Do You Prefer 4 Or More Players (+ DM) When RPGing?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
wingsandsword
Legend
Personally, I consider 6 players and 1 GM to be a full sized and ideal group. 4 players is the minimum to run a proper campaign, and I don't like co-GM's/Multi-GM arrangements (I've never seen that done well).
6 players provides enough diversity in the player base that all the niches that D&D presumes can typically be filled without any one player being "forced" to take the 4 "iconic" roles, and puts a slight bit of redundancy in the game in case one player has to miss a session for some reason.
More than 6 players becomes a handful, each new player increases the difficulty dramatically, I've run for 8 before and it was just too much of a hassle, and I was once part of a 10 person party in a high level year-long AD&D 2e campaign, after which the GM swore he'd never run for more than 6 ever again.
6 players provides enough diversity in the player base that all the niches that D&D presumes can typically be filled without any one player being "forced" to take the 4 "iconic" roles, and puts a slight bit of redundancy in the game in case one player has to miss a session for some reason.
More than 6 players becomes a handful, each new player increases the difficulty dramatically, I've run for 8 before and it was just too much of a hassle, and I was once part of a 10 person party in a high level year-long AD&D 2e campaign, after which the GM swore he'd never run for more than 6 ever again.
MonkeyDragon
Explorer
4-6 would be my favorite. My best game had 5, and it was a perfect balance of enough people to get the job done and not so many that everyone couldn't be heard. The dynamic was great with that game.
Unfortunately, right now I've got extremes to either end. The "day" game currently has three players plus the DM. I DM that game about half the time, and I'm really having trouble. The going is slow, because there's more time for the players to get bogged down in little things. It's hard for me to gauge encounters, and I find XP and treasure more challenging. Also, I have a couple of players who like to agitate each other, so we spend a lot of time dealing with the good-natured bickering. I wish I had just one more person.
In the "night" game, I don't DM generally, but we have the opposite problem. Seven players plus the DM means that combat takes a long time, balancing encounters is still tricky, and it's hard to manage everyone.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to shuffle people about to average the numbers out.
Unfortunately, right now I've got extremes to either end. The "day" game currently has three players plus the DM. I DM that game about half the time, and I'm really having trouble. The going is slow, because there's more time for the players to get bogged down in little things. It's hard for me to gauge encounters, and I find XP and treasure more challenging. Also, I have a couple of players who like to agitate each other, so we spend a lot of time dealing with the good-natured bickering. I wish I had just one more person.
In the "night" game, I don't DM generally, but we have the opposite problem. Seven players plus the DM means that combat takes a long time, balancing encounters is still tricky, and it's hard to manage everyone.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to shuffle people about to average the numbers out.
Haloq Jakar
First Post
I have 9 players which at times can be a chore but when it comes to schedualing as long as 6 can make the game the game goes on . One thing it does allow for is the opportunity for players to play whatever they want instead of getting the " WE REALLY NEED A BLANK"
that used to happen all the time to new players when the group was down to 3 or 4 players.
In 1st and 2nd ED. the blank was more often cleric but now with 3.5 Divine casters are quite popular in my game. Current party had 4 divine vs 2 arcane. I like the mix. Add a fighter , barbarian and a rogue and they are complete.
that used to happen all the time to new players when the group was down to 3 or 4 players.
In 1st and 2nd ED. the blank was more often cleric but now with 3.5 Divine casters are quite popular in my game. Current party had 4 divine vs 2 arcane. I like the mix. Add a fighter , barbarian and a rogue and they are complete.
Kastil
Explorer
I answered yes. The only way less than that would work is if you had some pretty good RPers. My game last night dragged so bad (Should I DM ever feel bored?!?!)) because I was missing a couple of players out of six. The was like they couldn't do anything w/o the other players poking them with a stick....... geez. I got a stick for ya!!
Dog Moon
Adventurer
Nifft said:
Seconded.
Less than that is too few and not as fun and more than that is too unwieldy and not as fun, though I'd go up to 5 + DM is someone wanted to play [man, I WISH I had that problem in my group]. I like to run tactical battles and it's more fun with more people, though with too many, it gets annoying because it means my turns go longer because I have to add in more enemy units.
I have 7-8 players right now (not sure, since one is National Guard, and could be shipped out any time now 
) It's a bit much, but we manage it. I prefer 5 or more, because it tends to lead to more diverse parties.
) It's a bit much, but we manage it. I prefer 5 or more, because it tends to lead to more diverse parties.I noticed by your sig that your name is Frank Brunner. Are you the illustrator Frank Brunner by chance?Ycore Rixle said:
Odhanan
Adventurer
5 players is ideal for me.
I can run games for any number of players. I ran games for 12 players on occasion (Giovanni Chronicles and homebrew VtM huis-clos involving Hunedoara castle and Dracula, for instance). Running a game for more than 6 players requires a great deal of caution on my part though. This has to be players I know very well, who are very motivated in playing the game and not pollute it with various distractions. I do that upon specific invitations on rare occasions, i.e. I select the players I want and know because I know how the whole group alchemy will work itself out in the end. So far it's never failed.
I think solo games are the hardest games for me to run. Because all the attention is driven to me at all times, and if I fail to set the proper mood at one point, it's instantly noticed by the player. Or at least that's how I feel about it.
I can run games for any number of players. I ran games for 12 players on occasion (Giovanni Chronicles and homebrew VtM huis-clos involving Hunedoara castle and Dracula, for instance). Running a game for more than 6 players requires a great deal of caution on my part though. This has to be players I know very well, who are very motivated in playing the game and not pollute it with various distractions. I do that upon specific invitations on rare occasions, i.e. I select the players I want and know because I know how the whole group alchemy will work itself out in the end. So far it's never failed.
I think solo games are the hardest games for me to run. Because all the attention is driven to me at all times, and if I fail to set the proper mood at one point, it's instantly noticed by the player. Or at least that's how I feel about it.
