D&D General Player Numbers - The Sweet Spot?

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on the players, system, and type of game you want to run. I've run AD&D and BECMI games both solo and in pairs without any difficulty whatsoever, but also run a table with almost a dozen players. IIRC 3E and 4E were specifically designed around 4 players, so that would be the sweet spot for the system. 5E seems to work best with 4-5, with 5 being my preference.

If you're wanting to run an RP heavy game, the few the players the better. I ran a game with 3 players that was excellent, but the moment a 4th player was added, one of the original 3 was pushed out of the limelight unless I went out of my way to pull her in. A more combat intensive campaign works better with a larger group, since the combat will be much less swingy, as bad rolls are overall countered by good rolls of other.

 

[DammitVictor]

My sweet spot is six players; six players is perfect. Five is better than seven, but paradoxically, eight is better than four. More than eight, or fewer than four... just aren't worth running.

I don't "handle" more players better than other DMs do. I need more players than other DMs do for my DMing style work properly.

 

[DemoMonkey]

In the Long Ago I tried running the original Dragonlance Modules with all 7 PCs and the two "Good" NPCs all played by players at the table.

9 players.

I still wake up screaming about it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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

That is an important issue and one that cuts both ways. If it is a "we don't play unless everyone can make it that day" group full of people with busy adult lives then I never want more than 5 and might prefer 4 because otherwise half the sessions will probably end up cancelled. If it is a "whoever shows up that week plays" group then I probably need at least 5 people (nominally) participating to insure that I can at least get a couple people every time.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I like 3 or 4 players. Less players makes scheduling a game easier.

 

[Dausuul]

That is an important issue and one that cuts both ways. If it is a "we don't play unless everyone can make it that day" group full of people with busy adult lives then I never want more than 5 and might prefer 4 because otherwise half the sessions will probably end up cancelled. If it is a "whoever shows up that week plays" group then I probably need at least 5 people (nominally) participating to insure that I can at least get a couple people every time.

My group's policy is, if one person can't make it, game on. If two or more (or the DM) can't make it, we reschedule. It works pretty well.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Dausuul, that is our policy too. It works suspiciously well.

 

[Asisreo]

I prefer 4 or 5 personally as they're easier to balance.

...but I recently somehow got up to 8 players joining my most recent game. And all but 2 are complete newbies...Somebody...help! (I'm joking about the call for help, I think I've gained enough DM experience to handle it...)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

5. After that. 3.
Avoid all even numbers. Why? In my experience, it encourages splitting the party. "Ok, we could go left or right...how about three of us go left, and three of us go right?". The human brain is apt to want to "divide things equally" (we like symmetry), and as a group oriented game, RPG's encourage fairness...and nothing is more fair that 50/50. So if one side goes left and two of them die... that's ok because the side that didn't suffer losses can argue it could have just as easily been them. It also removes the feeling of responsibility as they can point to the even split as "it could have gone either way". Also, there are no "ties" for decisions (do we go to Town A, or press on an extra day to Town B?)

But...have a group of 5...well, NOW it's not even. Two guys one one way, three go the other. No matter WHAT side suffers losses, the argument/feeling will be either: (A) "Well what did you expect!?! There were only TWO of us!"... or... (B) "We might have been ok if you two didn't go the other way!". (meaning the players are FAR less likely to split the party because of this).

So...yeah. Avoid even number players. Personally I like 3 or 5. The only games where I don't mind even numbers are Call of Cthulhu (because, lets face it, when the poop hit's the spinning blades, it's every man/woman for themselves! ...or any Super-Hero game (because they all work together as a team 9/10 times, and the time they don't it's because one PC is a 'lone wolf' type or 'stealth oriented', and everyone buys into that as the Players choice.

D&D though? I'll take 3 or 5 please, not 4.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[THEMNGMNT]

In the three campaigns I've run in the last few years, I had:

5 players
3 players
5 players that became 3 players

Socially, I like having 5 players at my table. I like them as people. They're fun.

Mechanically, I really enjoy how the game plays with 3 players. It's fast. It's dangerous. It's unpredictable.

So I voted for 3, even though I think anywhere from 3 to 5 players is fine.