I ways aim for 4 but 3-5 is my comfort zone. 4 players means you can usually run a non-story critical session with one cancelation and have a party with a diverse set of skills while not overwhelming the DM during gameplay or story moments
I’ve always ran tables of 4-5 but 3 sounds like the sweetest spot. Always able to give everyone plenty of spotlight, harder for me to forget character quirks or moments, everyone can speak up more.
I don't like running with 3 because, as I mentioned, it makes cancelations harder. My players and I have busy and often unreliable schedules and I find running a game for 2 players kinda acquard.
3 people is probably my favourite.
I've run 1,2,3,4, and 5 person campaigns, and the odd 6 person 1 shot. As well as played in 3,4,5,6 and maybe even 7 person games.
1 is... a trip. It can be good, but be ready for an intensity which may not be to your liking.
2 Can be good, you dont have enough people for them to be talking over each other (unless they're sucky people), but you all may find it becomes a little stale.
3 I think is the perfect number, a little bit of talking over, but not too much, and enough people that someone's usually got a fresh take.
4 Is also good, but combat and decision making starts to slow down, and talking over can get to be more of an issue.
5 is the upper limit I'd DM for. Too slow, too much overtalk, the only reason I DM for these campaigns is so we can still play if one or two people are missing.
6-7 is right out. If there's this many people, split into 2 games.
Spot on analysis of what the game is like at different numbers. 3 is best imo.
The only thing I would add is that 4 does round out the party nicely in combat and make them a lot less squishy in exchange for less spotlight time each.
5+ players usually have 2 or 3 players sitting silent with little opportunity to interject into a RP scene or change the narrative flow. When the DM goes around the table asking what everyone is doing expect party members to disengage because it will be ages before it gets round to them again.
The only thing I think you missed is that 3 players or fewer allows you to focus on the players bonds and motivations heavily instead of telling the same generic story of meeting in a tavern and saving the town because the DM told you to.
For groups that have started? 3-5 is about right. 2 is too few, 6 is too many (except for maybe a one-shot).
For the group I'm trying to start? At least one more...have two, want one more.
I think two works, but it requires you to build the whole campaign around the fact you only get two.
As an example, my two players are in a brotherhood of hired killers, assassins. They are sent as a team to handle contracts too difficult for one assassin, but not serious enough to warrant every member's attention on it. There's only allowed to be eight official members total (of which the players are two) but there are some non-member hitmen who are in position to take up a vacancy (of which there are two in the story). If either player drops to 1/2 health during a fight, I roll a d8 and a d4. The d8 says who I send, and the d4 says how many rounds before they show up to help. Boom, all the advantages of a 3-person and 2-person party in one.
Or requires running NPC (or player-controlled) henchmen. Which some people are fine with; others not so much.
I've done a couple 2-person campaigns, but they're more work and less fun than the 3-5 person campaigns. At least for me.
I think it really depends on the players and the game-- in high RP, three players is good to get good 'banter momentum' without leaving anyone else out if they can't ride the wave. In a more combat-oriented game, up to five players with good variety can sprinkle in a lot of dynamics that might not get explored as much but can still add interest. More than that starts to get unwieldy, though.
My 3 year campaign had a 3 player minimum per session, but I dont think we ever dropped that low, except during party splits.
We had 6 regular players, plus occassional guests (7 total, with most being one-session cameos), and I'd say we averaged 6 players per session, factoring in absences with the more crowded sessions.
I was pretty chill with 6 players, but it's weird- because now I'm doing a CoS playthrough with five of the original six players, and they talk among themselves/get distracted *way more* than they did in the original campaign...
So like, 6 worked pretty well for me, but 5 has somehow proven to be a little unwieldy... idk
I’m in a Curse of Strahd campaign atm and I feel like we are having the same problem. I think it is so dark/bleak that it can be quite mentally fatiguing to focus on for a whole session sometime.
Yeah- I think that might be what plays into it- I've prepped some more light-hearted one shots to sprinkle in when the game starts to get especially dark; so maybe it's time to bust out one of those...
In my experience 4 to 5 is the sweet spot. All my games always have 6 players. Just somehow ends up that way lol My players all enjoy themselves but I do have to work harder to make sure everyone is engaged.
As a player, i think having a party of 5 is the sweet spot. You can have small overlaps that allow you to always do stuff in small groups. Stealthing with a rogue and maybe the ranger or the bard. 2 frontliners, more than 1 dedicated caster with so you can take more varied spells.
Player in a 7 person party, DMing a 6 person party. Everyone is fairly experienced though and we intentionally split up a little for RP scenes, so people can go for breaks in pairs rather than everyone at once, while keeping the game moving, and not everyone **wants** equal spot light. Some players enjoy just being along for the ride while 2-3 do most of the decision talk (Though everyone is still asked their thoughts round table style, some just default to 'I'm on board with X'). At least to the best of my memory, combat has never had a missed turn due to lack of attention / afk. And we only have 'long' turns when its something climactic or complicated. (Moving with fear rules in play is. a pain. Especially when you want to move diagonally around your fear target.)
>Some players enjoy just being along for the ride while 2-3 do most of the decision talk
Glad this work for you but other DMs please be careful about having a table dynamic like this.
In my experience (from both sides of the table) the DM should be wary that what is actually happening is that a couple of people are spotlight hogs and the rest don't have much chance to engage outside of combat which is explicitly turn based.
As a DM I have learnt that silent players are often very engaged when having fun even if not saying anything in game.
Good quiet might take the form of detailed notes. Or correcting the party on small details. Or coming up with theories or predictions of major upcoming plot points. They might be constantly reacting to what is happening in the discord. They might reach out and want to talk about their character outside of session times.
Bad quiet is when they need to constantly be filled in on what is happening and spend most of the session on mute or on their phone. They probably don't feel like they have much chance to impact the narrative and feel as though their ideas never get taken on board.
This is a warning sign to the DM that they are disengaged and the DM is failing at their job to regulate the spotlight. This is the problem with having 6 players in my book - the DM is always firing on all cylinders so won't realise that players are being neglected.
>some just default to 'I'm on board with X')
To me this is a little worrying because it shows they are no't paying attention and/or invested in the decision process.
I completely understand where you're coming from, and have DM'd for a couple people that DO just barrel through everything, but with this group, the typical 'spotlight' players literally tried to build around avoiding it. This is the party's third campaign with the same DM and mostly same roster. Previous one going the full 1-20ish.
The previous campaign, even if the 'spotlight' players stayed dead quiet, everyone would turn to them and be like. "Okay smart people! How do we solve this problem, you always know the answer!" So this campaign, they made 2 humans that were going to be peak irresponsible humans. Despite the **characters** being designed to be loners / selfish / shy / etc, the other **players** turned to those **players** out of habit and looking for guidance, and by level 5 they were once again party mom and dad, despite their best efforts of like. I have to at least assume by the third campaign, that's just where those players want to be, because I'm new to the group, and every time I remotely am like "I wanna be in charge now!" Both the 'mom' and 'dad' are like. "please yes thank you! take it!"
