@lincodega got a big sample size when they asked "ideal TTRPG party/table size?" - 18,480 votes - with 64.1% saying 5 including the DM. This seemed intuitively right to me - I asserted DM+4 as typical when doing a back of the envelope estimate recently.
Following our theme of deep cuts to the early blog - complete with indecipherable graph - I was looking to drop this in on top of our other surveys and confirm that this broadly matches. Instead, I find myself confused - this latest poll is on the right.
From Lin's twitter poll we get 2/3 of people saying they want to play at a table of DM+4 but for the other polls, maybe a 3rd of tables are that size but most are bigger. My first reaction is surprise, I thought that while maybe there were a fair amount of tables of DM+3, tables of DM+5, they would not exceed the classic table of DM+4. But no - from reading these there seems to be a tilt towards 'the more the merrier' in the other surveys.
Looking at polls asking what people *actually* play compared to ideal table sizes we see this even more strongly - they suggest most folk are actually playing at tables larger than DM+4.
We cannot do a direct comparison to the twitter poll because we only got the 4 categories on this graph as options but from those other polls we can dig a little deeper. From those other polls we have the luxury that they provide more break down into how big those tables really are and as we can see - not much bigger but more that a table of DM+5 is on equal footing with DM+4 and there are more tables with greater numbers at them than lesser numbers.
Is this an indication of our mentioned DM shortage? The large sizes of ideal tables on all the other polls suggest that people are happy with bigger tables and that the 'bigger' tables are not a lot bigger?
Are we looking at another instance of the 'general' population playing one way and the people on forums another? Is this saying that the tables we saw from D&DBeyond data with a strong preference for fighters and rogues are playing DM+4 and the tables we see from the forums who like spell-casters are playing in bigger groups? Are we looking at a digital/live split? I will admit it is easier to run a table of 5-6 in person, more than 4 online gets complex without rock-solid speaking discipline.
It is always interesting when these big sample surveys get a response because they often seem to throw light on a different corner of gaming. I feel like the forums, boards and TTRPG twitter convince themselves into the hobby looks like one thing based on the information they can gather from the people in that space - but the hobby as a whole has got vast hinterlands that are very different.
Anyone who comes across more surveys, polls or the like, do point them out to me - every little helps!
Sources:
D&D 5e Facebook group, 2020 (actual)
D&D 5e Facebook group, 2020 (ideal)
Reddit Subclasses survey, 2019
D&DBeyond forum, 2018
MegaDM survey, 2017
Dragonsfoot forum, 2011
Enworld, 2004
It would be interesting if you were able to split up versions of the game being played. Note the differences on Dragonsfoot. Playing OD&D, B/X I have run groups as large as 12. We had to make adjustments but it was doable. AD&D gets challenging after 7 or 8. DM +5 or 6 is ideal to me with those older systems at a physical table. Online and 4 or 5 is the max.
ReplyDeleteAgree we are missing edition information - I think we may well also be seeing other games folded in their too. I find DM+3-4 is about it for remote games but I'm happy to run +5-6 physically - its all about cross-talk management for me.
Delete"the classic table of DM+4" is alien to me; I'm not sure when it was the norm, but it never has been in my experience for D&D-like games. I personally aim for DM+6 and campaigns structured so that we can operate with people absent, so that I *run* DM+4 or even DM+3 when busy people get busy, but the party absolutely has more than 4 individuals in it.
ReplyDeleteThis may be a "cultures of play" issue - when @lincodega talks about "diving deep into characters" and "balancing narratives", that's not the style of game I'm trying to run.
With a game with slower/heavierweight combat mechanics and different concepts of niches - like Mythras / d100 or maybe Rolemaster - I could see not wanting to have more than four players at the table at a time?
I do recall having our typical table through the late 90's/early millenium was DM+6 - so AD&D, early 3e, WFRP and VtM at the time - and as you say, running with 1-2 down was not a problem.
DeleteI could certainly see a shift from 'party questing' to 'personal goals' requiring more individual camera time and so less people around the table.