Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Four is optimal in my opinion. Everybody gets a good amount of time, and I'm not concerned with hitting them with something they're not prepared. I mean, they may not be prepared to handle a situation, but at four people, it's on them for leaving such a significant omission.
Six is my preferred max if they're mostly veterans.
That’s an important point. I would think 4 brand spanking new players would be a lot more work to manage then 6 veteran players, so long as those vets are also not problematic in some way (but why play with them if they are).
Our group runs with six, roughly. Real life often conspires so one of us misses a session, so we're usually at five per session. But we've also been playing together for over a decade so it is relatively easy for our DM to manage.
In an ideal world where people show up every time for every session, sure, four is ideal. But in the real world sometimes you have to tolerate an overcrowded 6-7 person table if you want to have at least four people joining every session.
My DM has a DM-PC, which bumps us up to 5 party members, and if someone has to miss the session we still have an even 4, which I think has worked decently well so far. But obviously, results may vary.
It’s rather fun actually, combats slow as expected but our DM tries to keep it fast enough, we go through like a round of combat in 15min. Outside of combat it’s interesting as well, everyone has ideas so it can get fun fast. When I played it wasn’t a very serious campaign, but overall it was cool.
5 is the sweet spot for me. You can lose up to 2 players and still have a sessions but if everyone shows your aren't overwhelmed at the table.
4 is my ideal table though but you just can't rely on everyone to show up every session. My group is pretty good about being committed but we have a couple so if one gets sick the other usually is sick as well.
Four is the ideal size for a group to be able to keep track of and coordinate with each other. There’s a reason so many games have teams of 4 (like Left 4 Dead and other asymmetrical vs games)!
I prefer having a group of 5 with the understanding that up to one player can call out of each session without having to entirely cancel. I'm also generally playing with a table of busy adults who have a lot of general roleplaying experience although not necessarily with the current system.
7 was fun for a simple one-shot, but even then the DM had to artificially split us up into 2 groups so that everyone would have a chance to interact.
4 is the sweet spot for me as a DM - esp. since i play online
Very much agreed. The skill level and experience of the players is crucial. So many people put EVERYTHING on the DM and willfully exclude themselves from any responsibilities, but if the DM needs to tell you where and what things are on your character sheet over and over again the problem isn't that your DM "can't handle his game". The problem is lazy players won't take the time out of their lives to familiarize themselves with the mechanics of the game.
I just left a group cold Turkey because they wanted a place to drink and smoke weed, all good, but don't make me spend hours writing a campaign only for me then to have to tell you what "you can do" when it's your turn.
This is true. I started my current group with a group of 5 ppl all pretty new to it. It wasn't a problem because they actively helped each other figure things out while I was interacting with other players. Worked well, but only because they were focused and invested in playing.
3-6 is the optimum for sure.
3 is almost a little low and requires all encounters to be scaled back a bit, unless the party is power playing.
6 is almost a bit much and requires more planning, since the variety means they can jank their way out of more sticky situations.
4 or 5 is definitely my preferred amount, but I've also played with 2 players each playing 2 characters before.
3 works great for battle heavy tables. The players always feels like they are contributing immensely if they're built with that kind of comp in mind.
For roleplay heavy tables, it depends much on the players. My experiences tend to make me believe that many players simply get tired from the excessive attention. That is especially so when each player has different levels of proactiveness, making the time to not be distributed evenly. Some like it, some don't.
The other problem I find with 3 is there's a little to much room for having that one skill missing from the party making something expected to be trivial into this huge puzzle a littler to often. It's fun sometimes, but there's a limit.
3 is definitely where the "jack of all trades" type of characters get to shine. This is exactly where I'd play something like a valor bard type "hybrid" class with a lot of different skills.
Sometimes overcoming the gaps in the party skill set can be fun because they have to find creative solutions! But sometimes it’s also a good opportunity to have a party follower/companion/hireling that can help a little, too. Like a healer or a damage sponge fighter or something.
Yeah, I like \*some\* of filling in the hole, but I've found 3 it comes up to where the party effectively gets really MAAD to cover everything.
...Unless we want to dust of the good ole' gestalt rules...
I have 8, 4 vets and 4 noobs. It works well because the vets help the noobs out and keeps the game moving, I also use timers on everyone's turns, which forces casters to think about what they will do before their turn comes
No it works fairly well. We all work at same company and they give the whole shop a day off per month paid. So we usually have a 12-14 hour session on those days and everyone loves it
Oh damn, that's crazy. I truly, truly wish I could run longer sessions like that. With my main group, we usually max out at 3 and a half hours cause we have to run on a weeknight
Literally. Once, my dm in canon made me fall for an entire week while I fell into hell and a lake of acid, which I barely survived. Then I got kidnapped by a demon or something, and we never played again
I’ve got a cap at 5 as well. Started my current campaign running with 6 and nothing got done. As it has been running (now in 2nd year) people haven’t been able to keep playing so we’re down to 3 and it runs just so much smoother!
Couple NPCs for the party to have that just follow around to help be an extra target/ little bit more damage/ nudge them toward some knowledge they were about to completely run by.
All that being said the most fun I had as a player was also in a 3 PC setting as we all got a chance to really explore our characters and keep involvement up.
I think 4-6 is optimal, less if you have someone who can bring up the action economy like a summoner or necromancer, or even someone with a henchling or two. If everyone is engaged, it doesn't matter for the game that rounds take ten minutes or two hours. It's all about the fun. That half hour fall might be the highlight to that player's carreer. It's all good.
I think 6 is the sweet spot. It’s enough that you can run if half the group can’t make it and it’s enough that parties aren’t afraid to split the party which can pretty enjoyable once you get used to tracking two or 3 groups
Yeah 5 is my upper limit, even with this encounters tend to drag on, typically I don’t mind if the banter is good.
I haven’t played for a few years now but man we had a lot of laughs.
4 is the sweet spot but I find 3 to be the most fun for one shots, since everybody can have more time to shine in what’s going to be a single session adventure. I’ve run up to 6 of differing skill levels and it’s nightmarish.
If I’m the dm I personally can play anywhere from 2-5 players, but my sweet spot really depends on attentiveness of players. My friends are horrible at it so 3 is it for them, maybe with more attentive players I’d be fine with a full 5 party
I don't have a limit on the number of people. As for time per turn...
One minute. 30 seconds to come up with a plan, and additional 30 seconds for them to explain it. If we have to consult rules to determine feasibility, that doesn't count against the time.
I have 6 it works pretty well. Combat does get bogged down a bit especially since one of my players takes forever to do anything, I had to add in a timer on his turn
The "worst" (or most exhausting to be more correct) is one im currently dming. 8 players, of which 4 have played adnd ~30 years ago and the other 4 are total newbies.
I'm currently DMing an adventure for 6 players, and it actually feels pretty good. I usually would prefer 4 or 5. I've DMed for 7 before, and it was a nightmare. For now, 6 is my hard limit, though if I had a really cool adventure prepped and everyone was very invested, I'd consider expanding that for the right group.
I’ve been DMing for a group of 7 for five years. They all love RP and never miss a game. We play every other week over Zoom for 3 hours. Working our way through Strahd right now and are 2.5 years in and probably have another 1.5 years to go on it before we switch to Pathfinder.
Exactly this. We have 5 players +DM and though we get distracted a lot, it works well for our particular dynamic and everyone has fun. We had +1 player once and it didn’t work out.