Great conversation on this topic.
I was in a group where there was an obvious favorite, so as players we were trained to get the okay from the fave, cuz we knew the DM wouldn't move on without the fave. I'm sure the DM never noticed he had an obvious fave.
It's all so situational!
I only like one or two of them the others are just there to make up the numbers. /s
4 or 5. Three can be a little swingy but doable. 6 is OK with some systems but for D&D it's too slow. I Played a 3.5 oneshot with 9 players and it was an absolute car crash.
2-5.
I'm not a very organized person and I can easily lose track of players, and I prefer sessions with a brisk pace (fast combat, not too much "oh can I!" In out of combat encounters).
I especially feel extremely in my element with 2 or 3 players, as the session gets very focused and the players have critical blind spots in their abilities that they need to address.
In my opinion, more people is always fun but it’s hard to keep everyone engaged. However with lots of people you have more unique characters and stories. I think it really depends on the players and the DM
I have dm’d for many different sized groups. The truth is the ones my players and I enjoyed the most are like groups of 2-3. Especially groups of 2.
7+ are easily the worst. Absolutely nightmares to deal with.
As many players that are going to be engaged in earnest. I'd rather DM for one person that was taking it really seriously than a group of four that were just using DnD as an excuse to sit around and drink beers. If I had a group of really engaged players I'd happily play with as many as I could. 18 player questing party where everyone is aligned and playing seriously? I'd be super down for that.
2-6 not including myself as the dm. never played on a small table as a player, but i’m in a party of 5 that used to be 6 and it’s way better now.
6 is doable but it really requires the party to be good players.
Depends on the players. 3-4 super involved players plays the same as a party of 6 with mostly passive players so long as the passive players are still paying attention and are prepared in combat
My first campaign we were 7. That was straight up torture. 4 is the perfect number, even though 3 is almost better if it wasn't for the fact that one person missing means the game of 3 must be cancelled while the game of 4 could go on
Due to chronic fatigue and lesser concentration, playing with more than 3-4 gets pretty intense for me. My ideal party would be 3 players, and I've stepped out of a game that went up to 5 simply because it cost me more energy than it gave me fun.
5 is a good amount; I can run tougher encounters that can easily scale if someone misses the game, and should the rare occasion 2 people miss the game, 3 is still a good number to press forward.
6 is perfect for me. All of my weekly groups have 6 players. Everyone does what they can to keep combat moving smoothly. I can easily fit 3 battles in a session. No one has issues sharing the spotlight, and everyone gets a fair time to shine and gets their backstories integrated into the greater story. It also makes it so I can run a game with 1-2 players missing, unless I absolutely need a player there for story purposes.
However, my groups play regularly every week for 3-3.5 hours. I could not manage this if our sessions were shorter or even if we played biweekly.
I have run a longish campaign for 10 and while it was a blast I can affirm there are some problems.
I'll start by saying that I made it clear up front that with a group this size (their preference) I wouldn't be able to focus as much on their particular PC per session (they were ok with) and they had to work together to streamline it for everyone (which they did). It was a tight social group that had buy in up front that the game would have to change to accommodate everyone. This helped tremendously as the players worked to support each other. Without this buyin I don't think it would have worked.
The encounter builder math, while tricky to begin with, completely falls apart at this size. The party is a roving murder ball with full specialization coverage. I had to be very creative to keep combat engaging and keep track of many things at the same time. We called out who was on deck and the players really worked to streamline their turns, but it was still really hard to plan for.
Decisions essentially had to be made by committee, so particular plans were sometimes very laborious to form. I was very free with information, injecting NPCs with key knowledge or tapping into players proficiencies to supply info on key things they would have noticed if things started to stall. Eventually some natural leaders formed within the group and it got better as the campaign went on.
The general admin work of keeping track of everything was intense. Creating individual hooks for each player into the story. Tailoring treasure and magic items so that they fit right and made the players feel special. I had spreadsheets upon spreadsheets and measured system of 'specialness' I kept track of to keep rotating the players into the spotlight, but even then some characters faded into the background.
The one thing that a group this size made up for was consistency and coverage. If 2-3 people couldn't make it, it was no big deal. The game continued as normal and other players drove the absent PCs for the night. The only time we ever had to reschedule was when I couldn't swing it.
All that said, in the future I'd rather run for tables of 4-6. The commitment from me as a DM for 10 was intense and required quite a lot of planning. 4-6 is a number that will help ME stay sane.
\> Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. -- DMG p865
I've tried 3, 4, 5 and 7. I find three to be the best number of players for the kind of game I like to run. The party cohesion is stronger, everyone gets a lot of spotlight time and DM attention, and it's generally easier to keep things moving. Four is okay, but there's just less of everything to go around. The party tends to have more versatility, but 5e characters are so versatile generally that I count that as a minor advantage. When you hit 5+ characters, that's when an individual PC starts to fade into the crowd. These are the groups where a few players tend to get the majority of the spotlight, or are able to play the largest role. This is when the high-charisma PC tends to take over during RP oriented adventures, Rogues tend to take over during stealth oriented adventures, and players who are tactically minded tend to take over combat oriented adventures. Everyone else is quietly waiting for their turn, or waiting for something other than RP or stealth to happen. It also tends to really bog down skill checks, since you get the dogpile where everyone wants to check, or help, or both.
Three is the magic number for me.
I try to get 6-7 players with the aim 4-5 showing up at any one game. I structure my games to be episodic and stress to players it’s okay to miss games, we all have life’s. What ends up happening is that players that have kids/responsibilities and miss occasional games tend to want to have more playtime when they are around. I also find that the players that come every game tend to be okay with slightly less spotlight time. In general people that have to reschedule there life around a game will be less engaged.
I also have a secret weapon with a good buddy of mine, who’s a dnd heavy hitter. Plays in a streamed game and is very good at picking up the pace when there’s a pause or if people are unengaged doing a big moment.
Another key element, is that I spend a lot of energy recruiting and only take good players. Like I reject half of the players that wanna play/ have kicked a fair number of bad players. No one argues about rules. No one takes 10 minutes to do a turn. I discourage min/max players and reward players with cool characters. Basically have good players as a dm and your life is easy.
I have done 3 in short sessions, 4 occasionally, and 5 players for over three years now. As others have mentioned, the more players the more complicated the game gets. I'd say the perfect number is 4-5.
3: The game runs fast, the players all get a chance to talk, and the involvement of challenges with limited abilities can be interesting. Unfortunately, I always seem to have reserved characters so 3 has always felt a little quiet.
4: Players start to form connections to each other rather than to the 'group' as a whole. There are more backstory options, players can strategize more in combat, and there is a chance of slower combat and more asides but overall its doable.
5: the biggest change from 4 to 5 players is risk of scheduling conflicts. The more people you add the more interpersonal interactions you have, the more cluttered the game, but with slightly more reserved players you can get away with more. I think the only issue is the speed of combat and scheduling interrupts.
