Your fave party size as dm/player?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey everyone!

I was just curious as to how everyone feels about party sizes.

It's easier to do larger parties in person, I understand, but in general I ask this.

What is your favorite party size to dm and or be a player in?


I look forward to your answers and reasoning!

-Dove

[Myzz]

Hey everyone!

I was just curious as to how everyone feels about party sizes.

It's easier to do larger parties in person, I understand, but in general I ask this.

What is your favorite party size to dm and or be a player in?


I look forward to your answers and reasoning!

-Dove

It's probably a left over from playinig Whitewolf games but, I prefer a 5 person party as both DM and Player. And to use 4e terms:

1 Pure Tank
2 Partial Tank
3 Pure Striker
4 Pure Healer
5 Controller

If 2 is partial tank / partial Healer then 4 can be another partial healer / partial whatever...

[DireSickFish]

I prefer a 3-5 person party. I like a more intimate roleplay heavy game, and it is far easier to stay on task with this many players. We used to try to get "at least 4" back int he day but routenly ended up with 3. The 3 man party actually turned out very well.

As a DM I can craft stories for each individual. They are easier to keep together and have a reason to stay together than a big party that fractures. Combat encounters are a lot easier to scale and run as I have less abilities to keep track of in my head. Combat runs -faster- with less players.

As a player I don't feel like I'm being a spotlight hog if there are not very many of us. With a huge party players get shuffled to the side and I feel like I need to step back to give them any chance at all. Smaller parties also tend to be proactive as you don't have as many players who are uninterested to go along with your ideas.

So I guess my answer is a party size of 3. Parties of 4 and 5 are reasonable and fun and I shoot for those numbers so if one person can't make it we can still run, but some of my best games have been at 3.

[Myzz]

It's probably a left over from playinig Whitewolf games but, I prefer a 5 person party as both DM and Player. And to use 4e terms:

1 Pure Tank
2 Partial Tank
3 Pure Striker
4 Pure Healer
5 Controller

If 2 is partial tank / partial Healer then 4 can be another partial healer / partial whatever...

Ohh... What I have found is that 1 of these is typically an NPC, since most of my groups have been 5 man groups, with 1 of us DM'ing

Alternatively the class break up could be
A. Muscle
B. Face
C. Healer
D. Skill Expert 1
E. Skill Expert 2

where D and E are different skill sets (non Fantasy setting those are most likely Thief and Driver. Where Thief might be hacker)

[jaydubs]

As a player, it really depends on who I'm playing with. For active players, 3 of us will do. If the rest of the player are quietish, 5 is better.

As a DM, I like smallish groups as well. 4 players or less. If it gets higher than that, I always worry about not giving players enough time and attention. Heck, even with a 4 player group, I'm still running mini solo sessions outside the normal game time. And to be honest, I kind of like those too. So, 4 or less, down to 1 without issue.

[Freelance GM]

Hey everyone!

I was just curious as to how everyone feels about party sizes.

It's easier to do larger parties in person, I understand, but in general I ask this.

What is your favorite party size to dm and or be a player in?


I look forward to your answers and reasoning!

-Dove

Playing or DM'ing, I prefer a 5-man band, especially if the characters are different enough to mimic the roles presented by the actual trope.

However, I regularly find myself DM'ing for groups with more than 8 players, and it's gotten to the point where anything less feels incomplete.

[kaoskonfety]

Well...
My preferences/ general feel where things land:
3-4 - tight role-play oriented game - I like this size the most
5-6 - dungeon crawl, tactics, maps and combat roles styled game
7+ - Either adversarial game (Player Characters are the heads of nations or similar big bads and much of the game happens without direct DM adjudication, closer to LARP) OR have a co-DM help manage party splits and other multi scene situations.

Most of the games I run hover in the 4-5 player range, I aim for 3 but have trouble keeping it there.

[mephnick]

Most of my games run 4-6, but as a DM I've enjoyed the games with 3 players the most. I feel like I can craft the adventure to better suit those characters.

