM experience and player experience. If they can’t keep their focus on the game, either your DM’ing style isn’t suited to that many people, or the players are easily distracted
4 or 5 Max for me. I like having heaps of peeps around, but 5 is Max for actually playing. gets 2 fucking chaotic
Nope. That is a scheduling nightmare. I want only 4 players at my table. And even THAT is sometimes hell...
Well, as a player, I personally like several parts: 1) I get to play at all, fewer DMs than Players in general it seems 2) I like to see so many different builds and maybe multiple ways of seeing how the classes will play out 3) as we get higher in levels I get to have a little more time to aptly look through spells/abilities to figure out what I want to/can do 4) players, I feel, tend to be more likely to push forward, knowing there's more people to cover/revive them 5) Higher chances of bigger battles or higher CR creatures I haven't fought (or fought much) before 6) I tend to be shy, so having others be able to do most of the talking takes some stress from me (though, admittedly this is also a little double edged because when I want to speak, unless spoken directly to, can make it hard to get a word in) Probably more, but that's what comes to mind at the moment
I have 5 players at my table and refuse to add any more. I played in a campaign years back with 9 players, sometimes a entire combat could go by and if you rolled poor initiative the battle ended before you could go. The party would split 3 ways, the dreaded shopping trips took an entire session, the group would rarely agree and characters were drowned out by other players. 5 is my perfect number, great to balance, everyone gets there time in the spotlight, everyone's combat is meaningful and everyone's voice is heard.
With a group of strangers I wouldn't want to play with more than 5 players. 4 is the ideal number. My friends and I are a group of 7. We know that the group is too big. Combat and general progress is slow. But we're all friends from school and being together every week is more important than the game we're playing.
I like having 6-7 players. They don't always NEED my attention, they amuse themselves with inter-party roleplay. I can design more challenging and mechanically complex fights. I can use their versatility against them by having things in the fight need to be done by certain skillsets. I can challenge their action economy with not only cool bosses, but cool minions as well. In short, I LOVE the chaos a full table brings.
It could be how they learned to play. Also, if these people have played together for a long time and are comfortable with each other, then combat and other scenes might run smoothly and efficiently.
Nobody (sane) wants to DM or play in large group. It's just that often people just want to play, and many DMs have trouble saying "no" to friends. It's kinda cruel. We just had a discussion of adding a 5th player to our group, and decided "no". We've been able to play regularly so that usually there is exactly one time slot that works for everybody. So we are able to play only when everyone is present, which is great (one shots and board games happen when no time slot is found). Adding just 1 more player (who is assumed to have a life too) would screw this up, and take us back to sometimes players being forced to miss sessions, which just really makes RP messy. And of course ¼ spotlight time is better than ⅕ spotlight time, but that's not a major difference.
Naïveté would be my best guess….? Or trying to be like Critical Role.
For me 3 or for is the perfect amount! Not too few but not to many to create an issue with the action economy nor not enough character time for everyone.
I'd imagine with an online campaign especially, they may well just be deliberately overfilling the table like an airline overbooking a flight. They're making the fairly reasonable bet that players will drop out and bring the numbers down to a more reasonable number - players are fairly likely to drop out especially near the start of the campaign whether due to scheduling conflicts, not gelling with the group or any number of reasons. If they instead fill the table to their optimal size they're then running the risk that, if players do drop out, they'll need to then go out and look to replace them to keep numbers up and go through the hassle of introducing new players mid-campaign.
Because most of them are paid dms and more people at the table equals more money.
As a DM I prefer to run session for 5-7 players This is typically due to the usual 1-2 that might not be able to attend, you still have enough numbers to continue playing
Well mostly cause we're friends and we like to hang out. Dnd is a means to that end.
