Do You Prefer 4 Or More Players (+ DM) When RPGing?

[Dolom]

Four is the magic number for me. Three isn't bad, but it's not perfect. Five or more players tend to push the envelope. I will admit that one of the best campaigns I ever ran had around eight players at its max, but of that, usually four or five were there at any given time.

 

[el-remmen]

My preference for a game is 5, 4 then 6. 7 or more just gets to be too many for good role-playing.

This is nearly my answer, but my version would be:

My preference for a game is 5, 6 then 4. I will do 7 if need be, but am hesitant and 8 or more just gets to be too many for good role-playing (and speedy combat).

I will not do less than 4.

 

[wolfpunk]

6 plus dm is perfect in my opinion. Allows for someone to miss without throwing the game into a tailspin, gives you enough variety to combat a wider range of situations, and more brains to figure out what to do.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've got six players now, down from seven (we just can't keep a mage!) but there are several cohorts that add to the fray. I ran a 2e game for a little over 2 years with an average of 12 players (topped out at 17, bottomed out at 9). It went well but was a heckuva lot of work. My Mage campaign had 7 seven players as did my incredibly short-lived Socerer's Crusade game.

I think over the last twenty years six players has been the sweet spot. I can get by with a missing player but there aren't so many people that coordinating the time is impossible.

I highly recommend that every GM should at some point call every player they know and run a canned module with waaaaay too many players using disposable characters. I think running the large game helped my GMing skills immensely as it forced me to acknowledge the player-driven aspect of gaming and it evolved my player-managment skills.

 

[DragonGames]

My current group has 6 players plus the GM. I have had up to 13 players, but that was WAY too much. I find that a group of 5 - 8 is optimal for me.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Usually. Although there is something to be said for having only one or two players. Depends on the campaign and the players.

 

[Illirion]

I like 4-6 players, with 5 being the ideal.

Main reason is covering the party roles. With 4 players you might just manage to cover all bases, but you'll most likely end up without a rogue or healer (or even *gasp* mage). But having five or six characters generally gives all of your players the chance to choose their own character without concern for what the party needs. I'm DMing 6 players right now and though it's harder to create chalenging encounters (normal CR's don't really go anymore), it also creates a more fun and diverse party.

 

[Rika]

My favorite is solo actually. But then that's only because we do a lot of worldbuilding in solos before opening an area or time to the group.

With bigger groups I like 3-4 players. More than that and no one ever seems to get the spotlight as much as they'd like.

 

[Fishbone]

Sweet Spot: 5. More than 7, too much, less than 4 too little. If it is less than 4 I like to play a Planar Binding Conjurer with a jacked up charisma so I can get something like a Maelephant as a meleer and I take Leadership just for some other character that I think would be nice to have around.

 

[Corinth]

I prefer to cap at four when circumstances permit it.