What is the ideal group size for D&D?

Modern d&d is made for a party of at least 4.

>DM has happily invited up to E I G H T people to our game.
>4-5 are regulars.
>Very much a drop-in drop-out kinda deal.
So far, the highest we've gone in one sitting is 5. I do dread the day everyone turns up at once.

In my experience, two players works best, because the party dynamic is an "us against the world" type of thing that really cultivates camaraderie. Even with NPCs as their allies, they still end up with putting all their faith in each other, and that kind of Fafhrd/Gray Mouser friendship is what I love to bring out in the groups I DM for.

Party roles have never been an issue for me (because there's really no strict demand for all the roles and I encourage my players to build versatile characters when playing in small groups, and a magic item is usually all that's necessary to smooth over any obvious gap that presents itself during play), and while three players is also nice, I always feel like it's a little more shallow than with just two players.

The more people in your group, the less deeply you can dive into any character, or really any story. It becomes more and more Beer-and-Pretzels with each additional person, and while that's great and fun, it's not my personal ideal.

0

3-4 players. Most games I've run had 5-7 players, which caused things to move too slowly, players to get too distracted (and thus distracting other players), and made it harder for me to focus on each player to make sure they were all involved. Absences also fucked with the group since my dumbass tried making every character integral to the situation.

Fewer people means absences count more, sure, but it addresses the other issues I've experienced with larger groups. The game becomes more involved and focused with fewer people, so it is less prone to being bogged down.

1 GM, 2-6 players.
The days of groups the size of 8-15 are long past.

2-6 GM's, 1 player is way better composition.

It comes down to the system and the adventure. Systems with a rigid class structure like D&D often suffer with less than four players and approach unplayable with less than three because the classes are designed to fill a niche. Less players, less niches filled. The adventure also factors into it because GMs certainly can tailor adventures for groups missing a niche, but many "traditional" adventures (and nearly all published ones) assume all the necessary niches are filled.

I've run a two-person game in GURPS and it went fairly well because the system allowed jack-of-all-trades-style characters due to it being classless point-buy, and I knew ahead of time what kind of characters the two would bring to the table, so I could write up an adventure that only called for things the two PCs could actually accomplish.

1 can be good. It's extremely focused, but you need to tailor things a lot to that player. Consider letting the player pick up NPC minions/allies, being stronger than normal, and having more leeway if he misses something important.
2 is very fast, fun, and focused. You're basically playing a buddy cop movie. Obviously you need to consider a greatly reduced party toolkit in your GMing.
3 is is also fast, but has a little more variety.
4 is the standard. Average speed, easier to get together, you don't need to adjust fight difficulty as much.
5 is a little big. It's slower. Doable if everyone knows the rules and pays attention, but that's hardly a guarantee.
6 is too big. Your game is slowing to a crawl and people are getting bored. Consider reducing your group size.
7+ is "what are you doing" tier. Players barely have time to act in character before the session's up. Don't do 7+ players.

I personally don't like revolving-door player groups (i.e. 6 players but only 3 show up any given session). It means that the group's collective memory is fragmented and you'll constantly need to write people in and out of the story. Strive for a small group of rock-solid players who can meet on a regular basis.

5
1 tank
1 dps
1 support tank, light dps
1 support dps, light healer
1 healer

Three if all three players are really on-point. Characters need to get creative to cover the bases. Each player gets a lot of screen time.

Four is a nice safe default. Can make for more complicated tactics and more specialized characters than three. A character or two can sit back and relax in scenes that don't involve them without hurting anything.

Five if you have that slacker who doesn't do much but likes to hang out and hops into fights. Also one of the better group sizes for 'support' characters to act with.

Six needs a group that interacts with one another as much as the GM or things get spread too thin, and a collective understanding that no one character can monopolize too much time. A GM willing to shift smaller scenes into side sessions helps a lot.

>Fafhrd/Gray Mouser

I go for a more Inigo/Fezzik vibe myself.

Five.

I get more of a Harry/Lloyd.

>6 GMs
>all speak in unison
>"what do you do user?"
>"umm, I guess I enter the cave"
>6 sets of d100 rolls
>"you encounter-"
>"3 goblins"
>"a black bear"
>"2 bandits"
>"a single gnoll"
>"a stirge"
>"a wild wolf"
>"roll initiative user"

a Mario/Luigi?

8inches

lmao

1

It should be more like-

>"you encounter-"
>"three goblins"
>"two cyborg owlbears with chainsaw arms"
>"three cutists of Shar, dressed in purple and black robes and weilding-"
>"a klingon and a romulan smoking some Glebrax togethsr"
>"-sickles made of some dark material but laced with pinpricks of-"
>"a butt. Just a butt. A fat butt."
>"-starlight, glittering in their hands as they brandish them."
>"a Satan."
>"roll initiative user"

8, plus two DMs hooked up to the Greater Collective so we can split the party up and not have to wait for the shitcan group up on the wall to open the gate so the rest of us can storm in.