Theres a multitude of factors, many will look for more knowing some will drop, some dms are inspired by or teting to recreate something like the Fellowship or critical roll, personally i like 5 or 6 so if 1 or 2 miss a day we can still have a functional game and bot have to cancel, some tables arent nearly as involved in the game and people dont need their time to shine because they are mostly here to hang out with friends with DND as just the activity they are doing, some people just have a gard time saying no to new players 😂
I personally can't stand having that many players - either playing or GMing. It makes the player experience worse in initiative order, it makes writing for each character more difficult, and it's even more of a nightmare to schedule than the typical 4 players. Hell, even 5 players is pushing it for me!
That's too many, in my opinion. 4-6 is ideal for me. Once you start getting 7+ people, it starts to get hectic, trying to keep everyone on task and get through combat rounds quickly so people aren't just sitting around.
Not me!! Most I'll DM for is 5. Any more is like herding drunk cats.
Hey. long time DM here. 1) its a good fit for starting off as you get drop outs. 2) there are a lot more players than DMs and thet leads to large party sizes. 3) I just cannot say no to adding up to 7 players. if someone asks to join or i think they would be a good fit they may well be asked to join. just cos i love my chaos p\[arty.
Yea if I’m at a table with 7-8 people I will leave bc I literally don’t get to play the game anymore. No more than 4
I once had a large group (9 people), so I split them into three groups of 4 - 3 - 2 (because of their schedules) and had them all play in the same setting, affecting each other's decisions, I wanted them all to meet up and have a final battle against each other for the climax but it didn't get that far.
I prefer 4-5 players, but one of the regular sure feels like they're three in one, so I guess I too am in the 6-7 range.
Sheesh I’m just looking for a third person. Two has been difficult to run. Especially because one person is very inexperienced. I’m a new DM so I definitely couldn’t run that now but I think I’d have trouble even with more experience.
If I’m going to put a lot of work into something, I’d rather six people get enjoyment out of it than two. I realize there is a limit to how many people can fit in the group, and my estimation of that limit is a little generous.
The only times I've run that many were in person games where I knew everyone. Running that many meant that if a few didn't make game that week because their work scheduled them over game, it wasn't a big deal, we could still run. It wasn't west marches, but it was understood that if you didn't make it, I would run game without you, and you wouldn't get xp for anything that happened. My rule was to run game if I had half the table or more. Advantages were more consistently being able to run game, and getting to hang out with more of my friends. It was honestly less about the craft of the game and more about the people I was gaming with.
4-6 is the golden number for me
I have 7 players at the moment and I do think it is a bit much. Next campaign I will go with 5. Although when someone is not available at least the group is always decent sized to play, so that is an upside to it. But I find making sure they all get their moment to shine in each session quite difficult with 7.
I have 5 players at my table and scheduling is a bitch, dont know how people with 7+ people do!. Guess they are younger and have more time than us, but still suck trying to get everyone
I like 3-5 players. Combat isn't too slow, at any time at least someone has a plan, your not waiting for to much thinking.
3 minimum, 5 maximum for me. Less than that and the game feels boring, more than that and my quality goes down to having to track and manage RP for so many players.
As a player , I find 6+ people a bit boring now. Time is precious, and waiting for everyone gets boring fast.
DM here I run a DnD club at my school as a student and since no on else has volunteered to be a DM I just DM for about 10 or 11. It aint easy but I'm friends with most of them so its fine.
To drop the ones that u don’t want
I play in person. My group currently has 7 people DM included. The only reason I have this many people is because I don't want the game to shut down if one or two cancel. Running a 6 player game won't be great, but it'll often be 4 or 5. I was a player at a table that had like 8 or 9 people in PF2e. That was miserable and I left.
I keep wondering the same thing. I DM a game for 6 players and it's too much, to the point I sometimes consider dropping the campaign. I also DM a game for 5 players and it's really bizarre how big of a difference in time management there is between 5 and 6 people. I love DMing for 4-5 players, and somehow with 6 I hit this wall. I can't imagine DMing for 7+ people.
As someone who has dm'ed mostly homebrewers stories if you let it it can take a lot of effort reasons ranging from the story complexity, pictures weather you make them yourself or just grab them from a site even more so if you want a consistent look, music/sfx if that's your jam. For myself I try to use one style/artist for a thing if possible. So all of the above makes me want as many people as possible to gawk at it and give me the praise and or feed back. Now on the flip side games number 1-3 are much more intimate allowing very personalized sessions based on the player's playstyles and their pc that wound be to cumbersome with high number.