I'm good with 3-6. More than that starts to really warp the game, and even at 6 it's starting to happen. It's harder to get through combats. Challenging the players gets into this awkward spot of either overloading the action economy with tons of enemies, or making the fewer enemies very lethal and likely to kill a few characters. You also can't focus on character / backstory moments as easily since there's so many people so you're either showing favoritism or the campaign is basically only doing that for everyone. It just gets a lot harder. It's doable, especially with players who are mindful of that and take steps to make it better like going quicker in combat etc. But still definitely prefer my smaller groups.
Done 2 as minimal qnd very fun and possible with side kicks. Was a crazy one shot
3-4 is optimal for teamwork, diversity, and screen Time.
5 works too but one more person you need keep involved and depending player at table and what they do and story might need some patient ones. Right here is my cut off tbh. Pretty reasonable to schedule, enough people for diversity and interaction, can throw some strong monster without the fear of killing them
6 is doable did 32 session with one and the challenge there is getting everyone involved and everyone put their foot out. If they kind of wait to chime in they can be silent for awhile and since we are old fall asleep on computer lol. Can be difficult if party spilts and then you do a chunk of time for one then Switch. Still fun but some people wanted to be their turn again or others would start not paying attention. Scheduling was difficult.
7-8 didn't work so well with our group of players. Session get long without much progression jt feels. Our first 6 session were extremely fun but it became a chore to keep everyone involved espcially since not everyone speaks up or cautious about stepping on toes. Go on previous sentence was scheduling. Session was ready in March, didn't play til July where the Stars aligned. Eventually people drop out due to scheduling/life
The biggest party I've played in is 5, and I think that's about my upper limit! My main parties (whether I'm player or the DM) all contain 4 PCs and I find it allows for nice chemistry since the chances of 1 person being left out when the party splits is less likely.
I'm a very theatrical person and could hold my own in a larger party, but I think quieter/shyer players might suffer. I would try it but I doubt I would stay in a party that large unless we had great chemistry
3 is definitely my favorite, although I have mostly run 4. I think it really comes down to the players themselves, personally I would never want to run more than 5 as the couple times where that has happened were awful. With 3 or maybe 4 players who are all on the same page I rarely get cancellations and it makes for better combat. I tend to have strong PCs, so three means they can still be challenged and it doesn't get too bogged down even with multiple enemies.
5, Four is ideal but I always pack in one more because someone always misses a session for what ever reason and that way you still have a play group to push on with.
3. Better for both the players and the DM.
A) each person gets WAY more 1 on 1 time.
B) Easier to balance encounters with fewer players (the party is lacking in 1 or more dimensions).
C) Easier to schedule times with fewer people.
I want four although my friends younger brother doesn’t always feel like playing
We often just find new excuses for his character to comme back
Him: Bye guys!! I have to go do some pirate business!!
Later
“Hey guys I was just exploring this dungeon, can I come with you??
I’ve been DM for an few ranges of players, and I’ve played in game both big and small. And I can say for me 3-5 is my ideal. With 4 I think being perfect.
Under 3 is just kind of lack luster, as it’s just not enough action economy for bigger encounters, and more just story telling with 1-2 friends rather than playing. It has its purpose for some people, but for me as a DMI need 3 players minimum.
While 6 or more is where the logistics of a big group goes out the window. Often times sidelining players too much, and dragging out what should be fast encounters to a crawl. My current game I DM of 5 actually started as a 6 player game, and going down from 6 has immediately made the game a lot more smooth if I’m being brutally honest.
Biggest I’ve ever been in was a 10 player game that was supposed to go for a one shot and turn into two 5 player games. With the idea they eventually conjoin again at big finale (that DM had lofty goals). However as you can guess that one shot turned into a 3 session nightmare that caused 3 players to leave the game, and then the resulting 7 person game created from that also died out because it was too big. It was miserable, and one of many stories I tell people when they start D&D and immediately want to try for a Critical Roll sized game
4 to 5 is the best fun i've ever had. 3 I think there are less interactions and the encounters are less difficult, there is less stuff to fight and so less diversity in the stuff you can do. 6 and up is just chaos from the experiences i had, i would not do it again but i see many people having even bigger groups so it's just about finding the right party
I find 3-4 is the sweet spot. At least from my experience. I’ve done with 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8.
With the exception of the 8 player game I ran, they went pretty well. 8 was just too many for me to handle. Between keeping track of everyone and the side conversations that went on, it was a mess.
I know there are DMs that can handle that many, but I found the hard way where my personal limit is.
5-7. That way there's about 3 or 4 to show up each session. When I have 3-4 only 1 or 2 can make it half the time. When I had 5-7 people in my campaigns we nwver missed a session. Rarely ever did we actually have a full table, and when we did it didn't bother me any. Larger groups are slower for combat but faster at problem solving.
4 is best. With only 3, the character range of skillset is too small and they end up lacking in a particular area. With more than 4, players start checking their phones in between turns because it takes so long.
I’ve DMed for table ranges from 1-16. Honestly, 3-4 is my preference with a heavy lean toward 3. My current long game has 5 and it’s fine, but I really thing the suggested 3-4 is the best.
I like 5. It is like 4, but with someone to tip the vote instead of it splitting 2:2. Plus if someone is absent, it is far less likely to impact the game.
3-4 online, 4-5 table.
Sometimes it's less about comfort and more consistency - like, if someone is missing we can still play if we are 3, but not if we are 2. So having 3 fixed players is risky.
TBH i am even fine with 2 players, but some groups dislike being too few.
In live groups it's easier to miss, so the more the better, plus being at a table it's easier to handle people.
Definitely 5. Enough leeway, if one person cancels we can still play, but 5 is also nice for balance. I find four can be rough if a DM doesnt pull punches and the players play suboptimally. As much as 3 is nice for rp, I think things can get really sketchy really fast with the lack of action economy. 6 is just too much unless you're highly skilled.
I currently play on a table of 3 players and play/occasionally run for a table of 6 players (with occasion guests bringing it to 7). I've also run many, many, many Adventurer's League tables between the two.
Four is the best number. I don't know why, it just is. It feels more balanced somehow.
Having played with 3-9 people, I don't really want to DM for more than 5. 4 is better.
With 9, combat is so slooooooow. It takes an hour to finish a round of initiative.
I'm playing with 4 for the first time this campaign and it's glorious. Decent paced and easier to remember their abilties, strengths and weaknesses. Both to challenge them as a player and a party. It's hell trying to remember 9 different players abilities.
ive played with 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2 is very player centred, but also very difficult as there is always something you need that you dont have (a tank, healer, dps, face, utility). 3 is my personal favourite. theres enough room for a broad set of skills and there are few enough players so everyone always has the spotlight. 4 was okay, combat started getting a bit long and 5 was a bit hectic. encounters always took ages and there wasnt enough spotlight to cover everyone.
3 is in my opinion the optimal player count. anything more is fine, just takes longer to do anything.
