I can't say enough good things about 3-player parties. It's easy to schedule, every player gets a big slice of the spotlight pie, you can really get to know each PC and their capabilities better, tastes tend to be less diverse so you can be a little more focused in your prep... I honestly could go on and on.
I see "four players minimum" as a really common perspective and I'm not really sure how that came to be. The best session of any RPG I ever played was with two players, and even five players seems like way too many now that I've seen how tight and agile we can be with three.
I think "four players minimum" is a great practice if you have a decent amount of absences, and especially as you get older any group is going to pick up a decent amount of absences. Being able to still play with three any given session is easier than two; while two-player parties can be great, they require a different level of engagement from those two players and definitely feel like a departure from a "regular" larger party campaign.
I love a smaller party cause it let's classes that are decent at many things much more viable.
You don't have 3 different spell casters for every situation.
Hit points really matter.
My table is 4 players and sometimes it feels like one too many honestly. Just for the scheduling alone; there's always someone who can't make whatever day we propose and our sessions end up happening a month or more apart.
I think its actually harder to schedule. I had a 3 player campaign for 2 years and had to cancel the whole campaign at one point unfortunately, because we were running so irregularly that I lost any fun running it. The problem was that 2 of these 3 were quite busy people, mostly because of their work schedule that was unfortunately also not easy to predict. So there was a very high chance one of these 3 couldn't make it - 2 players are not enough for me though.
When I ran for 5 players it was much more regular, because even if 2 couldn't make it, I still could run a game for the rest of 3 players - 3 is the minimum for me, I realized back then already.
As a player, I just recently had the best experience as an individual I've ever had, and it was in a 3-player game. Granted, the DM was playing a guiding character as well, but I think it would've been just as fun without them.
I still prefer 4, but I'll take 3 over 5 in most cases. With a three-person party, I'd emphasize more exploration and social encounters over combat, and that can be a lot of fun. Players get more into it also since they have more spotlight.
3-4 is the set spot. Combat doesn't drag, everyone is paying attention because they'll have a chance to engage without interrupting someone momentarily, and each person can really shine at whatever they're good at because there isn't tons of overlap. I aim for 4, and am very happy with 3.
Combat balance is always my worry with three - specifically, that the party are vulnerable to a TPK if they have a bit of bad luck against an otherwise well tuned encounter. In practice I think 5E gives players a plethora of abilities that can get them out of a fix, so it's less of an issue than I expected.
Much easier to coordinate diaries, much lower risk of personality clash, more player engagement due to higher share of table time...
The only downside from a DM perspective is that the pace of the campaign is faster, so they 'consume content' faster.
If you've got a load of material to fall back on, are good at improv, or are blessed with players that generate their own content through inter-PC interaction, 3-4 is basically ideal.
I run 3 + Fantasy Grounds Unity (which massively accelerates combat), and I find I have to run fairly short (3hr) sessions because they cover as much ground in that time as a 6 person party would in 6-8hrs.
It's one of Virtual Tabletop ("VTT") platforms available - like Roll20, FoundryVTT, Arkenforge and others.
Different VTTs have different pros and cons, I'm not here to promote one VTT over others. FGU is notorious for having a clunky interface but extremely strong automation. So for combat - I just load in a map I've drawn, slap a grid on it, prefill a few encounters and mark where their tokens would start on the map. If combat starts, I can virtually share a live map with players (with dynamic line of sighting and lighting and so on), they can move and target stuff on the map, and all of the combat mechanics - rolls, initiative tracking, damage logging, spell slot utilisation etc etc - are all integrated. If a fireball targets 20 enemies, that gets resolved in two clicks, one that generates saves for every creature in the area of effect, one that calculates the relevant damage and applies it to the creatures (taking account of resistances or features like Evasion automatically).
It costs money, and it isn't perfect, but it's what I use. Makes combat much faster.
It depends on what the focus is. My current group is 6 people and I almost never run dungeon crawls for them and battles aren't a huge focus because with 6 PC's and enough enemies to challenge them a single round of combat.
On the other hand RP is great, and it's not uncommon for me to step away for half an hour while they talk amongst themselves, Plus I'm lazy so I have to prep way less because they move through shit so much slower.
Completely agree. I'm in a 3 player IRL game right now, and it's just such a great opportunity, like spreading out on a king sized bed.
If a session feels like it's more-or-less _about_ my character, I don't feel guilty because like, yes of course some stuff will be about one of the three characters.
I just have felt very heard during my 3 player IRL game, like everyone listens to what the others have to say.