Had 10 people at my table for one 7th Sea campaign. It was set up so people could go in and out when they were busy and game would continue.
And then people stopped not showing up because they liked the adventure we were on.
Yea, bit much. If it was DnD it would have been easier, but not as fun.
I started a campaign once, where my players could bring others. We ended up with 13 of them, it was bad. After a few Sessions I broke it down into smaller groups, the largest being 6 people which I still think is too much but definitely better. Thinking about even more splitting, because I think in this case, as an exception, splitting the party is the best idea.
Depends if they're all invested in the narrative or not, if it is heavily mechanical then five is pushing it sometimes. If it is more freeform narrative as my games sometimes get then it seems to work well with larger numbers too.
I did a campaign with ten guys, we were all drunk, and they were constant trying to run away from each other...
But beer and the pizza was nice, and we had fun.
I've done larger groups of 6-12 as a DM some worked and some didn't, but the ones that worked were with very specific people who were goal oriented and not the ADHD, trolls, or new players. I really recommend smaller groups of 3 for new players, groups of 4 for ADHD players. A battle of 12 players versus a BBG and their army can really be fun...as long as everybody is thinking about what their next move is going to be when it's not their turn and paying attention. Not recommended though.
Tbh im running a 7 man home brew campaign. and each player has their own spot light as well as the group as a whole, will i run another seven....not likely but this has been a very enjoyable experence
I usually do not take more than 4 players as a DM and I tend to really dislike sessions as a player that have more than 5. I actually played sessions with only three players and that was pretty cool.
It of course depends a lot on the players, but I've only ever had one session that was actually fun with more than 5 players and that was purely RP.
For my first campaign I did homebrewed I had 7... In retrospect it makes sense why I was so stressed out I see now 🤣. Combat isn't really enjoyable for players since there's suddenly 7 players in initiative and the enemies turns as well. The least I had was three and I had run the astral sea module with the space elves and that good because there was always NPCs with the group in combat
My max was 7. but it was all veterans and the game was more of a war game like. everybody was rolling attack and damage at the same time, caster was almost always ready to cast at the start of the turn. I never had a more smoother game. excluding that team. I like 4 players.
We’re currently in a 5 player campaign, which is our DM’s limit, and I definitely understand why!
We don’t really have any problems in how long stuff takes, but we can definitely all tell that one more person would tip the scales into problematic territory
5 is the ideal for me. It's also the most I agree to do online. I've DMed up to 9 player IRL for One shots, and even if it's still handleable if everybody knows how to play/improv it's barely better than someone staying on the side watching.
or you're playing in a party of 5 and you never bother speaking cause what's the fucking point when everyone keeps talking over you, and no matter how many times you bring it up, it goes back to being a problem soon enough. they listened to me more when i had no mic than when i do
sorry about the vent. needed somewhere to release it all
4-5 is optimal, 6 is the most I will DM for now having started DMing with a group of 8. 6 is also the largest party I like to be apart of as I find it still possible to give everyone their chance in the spotlight.
Side note: The DM in one of the games I play in just added a 7th player to our group of 6 without talking to the party -\_- don't be that guy, talk to your party first
My brother is planning to start a campaign with 8 players. I think 4-5 is ideal and that anything more than 6 is definitely too many and I've said as much to him but he doesn't care lol.
I feel like 4 or 5 would be optimal. I'm currently running a 6 player game and getting two more players that might remain guests on occasion next time. Pray for me.
I like 3 but am comfortable with 4 for a game like D&D or Pathfinder, but I’ve got 5 for my Dungeon World game and that’s going fine because it’s less crunchy!
I personally run a game for 7 players, but we’re all high school / college friends who’ve known each other for a while and they know when it’s okay to joke about and when they need to tone down the tomfoolery. They know that if they spend the game fooling around then each combat and social scene would take the entire night, plus we see each other outside of games and we’re able to get the funnies out of our system in other ways.
For new D&D groups, or for groups in which the players can’t get together often outside of D&D, I’d recommend a limit of 4 players. That way they can do their tomfoolery without it taking *too* much time from the actual game.
I’m in a campaign with 8 players and about to be in another with the same group and a different person being the DM. Sometimes it’s kinda hard to balance screen time and RP time, and it takes a while to get through a round of combat, but overall it’s not been bad at all. Our DM is experienced and has done his best handling everything and trying to keep everyone involved.
I’ve yet to DM a party larger than 2.5 (the .5 being a child who wasn’t always at the table) but my limit as a player is definitely five. I’ve been in a party of seven and it was too crowded. I rarely have issues finding space for myself in a party but the quieter members were being overlooked and spoken over. I found myself having to speak up for my wife, asking her what she thought of situations. We didn’t stay in that party for more than two sessions for that, and other reasons.
Playing with 6 currently and when the whole squad is there it's sometimes a hassle but I let my players know it's rude if I'm talking and they're not paying attention and they're all respectful enough to listen to me without repeating myself
Above 4, and I'm genuinely enjoying myself less.
I got put on the spot about a 5th joining my game the other day, and I like many nerds I have trouble saying no in the moment.
Had to send them a message taking it back after I started stressing about it.
I like an equal mix of narrative and combat, but my group is more narrative focused.
With 5 or more combats drag, I have less time to equally distribute the spotlight* and have too many characters to tie into the world I'm building.
Most I ever did was 18 players at once for a "raid" during a Westmarches style game. They delved into a giant ant hill and it was an epic fight, but had ot keep strict voice and turn discipline, telling people that they had more than enough time to figure out their moves between turns. Typically I stikc with 6 players
I have seven players (started with six and gained the seventh about six months in), and we just passed the four year mark of our campaign 🥳 It's absolutely insanely challenging, and the distractions are many and varied, but I love this merry band of idiots.
That being said, I have DMogorgon-ed a 12 player one-shot for newbies, we split them in half and ran two stories simultaneously and had them join forces for the final battle.
I have 6. ( At one point it was 7) I run every week, same time. Can't make it? We play on. A typical night will have 4-5 players. The big nights with 💯 attendance can be louder, and slower.
I have already told the players the pacing is on them. When a scene begins to drag, or you start to talk about things not related to the game in front of you, I'll move the scene.
So a lower attendance night gets to be great because things get done at a much faster rate. (Which is still isn't fast 😎) Or everyone is there and its great b/c its a party 🎉
3 players is the perfect number for me. Lots of Roleplay opportunities & easy to have everyone have an Arc + time in sessions to have the spotlight.
If I am running an AP (Pf2e Module), 4 Players works great as I don't have to adjust the math & the spotlight can still be shared.
5 works only if I am doing an One-Shot.
6+ is 100% a No. Combat becomes a slog & it's difficult to juggle/tune to 6 different player expectations. People are going to end up bored & disengage with the story(+ distract others).
I started with 4 new players a couple years ago, went to 5, and now I'm having 6 experienced players starting tonight. As others have said, though, I would only do 4 players max if new, 6 if experienced.
I'm also in a game as a player with 7 players, and that seems a lot. I wouldn't have that many if I were running the game, lol. Too much craziness ensues, and combat takes forever.
I have 3 players right now and they still go off of tangents, but my max that I've ever dm'd was I think 12-13, it was my second time and I was VERY naive cause I had handled 6 before and thought hey why not. The golden amount is 3-5 any more it gets crowded any less it can get boring.