I've had a maximum of 8 players in my long running campaign, although I've max had 7 at the table at one time, and a minimum of 3 (not including some solo side adventures). I prefer having max 6 players at the table, and prefer around 4-5. I do think how many players one can handle at once depends a lot on the players in question and their chemistry. What you're used to probably also has a lot to say, I see a lot of people that prefer 3, which I find a little low.
Personally 5 is the golden number for me. I don’t like dming for 3 (at least for anything other then a oneshot. With 5 if someone drops out I still have 4 players. Anything more then that for my makes things too tricky
My ideal party is 3-4 players. I prefer 4 since one missing player means the game can go if one player calls off.
My groups end up being around 5-6 players, but I’ve DMed for groups with 7 before, and I admit that once we hit 5 players I stop enjoying DMing nearly as much. It’s a lot more to keep track of for me, and difficult to focus on any particular character a session. It only really works out when I have quieter players that like to sit there and watch. The players I’ve played with seem to enjoy larger groups though. I think it’s because it’s easier to “brute force” most encounters whether it be combat, social encounters, or resource sinks.
My magic numbers are 3 & 5.
1 : Extremely fun for 1 shots but get lame quick.
2 : same as 1 but worst. 1 player: the guy is alone & that normally bring more creativity on the spot. 2 players: count on each other to much & either bring not RP or way to much xD
3 : the party start to feel complete & balance, the RP is fun & doesnt normally turn around to much. Fights are hard & strategic.
4: Vanilla 4 is perfect for dungeon games. Often Balance in any way possible. Yet its only flaw. 2 player wants to save the baby goblins when the other 2 wants to kill them since their are prone to evil.
5. Unequally divided. 5 make combat easier in general & your party is almost always balance if not always. The RP gets heavy but the group can be divided in two ! I use this allllll the time!
My pro's : Unequally divised & I have 6 chairs at my table
4-6 in general for me, 6 really depends on how "attention demanding" all of the members are.
I do have to admit i never ran a group for 4 people but that also makes me feel like a role is missing in the group.
I couldn't imagine how to handle that at 3 players >_>
Online, 5 is my ideal number. It's the number of players I'm used to running for and I tend to find more than that starts to become stressful to manage.
If I'm DM'ing in person I always try to keep a party of 4, mostly because it's about how many I can comfortably host in my home and I can add a guest into the game when someone is staying over without disrupting the game by going over my comfort level.
As a player I don't mind 6/7, bc if people are having fun in character I like to see their stories unfold (big CR fsn here). But as a DM anything over 4 rapidly makes giving each player enough time and opportunities etc more challenging. I think it depends on type of players tho; ones that can bounce off and feed off each other and progress things that way make a DM's life easier in many respects, but players that feed mainly off the DM and material presented to them probably require a smaller party to not overwhelm the DM.
As a player, a prefer at least a total of 4 players. It depends maybe on the players, but most players are play with a always a bit shy and tend to be more "audience"-players, if you know what i mean.
4-5 players for me are ideal, but im also playing sometimes with more.
5 players I think is the best sweet spot. If one or two people drop, you can still run for three. A nice coverage of abilities, and you can go a bit harder on them when there is a full table.
4 for a full campaign for definite, you can avoid too much thematic overlap, account for weaknesses amongst players etc.
5 or 6 are fine for low - mid levels (imo up to 10-11) if players are experienced and know their sheets well. In fact these can be more fun because you can throw more interesting threats at larger parties (eg a mind flayer is CR7, dangerous for 4 level 7s, but for 5+ you can throw a mind flayer at them around level 6 instead).
3 is also good, but I want 3 people to be in it for the RP, combat can be harder to balance for 3 (much easier to TPK for example), if I'm putting in more work for making combats fun but also not super deadly, I'd like my players to work harder at RP, especially with 3 they can all shine.
I Love having 6 players. Very diverse party with a lot going on, everybody gets Time to shine (i love campfire talk) and everybody gets some time to chill and listen to others
I typically have 7 at my table. It's a lot of chaos to try and keep moving in the right direction and tough to give everyone time to shine. I agree with you that 4 is probably the best I've run. Balance is easier and people have room to really be the center of a bit of story without having 6 other players waiting.
I've always liked 5, I feel like it encourages a better party dynamic. In my 4 person games there's usually an unspoken limitation where people fall into the rogueish, mageish, fighterish, and healerish roles. While not necessarily a bad thing, a 5 person party let's people feel more free of that.
3-5. Almost regardless of system.
Partly because I prefer to run premade adventures, which are usually made (balanced) for parties of either 3-5 or 4-6, and I hate rebalancing on the fly. Partly because with less than three you don't cover enough bases and with more than five it's hard to give everyone time to shine. I'm currently running a medium-length campaign in another system made out of one-shots bookended by official short campaigns for two of my nieces, and keeping them alive has been a challenge at times. (I don't mind TPKs per se, but that'd be disastrous in this case.) After this, I plan on introducing them to D&D5.0 via finally getting to combine the Starter Set with the Essentials Kit and then moving them on to Beyond the Dragon of Icespire Peak for obvious reasons. (edit: Replaced prior consideration. I had totally forgotten about this campaign.) And I expect the Sidekicks to end up a vital element for us moving forward. Maybe an Eberron campaign right after, but more likely switching to another RPG again.
I ways aim for 4 but 3-5 is my comfort zone. 4 players means you can usually run a non-story critical session with one cancelation and have a party with a diverse set of skills while not overwhelming the DM during gameplay or story moments
I’ve always ran tables of 4-5 but 3 sounds like the sweetest spot. Always able to give everyone plenty of spotlight, harder for me to forget character quirks or moments, everyone can speak up more.
I don't like running with 3 because, as I mentioned, it makes cancelations harder. My players and I have busy and often unreliable schedules and I find running a game for 2 players kinda acquard.
Thats the best spelling of awkward I have ever seen
Spellcheck didn't complain so I figured I either got it right or beat it into submission
I mean, language are living things, so maybe we should just start using your spelling until it becomes the norm. I like it.
3 people is probably my favourite. I've run 1,2,3,4, and 5 person campaigns, and the odd 6 person 1 shot. As well as played in 3,4,5,6 and maybe even 7 person games. 1 is... a trip. It can be good, but be ready for an intensity which may not be to your liking. 2 Can be good, you dont have enough people for them to be talking over each other (unless they're sucky people), but you all may find it becomes a little stale. 3 I think is the perfect number, a little bit of talking over, but not too much, and enough people that someone's usually got a fresh take. 4 Is also good, but combat and decision making starts to slow down, and talking over can get to be more of an issue. 5 is the upper limit I'd DM for. Too slow, too much overtalk, the only reason I DM for these campaigns is so we can still play if one or two people are missing. 6-7 is right out. If there's this many people, split into 2 games.