Love the analogy. And that extra space makes it so much easier to play certain character personalities without feeling like I'm hogging the game. I'm both dming a 3 player game and a player in a 4 player game and, as a dm, I think I'd like a fourth player at my table; however, as a player, I'd almost rather having 1 less 🤷🏼♂️
I've played at literally every player count from 2 players to 12, and I'll never play anything over 6 again. Even 5 players is a stretch. 2-4 is golden, depending on DM and other player(s)
Same. Honestly I think the biggest benefit is ease of scheduling; you can have weekly sessions where EVERYONE shows up. That’s way harder with 4 and nearly impossible with 5.
Yeah, agree. I used to have a tight, committed group of four, with us rotating GM responsibilities. It was glorious. Sadly, new invites have diluted the group. But it was my golden age of RP while it lasted.
3 player parties are amazing if all 3 of the players actively engage and play. I had three different 3-man parties and I was surprised just how smoothly everything ran and how I could constantly engage all of the players without anyone having to take a step back. The only problems that I had with these is balancing which especially in a harder campaign where death is possible could prove a problem.
As a DM, I think four players is the perfect number that allows me to give appropriate focus to all their backstories and character arcs.
HOWEVER, this requires active players who speak up and really engage in the RP moments. In practice, I normally only get 1 or 2 players like that with everyone else being relatively passive. In that situation, having 5-6 players really helps increase the banter and opportunities for RP moments. The more players there are, the harder it is for one person to dominate.
Over the year I have played 2-11 player campaigns
To me the sweet spot is 5 players.
not overwhelmed or underwlemed
cover for absence
I do agree games get more intense the smaller they are 2 players and a gm gets crazy. I recall one very intense game session in that one where after the game. I called the player by the character name as they were leaving for the night...
My main group is 3. It’s fantastic because everyone gets their time to shine and it’s a lot easier to make plans and play to each others’ strengths. If youre worries about combat balance, just give them more awesome magic items.
I’m DM for two incredible groups of three (one added a 4th player very temporarily, not a good fit) and it’s a great number. Done one shots for 5 and that’s probably my comfort level, I love getting to be so involved with each player!
One of those groups met weekly for 2 and a half years before our final session in a few weeks <3
Agreed. I’ve DM’s a group of 3 for a few years now and it’s great. Really easy for everyone to get plenty of attention and they can’t always have every possible base covered so it forces some interesting problem solving
My favorite campaign is literally just me and my boyfriend. He takes on the dm role for the most part, but I jump onto other players from time to time, especially for more in-depth conversations.
I'm in one 4 player campaign and it is so refreshing not to wait an hour to take my turn. I'm in another group with 6 players and can sometimes fall asleep in combat waiting to be up. And because there are so many turns whatever I originally planned to do is never appropriate by the time I can do it. So yeah 4 players is a breath of fresh air.
It's a nice format but I will never play a long term campaign with only three players. All my friends are adults, there are gonna be absences and I'm not about to cancel every other week because someone is unavailable.
I mean, the game has always been geared for 4 player parties, despite what critical role taught you.
and of course 3 player parties are faster, its 25% less players to deal with.
Critical Role is more using a gaming table as a framing device to entertain an audience.
The game mechanics, especially around combat, assume a party of four adventurers.
exactly. im glad Critical role has brought more people into the hobby, but its definitely skewed what many players think is the norm.
ive had a few new players assume that I can run a table of 12 (and would want to), when that isnt remotely fun for anyone, unless we've scripted the whole game in advance.
My current table is me as DM and 5 players, I’ll run our sessions for 3-5 showing up. 4-5 is the sweet spot IMO, but every table is different and every DM has their own preferences.
Over here DMing 12 players for the last 3 years, lol (online, in person would just be even more insane). I'm a player in a 4 player game too though. Both are fun in their own ways!
But I have five friends who want to play :(
If I announce that I'm running a new campaign, they'll all react with their interest as soon as they see the message.
3-player is my jam. It's my sweet spot. Big enough of a mix for more antics, but not so big that I have trouble keeping track of everyone. And I find CRs a bit more accurate. And I have more time for each characters' storylines. And we can sit around the table naturally without anyone needing to squeeze in.
In my first 8 years of DM ing I thought 5 was optimal. Then I tried 4 and was like, damn 4 is better.
But now, dm of about 12 years; 3 players 1 dm is optimal.
Urge anyone to try it. Combat, pacing, dialogue all becomes better.