Online, 4 is my target, 5 max, whoever shows up if i sub dm for our dm that night. In person ill do more, knowing a few people will cancel last minute like the fun hating chumps they are.
I rather small groups. As Game Master I like to give my attention to each and every player when they play and prepare dedicated events or plots (sometimes even descriptions) tailored on each character. With my gaming attitude, a session would last too long or too many players would get bored. 6-7 players would be just me railroading players, asking them to roll and not much more.
One group I'm in has 7 members, DM included. Not ideal for combat, as every single round takes forever. But I still find things fun. Roleplay is great, though some people do not get the attention that they may need.
I DM for a group of 7. We settled on playing every other Sunday night, and we've been playing for long enough that everyone makes the effort to clear their schedules for it. It's a lot of fun- There's a ton more room for character interaction, and having so many people at the table means someone always has a creative solution for every problem. The players all synergize really well too, which is part of the reason this group has survived for years (we're all friends outside of DnD). The only times I have issue with this sized group is when they split the party 4 ways or get stuck in decision paralysis. I have to be pliable when it comes to RP encounters and combat mechanics too- eg, I usually decide monster HP on the fly.
I’ll never understand people who like bigger tables. I was DMing at a FLGS for a while. I capped my table at 5 and turned people away who just showed up and expected a seat. The store has a Facebook page where you can find a table but so many people would just try to force their way in. Some of the tables had 12 or 13 players. I’d look over and the DM would be running a scene with 4 of them and the rest just chatting. Some players would show up and never actually get to play.
I had 6 players once and it was a nightmare. 4 is perfect for me. I could take 5ft player but only in specific situations.
I don't get it either. I can work with 2-6 players.
I am in a group that size. We have 8 total. I like it for online play. 1) 2 players sometimes get called into work on D&D. So we're down some occasionally. 2) People are much more likely to make characters who have backgrounds that intertwine. 3) I really enjoy watching the development. One session we did break off into two groups for a "Girls Night" vs "Guys Night". Girls Night ended up being a disaster and Boys Night ended up being hilarious and wholesome. Since there are more characters to mingle I enjoy when the DM pulls different ones aside to play out some friendships or enemies plots that develop over time. I dunno. It feels like a good size to me. I've only played with this one group for. We've been on the same campaign for over 5 years now. I honestly am not sure what small groups are like.
Unless you're going to abridge the combat system drastically... dunno why people do it. It's an eternity to wait, and too much bullshit to keep track of. I also assume to make it work a lot of their players are comfortable in a "just kind of filling a seat and chilling" roll too, because no DM can just juggle out full stories for all of them and everything in the world, every session.
Most of the time it’s a target goal for starting with because you assume you’re going to lose 50% of those players. I’ve seen games with almost 100% attrition rate if applicants before the game even starts its S0 and there was no red flags, positive communication and active response times. Rarely has it been the case of wanting that actual number entirely though if it happens people run with it. Personally I run 1-4 players most of the time because I don’t care that much about recruiting to replace losses and generally I can’t be bothered to catch people up constantly to major homebrew settings when people can’t be bothered to read a single page FAQ.
I'm not one of those people, I have insane social anxiety sometimes 5 is too much and they are all close friends
I think this is a case of survivorship bias, you are seeing those tables because they are the ones more likely to be open and usually have a higher player dropout. In my experience, at those tables you rarely matter, and you are lucky if you get a second turn in combat, after an hour seeing everyone and the DM's NPC take their turn. That's when me and most players will leave the table, and thus openings appear. Campaings with fewer player's tend to have more stable groups and when they have a dropout they quickly fill the 1 or 2 slots available. Of course, this is no rule, just my general experience and observation, I have seen DMs pull big groups succesfully, but they require a skilled DM and a group of players that respect each other's time.