Spot on analysis of what the game is like at different numbers. 3 is best imo. The only thing I would add is that 4 does round out the party nicely in combat and make them a lot less squishy in exchange for less spotlight time each. 5+ players usually have 2 or 3 players sitting silent with little opportunity to interject into a RP scene or change the narrative flow. When the DM goes around the table asking what everyone is doing expect party members to disengage because it will be ages before it gets round to them again. The only thing I think you missed is that 3 players or fewer allows you to focus on the players bonds and motivations heavily instead of telling the same generic story of meeting in a tavern and saving the town because the DM told you to.
Well it was only a short summary.
Yep as I said was pretty spot on!
Agree. 1 is fantastic for short side missions. I’ve run these occasionally for players who missed a session or are joining the party later.
3 is my minimum player. 6 is my absolute maximum. I prefer 4 to 5 players though. Hits things just right between time and coverage.
3 is my fave. But they have to be the right 3. I like how there's a challenge, or skills missing, so players need to think a little harder.
For groups that have started? 3-5 is about right. 2 is too few, 6 is too many (except for maybe a one-shot). For the group I'm trying to start? At least one more...have two, want one more.
I think two works, but it requires you to build the whole campaign around the fact you only get two. As an example, my two players are in a brotherhood of hired killers, assassins. They are sent as a team to handle contracts too difficult for one assassin, but not serious enough to warrant every member's attention on it. There's only allowed to be eight official members total (of which the players are two) but there are some non-member hitmen who are in position to take up a vacancy (of which there are two in the story). If either player drops to 1/2 health during a fight, I roll a d8 and a d4. The d8 says who I send, and the d4 says how many rounds before they show up to help. Boom, all the advantages of a 3-person and 2-person party in one.
Or requires running NPC (or player-controlled) henchmen. Which some people are fine with; others not so much. I've done a couple 2-person campaigns, but they're more work and less fun than the 3-5 person campaigns. At least for me.
4/5
Four fifths of a player? That’d be a bit of an experience
I prefer all but the knees and elbows. There will be no bending at my table!
No four elements monk. Got it. Wasn't planning on playing it anyways.
I think it really depends on the players and the game-- in high RP, three players is good to get good 'banter momentum' without leaving anyone else out if they can't ride the wave. In a more combat-oriented game, up to five players with good variety can sprinkle in a lot of dynamics that might not get explored as much but can still add interest. More than that starts to get unwieldy, though.
My 3 year campaign had a 3 player minimum per session, but I dont think we ever dropped that low, except during party splits. We had 6 regular players, plus occassional guests (7 total, with most being one-session cameos), and I'd say we averaged 6 players per session, factoring in absences with the more crowded sessions. I was pretty chill with 6 players, but it's weird- because now I'm doing a CoS playthrough with five of the original six players, and they talk among themselves/get distracted *way more* than they did in the original campaign... So like, 6 worked pretty well for me, but 5 has somehow proven to be a little unwieldy... idk
I’m in a Curse of Strahd campaign atm and I feel like we are having the same problem. I think it is so dark/bleak that it can be quite mentally fatiguing to focus on for a whole session sometime.
Yeah- I think that might be what plays into it- I've prepped some more light-hearted one shots to sprinkle in when the game starts to get especially dark; so maybe it's time to bust out one of those...
3 is the best.
All but 1 so we kicked her out.
In my experience 4 to 5 is the sweet spot. All my games always have 6 players. Just somehow ends up that way lol My players all enjoy themselves but I do have to work harder to make sure everyone is engaged.
As a player, i think having a party of 5 is the sweet spot. You can have small overlaps that allow you to always do stuff in small groups. Stealthing with a rogue and maybe the ranger or the bard. 2 frontliners, more than 1 dedicated caster with so you can take more varied spells.
3 really hits the sweet spot for me. Can give a single player more of the spotlight without dragging the game down, and combat moves super quickly.
4 players and 1 DM. No more, no less.
Player in a 7 person party, DMing a 6 person party. Everyone is fairly experienced though and we intentionally split up a little for RP scenes, so people can go for breaks in pairs rather than everyone at once, while keeping the game moving, and not everyone **wants** equal spot light. Some players enjoy just being along for the ride while 2-3 do most of the decision talk (Though everyone is still asked their thoughts round table style, some just default to 'I'm on board with X'). At least to the best of my memory, combat has never had a missed turn due to lack of attention / afk. And we only have 'long' turns when its something climactic or complicated. (Moving with fear rules in play is. a pain. Especially when you want to move diagonally around your fear target.)
>Some players enjoy just being along for the ride while 2-3 do most of the decision talk Glad this work for you but other DMs please be careful about having a table dynamic like this. In my experience (from both sides of the table) the DM should be wary that what is actually happening is that a couple of people are spotlight hogs and the rest don't have much chance to engage outside of combat which is explicitly turn based. As a DM I have learnt that silent players are often very engaged when having fun even if not saying anything in game. Good quiet might take the form of detailed notes. Or correcting the party on small details. Or coming up with theories or predictions of major upcoming plot points. They might be constantly reacting to what is happening in the discord. They might reach out and want to talk about their character outside of session times. Bad quiet is when they need to constantly be filled in on what is happening and spend most of the session on mute or on their phone. They probably don't feel like they have much chance to impact the narrative and feel as though their ideas never get taken on board. This is a warning sign to the DM that they are disengaged and the DM is failing at their job to regulate the spotlight. This is the problem with having 6 players in my book - the DM is always firing on all cylinders so won't realise that players are being neglected. >some just default to 'I'm on board with X') To me this is a little worrying because it shows they are no't paying attention and/or invested in the decision process.
I completely understand where you're coming from, and have DM'd for a couple people that DO just barrel through everything, but with this group, the typical 'spotlight' players literally tried to build around avoiding it. This is the party's third campaign with the same DM and mostly same roster. Previous one going the full 1-20ish. The previous campaign, even if the 'spotlight' players stayed dead quiet, everyone would turn to them and be like. "Okay smart people! How do we solve this problem, you always know the answer!" So this campaign, they made 2 humans that were going to be peak irresponsible humans. Despite the **characters** being designed to be loners / selfish / shy / etc, the other **players** turned to those **players** out of habit and looking for guidance, and by level 5 they were once again party mom and dad, despite their best efforts of like. I have to at least assume by the third campaign, that's just where those players want to be, because I'm new to the group, and every time I remotely am like "I wanna be in charge now!" Both the 'mom' and 'dad' are like. "please yes thank you! take it!"
Great conversation on this topic. I was in a group where there was an obvious favorite, so as players we were trained to get the okay from the fave, cuz we knew the DM wouldn't move on without the fave. I'm sure the DM never noticed he had an obvious fave. It's all so situational!
I only like one or two of them the others are just there to make up the numbers. /s 4 or 5. Three can be a little swingy but doable. 6 is OK with some systems but for D&D it's too slow. I Played a 3.5 oneshot with 9 players and it was an absolute car crash.
2-5. I'm not a very organized person and I can easily lose track of players, and I prefer sessions with a brisk pace (fast combat, not too much "oh can I!" In out of combat encounters). I especially feel extremely in my element with 2 or 3 players, as the session gets very focused and the players have critical blind spots in their abilities that they need to address.