The funny thing is, as a player I prefer 4 or 5 players, because I don't want to make the decisions. Which is dumb because as a DM I have no problem making spur of the moment rulings that affect the entire world. I think even when I'm playing I'd rather see what the players are going to do, and forget that I'm also a player.

[Feldarove]

I think 4-5 is what I like as a player and DM. Most ideal is 4, but it requires an ideal party make-up. Maybe its just my groups, but the more over 4 players we go, the more little sects/cliques start to form and the game takes a funny direction.

As a player I can be spacey, so I like to keep the numbers low so I am always involved, otherwise I just end up reading the spells section while I wait for my turn and miss the action.

[Myzz]

As a player I can be spacey, so I like to keep the numbers low so I am always involved, otherwise I just end up reading the spells section while I wait for my turn and miss the action.

To combat this, I usually take notes as a player... AND I'm terrible with names, so helps to combat that.

[This be Richard]

As a player, I prefer a party of 3-4. More than that and I feel like at least one person is going to end up getting less attention than they should. Either there will be players who only matter when their turn comes up or the lack of focus will get divided over the whole party and nobody gets quite the experience they'd like.

As a DM, I've actually developed a fondness for very small, intimate parties: two or three party members, possibly with a major NPC thrown in to balance the party and help cultivate emotional investment. Having so few players gives me the room I need to make things a lot more personal for all of the PCs involved.

I've also got to say, there's a lot to be said for a well-managed duet. With the right DM, the right player, and a lot of trust, one-on-one roleplaying allows for some amazing opportunities.

[Aolbain]

Four. Still playable if one misses a session and not to crowded if someone wants to join.

[mr_odd]

5. 4 main roles to play with a fifth man doing whatever he wants.

[Heartspan]

I PREFER four man parties with a Healer, Tank, Dps and support. Right now, i'm playing in a party with a druid, a warlock, a wizard/rogue multiclass, and i'm a sorcerer~

[Argo]

Three is the magic number.

I'm currently playing in a 6-man group, and the most effective we've ever been is when we split in half..

[Knaight]

I favor 3 players plus a DM. I've found that it tends to work pretty well, has enough people that someone is always moving things along, has enough main characters to maintain several interesting dynamics, and isn't so large that focus gets scattered too widely. That said, anywhere from 2-5 players plus a DM is pretty much fine, and while 6 players plus a DM is a bit too wide of a focus scattering for my taste, it works decently. Past that I've found thigns get unmanageable.

[Yorrin]

I also favor 3 man parties as a DM, though I've done as high as 8 and still felt that it was under control. More than that and the group needs to split. More than 4-5 and you're risking that some players will feel like outcasts within the party, which is never good.

[The Shadowdove]

I feel the points most of you are making very strongly.

As the one who made the thread, I'd say I did so to see if I was on the same page as the rest of the d&d community. Being a player primary who dms mostly because no one else wants to anymore... I was having problems figuring out where the sweet spot is.


I'd have to say that my opinion so far is that...

3 players and a dm is good if you've active players who participate and actually play from their characters perspective. This being because having two people constantly drag around a player who mumbles their one sentence responses, and is only there to roll dice can be very dull at times.

4 players and a dm is to allow more of that. It's preferrable to have a full party of active players who stay true to their characters persona and backstory. However, if one or two aren't that strong in that area, it gives the numbers to make that manageable.

5 is similar to 4. Except I tend to have more combat in these size parties, as role play can be drawn out or lose track depending on the players.. And there's normally 2 or 3 who are anxious to kill something by the time an hour has gone by.

6 is as high as I like to go.. But I'm no super dm and have a hard time with even 5 sometimes.

I imagine more experienced or crafty dms can do more efficiently.

I could probably struggle through as high as an 8 man if we are all in person and organized.. And if I plan well ahead of time.

Organizing encounters and enough of their background into the events/role play becomes tough. At that point I normally hope that half of them are content with getting drunk in the tavern while the rest pick up the main conversation with my npcs.

Keep at it though.

I'm actually gathering a lot of useful information from your posts!

[AmbientRaven]

5-6 is my favourite as it allows for more fun encounters

[pwykersotz]

As a DM? 3-4 is the sweet spot, and I lean toward three. It's much easier to run, and I feel like I'm never ignoring anyone. At the same time, the players have a chance to rest and not need to take the spotlight all the time.