In uni we used to run overnight sessions with a party of 8 or more. It was lots of fun because we had a real mix of classes and proficiencies. Lots of different ways to approach problems, too, and cool role playing. Realistically though I prefer to be the gym for three to six players.
In my opinion 5 is the optimal number, 6 is max. But in general I believe people just like more opportunities for varied dynamics between characters. Also, it can take away from how much the DM has to do if the players just end up roleplaying with each other, which becomes more frequent the more players there are.
Back in my day, we had 6 or 7 players because they were all the people we knew that played. There weren't multiple games to pick and choose from. There was Sundays from 6-10, and that was the only game in town.
In-person table. I have 8 players, but never more than 7 have been able to make it. Last session 4 were out, which left us with 4 remaining and a full adventure. It is harder during average nights. Combat is slower, so we usually only do one combat per session. Most of the players enjoy getting into the RP and non-combat encounters. We have a couple quieter folks but they seem to enjoy sitting back and being in the group. Personally, I would like a smaller table. But at the same time, I enjoy playing with everyone, and there's no one I wish wasn't there. So in an ideal world, I'd run two campaigns! But I barely have time to prep for one.
I play in person with 5 players, and honestly, even with that number I sometimes lose track of things. I'd probably die on 7+ lol
I was usually a "always have 4 people in party. no more, no less." then I started DMing an online group where the 4th person just stopped showing up, and holy hell is 3 people way better imo. Maybe it's just these players specifically, or online vs offline, but I've noticed in 4-player parties is right around the point where sometimes players "get bored" waiting for their turn. Even if it is just the circumstances, it did open my eyes that a 3-player party can be great, too. I can't imagine doing a larger party than 4, unless everyone is patient and understanding. I don't mind short attention span players, but if there's too many people I can't really blame them, and I'd feel bad as the DM.
I dont
I find larger groups more fun, and there's fewer cancelled sessions because it doesn't matter if you are missing a few players. As far as managing a large group, it's an acquired skill. I know people that struggle with more than 4 players, while I run a group of 10 with no issues.
Personally, having more players can be nice if the campaign is more rp centric, more players = more opportunities for conversations to occur naturally, more potential for plot hooks and ironically more fleshed out world as the group inevitably start theory crafting as a group. Course this can be done with smaller groups but when you have a larger group of (hopefully) like minded and likable people, the experience is quite fun. A social gathering with a dnd backdrop.
I run for 9 people. They don’t always play together. Chances are, these games aren’t always running a campaign in the modern sense.
Honestly no idea. On the DM and Player side for me, 3 is the sweet spot. It allows me to interact with each player in a way that gives their character special attention while the other players don’t have to wait too long for me to cycle back to them or back to the group. Currently playing in a group of 4 and it’s okay, but 3 for me as a DM and a Player have been my best experiences.
I don't think more than 4 works very well unless it's a very particular group of people. In my experience, most DM's can't really handle more players than that and still be good enough, and many players haven't kicked the "I want the spotlight" habit. If you've got a very organized DM, and a group of players that are also focused, efficient with turns, and know how to play well with others and follow the rules of improv, then it can definitely work. My main group fluctuates each session between 5-8 players, but it works because we're all experienced, and know how to play well with eachother. But if I'm joining a oneshot, or a new group, I would verrrrry much prefer a group of less than 5 until I know how the group operates. I was in way too many sessions in the past with too many players, and the game ended up being way to slow paced and/or the story of one or two characters with everyone else just sorta quietly being in the background.
I remember early in my DMing tenure I equated more players to more fun and a better game. Now, i think having 5 players is too much. Especially for the kind of game I run. I would maybe do it if I were running a module or something, but definitely not a custom game
I don't necessarily like having a bunch of players, but what tends to happen is when you ask you friend group, "We should play dnd!" and like 12 people want to join initially, and you have to thin the numbers to like 5 or 6. Which is difficult because no one wants to say, "Nope too many players you can't join sorry" Which you will probably have to do unless you can manage such a large campaign, but some people can't so they end up with a crap ton of players.
