How many players in your game?

[Mytherus]

So most 5e games are written for four players or four to six. As a dm I always liked six. Got a game I’m preparing and it seems has a lot of interest- I’m thinking allowing seven players is this unique?

I know about long combat that’s on my mind trust me and scaling up encounters.

Just wanted to see if this is foolishness or not.

[HywelPhillips]

I can handle seven for in-person play, but I struggle with that for online play. It's more to do with the voice/video chat element than anything else. With seven people groups naturally fall into conversation splits with 3-4 or 5-2 in person and that can happen at the table without hideous cross-talk. Online it forces people to stay in a single group of 7 when their subconscious instinct is to split into a 3-4 or a 5-2 and it gets increasingly hard for the GM to manage the microphone/spotlight.

I've found it works much better in combat-heavy campaigns where there's a battle and maps and tokens to keep everybody focussed on the same thing. The GM needs keep things moving so people aren't waiting 45 minutes for their fighter to throw a couple of attacks, then sit back and wait until the spell-casters and NPCs and Monsters have their go. Give each player a real time limit to decide what their character is doing. Rounds are a few seconds, not a few minutes and the pressure of the fight SHOULD mean their characters sometimes make suboptimal choices. Lean into it and make it exciting and fast.

Balance-wise low level play works best: don't try to run a 15th level boss fight with 7 players without a LOT of practice and a disciplined group! It also makes scaling easier. At low levels adding a couple of extra grunts usually does the trick and you can always have another group charge in as reinforcements mid-fight. At higher levels balance is SO skewed by the alpha-strike effect that finding the line between TPK and one-round walkovers is much harder, and it gets harder and harder with extra players. Keeping the levels low also reduces the hesitation and analysis paralysis for the players.

Good luck!

Hywel

[Zacchaeus]

I have three players that control 4 characters. I've had six in the past but never more than that. I agree with what @HywelPhilips says above. Scaling for higher level parties, to give a reasonable experience, with any more than 4 players is a nightmare.

[Bonkon]

Good Day Mytherus :)
We have played with a group of six players for years now. We do occasionally get into the off topic stuff, but pretty much we are all respectful of the times others have their turn. We also can use /whisper to each other if we have something off topic to chat about (We use Discord for audio). So it is doable as long as everyone is on the same page. :)

[LordEntrails]

As with life, it depends.
For most groups I find 5 is my magic number. I can do six if the people are good / conscientious of others / etc. Agree with Hywell as to why. They lay out the issue well. IT really depends on how well the people work together, know each other, etc.

I recently was in a group that almost broke up because of cross-talk / over-talk and people getting upset, and that was with 3 players. Very dependent upon the people.

[Griogre]

I typically run 5E with 5 players online. I've tried 6 but like HywelPhillips, I found that 6 players was very slow online for like 13+ level and when I had a player drop I didn't replace him.

[anstett]

I have 7 players that regularly show up currently in my 2e campaign. I also run a play by post game with many more players but that is a different type of game.

The key I have found is ditch the voice. Have everyone focus on the chat, everyone can type away without interfering or speaking/typing over each other. It is easy for me to have two or three NPCs there in the encounter that are talking and interacting because it is a quick drop down on the chat to swap between characters. Two drop downs if they speak a different language.

Combats can take a bit if players are not focused and ready to react; but that is a hazard at any table no matter the number of people.

[yeknom]

8 for my online game, though we rarely have all 8 at once, and 6 for my in person game. I prefer a group of 6 to 8 when I am running OSR type games. Handling a larger party takes the right players as well as the right DM. Things will bog down quickly if folks aren't ready for combat and attentive in game. Out of combat a DM has to keep things engaging and flowing to keep the interest of everyone.

[wndrngdru]

I will run a game as long as I have 2 players and won't ever go above 5. 3-4 is my sweet spot with the types of games I play; largely Cypher, Blades in the Dark (& derivatives), or PbtA systems.
I'm hoping to run at leas a short campaign of Old Gods of Appalachia (cypher system) sometime this year.

[StormKick]

Not foolish at all. Seven isn’t unique, just hard-mode DMing. It works with the right players, clear table discipline, and especially better in-person or low-level play. If you manage pacing and spotlight, you’ll be fine, if not, it’ll bog fast.
Mod: link removed

[pdzoch]

I'm running seven in my Saltmarsh game now. I do not have a problem. Luckily, there are no druids summing lots of npcs to manage, but I do have one players with an animal companion to account for. Not an issue as long as the pace stays quick.

[estrolof]

I have run 5E and 3.5 with 3 (worked great). Oh, and 2E with between 3 and 6, almost forgot them! I have run with as many as 12 (on a floor, in person...less than ideal, but still worked mostly). My current epic campaign (which started for 3 players, and has been run for two other groups - one of 4 and one of 5) is working well.
> When the 3-person version of this campaign started it was an 8yr old, 10 yr old and their Dad. This used FGC in person at their house combined with minis on a mat.
> When it was re-purposed several years later for adults, it swapped to 4 players. This was the full time switch to FGU and Discord - friends spread around country.
> Now it's a second adult group of 5. Still on FGU with Discord - friends spread around country.
> Each version has included the same 2 NPCs in the group (as a small military unit) giving the PC Officer some soldiers to actually command. So...it's KINDA like having 7 characters (the PCs and I share control of the NPCs)...though now one of those PCs also has a squire, so it's a HUGE party (8 humanoids, mounts, a large dog, and a pseudodragon familiar) so the CT can get filled up pretty quick.

One of my players is also my sometimes DM, and he runs his Call of Cthulhu and homebrew game for 6 players (I observe and post stupid pictures to taunt them in Discord; they use Roll20, but we can't all be wise). Another of my players runs a 5E game using roll20 and Discord with some of the same players (she uses more pre-made modules, but usually tweaks heavily), she has 5 players in hers.

[Lazybones1969]

I have 5 in one group and 6 in another. It's only a problem for high-level play, or if multiple players aren't familiar with the FGU interface. For newbies who I'd have to walk through every step I'd limit it to 3 or 4 players. One advantage of having a larger group is that you can avoiding cancellations if only 1-2 players are absent.

[Myrdin Potter]

6 players. We play weekly and are all adults with jobs and kids and life. Pretty common that 2 cannot make it any particular week, so that means 4 players (we control the characters of the missing players).

We have 2 GM's so can do one shots if the mian one running something cannot make it.

Having a game the fires every week at the same time has lead to my main game going over 10 years now. 6 players has worked best for that.

BTW - Mothership is good for 3-4 players and one shots.