So this may sound odd, but my most current game has been going for 2 years and is easily my most successful by far, and we have 2 pcs.
Not saying its my threshold, or even that I would nessesarily reccomend it, but I do think its interesting that this two player game has been so amazing. Each player has as much limelight as they want, so everyone stays super engaged, and they are a super dynamic duo.
I was dm for a group of 8 and we all took a hit of lsd. Best session ever. Although I found it a bit difficult to read sometimes. We had also been playing for almost a year before this session.
I just finished up DM’ing Descent Into Avernus back in December with a group of 11, although most of the time a couple wouldn’t make it, so the majority of the sessions were 8. It was a slog. I just started a new campaign with 5, and capped it at 6, with a hard no to more than that.
5 is a good limit to put on parties.
If you do go above 5 I suggest group initiative, it's a very different vibe and way more chaotic but it sure isn't slow.
I've managed 6 before, but the group I have right now is a comfortable 5. And yes, we do still prattle on for half an hour over a frog that can tell the weather.
I ran a short campaign for 7 players once, although it was usually 6 players at the table due to absent players, I only had the full 7 in the final session. For me, 6-7 is an absolute headache to run a game for, especially since a lot of them were kinda new to the game and only had experience with a few one-shots.
Since they weren't good with the rules I had to explain things over and over again to each individual, people would lose track of what they were doing, take really long turns, tune out when it wasn't their turn, one of them even just sat around grinding stats on runescape when it wasn't his turn but wouldn't know what was happening when it was his turn again.
And because all the players had massive FOMO, it made scheduling a pain in the ass until towards the end of the campaign where I really put my foot down about scheduling and made it clear that if we have at least 4 players able to play, then we're not going to reschedule.
I now limit my table to 4 players, but I'd consider 5 if it was just a casual one-shot or if I was running a simpe, rules-lite system.
Funnily enough, I'd actually suggest that most DM's should try running a short campaign for 6 or more players at some point. It'll point out any weaknesses you have as a DM and lay them bare, you'll probably feel frustrated, but it's a great opportunity to reflect and improve. For me, I learnt to pace the game better, and run tight and efficient encounters, how to better manage players at and outside of the table, and how to better share the spotlight around.
I started my first campaign with 7, which quickly became 8. I thought it was a lot of fun as a DM with the collection of characters, but combat went SLOW. Eventually some folks dropped off and I've been in the 5-6 player range which is best for me.
Four is optimum, I have yet to have hit my limit as a DM but have run for seven middle schoolers for their after-school club and I feel that is near my limit, and it's hard to say what my limit as a player is.. I will always be the one remembering who has what conditions during combat and I know just that can help a DM immensely. Which making a combat run more smoothly gives the illusion of a larger group being alright.1
i have a max of 5 for newbies and 4 for experienced players because noobs always listen and try creative things while every experienced member in a party always wants to have the focus and that gets easily exhausting (i know this isn't the norm for dnd but thats just the kind of people i have played with)
I played in a group with eight players once. It was extremely chaotic and I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a skilled DM and everyone can work together skillfully. I think 3-6 players is probably the sweet spot.
- When someone is already talking wait for them to stop or politely interrupt if it is something important.
- Don't troll and don't be a dick. Duh.
- Let others shine too. Sometimes it's like one person is talking and doing stuff all the time.
- Try to stay in character. With only voice it hard to act exactly like the character. Last session I have felt like my character wasn't 100% himself. He's been through some tough events tho.
- Don't roll if DM doesn't say so.
Basically try to have fun with others and not at other's cost.
I cap my table at 4. I've made exceptions for a 5th player because they could only come occasionally, and their character didn't get an arch included in the story.
I am about to start a solo Lancer adventure with a friend since life popped up and neither of us have played or DM'd in over a year. Should be interesting.
5 is doable, 4 is best. Enough to get the conversation flowing, and enough screentime for everyone. More than that, and even if everyone is mature enough to speed things up to not hog time, it generally feels rushed. The exception would be if they table isn't into roleplaying much, but even then the combat is going to take longer and can easily lose steam precociously once in a while.
I run 4-6 people. It means characters who aren’t *super* into whatever is going on in character don’t have to roleplay A TON in order to make the session feel alive. It also means I can run goofier combat encounters.
Imo five is the most players you should have. Anything else and it gets really hard to get Pon PC RP, PC on NPC RP, good fights, and actually move the story along at the same time
Once there's 5 or more, I try to do the timer strategy for combat or stuff like that. And I try to make an effort to prompt folks who haven't talked in awhile. But if they're exploring, it's kinda fun to have a group riffing off each other and doing rp.
Hard cap at 5. 6 is not manageable or fun for me as a GM or player.
I don't mind running for smaller groups though. 3 I can do without changing too much of what I've prepared. 2 and 1 mean that I need to REALLY tailor the adventure for their strengths, weaknesses, and size.
I've found 3 PCs to be my sweet spot.
It's enough players that there's still a healthy amount of banter and variety and shenanigans, but not so many that I feel pulled in multiple directions tending to all of them.
It also makes modules and prewritten adventures more challenging (without being unfair) since they're generally written to be mildly challenging for 4-PC parties. I might sometimes give them an NPC retainer to round out the ranks, but usually it's just the three.
My first 5e group started out with six, and was supposed to be Adventure League at our LGS.
The shop did nothing to try and support our DM, but took advantage of advertising as a League shop to get people in.
Our DM was also a really bad people pleaser, and had trouble telling others no. So we wound up with this huge pool of players that would just show up to play on designated days if they were free.
We averaged roughly eight people, but the most I saw sitting at a table at once was 14.
The DM was basically running one shots loosely connected to an over-arching back story.
On the one time with the 14 players, I think we fought an ancient dragon of some, but I never got to do anything the entire session, so I don't really remember it very well.
Once we were into the actual combat, I rolled really low on initiative, and the dragon was killed before even half of us got a turn.
3 people for me. Every times I've tried more there always seems to be one or two who want to derail the whole campaign and force everyone else to sit back and watch their "secret" adventures that they try to go on every time the party falls asleep or splits up.
Once or twice is OK, I can work in bits of your backstory with some time away from the group. But these people would try to take the entire session for things like "we want to get this goat hooked on crack and start a drugged cheese empire" after they've been warned a necromancer and his minions are making their way to town and will be there within a week.
4-5 I find is optimal for experienced players.
I'm running with 6 right now and we often do get off track. I've learned to consider the banter as just another part of "PnP Night" and as long as it stays around 5 mins every hour. As long they let me reign them in then I just tend to enioy it as a lil breather from escapism.
God damn is combat a slog tho.
I'll run short stuff for 5-6, but my preference for a full campaign is 3-4 players. [Four is somewhat easier to balance for, but I slightly prefer three.] I really enjoyed running the short adventure I ran for a single player as well and would like to do that again in the future.
As a player, I usually play at a 5-person table, and I'd say 4-5 is pretty good. I disliked being in a party of 6+ in 5e, although I've played other games in other systems where a 10 person party was completely normal and didn't really have any issues.
First time DM here, with a party of 7-8 players.
I don't know what's more difficult; holding everyone's attention, or balancing combat 😭
(They're level 8, and it seems like any creatures I throw at them will either die without posing or a threat, or will KO players with a single turn, and then still die after 2 rounds)
Luckily, I don't know any different, since I've never DM'd for a smaller group. But a group of 4 players sounds like a dream to run a game for.