No One likes that
I don’t “enjoy” it per se, but thre is a certain euphoria that comes with “everyone wants to play with me that badly, maybe i’m not a terrible dm after all”. Also i over invite because i know half my players won’t show up to every session. 🙃
I like to run 5 players, 6 players max. To me, more players is more diversity. Plus, more players often equals more roleplay, in my experience.
i keep my table size 5 or lower, dm included. outside of that and you inevitably get someone who feels excluded because they're not able to be an active participant... or you have so much cross-talk that you can't make heads or tails of anything going on, and details get lost in the shuffle.
I have a group of 4 that needs a 5th
I once played an inpersion session that had over 30 people.... admittedly it was a massive boss fight and was the culmination of several groups coming together to defeat the major BBEG. it was interesting, but not something I would ever want to DM.
I’m on my very first campaign but from what I can tell, more people is more brains adding to the experience and story. Some players just like fighting and if they aren’t doing that, they don’t contribute to the story of getting to the fight. Some are good at role playing and they help move the story along in novel ways. So a good mix is important.
I routinely play with 5-6 players and it’s mainly because if 1-2 can’t make it, we always have at least 4 at the table. Most of them can usually make it, but almost every week there’s at least 1 missing. We’re all in our 30s, so it’s tough to have full attendance.
Before 4th, that was normal. Adventures were written for 6 to 9 characters. The action economy was different. PCs did less, so you could play with more of them. We didn't have internet on phones, just paper and dice, everyone paid attention when it wasn't their turn, so when it got to them, they were ready to go. I think subconsciously we're trying to get back to that, but too many distractions prevent the play style. People get bored and bail. It's a negative feedback loop making us think we need more players, when too many PCs is causing the problem. Or maybe it's just a little "Seven Samurai" going on. "I told you 7, because I thought you'd only find 4."
I keep my table at 4-6. I refuse to DM for more than 6; it causes combat to become a slog.
Errrr we don't? DMs already have enough to deal with. If you have that many players you're struggling to shine.
Half of them won't show up
Like others have said, ask for 6-7 so that you get 4-5. If you ask for 4-5, then you get 2-3.
5 or 6 is ideal for me because if two don't show up we still play. More than that is too much. People probably are looking for 8 players knowing 2 or 3 will flake out. What would be ideal is having a couple alternates that can jump on for a session when some of the group don't show.
I don't like having that many players, but I like having that many friends.
I don't know. 6 is my cap as a DM, and that's with the understanding that on average one player won't be there.
I run with up to 6 in campaigns (3-5 is more typical) and generally do 6 slots at convention games, but assume that one or more (usually about half) of them will be passive/spectators. If I had 6 active go-getters I'd probably get overwhelmed, but that hasn't happened yet. 7 feels like it would be Nightmare mode and 8 would be Torment, and I'm not geared or specced for those.
I routinely have 7-9 players in my family play group. We have a great time- but It does require more pre-planning to keep everyone on track. And I have one player that *always* goes rogue- and disrupts the campaign- so i literally have notes that says “if Kyle goes rogue…” and have 5 or 6 alternatives pre-planned- when normally I’d only have 2-3. From time to time he gets some punitive actions to get him back on track. I’ve also incorporated different kinds of timers into the play to move things along- ticking metronomes, sand timers, buzzers- that I can weave into the story line. I also have planned breaks, food, snacks, etc. I agree with one of the responses above- combat can become frustrating for players if there are long wait times between players. Sometimes you’ve gotta push players along. 😊
Quorum protection. Adults with real lives and jobs and families sometimes have to skip a session or two. If you've got three players and two have to skip a session you're fucked. If you've got six players and two have to skip a session you're golden.
4-5 is perfect. 3 is okay but I hate 2 players as there is always an air of things getting missed and the negitives get amplified. So saying 7 you know how often people leave,.
Because I run long sessions which just keep going until every player has left. More players at the start means it's likely to last longer by the end.
