Through my experience with playing D&D I've found that I don't really think having just 4 players makes the game as enjoyable as I think it can be. Now don't get me wrong, this entire article is completely opinion based but I want each of you to pause and think about it yourself. From your experience how many players do YOU think make up a perfect campaign. Exclude worrying about the mix of classes and race (assume those are perfect as well). We all well understand right now that a solo campaign would be VERY difficult, let alone a two-person campaign. With three you may be fine, but you're really lacking more class utility. Having four is very nice, a small party, but one strong enough to balance and support each other well. Having five or six is very nice, you have the solid structure of a four person party with an extra one or two people to secure the rest of the foundation. Seven or more is definitely pushing it, at this point battles are going to be rediculous and role playing + other stuff is going to take a rediculously long time (it may be the same way for a six person party as well).
What are your thoughts? Do you agree, disagree? Make sure to answer the poll so we can all see what the popular vote on this subject is!
Four is a nice number for small scope adventures. I like five to six for longer adventures that will reach to higher levels. Any more than that and things really start to bog down in the minutia of people figuring out what is going on or turns taking forever or combat getting really swingy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I prefer 4 or 5 PC's plus the DM. When there are 5 PC's things start dragging and when there are 6 or more PC's things start to really drag. With 4 PC's everyone get's to have plenty of time to play.
Big parties are great when you're all together. It gives people time to RP as characters, and visit as friends. Everyone has plenty of time to prep actions and think about what they want their character to do. They can also look up rules for their character in preparation for their turn and everyone isn't waiting in one person.
I prefer 3 to 5, but 6 is too much. I do not think that 3 is too little, or that you can't get the most out of the game with 4 people. In fact, I personally find that, at 5 people, we start running into overlap, which causes friction in play. Very few enjoy feeling redundant
I prefer 4 or 5. I have DM up to 7. I noticed that the closer you get to 7, the more likely payers are going to start to loose focus. I should note that at this size, these are AL games.
I prefer 3-6, especially 4-5, but I've run several 1-PC games (one of which is still going), I'm running an 8-PC game, and I once played in a 13-PC game.
1-PC games are fine, if a bit tricky. Anything over 6 PCs I wouldn't want to have to run live, but PbP is fine until you get to double digits. If you have 10 or more PCs, for the gods' sakes, split the party and (if live) find a second DM!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I voted for 7+, but that's not really my truest answer - it's just the best way to hint at my thoughts from the options available.
How many players I think is perfect is however many can show up pretty regularly and are interested in the campaign/game at hand - if it's something most of my group don't enjoy, then just the 2 or 3 that do enjoy it is perfect. And if it's something the whole group gets a kick out of, let's fill up the table with players - heck, let's clear off the other table (yes, I've got two tables in the same room... one's for gaming, and the other is for everything else, and there's nothing else but shelves in the room) and fill it with players too.
15 players is awesome, in my opinion - so long as they are all actually interested in what's going on (I've done 15 players that were all trying to get different game-play experiences... not good at all, and is why I don't run games in game stores anymore).
I prefer 3 to 5, but 6 is too much. I do not think that 3 is too little, or that you can't get the most out of the game with 4 people. In fact, I personally find that, at 5 people, we start running into overlap, which causes friction in play. Very few enjoy feeling redundant
The issue I have with 3 player parties is that unless someone has Healing Word or some other method of bonus action healing, 1 person hitting 0 HP turns a challenging encounter into a deadly one. You've already lost 1/3 of the party's actions, and now a second person is probably going to have to disengage (lose another action) or take an opportunity attack (gives the enemy a free hit) to run over to your friend and use cure wounds, Lay on Hands, administer a goodberry or potion of healing, or stabilize them. And there's still a chance the same person will get KO'd again before getting a turn if you're fighting multiple enemies.
4 characters can cover all the major archetypes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) and aren't affected as drastically by the loss or 1 character or by the specific classes chosen.
I agree that 6 usually slows down the game. 7 is right out for me, unless everyone's experienced and follows strict time limits on their turns.