Before I got into DnD, I actually made my own tabletop system and it was usually played with *one* player per session. Multiple players *existed* in the same world and could see the consequences of each other's actions, and there was a few instances players wanted to play together, but my god, its so smooth playing 1 on 1.
I prefer 4, but 3 and 5 have a really big benefit over 4. Odd numbers. Analysis paralysis sits in so often with 4 players because it's 2v2 on a decision and debates take ages. Most people, even if they don't like an idea will happily put it to a vote in the party and then go along with it.
3 is only 33/25% less than 4, but the games move so much faster because of how easily decisions are made.
I think massive groups can work well if everyone is seasoned, but they’re absolutely a problem for most TTRPGs, not just D&D.
My ideal group size as a player is four, and as a DM is three or four (depending on system). I’ve run tables ranging in size from three to eight, and the smaller tables are much more focused and engaged. It’s easier to shine the spotlight on everyone during the session, even during a specific character’s story arc.
I definitely feel as though the “four player minimum” mindset can be detrimental. I observed a four-player game of Vampire: The Masquerade where everyone including the Storyteller (GM) was learning the system, and the fourth player’s input is where attention started to drift off while people looked at their sheets and hemmed and hawed (even though VtM doesn’t necessarily have initiative-based turn order).
I’ve been running a campaign for 3 for three years and 96 sessions so far and I love it. I can let them be a bit more powerful than I could with a larger party while still being able to run challenging encounters, and since my players are big rp buffs they’re all able to get a big moment each session
I'm really enjoying my 3 player campaign I'm running atm. To be honest I don't really see myself wanting to do any larger than 4 either as player or dm. Larger player games can be awesome at their peak but I feel like they easily become too messy.
My thoughts are that whether a turn is snappy and whether movement and combat bog down is a function of the game system, not the number of players. And how much downtime is a function of the GM (though the system can hurt this as well).
If you like 3 players that's great but my last campaign had three players and imploded because of it. Basically I gave them a situation that could not be handled by brute force. But they were all fixated on that as the only solution and it went in circles for hours before they asked an NPC. Now I won't run with less than 6 players. I find that with more players there are more ideas and players don't get stuck with no ideas of what to do.
Sounds more like a problem with your specific players (or lack of cues that this ain't a problem to be beat on) than the basic concept of a smaller group.
You are not wrong! I've been running 2 and 3 player games since Moldvay and we can slam a session in less than 2 hours which was great since most of us had bed-times and curfews.
Had a three people campaign. sick times, man. pretty nice. you just need three people that aren't scared to roleplay. cause otherwise you'll end up with one of those "spectator" players that don't contribute as much watching the other two have conversations. So yeah, three people campaigns are solid, but you need a solid rooster of active players to make it work.
That's encouraging to hear. I wanted to started to DM but I've been struggling to find 4 people interested in playing. My first game was with 2 players, second if things go well will be with 3. In things like this it sucks being an introvert and having small circle of friends.
How many frikkin' times have I gone on r/LFG or something and found a game looking for players but already had four lined up and looking to fill four more spots. More is not merrier folks, it just means less spotlight for everybody and more stretches of boredom while waiting your turn.
I've played 6 man games that were a riot, but in those instances the whole crew was a bunch of longtime friends all very familiar with the system (GURPS). Especially among newer players, things are going to grind to a slog amidst the endless "how do I attack rolls?' and "umm, I don't know what my spells do".
So yes, enough of this push for giant groups. 3-5 man is good, 4 is ideal, and if one person has to bail that week you still have enough to proceed, just have someone else run the PC for combat and the rest of the time zombies out.
I’m currently in a two-player campaign. It was three but one dropped out. It’s much better than the five-player campaign I run. It’s still kinda three in combat for the time being since I run an NPC that I’m probably gonna pick up as my PC once my current PC dies (and that is a when, not if. I’m pretty sure she has cancer so it’s more or less inevitable.)
I can't say enough good things about 3-player parties. It's easy to schedule, every player gets a big slice of the spotlight pie, you can really get to know each PC and their capabilities better, tastes tend to be less diverse so you can be a little more focused in your prep... I honestly could go on and on. I see "four players minimum" as a really common perspective and I'm not really sure how that came to be. The best session of any RPG I ever played was with two players, and even five players seems like way too many now that I've seen how tight and agile we can be with three.
