D&D 5E (2014) Maximum Manageable Number of Players

[iserith]

I set hard limits to players at the table. For D&D 4e, that's five players, two alternates. For D&D 5e, it's four players, two alternates. By "alternates," I mean players who are willing to be on standby to take the place of regular players who can't make the session.

 

[MechaPilot]

I voted 5.

The largest number of players that I've ever DM'd for before is four. I felt like I could have accommodated another one without making the individual spotlight time too sparse, but I don't think I could have gone farther than five players. Also, I'm rather shy. So, having a large group of people pay attention to me (even if they're a group of friends) is quite uncomfortable.

 

[neobolts]

I voted for 5.

"Manageable" may not be the right word. I could operate a game with 6+ players. "Quality" might be a better word. As in, "What is the maximum number of players before the quality of the individual experience starts to be affected?"

I've played in groups with as few as 3 players, and as many as 12 players, with the typical range being 4-6 players. The games with 10+ were truly unmanageable.

Above 5, I feel you start making trade-offs in terms of being engaged between turns, time in the spotlight, etc. The quality decline would vary greatly based on the playstyle, but I think 5 is a solid number for the majority of groups.

 

[Sunseeker]

I voted 8, I felt that when I had 8 it was basically straining my limits to wrangle them all to pay attention and I had to implement additional steps in order to do so, the steps worked, but it was much more work for me. That aside, I think the game starts to break down after 6, there's simply too much that can be done by players against the enemies on their turns. But as for players it just really, REALLY depends on the players more than anything. I will take a large party of well-behaved players over a small party of disruptive ones.

 

[Mavkatzer]

As a DM, running 5E:
4 is ideal
5 is fine
6 is managable
7 is difficult
8 is beyond my ability

I don't get to be a PC much, but I'd estimate the numbers would be the same for me.

 

[Mavkatzer]

As of 46 votes the results have a strange bell-curve. 5 and 6 have a high percent, as does 8. But 7 represents a strange lull in perceived maximum. Is the thought here "well, if I'm going above 6 I may as well jump all the way to 8" ?

 

[TarionzCousin]

In my experience, up to 8 with pathfinder or 3e, up to 10 with AD&D, no more than 7 for 4e.

If you had asked "preferred"? No more than 5, for ANY RPG.

I voted 8, I felt that when I had 8 it was basically straining my limits to wrangle them all to pay attention and I had to implement additional steps in order to do so, the steps worked, but it was much more work for me.

I have "managed" fifteen players several times, but it was too much work.

Anything over 7 is more than I want these days. Yes, i voted "7." I prefer five players.

 

[Reynard]

As of 46 votes the results have a strange bell-curve. 5 and 6 have a high percent, as does 8. But 7 represents a strange lull in perceived maximum. Is the thought here "well, if I'm going above 6 I may as well jump all the way to 8" ?

People just like even numbers?

 

[Mercurius]

I voted 6. Above that and things get unwieldy fast. 5 is the sweetspot.

 

[Leatherhead]

As of 46 votes the results have a strange bell-curve. 5 and 6 have a high percent, as does 8. But 7 represents a strange lull in perceived maximum. Is the thought here "well, if I'm going above 6 I may as well jump all the way to 8" ?

I believe that is due to 6 people being a "large group" but 7 or 8 people count as "two groups." Either you can handle two groups, or you cant.

I am assuming the question is asking about the number of simultaneous players, so 6 for me before the game drifts away from "good". If I can break them into different nights, I can handle more.