Size of character parties

[Voadam]

One group I run is 4, one group I run is 5. Six has been about the most for a regular game I ran.

 

[Arnwyn]

In the two 3e groups that I currently attend, the parties number four and five characters, respectively. I don't know if this is a function of the personal tastes of the two DMs involved, or if there is a trend in adventure design under the current rules to have a smaller party (the DM of the 4-character party said it makes designing adventures easier; he cited that CRs are based on 4-character groups).

Your DM is correct. And it is also true that 3e adventure design is for parties of 4 characters.

With that said, our group consists of 5 characters, which is just right for us (and, since my players suck (), that extra character is needed to give them a fighting chance).

 

[Qualidar]

Out of my D&D groups, one has rotating GMs, with parties made up of:

6 PCs, 1 Cohort, and an Animal Companion (1 Familiar, 1 Partridge/Pear Tree)
6 PCs (1-2 Familiars)
6 PCs alone

The other group I DM for has a couple of different campaigns with:
4PCs, 1 Animal Companion
4PCs, 1 NPC
4 PCs, 2 NPCs (1 Familiar)

~Qualidar~

 

[Henrix]

I've found that as a GM I prefer 4-5. With six players I feel I can't give them each the attention they deserve.

But it's also a balance regarding how often at least one is away, and so on. So five or six players in the campaign suits me fine.

 

[Nyeshet]

I find it interesting that although the game is made and balanced for use with a party with four characters, the majority by far seems to play it with 5-6 characters.

 

[Laman Stahros]

In 1e, my group was 12 players strong with 16 characters between them.

In 2e, my groups averaged between 6 - 8 players each playing one character (no more multiple characters per player for my games ).

In 3e, my groups average 4-8.

I feel that 4 characters is too small, on average, forcing players to play characters that they don't want just so that the minimum abilities are covered. So, my sweet spot group size would be 5-7. Not an option, so I voted 5-6.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

For me as a GM, the ideal is exactly 3 players whom I grant the leadershp feat as a bonus. Actual party size can vary depending on the number of cohorts, followers, carts, livestock, et cetera.

The reason I find 3 players ideal is that it allows for a more intimate game. No player is out of the limelight for very long.

 

[Gold Roger]

The ruleset defenitely assumes the basic 4 (1 fighter, 1 rogue, 1 wizard, 1 cleric) as default.

I've played with between 3 and 7 players in 3.X.

My personal preference is on small groups- 3 or 4 are best, 2 or 5 are ok as well.

I wouldn't mind 1 on 1 gaming either, but then I'd hopefully have another regular game going.

6 or more get's hard to manage imho, suffering from distraction, limited spotlight, scheduling problems and inconsistency.

 

[Glyfair]

I have 4-5, but I can't vote for that option

Same here. 4-5 is pretty standard.

 

[Nail]

Like many here, I've gamed since forever ago. I've found the best party number is about 5 players. A few more than that and the game grinds to a near halt, fewer than that and deaths become more common.