D&D 5E What's the largest number of PCs you've had in a session?

[Benjamin Olson]

I was a player in a game store drop in group where we started getting 10-12 people showing up for sessions. I had to just make it an attribute of my character that he didn't really pay terribly close attention because I often had trouble hearing what was going on. Also anyone having more than 90 seconds of character time for anything was pretty rare. So I would say that having the "together" sessions cover pretty simple ground is probably best. Fights were fun with a large group. Puzzles were just a nightmare.

I have DMed for Summercamp sessions with 7 or more little kids, but the only lesson I learned there was that it's easier to just go down the initiative count each round and ask "does anyone have a 17? No... any 16s?" and such than it is to try to actually find out everyone's initiative and make a neat and tidy list.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think I've ever DMed more than 6 players at a time. I've been a player in a group of probably 8 or so, but that was a very long time ago playing BECMI.

I see that most DMs have an issue with large groups because a round of combat takes forever, and each player has to wait too long between turns. Why don't you just run the adventures with less combat encounters, or simpler fights where there isn't too much to think about?

Personally, I would be more concerned about the fact that a large group carries the risk of duplicate roles, causing some characters to completely outshine others. The iconic example is having 2 rogues, one of which is simply better at searching traps / picking locks / stealth, and ends up doing all the job.

Puzzles were just a nightmare.

That's odd. I love using puzzles now and then, but I put them mostly out-of-session, because I want the puzzles to be challenging, without blocking the game. I would expect that having more players increases the group's chances at solving the puzzles.

 

[R_J_K75]

Early 2000s 3E I ran a game for about 12 players. It was just too many people. Side conversations took over, the game just grinded to a halt and we ended up weeding out a few folks and then reconvened with a smaller group. I think I tried merging 2 separate groups/campaigns and it didn't work.

 

[Sadras]

Similar to what others have said
4 is ideal,
5 I can handle,
6 I prefer not to.

When I was younger we may have had a session with 7 but these days I stop at 5. Do not think I'm the right the DM for more.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I would expect that having more players increases the group's chances at solving the puzzles.

If it is a try and try again until you get it right type puzzle, then sure, 12 heads might be better than 3. But if there is any sort of consequence (or believed to be any sort of consequence) to getting it wrong then more people probably just increases paralysis. Also the larger the group the more likely some people are to feel uncomfortable asking for clarifications or sharing an idea they are uncertain of. Obviously mileage will vary tremendously based on a particular group's dynamics.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I have two groups right now. One had 19 players (13-14 per session is typical). The other has 5 players, who are all have excellent attendance.

As you can see, I have no problem with big groups. I think they're a blast, but do require some management skills.

 

[toucanbuzz]

10 (in high school).

I'd never do it again.

No one could enjoy being "in the spotlight" with their character. Either they're having to push others out of the way during role-play times, or they're having to wait 10+ minutes to say anything. In the interim, you're talking about anything but the game. My magic # is minimum 3, maximum 5. At one time I did 6, but it ran into the same problems as 10+.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Back in college, we had a long-running, multi-year 2e campaign that, due to the nature of the plot, optimally needed at least one player of each alignment. Granted, the three slots for evil characters tended to get rotated through quickly as they either ended up dying (through their own evil incompetence or through the rest of the group just purposely abandoning them), although by the end we had a long-term LE character that did well with the rest of the group, and a CE character who was so hammily over-the-top in his cartoonish villainy (and the almost inevitable embarrassing comeuppances that resulted) that he was too fun not to keep around.

So, while we usually had around 7 or so players to cover various alignments, we also usually had 3 - 5 other players along for the ride as well. Our DM got very good at herding cats and keeping the initiative count moving. And so many epic and crazy things were happening during combat that everyone was invested in what was going on, so there was little tendency to get bored between your turns. And, outside of combat, we had some of the most fun role-playing I've ever been a part of. It was, despite the massive size of the group, actually hugely fun to play.

 

[Eltab]

One time only (Spring Break session) I had 12 players at one table. My group was mixed high-schoolers and parents; that one week a bunch of college-age family came along for the game.

What I learned: If the group is attacking down a narrow space - like a hallway or bridge - start initiative with the guys in front and work to the back. Otherwise, nobody can move.

 

[cbwjm]

Current group is five, the one before that I had six. I think in the past I've had up to seven but I think the sweet spot for number of players is 4-6.