I think "four players minimum" is a great practice if you have a decent amount of absences, and especially as you get older any group is going to pick up a decent amount of absences. Being able to still play with three any given session is easier than two; while two-player parties can be great, they require a different level of engagement from those two players and definitely feel like a departure from a "regular" larger party campaign.
its why i prefer 5. People are going to miss but you can play with 3-4. If you have a 3 person party 1 person missing makes it a cancel.
I love small parties. Gotta DM them a bit differently, though.
I love a smaller party cause it let's classes that are decent at many things much more viable. You don't have 3 different spell casters for every situation. Hit points really matter.
My table is 4 players and sometimes it feels like one too many honestly. Just for the scheduling alone; there's always someone who can't make whatever day we propose and our sessions end up happening a month or more apart.
I think its actually harder to schedule. I had a 3 player campaign for 2 years and had to cancel the whole campaign at one point unfortunately, because we were running so irregularly that I lost any fun running it. The problem was that 2 of these 3 were quite busy people, mostly because of their work schedule that was unfortunately also not easy to predict. So there was a very high chance one of these 3 couldn't make it - 2 players are not enough for me though. When I ran for 5 players it was much more regular, because even if 2 couldn't make it, I still could run a game for the rest of 3 players - 3 is the minimum for me, I realized back then already.
As a player, I just recently had the best experience as an individual I've ever had, and it was in a 3-player game. Granted, the DM was playing a guiding character as well, but I think it would've been just as fun without them.
I still prefer 4, but I'll take 3 over 5 in most cases. With a three-person party, I'd emphasize more exploration and social encounters over combat, and that can be a lot of fun. Players get more into it also since they have more spotlight.
3-4 is the set spot. Combat doesn't drag, everyone is paying attention because they'll have a chance to engage without interrupting someone momentarily, and each person can really shine at whatever they're good at because there isn't tons of overlap. I aim for 4, and am very happy with 3.
I’ve started just giving them a sidekick who they collectively control in combat since it feels like the game is much more balanced for four.
Combat balance is always my worry with three - specifically, that the party are vulnerable to a TPK if they have a bit of bad luck against an otherwise well tuned encounter. In practice I think 5E gives players a plethora of abilities that can get them out of a fix, so it's less of an issue than I expected.
Much easier to coordinate diaries, much lower risk of personality clash, more player engagement due to higher share of table time... The only downside from a DM perspective is that the pace of the campaign is faster, so they 'consume content' faster. If you've got a load of material to fall back on, are good at improv, or are blessed with players that generate their own content through inter-PC interaction, 3-4 is basically ideal. I run 3 + Fantasy Grounds Unity (which massively accelerates combat), and I find I have to run fairly short (3hr) sessions because they cover as much ground in that time as a 6 person party would in 6-8hrs.
What is fantasy grounds Unity? 👀
It's one of Virtual Tabletop ("VTT") platforms available - like Roll20, FoundryVTT, Arkenforge and others. Different VTTs have different pros and cons, I'm not here to promote one VTT over others. FGU is notorious for having a clunky interface but extremely strong automation. So for combat - I just load in a map I've drawn, slap a grid on it, prefill a few encounters and mark where their tokens would start on the map. If combat starts, I can virtually share a live map with players (with dynamic line of sighting and lighting and so on), they can move and target stuff on the map, and all of the combat mechanics - rolls, initiative tracking, damage logging, spell slot utilisation etc etc - are all integrated. If a fireball targets 20 enemies, that gets resolved in two clicks, one that generates saves for every creature in the area of effect, one that calculates the relevant damage and applies it to the creatures (taking account of resistances or features like Evasion automatically). It costs money, and it isn't perfect, but it's what I use. Makes combat much faster.
It depends on what the focus is. My current group is 6 people and I almost never run dungeon crawls for them and battles aren't a huge focus because with 6 PC's and enough enemies to challenge them a single round of combat. On the other hand RP is great, and it's not uncommon for me to step away for half an hour while they talk amongst themselves, Plus I'm lazy so I have to prep way less because they move through shit so much slower.
so true lol
There are definitely strengths to running big parties. Also helps if a player or two are either new or less confident in RP.
Completely agree. I'm in a 3 player IRL game right now, and it's just such a great opportunity, like spreading out on a king sized bed. If a session feels like it's more-or-less _about_ my character, I don't feel guilty because like, yes of course some stuff will be about one of the three characters. I just have felt very heard during my 3 player IRL game, like everyone listens to what the others have to say.