I feel like 5 players (not counting the DM -- DM would make 6 total) is the sweet spot. More than that (even just 6 players, 7 total with the DM) is almost always going to risk someone not making it, in my experience, from all ages as young as 7th grade to post-college.
Less than 5 starts making it hard to have enough coverage of roles in the party. It can be done with 3 or 4, but 5 makes it a little easier.
That said, I have 4 players right now in my group, and only 3 usually make it because one is having family issues, and it is working fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Warning: Opinion only. No facts presented or implied. I'm going by what I watch versus what I play.
5 consistent player characters are the ones I watch most. 4-6 is the limit for me.
1-3 player characters tends to leave holes in the party and not enough moving parts to keep things unpredictable. 7+ has too many moving parts and nobody gets any chance at the spotlight for even a moment and the disagreements never find resolution.
I prefer 5 over 4 or 6 because there's a deciding voice if the party is split on deciding a course of action that won't result in a split party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I like 4 players in a party. They have enough fire power to get them into/out of places and they still get time for their Character to interact with the world. It also help for stuff like stealth and social encounters where if a player messes up the party fails.
5 is good for the tiebreaker but I find that I can’t keep up with the players interacting with the world
6 and above be prepared to role play with the party a lot
3 is a good number too but the PCs can become bored when I am working with one of them
I have never done a game with 2 or 1 player but for me the point of dnd is to hangout with your friends so I don’t like doing it with 1 or 2
Personally, 4 is not enough. 5 to 6 is good, but 7 is where it starts to slow down. In part because there are so many players, but more so because when you have that many actions it makes effective CR extremely difficult to figure out. The DM starts having to include basically a horde of meatshields for the party to casually obliterate in order to keep the valuable targets alive long enough to do anything. And even then, a competent ranged damage dealer, whether it's a mage or an archer, can usually be protected from the horde while laying waste to it or the valuable targets.
Dunno why 5-6 is lumped together in the poll. 5 is ideal for me. 6 starts to bog down a round, requires a little more effort to involve everyone. Four can be good too, especially if the players want to drive the story or chew the scenery. My answer would've been 4-5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone!
Through my experience with playing D&D I've found that I don't really think having just 4 players makes the game as enjoyable as I think it can be. Now don't get me wrong, this entire article is completely opinion based but I want each of you to pause and think about it yourself. From your experience how many players do YOU think make up a perfect campaign. Exclude worrying about the mix of classes and race (assume those are perfect as well). We all well understand right now that a solo campaign would be VERY difficult, let alone a two-person campaign. With three you may be fine, but you're really lacking more class utility. Having four is very nice, a small party, but one strong enough to balance and support each other well. Having five or six is very nice, you have the solid structure of a four person party with an extra one or two people to secure the rest of the foundation. Seven or more is definitely pushing it, at this point battles are going to be rediculous and role playing + other stuff is going to take a rediculously long time (it may be the same way for a six person party as well).
What are your thoughts? Do you agree, disagree? Make sure to answer the poll so we can all see what the popular vote on this subject is!
Until next time,
Tyrannosary
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI generally prefer 5 or 6 players in a group for tabletop.
Any more than that I find tends to mean it can take too long between people "getting a go" whether in social interaction or fights.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Four is a nice number for small scope adventures. I like five to six for longer adventures that will reach to higher levels. Any more than that and things really start to bog down in the minutia of people figuring out what is going on or turns taking forever or combat getting really swingy.
I prefer 4 or 5 PC's plus the DM. When there are 5 PC's things start dragging and when there are 6 or more PC's things start to really drag. With 4 PC's everyone get's to have plenty of time to play.
Professional computer geek
Big parties are great when you're all together. It gives people time to RP as characters, and visit as friends. Everyone has plenty of time to prep actions and think about what they want their character to do. They can also look up rules for their character in preparation for their turn and everyone isn't waiting in one person.
But that's just me...a filthy casual.