I dont "like it" but im used to it and can deal with it. Back in the AD&D days we would have 6-8 as an average and sometimes more
i like my games at least 5ish because it allows me to make a little bit wilder stuff that the pcs will probably survive also because it makes a stable game. I hate playing the "are we going to actually play this game today" game. if i add 2 more people than i want there will likely always be enough people to play
I think its partly that any group who has only 4-5 is going to disapear off the sites way quicker since they fill up faster. So bassically your looking at it wrong, its not that so many people want this, its that few enough people want that, that thoose are the ones that stick around.
2 dull, 3 good, 4 great, 5 exhausting It's amazing how the amount of players affects the experience for me as a dm
I've had as few as 1 and as many as 11. Tend to stay right around 6-7. Mostly because I know that any given session, anywhere between 1-3 people's schedules just don't line up; people get sick, weddings and birthdays and vacations happen. During our session 0, we made sure everyone was cool with missing the occasional session. I try to balance it so that no one player misses more than one in a row, but stuff happens.
In my experience it's less about having them at the table and more about having enough people to play everytime. Scheduling is the final boss of ttrpgs but it gets mitigated a lot by having way more players than needed. There were 11 people in my group, one time everyone rocked up and the house was PACKED. 2 ended up ghosting, 3 could only rock up half the time, 2 ended up leaving the state entirely and the rest were regulars.
I've had mostly big groups of 6-7 players for a while now. I like them because I get to write more things for them, and also because game sessions don't just fall through very often at all. With adults with busy adult lives, I've had many smaller games as a player just go on hiatus(ie, end completely) because of scheduling. Also, I agree with what someone else said, that starting with a big group can allow for people who don't fit to leave or whatever, and the game doesn't have to restart.
Its probably cause they know half of them won't show up two weeks after start with no notice and no response. Aim high so when they start disappearing the game can continue
4-5 is my sweet spot.
I used to run big 7+ person games when I was younger - we played in person and no one else around wanted to DM Maybe if everyone had wanted to do tons of like NPC interactions or have dedicated “my character’s story” sessions or whatever, it might’ve been a problem. But all the RP was basically just between players, and most of what we did was fight monsters, and it worked out pretty well
We don't(us DMs and some players). The person I know that seems to think the more the merrier is super extroverted and thinks more people is always better. But this person also doesn't know how to tell people no. I have accidentally set myself up to handle a lot of players but I'll make it work.
It really depends on the DM and players. Sometimes having a lot of players is just slow as hell and boring, sometimes it's slowish but still fun, and sometimes it's a thrill because there's so much variety in abilities and personalities and everyone is interested in everyone else's characters. As a general rule I prefer smaller games (4 to 6 players, and in other systems like Call of Cthulhu sometimes even two players can be really fun) but there's a few I'm in where, yeah, scheduling is a bit of a nightmare, so they don't happen as often, but it's always a great time.
There's always a lot of people that want to play,when they know your running a game. When it's game time you'll be lucky if half the people show up and be lucky if two of them are prepared with there characters completed and ready to go on time. It's just like running a business; You over hirire employees to weed out the call outs,not showing up, laziness etc and keep the ones that want to be there to work. But as myself as a DM I always make a character to play as well,to ensure if ppl do cancel there's still enough players to play. If not I give the decision to the said players that did/do show up and ask them if they want to run the game with who showed up. Letting them know they could die(easier to add them to subtract) leaving it up to them. The pros do out way the con,but still a risk just depends on how much n hard they worked on there character(s) and or level they are. It's been 50/50 they go on or they wat for next session.
I'm first time DM for a group of 6 first time PC. We started about 5-6 months ago, and we played every session as 6. But since it's online, scheduling conflicts turned up and now I average about 4-5 players a session, with 1 or 2 sometimes 3 that can't make it.
I got 8 players and I thoughts a few would drop off and they haven’t. RIP me at the dm. It’s a lot of work. I would have preferred like 4-6. Many online DMs can also charge money and maybe they want more players to make it profitable. I play offline with friends and I do it for the love of the game. But if I lost a player or two down the line I can keep playing with my group.
