[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: mentheboys.jpg (169 KB, 1280x720)
169 KB
169 KB JPG
What's the ideal size for a DND group?

For me, 7 minimum
>>
>>79735721
I think the sweet spot is 4 players + DM. One either side of that is passable but I don't really like it.
Why a minimum of 7 players? seems like it'd take forever to get anything done and have people constantly fighting over the DMs time
>>
>>79735721
Four players. I can manage five, but it's hard. Generally 3 to 4 works.
>>
>>79735737
makes for more interesting social dynamic

rarely would you ever have a small group of people able to actually pull off an "adventure" type scenario, look at movies like The Lord of the Rings or Fast & Furious or the Avengers, they all get better with more characters
>>
>>79735749
as a DM you have to have a boss mentality to manage more individuals, when you master that, you could DM for over 10, easily
>>
>>79735770
Yeah but the characters in lord of the rings aren't people. It's fucking boring to wait around for your turn to act or say something with 6 other people competing for time and attention. And there's not much chance of everyone being unique mechanically which creates even more conflicts. 3-5 is still a pretty big group but leaves enough space for everyone to shine.
>>
>>79735721
3 to 5

>>79735781
I've never met someone who considered themselves to be "boss material" without them being an insufferable piece of shit, why would I want that as a DM.
>>
2 in nuDND
7+ in ODND
>>
>>79735721
Minimum 4+DM. If we hit 3+DM, I cancel the game for the week.

So I aim for 6+DM, to have a buffer in case people can't make it.
>>
3 to 5
ideally 4
>>
4 + DM is my ideal, but +-1 can be enjoyable too. 6 is severely pushing it but 2 can create an enjoyable type of game you can't get anywhere else.

>>79735781
DMing for large groups isn't any more difficult than doing it for smaller groups, nothing changes on the DM's side of things except the number of monsters you run. The only difference is players get far less time to interact with stuff and generally have less fun unless the session is monstrously long and/or catered towards a rules-lite dungeon crawl.
>>
>>79735770
Movies are not tabletop games.
>>
My ideal size at the table is 4 or 5 players plus GM. Practically this means 6 or 7 players plus GM to accommodate 1-3 players who may not be able to make any given session.
>>
>>79735721
5+DM is ideal. Anything from 3-6+DM works reasonably well.
>>
4-5+DM are ideal
8 and more can only end up in tedious shitshows where half the people never do or say anything, the other half either attention whores or discusses all day and that one dude never knows what's going on at all, while a battle can take the whole day and every npc interaction takes an hour or more.
I've been in those, it's just shit, luckily those disband or downsize quickly once people recognize that it was just as shit the second time.
>>
Bunch of faggots at that table would not play.
>>
>>79735721
4-5 players for me, 6 if I know the players aren't going to sit on their phones and drag their feet when they take their turns or try to rules lawyer argue over everything.
>>
>>79735770
This is such weird bait.
>>
File: 71xk2DcbscL._SY879_.jpg (26 KB, 347x879)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>79735721
You're a fucking faggot retard. Absolute minimum for 5e is 20 + 1dm and 2-3 sub-dms and a at least 1 human resources dm. Fucking no games faggots I swear to God.
>>
>>79736718
>play with 4 players
>half the players never do anything
>one attention whore
>the other player can't make the session
>the game is just the one "attention whore" (AKA a player that actually does shit) and the others going along with what he decides.

too many players are passive these days, you need big parties to get a fun game
>>
>>79737270
>not having 1d20 players
>>
>>79737303
>the game is just the one "attention whore" (AKA a player that actually does shit) and the others going along with what he decides.
This is pretty much the campaign I'm in. Most of the sessions revolve around my character, the GM has to find ways to have other players be useful and relevant during my own personal sections because otherwise they'd do nothing for hours.
>>
>>79735721
I prefer 3 players, so the party cannot cover all their bases and inevitably has some shortcomings. From 4 players it also becomes exponentially more difficult for me to ensure everyone gets enough spotlight rather than just focusing on the loudest players.
>>
>>79735721
No fewer than four and no more than five. (Plus DM)
>>
Rolled 12 (1d20)

>>79737385
Rollan
>>
Ideal is 3 players + DM
4 and 5 is workable
6 and 7 is cancer.

