The only real limitations are space and whether everyone can hear and follow along. Eight players is what I'd consider a general maximum. Most groups will have a small table, maybe with some chairs or couches nearby in the room.
D&D 5E Maximum Manageable Number of Players
I think five is the perfect amount both as a player and a DM. We run heavy role playing games and with more than five it can be hard to keep everyone engaged and give everyone face time with the DM.
I am running 5E with seven players and it takes a lot more work for me as the DM. I also noticed it can be harder to keep people on task because of joking and off game table talk.
I am running 5E with seven players and it takes a lot more work for me as the DM. I also noticed it can be harder to keep people on task because of joking and off game table talk.
This is an interesting thing a couple folks have mentioned: people that prefer a more "roleplaying intensive" game seem to also be preferring smaller groups. Is this a character development issue, a spotlight time issue, an immersion and versimilitude issue? What is the key component of "roleplaying intensive" than demands a smaller number of players?
This is an interesting question. In my experience playing in games with big groups the DM has a hard time dealing with people doing role playing tings like say the cleric going to talk to his order or the rogue going to talk to the thieves guild if everyone has things they want to do then the game bogs down for the players not involved this gets magnified the more players you have. Some DMs can pull it off with split scenes you know going ok hold here and moving to another player and keep going until it is handled but I have sat at the table for several hours doing nothing when a DM can't handle this.
Also most of us like to have plot hooks dealing with our characters and back story weaved into the game that gets harder the more players you have. Like I said I have seven and I can see that I am going to have an issue with it already. I have two who worked their background so they are half brothers and even worked their classes to work together.
I have also noticed the bigger the party the more the quieter players get shouted down or just pushed aside by the more aggressive players especially when it comes to role playing with NPCs in combat you ave initiative to make sure everyone gets a chance to play.
Another issue is that more players bogs down decision making everybody has an opinion and it can drag on and on.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
While I think everyone enjoyed our 6 PC LMoP campaign that ended last night, and it should be counted as a "good game" by that standard, I feel that it taught me that 6 PCs is just too much for me in 5e. You have to add too many opponents to keep fights at the level of challenge that I want them to be at for the level of the party, and that many critters in a battle just makes combat way slower than I'd like.
That is sad for me because my old-school sensitivities prefer a party of 6 characters with all 4 traditional D&D roles (tank, holy healer, rogue, arcanist) covered, plus room for other characters. I don't always do it that way--I also enjoy theme games where the party is all of similar classes, might have as few as 3 PCs, and in no way is a balanced party, but in a traditional campaign I highly encourage covering all your bases because it allows the group to experience and participate in more of the potential campaign content.
4 PCs is too few to feel like that traditional D&D party to me, which leaves me with 5 as the only number to work with, although I haven't entirely given up on making 6 work the way I'd like.
I do have problems with some of my players taking a more casual gaming approach than I like, and the necessity of running games online adds to that--so I'm taking further steps in the near future to try to get things moving. But in all 3 of the stand-alone adventures I plan to run in the near future, I'm limiting the party to a maximum of 5.
I'm hoping that once I've better mentally calibrated the challenge level of 5e and increased the speed of play I'll be able to up that to 6 (or even 7) characters, but that remains to be discovered.
That is sad for me because my old-school sensitivities prefer a party of 6 characters with all 4 traditional D&D roles (tank, holy healer, rogue, arcanist) covered, plus room for other characters. I don't always do it that way--I also enjoy theme games where the party is all of similar classes, might have as few as 3 PCs, and in no way is a balanced party, but in a traditional campaign I highly encourage covering all your bases because it allows the group to experience and participate in more of the potential campaign content.
4 PCs is too few to feel like that traditional D&D party to me, which leaves me with 5 as the only number to work with, although I haven't entirely given up on making 6 work the way I'd like.
I do have problems with some of my players taking a more casual gaming approach than I like, and the necessity of running games online adds to that--so I'm taking further steps in the near future to try to get things moving. But in all 3 of the stand-alone adventures I plan to run in the near future, I'm limiting the party to a maximum of 5.
I'm hoping that once I've better mentally calibrated the challenge level of 5e and increased the speed of play I'll be able to up that to 6 (or even 7) characters, but that remains to be discovered.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Same reason that TV shows are harder to follow when it has a regular cast of 8 or 10 people, versus a TV show with a refular cast of 4 or 5 people. Notice even that most TV shows with large ensemble casts will often focus on only a subset of characters each week, rather than have arcs for each and every character each week. In a roleplaying game, it's often perceived that the DM doesnt have that luxury, and feels as if he or she must give each player "their 15 minutes" of proverbial fame each session. You can do that with 4 people at table a lot easier than 8. Notice the operative phrase in many of these posts has been "give everyone equal time" or "give proper attention". I prefer no more than 5 per session for this same reason.