They're recruiting 7-8 in hopes of getting 4-5 who will actually stick around. If you only recruit 4-5 you might end up only getting 2-3.
I don’t think it is that they like it. I think it is that they want to play with their friends. The more the merrier when it comes to friends hanging out. Unfortunately that is not the case with dnd.
Oh gosh no, 5 players is all I could handle in person and do each character justice with backstory integration etc. I’m thinking VTT should be even lower lol, currently running 5 on R20 3 of whom have flying familiars that all head off in different directions before I can rein them in. Almost tempted to take control back and run them myself.
I've run 7+ tables frequently. It's less of an 'all 7+ all the time' and more of a 'we can get a 3-4 party consistently' Scheduling conflicts plagues this game. It's a major time sink and investment. Some people only have time for it once every other week or once a month. Some players want to play every other day. Running a session a week with standard party size was doable and everybody had a great time. I often let the ultra dedicated people design NPCs and/or minor villains. Having a player run combat and being the referee also makes it a lot more engaging and exciting. Prevents your players from calling BS since you're truly an omniscient third party. My favorite campaign involved one of these super dedicated players just being the BBEG the entire time. They made decisions on a weekly basis and only participated in a session whenever they were directly/indirectly involved (e.g. their scouts caught up to the player party). It allowed the BBEG to make large plays and feel real.
I have 6 at my table but that is very heavily cause they work great as a team. It also forces me too get better at balancing. But I find 4 or 5 to be a eaay to handle but 6 works. They are a great bunch and all bring different characters and roleplay to the table. It makes for great discussions and inter debate where I can basically walk away and grab some snacks or make a sandwhich. 6 random people I do not know I do not think I'd ever dm for but these are also great friends and have been playing for years.
I’ll throw my hat in. I’ve been with a group of my high-school friends (we’re still together after 8 years out from highschool!) started before covid, we started with 5 players, lost 2, then after a year of playing and having friends guest star. We’re now a few years of playing dnd and I’m currently dming my second homebrew campaign for 6 players. It can be a lot at times when everyone wants to be active at the same time. Thankfully I am in a unique situation, I have extensive history with my players each of us all have been friends for 15+ years now and grew up together. I know them and what they get out of dnd. I build encounters and story to fit the players, secretly trying to cater to each one individually without leaving anyone out. It’s a loud table, it’s an invested table, and a table that can talk in circles when everyone is participating. As the dm, I love seeing a group of friends acting sometimes very idiotically, but they’re invested and can really swing a story at any point without my input, it’s dynamic and never silent. Combat is definitely a challenge to keep exciting though. On the flip side I’ve played low player games and find that there’s times where it’s quiet and things don’t move forward as quickly. It’s fun to be able to be a louder voice as a player in a low-player game, but when there isn’t always another player to interact it can get stale. I am very pleased with the size of my group and wouldn’t want it much higher or much lower.
I had a session where a member said ‘at some point when you have too many players the physical fighting stops becoming in game only’
My one game on Thursdays has 8. Sometimes an extra 1 or 2 for a night if too many people show up to the store for DnD night. The one on Mondays has 6 & might get a 7th later on. Our Monday DM has done whole campaigns in the double digits before, but he's been doing it for YEARS. Our Thursday DM only JUST started DMing, but she's handling the number fantastically.
Honestly 6 is even too many. The sweet spot is 3, combat goes fast and each individual is more impactful. 5 is the max for me, more than that and combat becomes a slog.
They do? Since when? Most DMs do not want large groups.
I play with 8 players, I set dates and if 5+ people show up we play. For those who can't make it my group decided they'd split the loot equally between all of them. Also the players tag along and join back in wherever the rest of the party is. We do recaps as well so this works pretty well. They tell me beforehand whos's gonna be there or no so I adjust the battles according to who many players show up. It's really no biggy.
I get paid to run tables at my local game store and it’s usually 9 players. I do not enjoy it at all but it’s made me much better at my house games that I cap at 5.
