I'm running two groups. Both have 5 players. What I like about that size is that most of the time we only have 3 or 4 players present, but it's very rare that we need to cancel due to having too few players available. In other words, my preferred group size is 3 or 4 players, and the best way to get that is actually by having a group of 5.
D&D 5E How Big Do You Like To Party?
atanakar
Hero
Number of characters is usually 1 per player. If they are low in numbers I will often give them a NPC to run. Currently I have a 4 player group but one player has a cleric and also runs the Wizard NPC. I never run NPCs myself.
In the past I did a two player d20 Modern+Future game. Both had two equally important characters. It worked rather well.
In the past I did a two player d20 Modern+Future game. Both had two equally important characters. It worked rather well.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Thanks everyone so far for voting and your replies! 
I think the baseline 4-5 PCs is probably close to the norm, but a lot of groups do have "extras" in the way of companions, hirelings, etc. For the most part, I would usually equate a number of these to add +1 members (or more) to the effective number of PCs in the party.
Since it seems to me from the evidence I've seen online and IRL discussions, most tables use feats, and roughly half or so use MCing to some degree or another.
With those things in mind, I am not surprised to see several DMs complain about how easy a solo BBEG is defeated if you use the default guidelines in 5E. Experienced DM will adjust accordingly, but novice DMs will be surprised at how easily the party dealt with "Monster X".
In our CoS game, the DM is novice and has only played for a bit less than a year. He runs the game well and we all have fun, but he is surprised how easily we defeat foes that he feared would be too much for us. This is due largely to the fact that myself and our normal DM are gamers-of-ol' and know how to min/max and exploit synergies--even without intending to do so sometimes (what can I say, it has become subconscious in some ways because in AD&D you more had to in order to survive--not so much in 5E normally).
While I understand WotC's desire to make the base game easy to play, and a lot of variant rules are offered, I wonder sometimes if they should design more for the middle (some feat use, some MC, some synergies, etc.) instead of the low-end or the high-end.
I think other than in some cases, it is part of the reason why the game loses some appeal after 10th level or so, maybe a bit higher. A while ago I worked on an L10 variant, but I am convinced now L12 is really the sweet spot for the end game. I'll be working on tweaking the classes, etc. but keeping them somewhat towards a lower-end of power, so that when feats and other features are used, the balance of power between party and encounters is more even.
Anyway, please keep voting if you haven't already, and thanks for your input!
I think the baseline 4-5 PCs is probably close to the norm, but a lot of groups do have "extras" in the way of companions, hirelings, etc. For the most part, I would usually equate a number of these to add +1 members (or more) to the effective number of PCs in the party.
Since it seems to me from the evidence I've seen online and IRL discussions, most tables use feats, and roughly half or so use MCing to some degree or another.
With those things in mind, I am not surprised to see several DMs complain about how easy a solo BBEG is defeated if you use the default guidelines in 5E. Experienced DM will adjust accordingly, but novice DMs will be surprised at how easily the party dealt with "Monster X".
In our CoS game, the DM is novice and has only played for a bit less than a year. He runs the game well and we all have fun, but he is surprised how easily we defeat foes that he feared would be too much for us. This is due largely to the fact that myself and our normal DM are gamers-of-ol' and know how to min/max and exploit synergies--even without intending to do so sometimes (what can I say, it has become subconscious in some ways because in AD&D you more had to in order to survive--not so much in 5E normally).
While I understand WotC's desire to make the base game easy to play, and a lot of variant rules are offered, I wonder sometimes if they should design more for the middle (some feat use, some MC, some synergies, etc.) instead of the low-end or the high-end.
I think other than in some cases, it is part of the reason why the game loses some appeal after 10th level or so, maybe a bit higher. A while ago I worked on an L10 variant, but I am convinced now L12 is really the sweet spot for the end game. I'll be working on tweaking the classes, etc. but keeping them somewhat towards a lower-end of power, so that when feats and other features are used, the balance of power between party and encounters is more even.
Anyway, please keep voting if you haven't already, and thanks for your input!
Zio_the_dark
The dark one :)
I've put 4-5-6 but almost always 4 to 5 in my games. I would probably go to 6 only with well known friends.
GlassJaw
Hero
Our main campaign is a party of 4 but we had a side game with 3. We will sometimes play our main campaign if someone can't make it.
In my old age, I really don't like groups bigger than 4 anymore, and honestly, I think my favorite group size is 3 + DM. It's so much more intimate and everyone gets a lot of "screen" time. You can really tailor the campaign to the characters. Combat does need to be tweaked a bit for balance but it also runs so much faster.
I don't think I would run or play in a group of more than 5 anymore. Last couple of campaigns I played or DMed for felt like such a grind. We would have entire sessions without getting through a single combat.
I really want to run a duo campaign, a la Fafhrd and Grey Mouse or Han and Chewie.
In my old age
, I really don't like groups bigger than 4 anymore, and honestly, I think my favorite group size is 3 + DM. It's so much more intimate and everyone gets a lot of "screen" time. You can really tailor the campaign to the characters. Combat does need to be tweaked a bit for balance but it also runs so much faster.I don't think I would run or play in a group of more than 5 anymore. Last couple of campaigns I played or DMed for felt like such a grind. We would have entire sessions without getting through a single combat.
I really want to run a duo campaign, a la Fafhrd and Grey Mouse or Han and Chewie.
Last edited:
GlassJaw
Hero
3 player party is good for anything. I'll run a game for 3 halfling barbarians. Small parties are great for really specific campaign themes.
My friends and I are really into beer and we've talked about running a game where everyone plays a dwarf and they own a brewery together!
R_J_K75
Legend
3-5 is what I chose. As DM I wont run a game for anything under 3 players. I only let a player run 1 PC, don't add NPCs to the party and find animal companions/familiars to be more trouble than they are worth. Obviously there are exceptions from time to time, but this is what a typical party in my game looks like.
pogre
Legend
In my main campaign I have 10 players with usually 6 showing up for a session. Many of the players live two to three hours away, and I do not expect them to make it every week. Although surprisingly, one of my players who lives two-and-a-half hours away is one of my most consistent players. It's worked really well. I run a high-action and high combat campaign so 6+ players is not a problem.
So recently, we have gone over to zoom video conferencing in our sessions. We have a couple of phones focused on the terrain and miniatures. It has worked pretty well. The problem is everyone can make it to the game now. We frequently have eight or nine at a session. It has definitely slowed the game down a bit. No one is complaining though.
The bonus to moving to Zoom is we have started another game we play every night for 90 minutes to two hours. We played 6 times this week!
So recently, we have gone over to zoom video conferencing in our sessions. We have a couple of phones focused on the terrain and miniatures. It has worked pretty well. The problem is everyone can make it to the game now. We frequently have eight or nine at a session. It has definitely slowed the game down a bit. No one is complaining though.
The bonus to moving to Zoom is we have started another game we play every night for 90 minutes to two hours. We played 6 times this week!
Similar Threads
- Poll