>D&D thread
>MMO shit tier roles
Cancer

4-5.

More of if you have people that can't come regularly.

I deal size is DD or if we go flat is justice, I guess an AA.

>I deal size is DD
At the minimum, obviously.

Closer to the right than the left, that's for sure.

I didn't know the Good Taste Trolley was schedule to make a top in this thread.

For the editions I'm familiar with,

3.5: Zero.
4e: Four to five.
5e: Zero.

this isn't an mmo, the archetypes don't work that way.

4-6 with 4 or 5 being optimal depending on the group involved and their propensity to talk over each other.

I'm currently in a group with 7 players via google hangouts, and it is definitely too much, and only made worse because of the medium.

>3 minimum
>4 sweet spot
>5 comfy but getting a lil crowded
>6 maximum, noticeably slower
>7+ oh god whyyy

About a hundred with no rerolling characters. It's important to keep the players from feeling special and aware that they're expendable.

I have become convinced that three (four including GM) is the correct party size regardless of system. OP's asking about D&D in specific though and, while I still think three is the magic number, I think D&D is at least designed to handle more. Combat takes forever with bigger parties, sure, but D&D lacks any of the character-building story related tie-in stuff that's so important to other systems and so difficult to do in a party of a half-dozen people.

Like, I would never attempt Unknown Armies or Burning Wheel with a six-person party, but D&D cares so little about the actual characters that it's at least doable.

Three. You'd think it was four but no it's actually three.

4
3's the minimum
5's my maximum

34DD

Zero. The less people you have playing D&D, the closer we are to an ideal world.

I don't know if you've played D&D in the last forty years, but there's plenty of character building tie-in stuff in D&D, it's just that it's up to the DM's discretion how important it is, since not all groups want the same type of story mandates for their characters. That's what lets D&D scale up and down in group size so readily, so it's less that D&D doesn't care about characters, and more that how much it cares is variable.

I'm talking about mechanics like Passions (Reign), Aspects (Fate), Fears and Obsessions (Uknown Armies), Beliefs (Burning Wheel), and in a larger sense that whole genre of subsystems which concerns itself with the motivations of the characters on a mechanical level and require that a GM keep track of and--in many cases--craft scenarios specifically to challenge or interact with those mechanics per-character.

I don't have much experience with 4th or 5th edition, but to my knowledge no edition of D&D has a mechanic analogous to that. D&D concerns itself with how the characters can change the world, not with how the world can change the characters, which means that a story can still work mechanically without devoting time to each individual character's quirks or characteristics.

Like, Burning Wheel literally does not work if each character doesn't have spotlight time specifically devoted to challenging their beliefs. That's fine with 2-4 characters--it actually works really well, and provides mechanical guidance for both the PCs and GM when crafting a story. It's great. It's absolute hell with six or seven characters. D&D, on the other hand, does not give a shit about that stuff. It generally falls into the "We'll just assume you're roleplaying and leave the mechanics out of it" school of thought. Suddenly you can run around with a half-dozen characters and they can still go through dungeons and smash shit and all the mechanics still work.

I DM games that regularly have ten to fifteen players;
It is a real challenge, but very rewarding.
You need to preselect dice, use a timer, --and of course have a lot of role playing experience, since it's up to you to immerse the group.
Basically, it's like being a performer at an amusement park.

The best thing to do with large groups is find a way to pit them against eachother; I paint and build my dungeons out of foam-core.

The hardest thing about a 10+ group isn't running the game itself, but coordinating a date that suits all the people.

I've become kind of addicted to DMing large groups, would recommend it; but it is a challenge.

There's been optional subsystems like Honor, Sanity, Social Standing, and even bizarre things like Taint, but since they don't fit every campaign, they're not "default" options. Most of these have been unabashedly lifted from other games, and in some cases were put into D&D with the full blessings of their creator.

5e also has put some "default" focus on things like backgrounds and motivations, complete with mechanical incentives in the form of additional skills, special abilities, and inspiration points. It's really up to the DM how important these are though, and while by default they're not "central" mechanics, they could be rather important.

It's still not quite the same thing as games that put a roleplaying subsystem as a central mechanic, but it's an extreme hyperbole to say D&D doesn't care about characters.

The systems you've mentioned are nowhere near the same thing, which you seem to already be aware of. Would you feel better if I said that D&D cared about characters in the relevant sense far less than some other RPGs? Are you just arguing my word choice?

Do you disagree that, in part because of its lack of these mechanics, it's friendlier to large group sizes than more character-oriented RPGs?

One of my groups is 1 gm with 6 players. It's pretty big and there's a lot going on. Thankfully it's still efficient since some of us are quiet and others like to do the talking. And we're pretty good about having what we want to do prepared for our turn in combat. So the 6 of us are about as fast/efficient as a regular 4 or so person group.

