4E - How Many Players at the Table (DM + ?)?

[MerricB]

I've run groups of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 with the 4e system, although we used an NPC to round out the numbers in the group of 2. (Splug!)

I am astonished at how well the game worked with each number. We've had different combinations, and it's certain that you rather want a defender and/or a leader in a group to progress for several encounters in a row, but I'm very impressed with how well it works.

Cheers!

 

[Ander00]

Damn, I should have read the entire post - I only picked an answer for the current actual fact - we usually have 3 players plus a DM. We would prefer 4-6 players.

Oh yeah,... this.


cheers

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Depends. For fantasy games, I'm a long time advocate of five player groups. Four players is the minimum number of players I'm comfortable with, so five players mean we can play even if one can't make it.

One of my groups is running with six players, which results in more work for me, especially in order to keep thing fluid and avoiding down times for the players.

For horror games, three players is the absolute maximum. Why should those guys find comfort in each other's company?

 

[SableWyvern]

My current game consists of the following:

Human Wizard
Human TWF Ranger
Human Sword + Board Fighter
Half Elf Infernal Warlock
Dwarf Paladin
Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord
Dragonborn Greatweapon Fighter (multiclass Warlord)
Elf Laser Cleric
Elf Brutal Rogue
Elf Archery Ranger

We typically have 6-9 PCs present at a session, which is the range I voted. We have yet to have the entire group gathered at one sitting.

 

[CrimsonHawk]

My current campaign has a DM and six players. As we play it over RPTools' MapTool, we get quite a bit done. We manage to get through three encounters a night as opposed to the maybe one encounter we'd get in our current 3E game where we all meet at the table (though that's more of a mechanic of our goofing around as opposed to any mechanic of the games themselves). We have a healthy mix of concepts, though I wish we had at least one controller (though the dragonborn and genasi racial abilities help cover for that). We'll be getting a seventh player once he has all of his affairs in order and I don't foresee any difference in how quickly we get through encounters.

 

[Wombat]

My current group has 3 players; I am waiting for a fourth.

I usually run with 3-5 players.

 

[justanobody]

I said 3~5.

Anything less than 3 players will never feel like D&D.

6 players may work nicely but will be pushing the combat and working the DM to extremes with designing things for the right size in the event of a lesser number of solo critters.

Even thought 4th offers some quicker resolution of turns having more players really still means more time between turns for combat activity.

Outside of combat you still may be able to include a few more, but they will be there for combat which may cause the problems. Also outside of combat you tend to have quicker things that can be done during roleplaying or skill challenges.

I would actually be curious for someone to take this poll and measure out the area of combat based on different sized parties. I know what the books suggest for having combat, but how much area does each creature require in a combat situation to know what size of map you would need for 9 players and all the DM throws against them.

Also prime numbers of players is better to prevent stalemates in decision making amongst players.

At most I would only have 6, but depending on the speed of the players might allow a 7th if it was quick enough to not bog down play with excessive status effects to delay combat rounds, but tend to feel 6 should be the max as that is where the breaking point seems to be when advancing to larger numbers of powers that create status effects for both sides of a combat situation and would undercut that one to the 5 max I voted to help curtail such extra accounting time during combat.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Any more than 6 players has gotten too hectic for me. I've DMed with 10 players before, but it was just a hastle. No one would quiet down while I was trying to explain situations, everyone tried to say what they did at the same time, even when I tried "You, what are YOU doing?" (pointing at players one by one).
I guess my initial failing is that I did this group 8 years ago, we were all younger and less mature. Since then though, I've kept my groups to about 7-8 or less. Its easier to manage this way.
My currant Saturday group is 6 players and myself.

 

[satin]

I tried 8+ players once, it nearly drove me crazy trying to manage it all...

 

[El Mahdi]

The last group I was in had DM+6, which was bordering on too many. However, when we originally started it was 5, but we lost a married couple, and then 3 of our group got married, adding 3 new spouses.

My current group is DM+2, but both players run two characters (they initially started with one each, but I gave them both an extra character). There just isn't enough strength to the group without running extra characters. It really limits the options I have as DM, as to what encounters I can run the group through, if they don't have the extra characters. My wife and I just recently moved to our current location and are still dealing with a few things that limits our available game time. These should be resolved within the next 2 or 3 months and hope to add 2 or 3 people.

Perfect number for me is 4-5, with 3 being the minimum and 6 being the max (although I do enjoy the occasional 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 game, just not as the norm).