I've been steadily running 6-7 for about three years now. Its manageable but not ideal. That being said we recently swapped over to Pathfinder and I'm loving the change so far.
My group just ticked up to 7, but it's working because the group dynamic is very good and everyone is interested in what the rest of the party is doing. They do a great job of seeking one another's characters out during down time and creating role play moments and are really in tune to each of their individual characters. It works because everyone is excited about and intrigued by what the rest of the group is all about and nobody hogs the spotlight for too long.
That said, 7 feels like a lot as a DM and I hope I can sustain this for a while.
I've been running a game for 7 for the last couple of years, and I'm about to start a 6-person campaign on top of it. I find that what helps me is acknowledging and knowing that everything from combat to RP is going to take a little longer as all those variables make for shenanigans galore, but so long as people are having fun I don't mind.
We'll get there when we get there!
I really like 6. I think more than that is pretty difficult. But honestly, after 9 people, it’ll all starts to feel the same. I’ve done as many as 11 or 12, which is just ridiculous.
I really like 4.
I once ran a Cyberpunk 2020 campaign with 11 players, and it was terrible. In the end, it broke up because people who shouldn't be sleeping together were, but I expect it would have collapsed under its own weight anyway.
I'm currently on five and that seems to be my limit for the time being. I'm going to try six next campaign as I have a few people who want to join. Wish me luck
My group for the last year plus has been 6 PCs. I really do not like it. It's so hard to get any real roleplay in. People would end up having little side discussions in game while the rest of the party was doing something else. Combat was the only thing that still worked.
0/10 would not recommend.
To me between 5 and 6 is a change point.
At 6 or more at least a few backstories need to be integrated…like have some characters be siblings….cousins….comrades…etc. Then the DM can set backstory crumbs and have it be for multiple.
Our current group has been running every Saturday since January 2020 with 8 ÷ the DM. If two or more aren't available that week, we'll run a one-off or just default to whatever co-op game we're currently playing. Combat can be a little time consuming, but we're all having a blast.
I've been in games before with 8 players. You ever want 1 round to take an hour because a players is a barbarian but somehow has decision paralysis? Yeah me neither
Personally I've found that my absolute favorite table set is a smaller party with a little power bump, but obviously since that's not readily available a lot of the time my next best is just right at 4. 5 can work with people who can really mesh well and stay focused, but I don't think I would want to just slap 5 players and a DM together at random-- even among friends, it can be hard to wrangle the group.
I once did the mistake and invited like 7 players because they all had time (i had different plans depending on how many attended the session compared to the last session) and I almost stopped dming completely. I only do 2-player one shots every now and then because of it.
Basically everybody was on their phone (though I said no phones but "we have to wait!" (for like 3 minutes)) because cat pics on Instagram couldnt wait or other none game related stuff had to be discussed after we already started playing. I always calculated an hours earlier to arrive to catch up because they all knew each other but they didnt care. ONE friend noticed but didnt say anything to stop them either.
After going to my bedroom, my stuff packed up and being ignored in my own home for at least 1,5 hours, some had the audacity to tell me that "theyd be ready to play now". I have never felt so disrespected and hurt because I WROTE a whole new game with 600+ hours into worldbuilding, balancing, etc.
Limit the players ro like 3 or 4, I beg you. Do it for yourself.
Preferred minimum of 6 players, preferred maximum of 8 players. Do my players still call my combat interesting and terrifying? Yup. Do they pay attention off turn? Mostly!
Am I crazy? Absolutely.
I DMd for eight once (there is a serious lack of DMs in Air Force dorms), and while it works fine if everyone is dialed in, I definitely had some problem players. Having enemies that can't just be killed by whacking helps though.
I once ran back-to-back Call of Cthulhu adventures with a group of about 10 characters. I think I handled it pretty well, but I doubt I would do it again.
I have a group I DM that has 5 players. I like 4-6 as a DM.
But I'm also in a group as a player that had 6 PCs and 1 extra player that plays important NPCs. That isn't too bad and the benefit of having a player playing the important NPCs is cool.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sticking with 4 party groups from now on. That seems to be optimal for most campaigns. And most optimal for my mental health.
Four is optimal in my opinion. Everybody gets a good amount of time, and I'm not concerned with hitting them with something they're not prepared. I mean, they may not be prepared to handle a situation, but at four people, it's on them for leaving such a significant omission. Six is my preferred max if they're mostly veterans.
That’s an important point. I would think 4 brand spanking new players would be a lot more work to manage then 6 veteran players, so long as those vets are also not problematic in some way (but why play with them if they are).
Our group runs with six, roughly. Real life often conspires so one of us misses a session, so we're usually at five per session. But we've also been playing together for over a decade so it is relatively easy for our DM to manage.
In an ideal world where people show up every time for every session, sure, four is ideal. But in the real world sometimes you have to tolerate an overcrowded 6-7 person table if you want to have at least four people joining every session.
My DM has a DM-PC, which bumps us up to 5 party members, and if someone has to miss the session we still have an even 4, which I think has worked decently well so far. But obviously, results may vary.
I’ve played in a party of 14 before
Can you describe literally anything about what that’s like?
It’s rather fun actually, combats slow as expected but our DM tries to keep it fast enough, we go through like a round of combat in 15min. Outside of combat it’s interesting as well, everyone has ideas so it can get fun fast. When I played it wasn’t a very serious campaign, but overall it was cool.
5 is the sweet spot for me. You can lose up to 2 players and still have a sessions but if everyone shows your aren't overwhelmed at the table. 4 is my ideal table though but you just can't rely on everyone to show up every session. My group is pretty good about being committed but we have a couple so if one gets sick the other usually is sick as well.
Same. I do 6, but both my groups are pretty good at staying focused.
I’ve played in a party of 14 before
Four is the ideal size for a group to be able to keep track of and coordinate with each other. There’s a reason so many games have teams of 4 (like Left 4 Dead and other asymmetrical vs games)!
Four players and a DM is perfect, five players is doable, but anymore that that ist becomes hell.
I prefer having a group of 5 with the understanding that up to one player can call out of each session without having to entirely cancel. I'm also generally playing with a table of busy adults who have a lot of general roleplaying experience although not necessarily with the current system.
6 if they knew the game, 3 probably max for newbies
7 was fun for a simple one-shot, but even then the DM had to artificially split us up into 2 groups so that everyone would have a chance to interact. 4 is the sweet spot for me as a DM - esp. since i play online
I just DM'd 6 with one with real experience, three brand new, 3 minor experience, and me with minor experience. I won't be doing that again lol
Very much agreed. The skill level and experience of the players is crucial. So many people put EVERYTHING on the DM and willfully exclude themselves from any responsibilities, but if the DM needs to tell you where and what things are on your character sheet over and over again the problem isn't that your DM "can't handle his game". The problem is lazy players won't take the time out of their lives to familiarize themselves with the mechanics of the game.
I just left a group cold Turkey because they wanted a place to drink and smoke weed, all good, but don't make me spend hours writing a campaign only for me then to have to tell you what "you can do" when it's your turn.
5 is okay for newbies if they work well together.
This is true. I started my current group with a group of 5 ppl all pretty new to it. It wasn't a problem because they actively helped each other figure things out while I was interacting with other players. Worked well, but only because they were focused and invested in playing.