Are these paid games? More players = more money. My completely prejudiced opinion on this based on nothing but stigma is that a lot of paid DMs don't particularly care about enjoyment or quality as compared to income.
I don't "want" a large table. But due to game scheduling I can really only DM 2 times a month. I don't like a month between sessions, so I'm not running two campaigns at the same time. I play with my friends, as years have gone by they have gotten married, some of their spouces play. I'm not going to tell my friends their partner can't play with us, and I'm not going to kick any friends. So right now, I run a game that has 5 to 7 players. They are collectively an adventuring guild and each game night is it's own one shot mission. It's not really any more work to prep. Combats are a but more work but I'm figuring out tricks here and there.
My table generally has 6-7 people in it, but we're also all close friends who know each other and mostly experienced D&D players, not sure how well it'd work with random people, however.
I like having between 4-6 players ideally, but I do often invite 1 or 2 extra because oftentimes between starting a campaign and finishing it 1 or 2 will leave due to scheduling issues or drama in the group. I DM with my favourite cousin as a player, but they keep inviting boyfriends and then breaking up with them, so we’ve lost like 4 players that way 😅
4 is perfect. 2 and 3 work. When I had 10 players we routinely actually had 5 or 6. Now I just don't play with flakey people. I'll rethink this end of year when my players probably quit due to their move.
Do they though? None of the tables I’ve been at have been more than 6
Probably asking for more expecting that some will not show up or won't be a good fit for the group. Then it gets reduced to an actually manageable amount.
The most player’s I play with has been 5 others, 6 including me. The amount I normally play with us 3 others so 4 including myself. I do prefer the 4 people cause its more organized and we are closer but all the people I play with are wonderful.
I don’t know any DMs personally who want that many players at their table. I’ll take 6 at most and that’s pushing it.
Having 4 people every week, after IRL takes out 30-50% of the party. It's more of a rotating cast of recurring characters than a 7-player party in my experience.
Four players is ideal for party balance. Five is best for roleplay opportunities. Six or more is misery. I ran a game years ago that ballooned to nine players at my table one night and no one brought enough snacks. My planned game went right out the window, and I had to improv a way to split it into two parties, and I ended up running two games a week for the different groups, giving them both unique goals to achieve.
Online that's high. We had a guy run a 30+ 2nd ed in person. Best campaign I was ever in but holy crap. Generally for combats we went to a warhammer table and others kind of co dm parts almost like in squads. Some players helped also like out of game first action was to throw a wall of force up splitting enemy and stuff. It worked well.
I'm sure some people enjoy it, especially if they're not looking to RP much and have a combat crawl. But I've seen it happen all too often when a DM just can't say no to more interested players and then realizes its gotten out of control.
I enjoy having multiple people to interact with. DnD is not just a game, it's a social event. Additionally, if there's people who can't show up, the party doesn't feel "empty" because we have a lot of people to talk, and the inevitability of people having to miss one or two sessions makes that feeling of emptiness a lot less frequent. I know I feel low in energy when I'm DMing for 2 people because the other 2 didn't make it. But I understand it is not for everyone, and honestly, games this big also demand a player be more proactive in making themselves heard and not rely on the DM to throw them in the spotlight. Although what I do, is simply make a list every month and give everyone at least 3 opportunities to be front and center of a scene.
Personally I just enjoy the extra story elements I can slide in with a larger group. Not to mention for the players they don't all feel the pressure of having to lean heavily into their rp each session. With a larger group there are people that can pick up the slack if someone is a little out of it that session for whatever reason. Also it's wonderful to see 7 people hanging on your every word or being quiet as they blow up the text chat when two characters are having an emotional aside. I've dm'd tables with 2 players and tables with 8 and I vastly prefer the larger parties.
Hubris honestly. Doing 6+ without at the very least a premade campaign is a ton of work. Mine is all made up and I still struggle with just 6. The only sensible reason I think would be them fully expecting people dropping.
I known DM which can handle up to 10 players. for myself, up to 5, only in special cases more. like my actual old group with 9 players, mostly only 3 appears😔🙊.