My other group is 1 gm with 2 players. It feels a bit small but we function fine. We usually join a "guide" on our adventures.

3
Tank dps support

Six.

Five players, one GM. Absolutely perfect.

GM + 3-6 PCs
Less PCs are better for more role-playing and more PCs are better for more combat. I like 4 because you still have enough space for everyone to have cool individual stories without people getting bored because their character doesn't have much screen time, and there's enough characters that people can specialise in certain things while still covering all the bases.

If we have 5 PCs, assuming the first 4 are fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard, who's the ideal 5th? Ranger? Bard? Paladin?

>are nowhere near the same thing

They're actually closer than you seem aware of. And, as far as "relevant" sense goes, not having it be central to the design allows modularity. That means it's up to the DM and the group, which is why D&D is so versatile and appeals to such a broad range of people. It can still have the same, or potentially even greater relevance than the "default" of other systems, depending on the DM and how many subsystems they include and how pertinent they are to their game.

It doesn't lack these mechanics. They're simply unpopular mechanics (since the general trend is for people to prefer roleplay to dictate mechanics and not vice versa) and are infrequently used, but they're available options for people who do feel the need for them.

For my D&D games I prefer 4, but I've got my sights set on a game based on the Fate franchise that I want 6 for (3 Servants, 3 masters)

>They're actually closer than you seem aware of.

You can't just say that. None of those systems require the kind of effort on the part of the GM (or player, for that matter), as any of the ones I listed. They're completely different beasts. Are you familiar with any of the systems I listed?

Are you seriously saying that that D&D's sanity system is substantively similar to The Burning Wheel's Beliefs system? Or Unknown Army's Noble/Rage/Fear/Obsession system, systems that those whole games are built around? Systems without which those games do not function? You're comparing D&D's optional sanity system to those?

You're insane. You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even understand why you're arguing this. My statement was that D&D is usually capable of supporting a higher player-count than those games because it doesn't focus on that stuff while those systems devote a considerable amount of mechanical support to them (much more significant than any edition of D&D, at least), which in turn often requires more character-specific content, which is hard to deliver in a game with a lot of players. I wasn't bashing D&D. Are you just inexplicably offended that I said it wasn't the best at everything? I am honestly baffled as to where you're coming from here.

D&D's sanity system is just one of several I mentioned. And, as far as "effort" on the part of the DM, it's really as simple as looking into the books of various themes, and seeing the suggested subsystems that might work with them.

I was trying to correct you on a mistake you are making based on you simply not being familiar with a system yet hoping to make a statement about it. There's plenty of character-specific content with mechanical support for roleplaying, and it's not even hidden or anything, which is why I feel it's fair to say you are just not all that familiar with D&D.

Calling me insane for pointing out that you were just sort of talking out your ass without knowing about a wealth of subsystems is hardly fair, just as it's not fair to shift goalposts and to try and turn this into a debate over which system's subsystems are more "relevant," especially since I've explained multiple times that this is in part dependent on the GM and their needs.

You're "baffled" because you're letting your pride to get yourself into a huff at being corrected.

None of that's true. No goal posts have been moved. Relevant was defined in my original fucking post, and I just redefined it in the one you're replying too.

Look, let's go back to basics. Do you disagree with the last statement in the post you're quoting (if you think that statement has changed considerably from my original post or that it indicates "moving the goal posts" please let me know).

three to five
any less and theres little character interaction, any more and itll slow the game to a crawl

Me again. Actually, you know what, scratch that. You win, I'm fucking out.

This is what you said.

>D&D lacks any of the character-building story related tie-in stuff that's so important to other systems
>D&D cares so little about the actual characters that it's at least doable.

Now, I know you want to weasel around a bit, but if you want to change your statements to "D&D doesn't focus heavily on mechanics for character-building tie-in stuff", that's a much different statement than the one you previously said ("D&D lacks any of the character-building story related tie-in stuff"), and still doesn't really accept that a DM can make several of these subsystems extremely prominent in their games (with Taint standing out particularly because there's all sorts of mechanical interactions with it aside from it being a corrupting influence on the character, and Alignment being something that was actually downplayed in later editions because it was considered to be too mechanically prominent).

Modern D&D: 3
OSR stuff: 4

I'd figure that would be inverted, given OSR's tendency to have fewer classes than modern D&D.

When all your game needs a Mage, A Fighter and a Thief, what does the fourth player play?

A priest?

Those systems are just ways to gamify actual roleplay and constrain rather than enable. The D&D rules set is a chassis for combat foremost, with a secondary consideration for noncombat interactions and challenges, leaving story and personality completely in the hands of the players and the DM.

There are three types of players in dealing with this - those who need the system to handhold and guide their RP, those who need it and fail to do so in the absence of such rules, essentially degenerating into a pure tactical wargame, and the best kind, those who use rules as a resolution mechanic when outcomes are uncertain, leaving everything else to organic creative interaction.