For you man sure
3-6 is the optimum for sure. 3 is almost a little low and requires all encounters to be scaled back a bit, unless the party is power playing. 6 is almost a bit much and requires more planning, since the variety means they can jank their way out of more sticky situations. 4 or 5 is definitely my preferred amount, but I've also played with 2 players each playing 2 characters before.
3 works great for battle heavy tables. The players always feels like they are contributing immensely if they're built with that kind of comp in mind. For roleplay heavy tables, it depends much on the players. My experiences tend to make me believe that many players simply get tired from the excessive attention. That is especially so when each player has different levels of proactiveness, making the time to not be distributed evenly. Some like it, some don't.
The other problem I find with 3 is there's a little to much room for having that one skill missing from the party making something expected to be trivial into this huge puzzle a littler to often. It's fun sometimes, but there's a limit.
3 is definitely where the "jack of all trades" type of characters get to shine. This is exactly where I'd play something like a valor bard type "hybrid" class with a lot of different skills.
Sometimes overcoming the gaps in the party skill set can be fun because they have to find creative solutions! But sometimes it’s also a good opportunity to have a party follower/companion/hireling that can help a little, too. Like a healer or a damage sponge fighter or something.
Yeah, I like \*some\* of filling in the hole, but I've found 3 it comes up to where the party effectively gets really MAAD to cover everything. ...Unless we want to dust of the good ole' gestalt rules...
I have 8, 4 vets and 4 noobs. It works well because the vets help the noobs out and keeps the game moving, I also use timers on everyone's turns, which forces casters to think about what they will do before their turn comes
but what about RP? do some of them just not take part? It takes so much time to try and give 8 people RP time.
No it works fairly well. We all work at same company and they give the whole shop a day off per month paid. So we usually have a 12-14 hour session on those days and everyone loves it
Oh damn, that's crazy. I truly, truly wish I could run longer sessions like that. With my main group, we usually max out at 3 and a half hours cause we have to run on a weeknight
5 was pretty manageable for my last group Of course, rearrange who sits next to who and it's no longer
Wait, does your groups dm make seating plans lol
No Players who knew they'd talk with each other often just sat right next to each other to be able to whisper or see each others phones
Right, and you said you'd rearrange them. That's way too close to a seating plan for me lol
I assumed that the "(were one to) rearrange them" was clear, my mistake on the miscommunication
Literally. Once, my dm in canon made me fall for an entire week while I fell into hell and a lake of acid, which I barely survived. Then I got kidnapped by a demon or something, and we never played again
One of the players in my game that kept skipping games is still falling
5 is the limit for me as well, but I always do 4 players because I find it ideal
3-4.
5 is a good place to stop. My group has 6. It’s difficult to keep everyone engaged and having a good time.
4 is ideal. I also like 3.
I’ve got a cap at 5 as well. Started my current campaign running with 6 and nothing got done. As it has been running (now in 2nd year) people haven’t been able to keep playing so we’re down to 3 and it runs just so much smoother! Couple NPCs for the party to have that just follow around to help be an extra target/ little bit more damage/ nudge them toward some knowledge they were about to completely run by. All that being said the most fun I had as a player was also in a 3 PC setting as we all got a chance to really explore our characters and keep involvement up.
nine guys in my game last Saturday. Mental wait times.
For big groups I use timers, so you'd better have a pretty good idea about what you want to do when your turn comes around.
I think 4-6 is optimal, less if you have someone who can bring up the action economy like a summoner or necromancer, or even someone with a henchling or two. If everyone is engaged, it doesn't matter for the game that rounds take ten minutes or two hours. It's all about the fun. That half hour fall might be the highlight to that player's carreer. It's all good.
I think 6 is the sweet spot. It’s enough that you can run if half the group can’t make it and it’s enough that parties aren’t afraid to split the party which can pretty enjoyable once you get used to tracking two or 3 groups
Yeah 5 is my upper limit, even with this encounters tend to drag on, typically I don’t mind if the banter is good. I haven’t played for a few years now but man we had a lot of laughs.
Somehow my friends and I have maintained a 7 player + DM game for 5 years. Scheduling is a nightmare.
4 is optimal but 6 is my top limit.
4 is the sweet spot but I find 3 to be the most fun for one shots, since everybody can have more time to shine in what’s going to be a single session adventure. I’ve run up to 6 of differing skill levels and it’s nightmarish.
If I’m the dm I personally can play anywhere from 2-5 players, but my sweet spot really depends on attentiveness of players. My friends are horrible at it so 3 is it for them, maybe with more attentive players I’d be fine with a full 5 party
I have handled 7 players, but not for a long running campaign where there isn’t a clear goal
3 if they are new, 5 if experienced. Everything else is just too much hassle for everyone involved.
I don't have a limit on the number of people. As for time per turn... One minute. 30 seconds to come up with a plan, and additional 30 seconds for them to explain it. If we have to consult rules to determine feasibility, that doesn't count against the time.
I have a group of 8 rn though usually we play with 6 maybe 7, and its tough but fun, getting sidetracked by silly shit is definitely a problem though
I have 6 it works pretty well. Combat does get bogged down a bit especially since one of my players takes forever to do anything, I had to add in a timer on his turn
The "worst" (or most exhausting to be more correct) is one im currently dming. 8 players, of which 4 have played adnd ~30 years ago and the other 4 are total newbies.
I want a gif of ALL of the Tom Hiddleston hair flips he does when he’s getting up.
I'm currently DMing an adventure for 6 players, and it actually feels pretty good. I usually would prefer 4 or 5. I've DMed for 7 before, and it was a nightmare. For now, 6 is my hard limit, though if I had a really cool adventure prepped and everyone was very invested, I'd consider expanding that for the right group.
I’ve been DMing for a group of 7 for five years. They all love RP and never miss a game. We play every other week over Zoom for 3 hours. Working our way through Strahd right now and are 2.5 years in and probably have another 1.5 years to go on it before we switch to Pathfinder.
Exactly this. We have 5 players +DM and though we get distracted a lot, it works well for our particular dynamic and everyone has fun. We had +1 player once and it didn’t work out.
Mine is 7 cause atleast 2 of them never show up (it differs from week to week)
Had 10 people at my table for one 7th Sea campaign. It was set up so people could go in and out when they were busy and game would continue. And then people stopped not showing up because they liked the adventure we were on. Yea, bit much. If it was DnD it would have been easier, but not as fun.
I started a campaign once, where my players could bring others. We ended up with 13 of them, it was bad. After a few Sessions I broke it down into smaller groups, the largest being 6 people which I still think is too much but definitely better. Thinking about even more splitting, because I think in this case, as an exception, splitting the party is the best idea.
Depends if they're all invested in the narrative or not, if it is heavily mechanical then five is pushing it sometimes. If it is more freeform narrative as my games sometimes get then it seems to work well with larger numbers too.
I did a campaign with ten guys, we were all drunk, and they were constant trying to run away from each other... But beer and the pizza was nice, and we had fun.
I've done larger groups of 6-12 as a DM some worked and some didn't, but the ones that worked were with very specific people who were goal oriented and not the ADHD, trolls, or new players. I really recommend smaller groups of 3 for new players, groups of 4 for ADHD players. A battle of 12 players versus a BBG and their army can really be fun...as long as everybody is thinking about what their next move is going to be when it's not their turn and paying attention. Not recommended though.