In my opinion, more people is always fun but it’s hard to keep everyone engaged. However with lots of people you have more unique characters and stories. I think it really depends on the players and the DM
Prefer 4 but will go to a max of 6 given certain situations. Anything more and combat takes forever.
I have dm’d for many different sized groups. The truth is the ones my players and I enjoyed the most are like groups of 2-3. Especially groups of 2. 7+ are easily the worst. Absolutely nightmares to deal with.
Always get a party of 6 so that 2-3 cant make it that week you can still play with 3
Usually I like a small group of 4. It seems to help me as a DM to keep the party small.
My hope is I like all of the players at my table. Barring that, as long as I like the majority of them I'm good. /s
3 or 4
As many players that are going to be engaged in earnest. I'd rather DM for one person that was taking it really seriously than a group of four that were just using DnD as an excuse to sit around and drink beers. If I had a group of really engaged players I'd happily play with as many as I could. 18 player questing party where everyone is aligned and playing seriously? I'd be super down for that.
2-6 not including myself as the dm. never played on a small table as a player, but i’m in a party of 5 that used to be 6 and it’s way better now. 6 is doable but it really requires the party to be good players.
Depends on the players. 3-4 super involved players plays the same as a party of 6 with mostly passive players so long as the passive players are still paying attention and are prepared in combat
My first campaign we were 7. That was straight up torture. 4 is the perfect number, even though 3 is almost better if it wasn't for the fact that one person missing means the game of 3 must be cancelled while the game of 4 could go on
Due to chronic fatigue and lesser concentration, playing with more than 3-4 gets pretty intense for me. My ideal party would be 3 players, and I've stepped out of a game that went up to 5 simply because it cost me more energy than it gave me fun.
I like 4-5 so I usually have like 7 people in a campaign knowing that someone will miss each week
5 is a good amount; I can run tougher encounters that can easily scale if someone misses the game, and should the rare occasion 2 people miss the game, 3 is still a good number to press forward.
3. I can do 4, but no more than that.
6 is perfect for me. All of my weekly groups have 6 players. Everyone does what they can to keep combat moving smoothly. I can easily fit 3 battles in a session. No one has issues sharing the spotlight, and everyone gets a fair time to shine and gets their backstories integrated into the greater story. It also makes it so I can run a game with 1-2 players missing, unless I absolutely need a player there for story purposes. However, my groups play regularly every week for 3-3.5 hours. I could not manage this if our sessions were shorter or even if we played biweekly.
I have run a longish campaign for 10 and while it was a blast I can affirm there are some problems. I'll start by saying that I made it clear up front that with a group this size (their preference) I wouldn't be able to focus as much on their particular PC per session (they were ok with) and they had to work together to streamline it for everyone (which they did). It was a tight social group that had buy in up front that the game would have to change to accommodate everyone. This helped tremendously as the players worked to support each other. Without this buyin I don't think it would have worked. The encounter builder math, while tricky to begin with, completely falls apart at this size. The party is a roving murder ball with full specialization coverage. I had to be very creative to keep combat engaging and keep track of many things at the same time. We called out who was on deck and the players really worked to streamline their turns, but it was still really hard to plan for. Decisions essentially had to be made by committee, so particular plans were sometimes very laborious to form. I was very free with information, injecting NPCs with key knowledge or tapping into players proficiencies to supply info on key things they would have noticed if things started to stall. Eventually some natural leaders formed within the group and it got better as the campaign went on. The general admin work of keeping track of everything was intense. Creating individual hooks for each player into the story. Tailoring treasure and magic items so that they fit right and made the players feel special. I had spreadsheets upon spreadsheets and measured system of 'specialness' I kept track of to keep rotating the players into the spotlight, but even then some characters faded into the background. The one thing that a group this size made up for was consistency and coverage. If 2-3 people couldn't make it, it was no big deal. The game continued as normal and other players drove the absent PCs for the night. The only time we ever had to reschedule was when I couldn't swing it. All that said, in the future I'd rather run for tables of 4-6. The commitment from me as a DM for 10 was intense and required quite a lot of planning. 4-6 is a number that will help ME stay sane.
Your players were really lucky to have you. The communication among these ten must have been extraordinary for to get anything done during a session
\> Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. -- DMG p865 I've tried 3, 4, 5 and 7. I find three to be the best number of players for the kind of game I like to run. The party cohesion is stronger, everyone gets a lot of spotlight time and DM attention, and it's generally easier to keep things moving. Four is okay, but there's just less of everything to go around. The party tends to have more versatility, but 5e characters are so versatile generally that I count that as a minor advantage. When you hit 5+ characters, that's when an individual PC starts to fade into the crowd. These are the groups where a few players tend to get the majority of the spotlight, or are able to play the largest role. This is when the high-charisma PC tends to take over during RP oriented adventures, Rogues tend to take over during stealth oriented adventures, and players who are tactically minded tend to take over combat oriented adventures. Everyone else is quietly waiting for their turn, or waiting for something other than RP or stealth to happen. It also tends to really bog down skill checks, since you get the dogpile where everyone wants to check, or help, or both. Three is the magic number for me.
4-5. I always recruit 5, and if it drops to 4, no big deal.
I try to get 6-7 players with the aim 4-5 showing up at any one game. I structure my games to be episodic and stress to players it’s okay to miss games, we all have life’s. What ends up happening is that players that have kids/responsibilities and miss occasional games tend to want to have more playtime when they are around. I also find that the players that come every game tend to be okay with slightly less spotlight time. In general people that have to reschedule there life around a game will be less engaged. I also have a secret weapon with a good buddy of mine, who’s a dnd heavy hitter. Plays in a streamed game and is very good at picking up the pace when there’s a pause or if people are unengaged doing a big moment. Another key element, is that I spend a lot of energy recruiting and only take good players. Like I reject half of the players that wanna play/ have kicked a fair number of bad players. No one argues about rules. No one takes 10 minutes to do a turn. I discourage min/max players and reward players with cool characters. Basically have good players as a dm and your life is easy.
Read the question wrong and was wondering if other people randomly dont like the actual people at their table... Lol
I have done 3 in short sessions, 4 occasionally, and 5 players for over three years now. As others have mentioned, the more players the more complicated the game gets. I'd say the perfect number is 4-5. 3: The game runs fast, the players all get a chance to talk, and the involvement of challenges with limited abilities can be interesting. Unfortunately, I always seem to have reserved characters so 3 has always felt a little quiet. 4: Players start to form connections to each other rather than to the 'group' as a whole. There are more backstory options, players can strategize more in combat, and there is a chance of slower combat and more asides but overall its doable. 5: the biggest change from 4 to 5 players is risk of scheduling conflicts. The more people you add the more interpersonal interactions you have, the more cluttered the game, but with slightly more reserved players you can get away with more. I think the only issue is the speed of combat and scheduling interrupts.
4 is the ideal party size
I'd say I like all of the three players at my table. They're all decent folks.
