Minimum and maximum player/character counts for roleplaying games (especially D&D)

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

AD&D: 3-6 players, 6-9 characters

I find this a bit surprising. When I first started playing AD&D, second edition, we often only had four people in the group. Not knowing of the OD&D tradition, we virtually never used henchmen. Not counting Deck of Many Things silliness, we only ever had henchmen when we reached a high level. (And once, I had a cleric who created a 15 Hit Die giant earwig due to a rules misinterpretation... and got to keep it. Fortunately, the earwig was really easy to run.)

 

[TerraDave]

In terms of "social dynamics", there does seem to be something about 4-6 people around the table. This applies to various situations. Its seems to be enough to keep the conversation going, but you don't split into side talk as easily (though you push it at 6).

(for some situations, like running a large organization, you can go up to 9, though probably not more, and of course 1 on 1 is a special case...3 though, 3 seems like a weak number...)

For gaming, I can run with 2 players, but you feel the drag in terms of energy, 3-5 is better. For characters, I really like henchmen, though the games action economy has to allow space for it. (As Merric has touched on, 4E is interesting here, since the math is key, but also clear, and you can get that right. With that, you can make effective supporting characters with just a few powers, which just confirms the massive diminishing returns that 4E powers have even at relatively low levels).

And I do mean henchmen (or retainers or cohorts). It has to be a clear subordinate, and the player should have only one "main" character.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've gone as low as 2 and as high as 10. To me, the rules and filling roles and whatever aren't a big deal; it's more about managing and engaging the actual people. To that end, I think anywhere from 2-6 is workable and 3-5 is ideal.

Same here. There's something about 3 players (plus DM) which gets the social creative ideas flowing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Same here. There's something about 3 players (plus DM) which gets the social creative ideas flowing.

That is my take on things. For a long campaign, 3 players and myself as GM is the sweet spot. Anything further is generally "subtraction by addition".

 

[Agamon]

3 is nice, but when someone can't make it (which happens almost every session), having 4 or 5 makes it so we can go each session, unless almost everyone cancels.

Using henchmen in our ACKS game really makes playing with fewer players workable, and actually makes it better than having a large group of players, as each player has more to do each round.

 

[MerricB]

I find this a bit surprising. When I first started playing AD&D, second edition, we often only had four people in the group. Not knowing of the OD&D tradition, we virtually never used henchmen. Not counting Deck of Many Things silliness, we only ever had henchmen when we reached a high level. (And once, I had a cleric who created a 15 Hit Die giant earwig due to a rules misinterpretation... and got to keep it. Fortunately, the earwig was really easy to run.)

This was pretty true of my original games, which would often be 4-6 characters & players. As I get more knowledgeable about this history of the game, I've graduated to these numbers.

A couple of points:

* Three characters may fight abreast in a 10' corridor
* Monsters may attack from behind or ahead.

As a result, you need a defensive screen of melee combatants in the first and back ranks, otherwise you risk being swept through. With the more dungeon-crawling game I'm running, the greater numbers are useful.

(High level characters can probably get away with fewer).

Cheers!

 

[Kasbark]

I currently play pathfinder, but the same numbers apply when we play other systems.

I prefer 4 players + a DM. 5 players + a DM will work as well, but i don't like more than that, since that leads to too little time to dedicate to each player. We cancel if two players can't come to a session.
3 players + a DM is also just fine for me, although for D&D you have to tailor a little to fit a 3-man group. If we play er 3 players campaign, we cancel if anyone cannot make it to a session.

 

[innerdude]

For Pathfinder, 5 players + GM. This gives the GM the most flexibility in building encounters, allowing for party interaction, etc.

4 players is okay, depending on the group dynamic.

6 players is right at the limit of manageability, but do-able. Above 6 or below 4 for Pathfinder just doesn't seem to ever work.

For Savage Worlds, I've GM'd groups with 3, 4, 5, and 6 players. It really doesn't make any difference. As long as the group is invested in the session, the game just seems to flow. Part of that is that everyone feels useful in every situation, and creating encounters / improvising on the fly is a cinch. You can throw out an entire night's worth of preparation if you have to, and the game will be just fine, because it's so easy to restructure stuff without batting an eye.

 

[Sunseeker]

I generally run 4e and with standard content, I'd say 3-6 players. Because I find the content so easy to tune, I run as low as 1(running a personal story for a single player), and I've gone as high as 8. For 3.X, I say 4-5. Any more breaks the game too badly, any less makes it unplayable.

 

[Kinak]

I'm pretty picky. I always want to run 3 players plus 1 DM (me). I'll stretch it to 4 players if the players want to, but never past there.

Cheers!
Kinak