As a Player? 3-5. I can be a pretty passive player, because I can appreciate the story as a whole and the work the GM put into it. Because of this, slightly larger groups don't bother me much. But once you get to 6, I notice rabbit trails start increasing, people break off and have sidebars and cause distractions. I've played in groups ranging from 2-9 and too many people definitely lowers the quality of game in my mind. Not that it can't still be amazing, of course.

[Grayson01]

5 (+/- 1) any more and it gets to crowded and time consuming during combat.

party Mix
1 skill monky/trap finder
2 front liners
1 arcanist
1 ?????

[Maxilian]

Well i have only played with 2, 3, 4 or 7 people and i prefer 4 people, when there are too many people is harder to have everyone participate in RP and combats are way too long (but sometimes because of that, they are aslo way more epic)

[Kaeso]

I think 3 or 4 people is ideal. It's large enough to make a decently balanced party without the need for a DMPC and it makes for a fun group experience in general.

Then again, solo campaigns also have their charm. It's one-on-one, so the only PC has a lot more liberty to do what he wants to do without holding back the rest of the party.

[asorel]

I've always preferred a 6-player party. You get a bit more diversity than you would in a standard 4-person party, and the party's increased Too Big To Fail status means that poor rolls or party balance are more likely to be absorbed by the law of averages. More than 6 can lead to long combats without practice or familiarity with the character, and makes it more likely for voices to be drowned out. That being said, if your group has synergy, and a DM who is willing to handle a party of that size, large parties can be quite fun to play.

[RedMage125]

It's probably a left over from playinig Whitewolf games but, I prefer a 5 person party as both DM and Player. And to use 4e terms:

1 Pure Tank
2 Partial Tank
3 Pure Striker
4 Pure Healer
5 Controller

If 2 is partial tank / partial Healer then 4 can be another partial healer / partial whatever...

I also prefer 5.

My lineup (using 4e terms) is:
Defender
Ranged Striker
Melee Striker
Leader
Controller

Now, that said, I also prefer:
1 melee type who can "soak" attacks
1 Arcanist
1 character capable of healing (even if it's using wands)
1 "skill monkey" (in 3.5 that would need to be someone with the Trapfinding ability)

Now those 4 can sometimes be mixed and matched with other roles. I've been in a party in 3.5e where the Artificer was both "healer" and trapfinder, groups where the Rogue had an AC high enough that she could "tank" by drawing attacks and having them miss her, and so on.

[Knaight]

I think 3 or 4 people is ideal. It's large enough to make a decently balanced party without the need for a DMPC and it makes for a fun group experience in general.

Then again, solo campaigns also have their charm. It's one-on-one, so the only PC has a lot more liberty to do what he wants to do without holding back the rest of the party.

Between the two has one very fun niche - partners. You could take 5e and go for a full on fantasy pastiche of the buddy cop genre, and it's completely hilarious.

[Chaosvii7]

4 people, no more than 6 or 7.

[Rallicus]

This may sound bizarre, but one player and one DM. I feel the best cooperative storytelling can be done in this manner, and while it isn't ideal for a combat-centric game like DND, narrative wise it just works best.

All the stories I remember and keep with me involved one player and one DM. From back in my 2e days as a child, the story of the Drow brothers (DM and me) escaping to the surface and slaughtering a village of elves before doing a butch cassidy style final stand, to more recent one on ones with my current players. They're the stories that will stay with me.

[Mrmox42]

5 players it is for me.

If one guy can't show up, we still got a game.

I started playing in 1980, and all we had was the red starter set, so the party of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard (with an adittional extra) still somewhat affects my view of the perfect party. :smallcool:

[ScrivenerofDoom]

2 x players
4 x PCs
-----------
This has been the perfect size for me as a DM (I don't play) for almost the entire 34+ years I have been DMing. You still get the interplay between the players/characters but you don't have scheduling problems which is otherwise a scourge of adult life.

I'm more than happy to DM with more - six is probably my limit - but I find two players is simply just right.