D&D 5E 3 PC parties -- too small? Just right?

[pukunui]

I'm running Lost Mine of Phandelver for my wife and two of our friends. They each picked one of the pregen PCs, and then I made the dwarf cleric an NPC ally who helps them out with healing and such.

Being an introvert, I prefer smaller social groups myself, so three or four players is ideal. I'm mostly OK with five - my Scourge of the Sword Coast group has five players. Anything more than that is a bit too much for me, though.

 

[S'mon]

I've been running with mostly 2-3 players so far, seems to work great. My current campaign the top dungeon level is survivable by 2-3 1st level PCs, with a bit of luck & good tactics.

Smaller group gives plenty of spotlight time and has the right feel for my swords & sorcery campaign.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We played for two years with three players and how we handled it was to share the running of the missing PC between the other two players. The DM gave the player full XP because the character was active and taking risks.

The other side of "active and taking risks" is that there is a very real chance that the PC might die while the player is absent. With a group of 4-5, you can always have one character stay back and play it safe; with 3 characters, not so much.

 

[Elf Witch]

The other side of "active and taking risks" is that there is a very real chance that the PC might die while the player is absent. With a group of 4-5, you can always have one character stay back and play it safe; with 3 characters, not so much.

Death is always part of the game but in two years no one died when someone was absent. Maybe it is different how we play but in any group no matter the size if you miss a session and there is no way to put your character some place safe then they take the risks. None of us like the whole just ignore the character.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe 3 is the minimum for any RPG to be fun, excluding the DM. Usually the maximum I allow is 5. Anything more and it is very hard to maintain the interest of everyone at the table without someone getting distracted.

 

[S'mon]

I believe 3 is the minimum for any RPG to be fun, excluding the DM. Usually the maximum I allow is 5. Anything more and it is very hard to maintain the interest of everyone at the table without someone getting distracted.

2 players + GM is great, some of my best games have been like that. I used to gm single player games but not any more, it can feel too 'Fear of Girls'.

 

[SoulsFury]

Playing table top, three pcs worked fine. The party makeup was a rogue, a wizard and a fighter. It was a fun game. Didn't last long due to the other couple involved getting a transfer to Iowa, but worked great in play while it lasted.

Most of my play lately has been PBP, and I've found three to cause the game to stagnate. Four seems to be the sweet spot.

 

[Fralex]

2 players + GM is great, some of my best games have been like that. I used to gm single player games but not any more, it can feel too 'Fear of Girls'.

Fear of Girls? What's that mean?

Three players seems to work just fine. Which is lucky, because the longest game I've managed to organize has just been me, my brother, and my cousin. We have to take turns being the DM.

 

[S'mon]

Fear of Girls? What's that mean?

See: https://youtu.be/Yb-sCNfE0bM

 

[aramis erak]

I enjoy the 3 pc party. During the playtest I even thought that 3 was the magic number. But honestly, 5e seems to play well with 3, 4, 5 and 6 if the players mesh well.

It is so much easier to run a stealth or intrigue campaign with smaller parties. It's really hard for 5 or 6 adventurers to sneak around.

Having run with 2 and 7 players... it still works quite well in the entire 2-7 player space. With 2, I didn't even need to account for anything missing except magical healing, and that was rendered moot because 1 was a druid.

Due to the combination of bounded accuracy, the very broad (and overlapping) skills and the strongly attribute driven play, any non-magical moderate challenges can be potentially overcome by any character (albeit not always easily).