I prefer 3 to 5, but 6 is too much. I do not think that 3 is too little, or that you can't get the most out of the game with 4 people. In fact, I personally find that, at 5 people, we start running into overlap, which causes friction in play. Very few enjoy feeling redundant
I prefer 4 or 5. I have DM up to 7. I noticed that the closer you get to 7, the more likely payers are going to start to loose focus. I should note that at this size, these are AL games.
I prefer 3-6, especially 4-5, but I've run several 1-PC games (one of which is still going), I'm running an 8-PC game, and I once played in a 13-PC game.
1-PC games are fine, if a bit tricky. Anything over 6 PCs I wouldn't want to have to run live, but PbP is fine until you get to double digits. If you have 10 or more PCs, for the gods' sakes, split the party and (if live) find a second DM!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I voted for 7+, but that's not really my truest answer - it's just the best way to hint at my thoughts from the options available.
How many players I think is perfect is however many can show up pretty regularly and are interested in the campaign/game at hand - if it's something most of my group don't enjoy, then just the 2 or 3 that do enjoy it is perfect. And if it's something the whole group gets a kick out of, let's fill up the table with players - heck, let's clear off the other table (yes, I've got two tables in the same room... one's for gaming, and the other is for everything else, and there's nothing else but shelves in the room) and fill it with players too.
15 players is awesome, in my opinion - so long as they are all actually interested in what's going on (I've done 15 players that were all trying to get different game-play experiences... not good at all, and is why I don't run games in game stores anymore).
Sorry delete
Prefer DMing large party’s. I like playing Rogues and Rangers
6 is perfect, if you are the perfect DM.
3-5, Though I'd consider a 2 player one if they get along really well, but I'd never go above 5 for a proper campaign.
I feel like 5 players (not counting the DM -- DM would make 6 total) is the sweet spot. More than that (even just 6 players, 7 total with the DM) is almost always going to risk someone not making it, in my experience, from all ages as young as 7th grade to post-college.
Less than 5 starts making it hard to have enough coverage of roles in the party. It can be done with 3 or 4, but 5 makes it a little easier.
That said, I have 4 players right now in my group, and only 3 usually make it because one is having family issues, and it is working fine.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Warning: Opinion only. No facts presented or implied. I'm going by what I watch versus what I play.
5 consistent player characters are the ones I watch most. 4-6 is the limit for me.
1-3 player characters tends to leave holes in the party and not enough moving parts to keep things unpredictable. 7+ has too many moving parts and nobody gets any chance at the spotlight for even a moment and the disagreements never find resolution.
I prefer 5 over 4 or 6 because there's a deciding voice if the party is split on deciding a course of action that won't result in a split party.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I like 4 players in a party. They have enough fire power to get them into/out of places and they still get time for their Character to interact with the world. It also help for stuff like stealth and social encounters where if a player messes up the party fails.
5 is good for the tiebreaker but I find that I can’t keep up with the players interacting with the world
6 and above be prepared to role play with the party a lot
3 is a good number too but the PCs can become bored when I am working with one of them
I have never done a game with 2 or 1 player but for me the point of dnd is to hangout with your friends so I don’t like doing it with 1 or 2
Mostly nocturnal
help build a world here
Less than 13.
12 is my limit.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Like most, I feel 4/5 is perfect. 3 is fine if your players know what they are doing and are prepared to diversify.
Personally, 4 is not enough. 5 to 6 is good, but 7 is where it starts to slow down. In part because there are so many players, but more so because when you have that many actions it makes effective CR extremely difficult to figure out. The DM starts having to include basically a horde of meatshields for the party to casually obliterate in order to keep the valuable targets alive long enough to do anything. And even then, a competent ranged damage dealer, whether it's a mage or an archer, can usually be protected from the horde while laying waste to it or the valuable targets.
Dunno why 5-6 is lumped together in the poll. 5 is ideal for me. 6 starts to bog down a round, requires a little more effort to involve everyone. Four can be good too, especially if the players want to drive the story or chew the scenery. My answer would've been 4-5.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.