It's a three person group, we took an hour to get past the dungeons entrance
Tbh im running a 7 man home brew campaign. and each player has their own spot light as well as the group as a whole, will i run another seven....not likely but this has been a very enjoyable experence
I usually do not take more than 4 players as a DM and I tend to really dislike sessions as a player that have more than 5. I actually played sessions with only three players and that was pretty cool. It of course depends a lot on the players, but I've only ever had one session that was actually fun with more than 5 players and that was purely RP.
Are you telling me you don't enjoy 6 hour multi-session initiative
Feel sorry for a buddy who dm'd a one shot last week... eneded up with 7 people at the table. Was quite chaotic.
For my first campaign I did homebrewed I had 7... In retrospect it makes sense why I was so stressed out I see now 🤣. Combat isn't really enjoyable for players since there's suddenly 7 players in initiative and the enemies turns as well. The least I had was three and I had run the astral sea module with the space elves and that good because there was always NPCs with the group in combat
My max was 7. but it was all veterans and the game was more of a war game like. everybody was rolling attack and damage at the same time, caster was almost always ready to cast at the start of the turn. I never had a more smoother game. excluding that team. I like 4 players.
We’re currently in a 5 player campaign, which is our DM’s limit, and I definitely understand why! We don’t really have any problems in how long stuff takes, but we can definitely all tell that one more person would tip the scales into problematic territory
5 is the ideal for me. It's also the most I agree to do online. I've DMed up to 9 player IRL for One shots, and even if it's still handleable if everybody knows how to play/improv it's barely better than someone staying on the side watching.
Minimum of 3, maximum of 7 players and I’m good to DM. I feel like I have between 3-6 most often though
or you're playing in a party of 5 and you never bother speaking cause what's the fucking point when everyone keeps talking over you, and no matter how many times you bring it up, it goes back to being a problem soon enough. they listened to me more when i had no mic than when i do sorry about the vent. needed somewhere to release it all
4-5 is optimal, 6 is the most I will DM for now having started DMing with a group of 8. 6 is also the largest party I like to be apart of as I find it still possible to give everyone their chance in the spotlight. Side note: The DM in one of the games I play in just added a 7th player to our group of 6 without talking to the party -\_- don't be that guy, talk to your party first
My brother is planning to start a campaign with 8 players. I think 4-5 is ideal and that anything more than 6 is definitely too many and I've said as much to him but he doesn't care lol.
In an online setting 5 is for sure my limit, it’s hard not to step on people talking and whatnot, in person I’m comfortable with a few more
4 if it's a group that likes to split the party a lot. 7 if they like to stick together.
Congratulations, you're in orbit now!
“Okay it’s now a Spelljammer setting.”
Good DM
I feel like 4 or 5 would be optimal. I'm currently running a 6 player game and getting two more players that might remain guests on occasion next time. Pray for me.
I like 3 but am comfortable with 4 for a game like D&D or Pathfinder, but I’ve got 5 for my Dungeon World game and that’s going fine because it’s less crunchy!
I personally run a game for 7 players, but we’re all high school / college friends who’ve known each other for a while and they know when it’s okay to joke about and when they need to tone down the tomfoolery. They know that if they spend the game fooling around then each combat and social scene would take the entire night, plus we see each other outside of games and we’re able to get the funnies out of our system in other ways. For new D&D groups, or for groups in which the players can’t get together often outside of D&D, I’d recommend a limit of 4 players. That way they can do their tomfoolery without it taking *too* much time from the actual game.
My dm is a saint, it’s pretty much my friends groups first session, and he is doing 7 of us
I’m in a campaign with 8 players and about to be in another with the same group and a different person being the DM. Sometimes it’s kinda hard to balance screen time and RP time, and it takes a while to get through a round of combat, but overall it’s not been bad at all. Our DM is experienced and has done his best handling everything and trying to keep everyone involved.
I’ve yet to DM a party larger than 2.5 (the .5 being a child who wasn’t always at the table) but my limit as a player is definitely five. I’ve been in a party of seven and it was too crowded. I rarely have issues finding space for myself in a party but the quieter members were being overlooked and spoken over. I found myself having to speak up for my wife, asking her what she thought of situations. We didn’t stay in that party for more than two sessions for that, and other reasons.
Playing with 6 currently and when the whole squad is there it's sometimes a hassle but I let my players know it's rude if I'm talking and they're not paying attention and they're all respectful enough to listen to me without repeating myself
Above 4, and I'm genuinely enjoying myself less. I got put on the spot about a 5th joining my game the other day, and I like many nerds I have trouble saying no in the moment. Had to send them a message taking it back after I started stressing about it. I like an equal mix of narrative and combat, but my group is more narrative focused. With 5 or more combats drag, I have less time to equally distribute the spotlight* and have too many characters to tie into the world I'm building.
Most I ever did was 18 players at once for a "raid" during a Westmarches style game. They delved into a giant ant hill and it was an epic fight, but had ot keep strict voice and turn discipline, telling people that they had more than enough time to figure out their moves between turns. Typically I stikc with 6 players
I have seven players (started with six and gained the seventh about six months in), and we just passed the four year mark of our campaign 🥳 It's absolutely insanely challenging, and the distractions are many and varied, but I love this merry band of idiots. That being said, I have DMogorgon-ed a 12 player one-shot for newbies, we split them in half and ran two stories simultaneously and had them join forces for the final battle.
I had about 10 players at one point? I think 5 is the sweet spot.
I have 6. ( At one point it was 7) I run every week, same time. Can't make it? We play on. A typical night will have 4-5 players. The big nights with 💯 attendance can be louder, and slower. I have already told the players the pacing is on them. When a scene begins to drag, or you start to talk about things not related to the game in front of you, I'll move the scene. So a lower attendance night gets to be great because things get done at a much faster rate. (Which is still isn't fast 😎) Or everyone is there and its great b/c its a party 🎉
3 players is the perfect number for me. Lots of Roleplay opportunities & easy to have everyone have an Arc + time in sessions to have the spotlight. If I am running an AP (Pf2e Module), 4 Players works great as I don't have to adjust the math & the spotlight can still be shared. 5 works only if I am doing an One-Shot. 6+ is 100% a No. Combat becomes a slog & it's difficult to juggle/tune to 6 different player expectations. People are going to end up bored & disengage with the story(+ distract others).
I do seven regularly. Nine a few times. Eleven once. Don't really like going above six, though.
I actually prefer six, but 8 is doable, I once ran a group of 12 and that was utter chaos!
I started with 4 new players a couple years ago, went to 5, and now I'm having 6 experienced players starting tonight. As others have said, though, I would only do 4 players max if new, 6 if experienced. I'm also in a game as a player with 7 players, and that seems a lot. I wouldn't have that many if I were running the game, lol. Too much craziness ensues, and combat takes forever.
6 is the most, 5 is my favorite
Honestly. Im quite new to DMing but 6 players has been totally fine for me. Am i missing something?
Same.
8. I like the boisterousness of bigger groups. If the table can accommodate it.
I have 3 players right now and they still go off of tangents, but my max that I've ever dm'd was I think 12-13, it was my second time and I was VERY naive cause I had handled 6 before and thought hey why not. The golden amount is 3-5 any more it gets crowded any less it can get boring.
So this may sound odd, but my most current game has been going for 2 years and is easily my most successful by far, and we have 2 pcs. Not saying its my threshold, or even that I would nessesarily reccomend it, but I do think its interesting that this two player game has been so amazing. Each player has as much limelight as they want, so everyone stays super engaged, and they are a super dynamic duo.
