D&D General Player Numbers - The Sweet Spot?

[Grendel_Khan]

Remote vs. in-person play is an important factor, I think. In my experience remote-GMing anything with five players is rough, and even four can be chaotic, whereas three is the proverbial sweet spot (for me, at least).

 

[Mannahnin]

3rd edition or later: DM & 4-5 players. Possibly as few as 3 if you run a really plot-heavy game with tons of character stuff. 4 is usually the most time-efficient for combat and spotlight-sharing, but with 5 you have a "spare" player, which means better role coverage and you can still easily play a session if someone has to miss it. That's a pretty nice support for campaign consistency and longevity.

TSR-era: 3-4 if you run really plot-heavy, 6-8 if you run mostly classic dungeon crawl and wilderness style adventures. If you have fewer, hirelings can help make up the shortfall.

 

[Zaukrie]

4 or 5 for me. More than that and the action economy is even worse than the rules assume......plus, IMO, players get bored more often while they wait for their turn and it is harder and harder to spread the spotlight....frankly, I think 4 is best, but 5 is close. I'd rather have less than 4 than more than 5 for sure....

 

[Dausuul]

I thought it was 5 that was right out?

Once the number four, being the perfect number of the players, be reached, lobbest thou falling rocks at thy party, who, being powergamers in My sight, shall snuff it.

 

[Charlaquin]

For me personally, 4 is ideal because it fits the mathematical assumptions of 5e most easily, and it’s enough players to have a diverse group, but not too many to effectively share spotlight time between. 3 or 5 are acceptable, requiring only minimal tweaking from that 4-player baseline. 6 is the maximum number I’m willing to run a game for, and it’s a challenge, but it’s doable. 2 is likewise a challenge, but I’d be willing to run a short game for 2 players.

1 player is a special exception. I actually really like one-on-one play, and would rather run for 1 player than for 2 or 3. I think it actually ties with 4 for me, as the “sweet spot” (or rather, only spot) for a very different, but very enjoyable, mode of play.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

4 or 5 (not including DM). Which is better depends on the group. Of course depends on the group is always the correct answer at the end of the day, but for most groups it will be 4 or 5.

 

[Professor Murder]

To show up? 4-5 To have in a group? 6. Gamers are flakes.

 

[Thunder Brother]

3-5. The Lower end if online, higher if in-person. The ideal for me remains 4. I've ran a very fun one-shot with just 2 players though, super smooth session to run.

I've read of parties of 8 or 9 players, which sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.

 

[payn]

My sweet spot for D&D is 5 players and 1 GM. Too many players is hard in both combat and character development. Though, with 5 players you usually get by with one cancel for life reasons and still be able play.

 

[Minigiant]

4 players at a session for a general game.
5 players for a heavily themed game.

3 players if you have NPC sidekicks, companions, cohorts, mercenaries, and other hanger-ons.