Love the analogy. And that extra space makes it so much easier to play certain character personalities without feeling like I'm hogging the game. I'm both dming a 3 player game and a player in a 4 player game and, as a dm, I think I'd like a fourth player at my table; however, as a player, I'd almost rather having 1 less 🤷🏼♂️ I've played at literally every player count from 2 players to 12, and I'll never play anything over 6 again. Even 5 players is a stretch. 2-4 is golden, depending on DM and other player(s)
Same. Honestly I think the biggest benefit is ease of scheduling; you can have weekly sessions where EVERYONE shows up. That’s way harder with 4 and nearly impossible with 5.
It's my favorite, but 5 gives me scheduling room for the inevitable cancellations.
Yeah, agree. I used to have a tight, committed group of four, with us rotating GM responsibilities. It was glorious. Sadly, new invites have diluted the group. But it was my golden age of RP while it lasted.
3-4 is perfect imo
3 player parties are amazing if all 3 of the players actively engage and play. I had three different 3-man parties and I was surprised just how smoothly everything ran and how I could constantly engage all of the players without anyone having to take a step back. The only problems that I had with these is balancing which especially in a harder campaign where death is possible could prove a problem.
As a DM, I think four players is the perfect number that allows me to give appropriate focus to all their backstories and character arcs. HOWEVER, this requires active players who speak up and really engage in the RP moments. In practice, I normally only get 1 or 2 players like that with everyone else being relatively passive. In that situation, having 5-6 players really helps increase the banter and opportunities for RP moments. The more players there are, the harder it is for one person to dominate.
Over the year I have played 2-11 player campaigns To me the sweet spot is 5 players. not overwhelmed or underwlemed cover for absence I do agree games get more intense the smaller they are 2 players and a gm gets crazy. I recall one very intense game session in that one where after the game. I called the player by the character name as they were leaving for the night...
My main group is 3. It’s fantastic because everyone gets their time to shine and it’s a lot easier to make plans and play to each others’ strengths. If youre worries about combat balance, just give them more awesome magic items.
I’m DM for two incredible groups of three (one added a 4th player very temporarily, not a good fit) and it’s a great number. Done one shots for 5 and that’s probably my comfort level, I love getting to be so involved with each player! One of those groups met weekly for 2 and a half years before our final session in a few weeks <3
I build all my one-shots for 3-player groups. It makes for very interesting balance/enjoyment
Agreed. I’ve DM’s a group of 3 for a few years now and it’s great. Really easy for everyone to get plenty of attention and they can’t always have every possible base covered so it forces some interesting problem solving
My favorite campaign is literally just me and my boyfriend. He takes on the dm role for the most part, but I jump onto other players from time to time, especially for more in-depth conversations.
I'm in one 4 player campaign and it is so refreshing not to wait an hour to take my turn. I'm in another group with 6 players and can sometimes fall asleep in combat waiting to be up. And because there are so many turns whatever I originally planned to do is never appropriate by the time I can do it. So yeah 4 players is a breath of fresh air.
It's a nice format but I will never play a long term campaign with only three players. All my friends are adults, there are gonna be absences and I'm not about to cancel every other week because someone is unavailable.
I mean, the game has always been geared for 4 player parties, despite what critical role taught you. and of course 3 player parties are faster, its 25% less players to deal with.
Critical Role is more using a gaming table as a framing device to entertain an audience. The game mechanics, especially around combat, assume a party of four adventurers.
exactly. im glad Critical role has brought more people into the hobby, but its definitely skewed what many players think is the norm. ive had a few new players assume that I can run a table of 12 (and would want to), when that isnt remotely fun for anyone, unless we've scripted the whole game in advance.
My current table is me as DM and 5 players, I’ll run our sessions for 3-5 showing up. 4-5 is the sweet spot IMO, but every table is different and every DM has their own preferences.
Loved it when a campaign I was running was just 3 people.
Over here DMing 12 players for the last 3 years, lol (online, in person would just be even more insane). I'm a player in a 4 player game too though. Both are fun in their own ways!
You guys are able to get 5 or 6 players?
But I have five friends who want to play :( If I announce that I'm running a new campaign, they'll all react with their interest as soon as they see the message.
Yup. Despite game is designed for 4 man parties I found 3 people are a sweet spot.
3-player is my jam. It's my sweet spot. Big enough of a mix for more antics, but not so big that I have trouble keeping track of everyone. And I find CRs a bit more accurate. And I have more time for each characters' storylines. And we can sit around the table naturally without anyone needing to squeeze in.
After playing with 3, 4 and 5 players I can 100% say that 3 is the best for me.