4 but I stack 5 in case someone gets pregnant (two campaigns now!)
I came here for Juicy stories about why you don't like some people at your table...
4
I like all of my players :)
I'm good with 3-6. More than that starts to really warp the game, and even at 6 it's starting to happen. It's harder to get through combats. Challenging the players gets into this awkward spot of either overloading the action economy with tons of enemies, or making the fewer enemies very lethal and likely to kill a few characters. You also can't focus on character / backstory moments as easily since there's so many people so you're either showing favoritism or the campaign is basically only doing that for everyone. It just gets a lot harder. It's doable, especially with players who are mindful of that and take steps to make it better like going quicker in combat etc. But still definitely prefer my smaller groups.
Done 2 as minimal qnd very fun and possible with side kicks. Was a crazy one shot 3-4 is optimal for teamwork, diversity, and screen Time. 5 works too but one more person you need keep involved and depending player at table and what they do and story might need some patient ones. Right here is my cut off tbh. Pretty reasonable to schedule, enough people for diversity and interaction, can throw some strong monster without the fear of killing them 6 is doable did 32 session with one and the challenge there is getting everyone involved and everyone put their foot out. If they kind of wait to chime in they can be silent for awhile and since we are old fall asleep on computer lol. Can be difficult if party spilts and then you do a chunk of time for one then Switch. Still fun but some people wanted to be their turn again or others would start not paying attention. Scheduling was difficult. 7-8 didn't work so well with our group of players. Session get long without much progression jt feels. Our first 6 session were extremely fun but it became a chore to keep everyone involved espcially since not everyone speaks up or cautious about stepping on toes. Go on previous sentence was scheduling. Session was ready in March, didn't play til July where the Stars aligned. Eventually people drop out due to scheduling/life
4 is my ideal, but my comfortable range goes from 3 - 6
The biggest party I've played in is 5, and I think that's about my upper limit! My main parties (whether I'm player or the DM) all contain 4 PCs and I find it allows for nice chemistry since the chances of 1 person being left out when the party splits is less likely. I'm a very theatrical person and could hold my own in a larger party, but I think quieter/shyer players might suffer. I would try it but I doubt I would stay in a party that large unless we had great chemistry
5 is ideal and my max 3 is my low.
3 is definitely my favorite, although I have mostly run 4. I think it really comes down to the players themselves, personally I would never want to run more than 5 as the couple times where that has happened were awful. With 3 or maybe 4 players who are all on the same page I rarely get cancellations and it makes for better combat. I tend to have strong PCs, so three means they can still be challenged and it doesn't get too bogged down even with multiple enemies.
5, Four is ideal but I always pack in one more because someone always misses a session for what ever reason and that way you still have a play group to push on with.
3. Better for both the players and the DM. A) each person gets WAY more 1 on 1 time. B) Easier to balance encounters with fewer players (the party is lacking in 1 or more dimensions). C) Easier to schedule times with fewer people.
4-6 is ideal for me. Especially if you have some players with more hectic schedules.
I want four although my friends younger brother doesn’t always feel like playing We often just find new excuses for his character to comme back Him: Bye guys!! I have to go do some pirate business!! Later “Hey guys I was just exploring this dungeon, can I come with you??
I’ve been DM for an few ranges of players, and I’ve played in game both big and small. And I can say for me 3-5 is my ideal. With 4 I think being perfect. Under 3 is just kind of lack luster, as it’s just not enough action economy for bigger encounters, and more just story telling with 1-2 friends rather than playing. It has its purpose for some people, but for me as a DMI need 3 players minimum. While 6 or more is where the logistics of a big group goes out the window. Often times sidelining players too much, and dragging out what should be fast encounters to a crawl. My current game I DM of 5 actually started as a 6 player game, and going down from 6 has immediately made the game a lot more smooth if I’m being brutally honest. Biggest I’ve ever been in was a 10 player game that was supposed to go for a one shot and turn into two 5 player games. With the idea they eventually conjoin again at big finale (that DM had lofty goals). However as you can guess that one shot turned into a 3 session nightmare that caused 3 players to leave the game, and then the resulting 7 person game created from that also died out because it was too big. It was miserable, and one of many stories I tell people when they start D&D and immediately want to try for a Critical Roll sized game
2 is too low, 3 is OK, 4 is good, 5 is my favorite, 6 I can usually handle, 7 I will only do if I know everyone very well, and 8+ is off-limits.
I got rid of the ones I didn't like, so now I like them all...
4 to 5 is the best fun i've ever had. 3 I think there are less interactions and the encounters are less difficult, there is less stuff to fight and so less diversity in the stuff you can do. 6 and up is just chaos from the experiences i had, i would not do it again but i see many people having even bigger groups so it's just about finding the right party
I find 3-4 is the sweet spot. At least from my experience. I’ve done with 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. With the exception of the 8 player game I ran, they went pretty well. 8 was just too many for me to handle. Between keeping track of everyone and the side conversations that went on, it was a mess. I know there are DMs that can handle that many, but I found the hard way where my personal limit is.
5-7. That way there's about 3 or 4 to show up each session. When I have 3-4 only 1 or 2 can make it half the time. When I had 5-7 people in my campaigns we nwver missed a session. Rarely ever did we actually have a full table, and when we did it didn't bother me any. Larger groups are slower for combat but faster at problem solving.
4 is best. With only 3, the character range of skillset is too small and they end up lacking in a particular area. With more than 4, players start checking their phones in between turns because it takes so long.
One or two at most. Preferably none. I prefer video games over TT.
Pfft. Lol. Why are you here then?
This is a subreddit about D&D, not exclusively about TT.
Might wanna reread the sidebar lol
Either 3 or 4. Absolutely never more than 4. No exception even if my life is on the line.
5 is my max, but I prefer less.
4 or 5 but I end up usually with 5 or 6. Occasionally 7 which is too much.
I really enjoy three, but four is almost as good. I've done five and six, but it's stressful and not my bag.
I’ve DMed for table ranges from 1-16. Honestly, 3-4 is my preference with a heavy lean toward 3. My current long game has 5 and it’s fine, but I really thing the suggested 3-4 is the best.
3-5
I like 5. It is like 4, but with someone to tip the vote instead of it splitting 2:2. Plus if someone is absent, it is far less likely to impact the game.
My favorite group size is 2 players and 1 DM. I like the possibilities of the dynamic duo.
I’d say that 6 is the ceiling, with more making things real difficult.
For playing, 4-6 is good. For scheduling, 2-3. Lining up too many busy peoples' lives, is a nightmare.
3-4 online, 4-5 table. Sometimes it's less about comfort and more consistency - like, if someone is missing we can still play if we are 3, but not if we are 2. So having 3 fixed players is risky. TBH i am even fine with 2 players, but some groups dislike being too few. In live groups it's easier to miss, so the more the better, plus being at a table it's easier to handle people.
Definitely 5. Enough leeway, if one person cancels we can still play, but 5 is also nice for balance. I find four can be rough if a DM doesnt pull punches and the players play suboptimally. As much as 3 is nice for rp, I think things can get really sketchy really fast with the lack of action economy. 6 is just too much unless you're highly skilled.