Problem is you need a stable of 7+ players to play consistently because modern people are all flakes.
>>
>>79735721
4 or 5 is the sweetspot. More than that and half the table will start loosing interest and get distracted while the other half will be playing. This is a big problem during fight where turn take much longer.
>>
4+dm is just scientifically best. It naturally helps form 2 pairings and no one is left out.
>>
Best games I've ever ran/had have had 3-4 people. That seems to be the sweet spot unless you really know your players, then 5-6 can be done. Anything more and it starts getting a little crazy.
>>
>>79737399
I often pm people the information their characters see it what happens when they try something. It forces them to rp because instead of me describing, they have to in character
>>
>>79735721
3, 4 at max.
The bigger the grop is, the harder it gets to manage the schedule.
>>
>>79735721
I think the ideal is 3 players + GM. Big enough to occupy every role, not too big to have anyone pushed out of the spotlight. 4 is good aswell, but with every additional player above 3 scheduling issues become exponentially more prevalent in my experience.
Another advantage a 3 player party has is that you have fewer party splits due to the odd number. 4 player parties split much more often than 3 player parties, which I think is a bit stressful on the GM. But that's just a very fine margine, generally 3 and 4 are equally good, I just happen to prefer 3 player parties - for long running campaigns, anyway. For one shots where all the lads meet over a weekend to do nothing but play RPGs, skies the limit. 7 players, maybe more.
>>
File: 1599083336040.jpg (74 KB, 600x450)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>79735721
3 to 4 players + GM is what tendsto work best in games where people are consistently show up that I've been a player or GM in.
>>
>>79735721
I once played in a group of 10 players in a 3.5 campaign and you could legitimately run to Wawa after your turn in combat and make it back in time for your next one.
>>
>>79735721
Why is it the only one giving that fucking mouth breather smile is the faggot with the beard and glasses? Everyone else is normal, why does that combination turn them all into mouth breathers?
>>
>>79735850
Y’all aren’t unique even if you’re one on one with a DM, what kind of snowflakism is this? Also If a DM can’t handle 5-7 ppl it’s just a shitty DM then
>>
>>79738700
Calm yer titties, it is just an awkward smile.
>>
>>79735721
I really like the idea of 6-7 players + GM, but the best campaigns I’ve ever been in (or ran) have all been 2-3 players + GM
>>
>>79735721
My group has 0 players and it's going pretty well right now.
>>
Is that Vince Vaughn?
>>
>>79739023
No, this is Patrick
>>
>>79739023
Vince Vaughn, one of the Dabids, Bobcat Goldwraith, and the Community guy. I don't know who the others are.
>>
>>79739023
yea and David Cross and every other person is famous too
>>
>>79735721
3-5 players is ideal. 6 is my absolute maximum.
>>
>>79735721
3. Each player gets more time to shine with what they want to do
>>
>>79739023
and Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine
>>
>>79739080
>>79739063
Vin Diesel is a huge dnd nerd too, that witchhunter movie was supposedly loosely based on on of his PCs and he wrote a letter to the editor or a forward for the dungeons and dragons magazine at least once
>>
>>79737303
then you need better players not more players
>>
>>79735721
Anywhere from 3 to 6 players can work but 4 or 5 seems to be the optimum for most groups.
>>
Depends on the players.

People that want their characters to be the hero/center of the story are best in small groups.

Players who are okay with the story focusing on the group, and can form roles/specialties with others are good in bigger groups. Though combat can be a slog in older editions of they don't have their shit figured out.

My current group of 6 PCs really runs like a group of 3, with the players in charge changing based on scenario. Fighter rogue and barbarian lead combat, wizard druid and bard run social. Druid and barbarian lead into the wilderness, rogue and bard in the city.
>>
>>79735721
I like 5 players + GM because it adds a tiebreaker and I'll still have three players if two don't show up
>>
>>79737733
>modern people are all flakes
What do you mean?
>>
>>79735721
Id say 7 is a max with 5 being the sweet spot. Smaller groups can work depending on the system, but one-on-one is cursed unless its some side-piece to a campaign
>>
>>79735721
One. Solo RPGing is the best.
>>
>>79742438
It means they always leave the game because they get buthurt
>>
>>79735721
For D&D I generally will accept any group from 3-6 players with 4-5 feeling like the sweet spot.
>>
File: 2nfv4k6xtty01.png (231 KB, 1031x674)
231 KB
231 KB PNG
>>79739188
>anyone can play with me if they want
>>
>>79739063
fucking liar, none of those people are from Community and none of them are Bobcat
>>
>>79739080
Are you faceblind? David Cross is not in that picture.
>>
>>79735737
4 is the limit. 3 is the perfect number
5 is a meme and over that is just playing to the most attention mongering players
>>
>>79743520
It's extra funny when this dude is photoshopped to hell and back by his excentric girlfirend.
>>
>>79736594
This is the correct answer.

Let's move on now.
>>
>>79735721
My ideal situation is 3 active, engaged, dedicated players. That's not most players in my experience but when you get 3 really good friends and players together some magical shit happens.

3 players keeps fights snappy and makes each player feel significantly more important in combat, exploration, and RP. 3 players means no one gets overshadowed and they all get a lot of time in the spotlight.
>>
>>79735721
3 players
>>
For the longest time I used to think 4-5 was the best. Till the last 4 years in where I've been in groups of 3 players and 1 GM, I don't want to go back to 5 or even 4.
>>
My regular group is 6+DM, this works well with our mix of active and passive players.

The local store often has 8 or 12 people show up for a game. It is awful so I don't go anymore. The final straw for me was when they split the party and the other group took 40 minutes to walk down a corridor.
>>
>>79742438
It means they treat D&D night as a flavor of the month lobby pick up videogame that they can join and leave as they please irrespective of how that decision impacts everyone else's ability to play the game.
Fuckers will say "I can't make it to game day" because they made plans KNOWING AHEAD OF TIME THAT DAY AND TIME WAS GAME DAY.
>>
>>79735721
High levels of soi in that pic
>>
>>79735737
fpbp. 4 is enough for the PCs to have a wide variety of problem solving options without everyone constantly talking over each other.
>>
>>79735721
This is clearly a bait thread but I'm so fucking confused by what you're trying to get out of it. It's not even enraging bait, it's just stupid.

Stop being stupid anon.
>>
All numbers do not include me as the forever DM.
1 I do this all the time for my spouse - I run gestalt pathfinder with me having a dmpc that fills whatever roles she doesn't cover.
2 doable for one-shots with friends on a lazy afternoon
3 ideal. Players have lots of time to shine, and I can always have them hire an npc if they really need a healer
4 also good.
5 my cutoff limit. You can have some pretty fun parties but turns take a long time.
6+ I'll only do it if I'm running osr. Otherwise it takes an evening to get through even the simplest of encounters
>>
>>79737270
>needing that many other DMs
If you can't handle that many players by yourself, you're a brainlet and aren't fit to run games.
>>
>>79735737
fpbp
>>
>>79738916
based /solo/er

>>79747470
Playing 1-on-1 has a lot more advantages that I feel are underrated: the player gets all the attention and action, and the GM can plan everything around him/her to ensure a fun evening; I also do it all the time for my gf



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.