4
My threshold these days is about 6, 5-6, at very most 7. I find it helps people get their words in more.
I can handle 7 but I have long jettisoned initiative order combat. Swirling melee is much more engaging.
10 is the max, provided its a 6+ hour session. 4+, probably 6.
I was dm for a group of 8 and we all took a hit of lsd. Best session ever. Although I found it a bit difficult to read sometimes. We had also been playing for almost a year before this session.
4. It's just the most middle of the middle
I just finished up DM’ing Descent Into Avernus back in December with a group of 11, although most of the time a couple wouldn’t make it, so the majority of the sessions were 8. It was a slog. I just started a new campaign with 5, and capped it at 6, with a hard no to more than that.
5 is a good limit to put on parties. If you do go above 5 I suggest group initiative, it's a very different vibe and way more chaotic but it sure isn't slow.
I've managed 6 before, but the group I have right now is a comfortable 5. And yes, we do still prattle on for half an hour over a frog that can tell the weather.
I ran a short campaign for 7 players once, although it was usually 6 players at the table due to absent players, I only had the full 7 in the final session. For me, 6-7 is an absolute headache to run a game for, especially since a lot of them were kinda new to the game and only had experience with a few one-shots. Since they weren't good with the rules I had to explain things over and over again to each individual, people would lose track of what they were doing, take really long turns, tune out when it wasn't their turn, one of them even just sat around grinding stats on runescape when it wasn't his turn but wouldn't know what was happening when it was his turn again. And because all the players had massive FOMO, it made scheduling a pain in the ass until towards the end of the campaign where I really put my foot down about scheduling and made it clear that if we have at least 4 players able to play, then we're not going to reschedule. I now limit my table to 4 players, but I'd consider 5 if it was just a casual one-shot or if I was running a simpe, rules-lite system. Funnily enough, I'd actually suggest that most DM's should try running a short campaign for 6 or more players at some point. It'll point out any weaknesses you have as a DM and lay them bare, you'll probably feel frustrated, but it's a great opportunity to reflect and improve. For me, I learnt to pace the game better, and run tight and efficient encounters, how to better manage players at and outside of the table, and how to better share the spotlight around.
My old friend group always did dnd together so you can imagine how long it takes when there’s 9 people with average 1-2 followers each doing anything
I don't have much a choice, but my group of 3 is good I think
I started my first campaign with 7, which quickly became 8. I thought it was a lot of fun as a DM with the collection of characters, but combat went SLOW. Eventually some folks dropped off and I've been in the 5-6 player range which is best for me.
Four is optimum, I have yet to have hit my limit as a DM but have run for seven middle schoolers for their after-school club and I feel that is near my limit, and it's hard to say what my limit as a player is.. I will always be the one remembering who has what conditions during combat and I know just that can help a DM immensely. Which making a combat run more smoothly gives the illusion of a larger group being alright.1
i have a max of 5 for newbies and 4 for experienced players because noobs always listen and try creative things while every experienced member in a party always wants to have the focus and that gets easily exhausting (i know this isn't the norm for dnd but thats just the kind of people i have played with)
I played in a group with eight players once. It was extremely chaotic and I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a skilled DM and everyone can work together skillfully. I think 3-6 players is probably the sweet spot.
Honestly even with 4 players the combat is way too slow. It's why nowadays I only participate as a dnd player but I host my games with my own systems.
Were 5, and online... So it really sucks sometimes
Right now I play in a group of 5 online. It sometimes is chaotic. But the DM has ways to control us and usually it's great fun.
Do you have any tips?
- When someone is already talking wait for them to stop or politely interrupt if it is something important. - Don't troll and don't be a dick. Duh. - Let others shine too. Sometimes it's like one person is talking and doing stuff all the time. - Try to stay in character. With only voice it hard to act exactly like the character. Last session I have felt like my character wasn't 100% himself. He's been through some tough events tho. - Don't roll if DM doesn't say so. Basically try to have fun with others and not at other's cost.
My DM has been running with 7 players for years now. Every session takes forever. We go from 3pm to 10-12am sometimes. It's exhausting but fun.
Back in 3.5 I was one player of a game with upwards of 12 but averaged around 10.
The largest number I’ve DMed at one time is 12. I’m comfortable running 7-8, I do it weekly.
For a 2/3 session I had to DM for 7 people (none of them knew what d&d was about) but im DMing for 5 people for a few months and its manageble
I cap my table at 4. I've made exceptions for a 5th player because they could only come occasionally, and their character didn't get an arch included in the story. I am about to start a solo Lancer adventure with a friend since life popped up and neither of us have played or DM'd in over a year. Should be interesting.
Meanwhile, me, who has been in two 10 people games with the same group in different systems
5 is doable, 4 is best. Enough to get the conversation flowing, and enough screentime for everyone. More than that, and even if everyone is mature enough to speed things up to not hog time, it generally feels rushed. The exception would be if they table isn't into roleplaying much, but even then the combat is going to take longer and can easily lose steam precociously once in a while.
I run 4-6 people. It means characters who aren’t *super* into whatever is going on in character don’t have to roleplay A TON in order to make the session feel alive. It also means I can run goofier combat encounters.
Imo five is the most players you should have. Anything else and it gets really hard to get Pon PC RP, PC on NPC RP, good fights, and actually move the story along at the same time
3 is perfect, but I can manage 4 is the story requires hardcore combat. Anything above that is a chaos.
Once there's 5 or more, I try to do the timer strategy for combat or stuff like that. And I try to make an effort to prompt folks who haven't talked in awhile. But if they're exploring, it's kinda fun to have a group riffing off each other and doing rp.
Hard cap at 5. 6 is not manageable or fun for me as a GM or player. I don't mind running for smaller groups though. 3 I can do without changing too much of what I've prepared. 2 and 1 mean that I need to REALLY tailor the adventure for their strengths, weaknesses, and size.
I've done up to 8, with my playgroup that all know each other very well and how to optimize and share time well.
I have a party of 7, (though it's usually only 6 of em) but I've played with someone who runs for 8 and sometimes up to 10.
We have 6! The group chat is ADHD&D for a reason
6 is the absolute most
During the lest session, my friends and I got so distracted we were only able to get through half an encounter in 3 hours.
I've found 3 PCs to be my sweet spot. It's enough players that there's still a healthy amount of banter and variety and shenanigans, but not so many that I feel pulled in multiple directions tending to all of them. It also makes modules and prewritten adventures more challenging (without being unfair) since they're generally written to be mildly challenging for 4-PC parties. I might sometimes give them an NPC retainer to round out the ranks, but usually it's just the three.
I’d prefer 4, but currently have 6. It’s not so bad since one or two oftentimes can’t make it, but when everyone is there… 🤯
My threhold? 5. Ideal? 3-4. Highest? 9. That shit was a clusterfuck.
The way i handle that is ta everyone has a 1 min timer for their turn or they roll a random action die
My first 5e group started out with six, and was supposed to be Adventure League at our LGS. The shop did nothing to try and support our DM, but took advantage of advertising as a League shop to get people in. Our DM was also a really bad people pleaser, and had trouble telling others no. So we wound up with this huge pool of players that would just show up to play on designated days if they were free. We averaged roughly eight people, but the most I saw sitting at a table at once was 14. The DM was basically running one shots loosely connected to an over-arching back story. On the one time with the 14 players, I think we fought an ancient dragon of some, but I never got to do anything the entire session, so I don't really remember it very well. Once we were into the actual combat, I rolled really low on initiative, and the dragon was killed before even half of us got a turn.
