Ideal Number of Players?

[Trevalon Moonleirion]

I'll agree with Dinkledog, 6 is a great number--you get some interesting classes/races without sacrificing the party's combat abilities necessarily, and you can still run a game if one or two people can't make it. You've also got two more possible opinions on what courses to take during the adventure. I like DMing with 5 or 6 people...

 

[Apok]

I voted for 6+ myself, but 5 is good too. I like big groups.

 

[diaglo]

since not everyone can make it to every session 6+ is good.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think six is about optimal, within a range of 4-8. That way if someone has to miss a game, you still have enough people for a viable party, but you don't have so many that players don't stay involved.

Which reminds me, I need to advertise for some new players, since we're down to four regulars and one irregular ...

 

[diaglo]

Which reminds me, I need to advertise for some new players, since we're down to four regulars and one irregular ...

irregulars aka skirmishers are such a pain to plan for in battles.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Well I have always had 4 but would like 6 plus. My players have always been couples so when one is out that really means two wont show.

I would be nice to add two single people into the mix to help insure enough players show to actually play.

 

[Orias]

It depends. On the games I love to play in, I love LOTS of interparty conflict. I like when a DM can construct a story by which all of the players have needs or interests in staying together, but they may have different opinions, ethos, & intentions for the quest. Getting a good love/hate relationship between the party is amazing, & I find that is usually better to do with larger groups of people, because with the more people, the more alliances form throughout the group, keeping it together better. If you just have four people, three people may not care if one or the other gets kicked out or killed, they might "need" the person for some reasons, but they may actualize that they can get by without them. If you have 6 or more people, the party lines aren't neccessarily so clearly stated, so when you require the entire party to help you, kicking one person out may mean you get kicked out from everyone else.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

5 to 8 (not including the DM/me) is my comfort zone. Less than 5 and you start having issues when someone can't make it for a week. More than 8 and you start having issues with people getting bored, talking OOC, etc.

I've run games with as few as one person (but those often lead to nekkitness, so I'm not sure those really count..) and as many as my infamous 14-player Vampire the Masquerade game back in the mid-90s.

I've ran D&D with up to 12 players at once, but that was kinda a pain.

Right now, if the whole group shows up, I have 7 players which is just fine with me.

 

[TalonComics]

Four to five not including the DM is how I like to go. I would rather someone not be there than a ridiculous amount of people show up. I've ran for 6 plus people and it was just too much a pain in the ass for my playing style (heavy on roleplaying).

~D

 

[Orias]

Fortunately I have an awesome group where we never have a scenerio where more than one player misses, & we never play if two people are going to miss.

The fact is, though, all of the players are pretty much best friends, & have been for a long time, so fortunately we all work great with each other. We can play in large groups, have a ton of people show up, & get through a ton of role playing.

Combat does get bogged down, but we don't really get into combat too much.