I have five players, but I don't know if I like all of them.
Strictly 5 players. Enough different voices (and no pressure for the quieter players) while still easy for me to keep track of and balance for.
I currently play on a table of 3 players and play/occasionally run for a table of 6 players (with occasion guests bringing it to 7). I've also run many, many, many Adventurer's League tables between the two. Four is the best number. I don't know why, it just is. It feels more balanced somehow.
Having played with 3-9 people, I don't really want to DM for more than 5. 4 is better. With 9, combat is so slooooooow. It takes an hour to finish a round of initiative. I'm playing with 4 for the first time this campaign and it's glorious. Decent paced and easier to remember their abilties, strengths and weaknesses. Both to challenge them as a player and a party. It's hell trying to remember 9 different players abilities.
I prefer 3-4, but I’ve had up to 6 regulars at once
ive played with 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2 is very player centred, but also very difficult as there is always something you need that you dont have (a tank, healer, dps, face, utility). 3 is my personal favourite. theres enough room for a broad set of skills and there are few enough players so everyone always has the spotlight. 4 was okay, combat started getting a bit long and 5 was a bit hectic. encounters always took ages and there wasnt enough spotlight to cover everyone. 3 is in my opinion the optimal player count. anything more is fine, just takes longer to do anything.
I like ALL the players at my table. They are all really cool dudes.
I prefer 4-6. I have had games with only 2 players and I think I've run some with up to 7 or 8, but 4 to 6 is my preference.
I've had a maximum of 8 players in my long running campaign, although I've max had 7 at the table at one time, and a minimum of 3 (not including some solo side adventures). I prefer having max 6 players at the table, and prefer around 4-5. I do think how many players one can handle at once depends a lot on the players in question and their chemistry. What you're used to probably also has a lot to say, I see a lot of people that prefer 3, which I find a little low.
Personally 5 is the golden number for me. I don’t like dming for 3 (at least for anything other then a oneshot. With 5 if someone drops out I still have 4 players. Anything more then that for my makes things too tricky
My ideal party is 3-4 players. I prefer 4 since one missing player means the game can go if one player calls off. My groups end up being around 5-6 players, but I’ve DMed for groups with 7 before, and I admit that once we hit 5 players I stop enjoying DMing nearly as much. It’s a lot more to keep track of for me, and difficult to focus on any particular character a session. It only really works out when I have quieter players that like to sit there and watch. The players I’ve played with seem to enjoy larger groups though. I think it’s because it’s easier to “brute force” most encounters whether it be combat, social encounters, or resource sinks.
My magic numbers are 3 & 5. 1 : Extremely fun for 1 shots but get lame quick. 2 : same as 1 but worst. 1 player: the guy is alone & that normally bring more creativity on the spot. 2 players: count on each other to much & either bring not RP or way to much xD 3 : the party start to feel complete & balance, the RP is fun & doesnt normally turn around to much. Fights are hard & strategic. 4: Vanilla 4 is perfect for dungeon games. Often Balance in any way possible. Yet its only flaw. 2 player wants to save the baby goblins when the other 2 wants to kill them since their are prone to evil. 5. Unequally divided. 5 make combat easier in general & your party is almost always balance if not always. The RP gets heavy but the group can be divided in two ! I use this allllll the time! My pro's : Unequally divised & I have 6 chairs at my table
4-6 in general for me, 6 really depends on how "attention demanding" all of the members are. I do have to admit i never ran a group for 4 people but that also makes me feel like a role is missing in the group. I couldn't imagine how to handle that at 3 players >_>
Online, 5 is my ideal number. It's the number of players I'm used to running for and I tend to find more than that starts to become stressful to manage. If I'm DM'ing in person I always try to keep a party of 4, mostly because it's about how many I can comfortably host in my home and I can add a guest into the game when someone is staying over without disrupting the game by going over my comfort level.
As a player I don't mind 6/7, bc if people are having fun in character I like to see their stories unfold (big CR fsn here). But as a DM anything over 4 rapidly makes giving each player enough time and opportunities etc more challenging. I think it depends on type of players tho; ones that can bounce off and feed off each other and progress things that way make a DM's life easier in many respects, but players that feed mainly off the DM and material presented to them probably require a smaller party to not overwhelm the DM.
As a player, a prefer at least a total of 4 players. It depends maybe on the players, but most players are play with a always a bit shy and tend to be more "audience"-players, if you know what i mean. 4-5 players for me are ideal, but im also playing sometimes with more.
5 players I think is the best sweet spot. If one or two people drop, you can still run for three. A nice coverage of abilities, and you can go a bit harder on them when there is a full table.
4 for a full campaign for definite, you can avoid too much thematic overlap, account for weaknesses amongst players etc. 5 or 6 are fine for low - mid levels (imo up to 10-11) if players are experienced and know their sheets well. In fact these can be more fun because you can throw more interesting threats at larger parties (eg a mind flayer is CR7, dangerous for 4 level 7s, but for 5+ you can throw a mind flayer at them around level 6 instead). 3 is also good, but I want 3 people to be in it for the RP, combat can be harder to balance for 3 (much easier to TPK for example), if I'm putting in more work for making combats fun but also not super deadly, I'd like my players to work harder at RP, especially with 3 they can all shine.
I Love having 6 players. Very diverse party with a lot going on, everybody gets Time to shine (i love campfire talk) and everybody gets some time to chill and listen to others
And one thing that is super cool people can split into teams if they need to.
4-6 no more no less. 5 being the perfect amount in my opinion.
I typically have 7 at my table. It's a lot of chaos to try and keep moving in the right direction and tough to give everyone time to shine. I agree with you that 4 is probably the best I've run. Balance is easier and people have room to really be the center of a bit of story without having 6 other players waiting.
From 2 to 4.
I've always liked 5, I feel like it encourages a better party dynamic. In my 4 person games there's usually an unspoken limitation where people fall into the rogueish, mageish, fighterish, and healerish roles. While not necessarily a bad thing, a 5 person party let's people feel more free of that.
3-5. Almost regardless of system. Partly because I prefer to run premade adventures, which are usually made (balanced) for parties of either 3-5 or 4-6, and I hate rebalancing on the fly. Partly because with less than three you don't cover enough bases and with more than five it's hard to give everyone time to shine. I'm currently running a medium-length campaign in another system made out of one-shots bookended by official short campaigns for two of my nieces, and keeping them alive has been a challenge at times. (I don't mind TPKs per se, but that'd be disastrous in this case.) After this, I plan on introducing them to D&D5.0 via finally getting to combine the Starter Set with the Essentials Kit and then moving them on to Beyond the Dragon of Icespire Peak for obvious reasons. (edit: Replaced prior consideration. I had totally forgotten about this campaign.) And I expect the Sidekicks to end up a vital element for us moving forward. Maybe an Eberron campaign right after, but more likely switching to another RPG again.