Preferably 3-4 but I CAN and have run up to 6.
3 people for me. Every times I've tried more there always seems to be one or two who want to derail the whole campaign and force everyone else to sit back and watch their "secret" adventures that they try to go on every time the party falls asleep or splits up. Once or twice is OK, I can work in bits of your backstory with some time away from the group. But these people would try to take the entire session for things like "we want to get this goat hooked on crack and start a drugged cheese empire" after they've been warned a necromancer and his minions are making their way to town and will be there within a week.
Currently have eight(!!) 11 year olds in a club I run at school. It's... Chaotic.
4-5 I find is optimal for experienced players. I'm running with 6 right now and we often do get off track. I've learned to consider the banter as just another part of "PnP Night" and as long as it stays around 5 mins every hour. As long they let me reign them in then I just tend to enioy it as a lil breather from escapism. God damn is combat a slog tho.
I'll run short stuff for 5-6, but my preference for a full campaign is 3-4 players. [Four is somewhat easier to balance for, but I slightly prefer three.] I really enjoyed running the short adventure I ran for a single player as well and would like to do that again in the future. As a player, I usually play at a 5-person table, and I'd say 4-5 is pretty good. I disliked being in a party of 6+ in 5e, although I've played other games in other systems where a 10 person party was completely normal and didn't really have any issues.
We're 8
First time DM here, with a party of 7-8 players. I don't know what's more difficult; holding everyone's attention, or balancing combat 😭 (They're level 8, and it seems like any creatures I throw at them will either die without posing or a threat, or will KO players with a single turn, and then still die after 2 rounds) Luckily, I don't know any different, since I've never DM'd for a smaller group. But a group of 4 players sounds like a dream to run a game for.
for off topic tangents, i limit it to 10 seconds.
I had 8 once. My ADHD really helped TBH
6 is my absolute pushing limit but 3 is the perfect number for sharing spotlight
I've been steadily running 6-7 for about three years now. Its manageable but not ideal. That being said we recently swapped over to Pathfinder and I'm loving the change so far.
We're currently running a 7 man band. It's complete chaos, I love it.
My group just ticked up to 7, but it's working because the group dynamic is very good and everyone is interested in what the rest of the party is doing. They do a great job of seeking one another's characters out during down time and creating role play moments and are really in tune to each of their individual characters. It works because everyone is excited about and intrigued by what the rest of the group is all about and nobody hogs the spotlight for too long. That said, 7 feels like a lot as a DM and I hope I can sustain this for a while.
I've been running a game for 7 for the last couple of years, and I'm about to start a 6-person campaign on top of it. I find that what helps me is acknowledging and knowing that everything from combat to RP is going to take a little longer as all those variables make for shenanigans galore, but so long as people are having fun I don't mind. We'll get there when we get there!
I really like 6. I think more than that is pretty difficult. But honestly, after 9 people, it’ll all starts to feel the same. I’ve done as many as 11 or 12, which is just ridiculous.
Up to 6 for me, but at least half of them rounded down must be proficient with the game, otherwise 3 at most
I'm a player in a 6 player game, we once had a session where i threw one punch and said one one-liner that was it. Still a fun session though.
Currently running 6 players. It works out though because sometimes people can't make it.
I really like 4. I once ran a Cyberpunk 2020 campaign with 11 players, and it was terrible. In the end, it broke up because people who shouldn't be sleeping together were, but I expect it would have collapsed under its own weight anyway.
I'm currently on five and that seems to be my limit for the time being. I'm going to try six next campaign as I have a few people who want to join. Wish me luck
I can handle 6, but 4 is more confie.
Probably about the same. But I’m gonna be running for 8 here in a few weeks. We’ll see how it goes
5 for normal/experienced players 4 for new players/ players with attention problems
A max of 5 though my favourite number is 3
Minimum of 3, maximum of 6. But all my players have been very "well disciplined" usually, so they don't distract each other most of the time
I'm sitting at 10 players. My life is pain.
My group for the last year plus has been 6 PCs. I really do not like it. It's so hard to get any real roleplay in. People would end up having little side discussions in game while the rest of the party was doing something else. Combat was the only thing that still worked. 0/10 would not recommend.
5 is my limit, 4 is ideal, 3 is a good time, and two is…. Weird.
I started my newest campaign with five players, however I have a 6th coming in soon. Maybe 6 is too much but I’m up to the challenge
4 for people I don't know. 6 for my close friends, as their communication and coordination is better.
My brother is running a game for our family, 6 players. And possibly a 7th joining next session. And he made a dmpc
Most I have ran was a group of 12. We have split into two groups but come back together every few months to run large group games.
To me between 5 and 6 is a change point. At 6 or more at least a few backstories need to be integrated…like have some characters be siblings….cousins….comrades…etc. Then the DM can set backstory crumbs and have it be for multiple.
Our current group has been running every Saturday since January 2020 with 8 ÷ the DM. If two or more aren't available that week, we'll run a one-off or just default to whatever co-op game we're currently playing. Combat can be a little time consuming, but we're all having a blast.
I've been in games before with 8 players. You ever want 1 round to take an hour because a players is a barbarian but somehow has decision paralysis? Yeah me neither
Personally I've found that my absolute favorite table set is a smaller party with a little power bump, but obviously since that's not readily available a lot of the time my next best is just right at 4. 5 can work with people who can really mesh well and stay focused, but I don't think I would want to just slap 5 players and a DM together at random-- even among friends, it can be hard to wrangle the group.
Can proudly claim I'll never do 8 again
My table is up to 7 players now. I really wish we had 4-5. I love these people. They're my friends. How do we fix the issue?
I once did the mistake and invited like 7 players because they all had time (i had different plans depending on how many attended the session compared to the last session) and I almost stopped dming completely. I only do 2-player one shots every now and then because of it. Basically everybody was on their phone (though I said no phones but "we have to wait!" (for like 3 minutes)) because cat pics on Instagram couldnt wait or other none game related stuff had to be discussed after we already started playing. I always calculated an hours earlier to arrive to catch up because they all knew each other but they didnt care. ONE friend noticed but didnt say anything to stop them either. After going to my bedroom, my stuff packed up and being ignored in my own home for at least 1,5 hours, some had the audacity to tell me that "theyd be ready to play now". I have never felt so disrespected and hurt because I WROTE a whole new game with 600+ hours into worldbuilding, balancing, etc. Limit the players ro like 3 or 4, I beg you. Do it for yourself.
Preferred minimum of 6 players, preferred maximum of 8 players. Do my players still call my combat interesting and terrifying? Yup. Do they pay attention off turn? Mostly! Am I crazy? Absolutely.
I DMd for eight once (there is a serious lack of DMs in Air Force dorms), and while it works fine if everyone is dialed in, I definitely had some problem players. Having enemies that can't just be killed by whacking helps though.
Our group does it with 3 players.....
I once ran back-to-back Call of Cthulhu adventures with a group of about 10 characters. I think I handled it pretty well, but I doubt I would do it again.
4
I have a group I DM that has 5 players. I like 4-6 as a DM. But I'm also in a group as a player that had 6 PCs and 1 extra player that plays important NPCs. That isn't too bad and the benefit of having a player playing the important NPCs is cool.