Iosue
Legend
I voted 10 or more, but this is highly context dependent.
If your game is more along the lines of character-driven high fantasy (or similar genre), then the number probably tops out at 6, maybe even 5, and even then the smaller the better.
If, however, your game is exploration focused, then 10+ players are easily accommodated. With that many people, there's less need for the party to become a Final Fantasy train; the group can split into sub-groups of 3-5 players. The depth of character engagement is quite low, and generally player initiated: e.g., "Gnolls killed my family, so when I see gnolls, I go berserk." However, player engagement can remain quite high, because since the game is about exploration, it rewards interacting with the game world (rather than just with NPCs). Callers, of course, can help run the game smoothly.
Just as an example, here's a clip of Frank Mentzer running an OD&D exploration game with at least 10 players, probably more.
[video=youtube;APPxO-SJVK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPxO-SJVK8[/video]
It's followed by two longer clips that show the party splitting up into smaller parties, doing different things. This is OD&D, of course, but I don't see any reason why it can't be the same in 5e.
In between those extremes, you have something like the Geek and Sundry Critical Role livegames. 7 to 8 players, kind of a hybrid between a strong character-focus and a strong exploration-focus.
If your game is more along the lines of character-driven high fantasy (or similar genre), then the number probably tops out at 6, maybe even 5, and even then the smaller the better.
If, however, your game is exploration focused, then 10+ players are easily accommodated. With that many people, there's less need for the party to become a Final Fantasy train; the group can split into sub-groups of 3-5 players. The depth of character engagement is quite low, and generally player initiated: e.g., "Gnolls killed my family, so when I see gnolls, I go berserk." However, player engagement can remain quite high, because since the game is about exploration, it rewards interacting with the game world (rather than just with NPCs). Callers, of course, can help run the game smoothly.
Just as an example, here's a clip of Frank Mentzer running an OD&D exploration game with at least 10 players, probably more.
[video=youtube;APPxO-SJVK8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPxO-SJVK8[/video]
It's followed by two longer clips that show the party splitting up into smaller parties, doing different things. This is OD&D, of course, but I don't see any reason why it can't be the same in 5e.
In between those extremes, you have something like the Geek and Sundry Critical Role livegames. 7 to 8 players, kind of a hybrid between a strong character-focus and a strong exploration-focus.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I consider the optimal number of players per session is 3, but because people miss sessions, the optimal number for a campaign is 5. The maximum I'm comfortable with is about 7. But within any given adventure, I can only give quality focus to a few.
I do prefer roleplay heavy games, which is why 3 is the optimal number. Somehow, the social dynamics of any group changes when it goes from 3 to 4 that causes someone to always be less involved. At 3, the players engage with NPCs more deeply, stay in character more, and have more party conversations with fewer jokes made to get attention.
I do prefer roleplay heavy games, which is why 3 is the optimal number. Somehow, the social dynamics of any group changes when it goes from 3 to 4 that causes someone to always be less involved. At 3, the players engage with NPCs more deeply, stay in character more, and have more party conversations with fewer jokes made to get attention.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
In my longest running group, I usually had about 6 players, but on occasion it went as high as 10. From the DMs seat, it still looked like everyone was having fun and engaged.
I don't think you can get anything like a universal answer. It will depend strongly on the game you're playing, DM, players, preferred style, and so on.
Keeping players engaged is of course the key challenge. When things are active, I think the most important thing for a DM to do keep players engaged is to come back to each player as frequently as possible. This means everyone has to take their turn quickly and the DM often has to force the pace to make this happen. No dithering allowed. Another relevant point is how much planning the players do in-game. Planning engages everyone. My players seemed to use about 30% of their time to plan and talk through the approach to difficult tasks.
I don't think you can get anything like a universal answer. It will depend strongly on the game you're playing, DM, players, preferred style, and so on.
Keeping players engaged is of course the key challenge. When things are active, I think the most important thing for a DM to do keep players engaged is to come back to each player as frequently as possible. This means everyone has to take their turn quickly and the DM often has to force the pace to make this happen. No dithering allowed. Another relevant point is how much planning the players do in-game. Planning engages everyone. My players seemed to use about 30% of their time to plan and talk through the approach to difficult tasks.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