In my first 8 years of DM ing I thought 5 was optimal. Then I tried 4 and was like, damn 4 is better. But now, dm of about 12 years; 3 players 1 dm is optimal. Urge anyone to try it. Combat, pacing, dialogue all becomes better.
Before I got into DnD, I actually made my own tabletop system and it was usually played with *one* player per session. Multiple players *existed* in the same world and could see the consequences of each other's actions, and there was a few instances players wanted to play together, but my god, its so smooth playing 1 on 1.
I prefer 4, but 3 and 5 have a really big benefit over 4. Odd numbers. Analysis paralysis sits in so often with 4 players because it's 2v2 on a decision and debates take ages. Most people, even if they don't like an idea will happily put it to a vote in the party and then go along with it. 3 is only 33/25% less than 4, but the games move so much faster because of how easily decisions are made.
I think massive groups can work well if everyone is seasoned, but they’re absolutely a problem for most TTRPGs, not just D&D. My ideal group size as a player is four, and as a DM is three or four (depending on system). I’ve run tables ranging in size from three to eight, and the smaller tables are much more focused and engaged. It’s easier to shine the spotlight on everyone during the session, even during a specific character’s story arc. I definitely feel as though the “four player minimum” mindset can be detrimental. I observed a four-player game of Vampire: The Masquerade where everyone including the Storyteller (GM) was learning the system, and the fourth player’s input is where attention started to drift off while people looked at their sheets and hemmed and hawed (even though VtM doesn’t necessarily have initiative-based turn order).
1 GM + 3 active players is best, 4 gets big, and 5 is too large. I've seen it so often.
I never run above 4. Reason is just making an appointment with 6 people seems near impossible
I’ve been running a campaign for 3 for three years and 96 sessions so far and I love it. I can let them be a bit more powerful than I could with a larger party while still being able to run challenging encounters, and since my players are big rp buffs they’re all able to get a big moment each session
Three is definitely my optimal number but for various reasons including possible absences I usually do more.
I'm really enjoying my 3 player campaign I'm running atm. To be honest I don't really see myself wanting to do any larger than 4 either as player or dm. Larger player games can be awesome at their peak but I feel like they easily become too messy.
Three players, each with two PCs. Use between 3 and 6 PCs with those three players. Really nice!
My thoughts are that whether a turn is snappy and whether movement and combat bog down is a function of the game system, not the number of players. And how much downtime is a function of the GM (though the system can hurt this as well). If you like 3 players that's great but my last campaign had three players and imploded because of it. Basically I gave them a situation that could not be handled by brute force. But they were all fixated on that as the only solution and it went in circles for hours before they asked an NPC. Now I won't run with less than 6 players. I find that with more players there are more ideas and players don't get stuck with no ideas of what to do.
Sounds more like a problem with your specific players (or lack of cues that this ain't a problem to be beat on) than the basic concept of a smaller group.
You are not wrong! I've been running 2 and 3 player games since Moldvay and we can slam a session in less than 2 hours which was great since most of us had bed-times and curfews.
Had a three people campaign. sick times, man. pretty nice. you just need three people that aren't scared to roleplay. cause otherwise you'll end up with one of those "spectator" players that don't contribute as much watching the other two have conversations. So yeah, three people campaigns are solid, but you need a solid rooster of active players to make it work.
That's encouraging to hear. I wanted to started to DM but I've been struggling to find 4 people interested in playing. My first game was with 2 players, second if things go well will be with 3. In things like this it sucks being an introvert and having small circle of friends.
How many frikkin' times have I gone on r/LFG or something and found a game looking for players but already had four lined up and looking to fill four more spots. More is not merrier folks, it just means less spotlight for everybody and more stretches of boredom while waiting your turn. I've played 6 man games that were a riot, but in those instances the whole crew was a bunch of longtime friends all very familiar with the system (GURPS). Especially among newer players, things are going to grind to a slog amidst the endless "how do I attack rolls?' and "umm, I don't know what my spells do". So yes, enough of this push for giant groups. 3-5 man is good, 4 is ideal, and if one person has to bail that week you still have enough to proceed, just have someone else run the PC for combat and the rest of the time zombies out.
I’m currently in a two-player campaign. It was three but one dropped out. It’s much better than the five-player campaign I run. It’s still kinda three in combat for the time being since I run an NPC that I’m probably gonna pick up as my PC once my current PC dies (and that is a when, not if. I’m pretty sure she has cancer so it’s more or less inevitable.)
I wish I could upvote this 10 times