Is 4-6 player's a rule or a preference?

[LightPhoenix]

I say keep an open mind about both of these people, as well as the size of your group. After all, they could both be the most brilliant players you've ever had, or they could both be terrible. I don't really think seven or eight is a huge number if you've got good players. After all, good players will, IMO, help the DM rather than be a hinderance. You've gotta try it and see how it works out, then go from there. Just don't make assumptions about the new players before you let them try and settle in.

 

[Henry]

The most I've ever DM'ed was 11, and as few as 1. My preferred number is 4 players, because I can give each one the time and attention they deserve. Over 5 and for me it gets harder to do.

If splitting them into two groups isn't an option, then I'd seriously evaluate if I could handle 8 players and be sure I could still give everyone a fun game. If I couldn't, I'd be honest and up-front. If they are D&D players already, chances are they'll understand what you're saying. Another alternative would be to see if one of your other players who also DM (if you have such) might mind running an alternate game of some sort on another night, so that these players might become involved.

 

[tetsujin28]

I've also run games for anywhere between 1 and 16 players, and I haven't really noticed any problems. It's really more the kinds of stories that will get told by the players and the gm that will be affected.

 

[S'mon]

It's doable; I've GM'd for 14-17 at Gencon and up to 7 at my home game, but I think D&D 3e is a very poor game for running groups of more than about 6 players. 1e AD&D, C&C or BECMI D&D would be far more suitable; eg their combat mechanics are far simpler and you can rotate through the players fast enough to avoid boredom. Also they don't have 3es emphasis on Buff spells which can result in an unholy number of mods when you have 4+ spellcasters buffing the party.

 

[the Jester]

My preference is for a party of around six, but as not everyone can usually make it I like to have a group of about eight players.

Currently, my 'player pool' is somewhere in the 9-10 range, and a typical game has 6-8 pcs at a time. At least one of the players was kind of an 'accidental addition' when the game was already full, but damn, he brings a lot to the game (in terms of roleplaying, rules knowledge and general good behavior).

Large parties tend to slow the game down somewhat, especially if it's roleplaying heavy. Also, each character gets less spotlight time.

One of the big advantages of a large party is that the game can go on even if you're missing half the party. Now, this is totally a matter of individual gaming styles- some groups just don't like to play unless everyone's there, and some groups play no matter what; but I like to have a quorum present, which I typically set at 3 pcs. (Though this can vary.) This is easy if it's 3 out of 8. This is a great solution for the 'flaky player' syndrome that I'm sure many of us have seen- the guy who shows up late, only half the time, etc. for no reason: you just go on without him.

 

[Maliki]

If you have DM'd for 8 players before, I would at least try these two new players out to see if they mesh with your current group. Tell them up front that they will be included on a trial basis to see how things go.

Although I have DM'd for larger groups before my comfort level is 5-6.

 

[TheNovaLord]

Prefer to GM from 1 to no more than 5. After that things get forgotten, including people if there are a quieter type.


I did once DM to 22 at Notts Poly. Party included a whole assassins guild in 1e AD&D. All but 2 died in a mad session....

JohnD

 

[swrushing]

The normal goal for me is 3-5 players. its a preference but it also is derived from the type of games i run. My last DND game had between 6-8 thru its entire 3 yr run so i have had some experience with the larger groups.

with a group of 6-8, i found to give everyone scene time I really had to focus on stories , scenarios and encounters that almost ALWAYS involved 4 or more people. There simply aren't enough scenes in a run for me to allow much in the way of small group activities and almost no individual scenes of consequence.

that helped drive the campaign to more of the "gang gets together and goes hunting" kind of scenarios. it limited the social scenarios and plots quite a bit.

by contrast, my stargate game has four players and it involves a lot more personal event storylines and i have solo scenes most every session. Its a totally different feel.

adding two more players will push you further in how limiting your numbers are. If the gang-on-a-hunt kind of game is your norm, you should be fine.

i wouldn't get too hung up on the player-type labels. are they are fun people who you enjoy
being around who share your interest and taste in gaming? if so, let them come in.

 

[Odhanan]

You know, I ran The Last Supper for Vampire The Masquerade with 12 players at the game table. I had chosen the people at the table, selected them from my favorites as a GM (the only time I made a game "on invitation"). My "who's who" in terms of role-playing. It was an absolute BLAST but man, that was a lot of preparation and running around. This asked from the players to be experienced and responsible (to be able to discuss on and on in immersive roleplay while I wasn't in the room for instance), hence the selection. It worked great. Probably one of the best games I ever ran.

So I second Crothian: you can't say it won't work. It will require some thought/organization though.

 

[kigmatzomat]

It's up to you. I generally prefer somewhat larger groups. Back in college I ran a campaign that averaged 11 players. At it's peak there were 17 and the low was 9. It lasted for 2.5 years with a core of about 6 players surviving the whole thing.

My current game has 7 players and no one seems to have a problem with getting enough face time or backstory.

There are some tricks to it, though. At 6 players you need to set ELs at average party level +1, while at 8 players you need APL+2. Unless you want massive character deaths, never choose a single creature who's CR is >APL+4. Despite the party's increased power as a group, they aren't as strong as individuals. So bump up numbers when you have high CR creatures.

Treasure can be hard to balance. The dice will conspire to give one person tons of gear and screw someone else. (One year the dice refused to give a magic sword as random treasure) In a party of 4 it's easier to notice but with 6+ it's easy to get lost.

Consider doing an audit of each PC when they level to find out who's got lots and who's got none. Be prepared to seed the treasures occassionally with stuff for a particular player. If that doesn't feel right, turn some of the items to cash or other valuables that the party can divvy up.

With large numbers comes conflicting party goals. Barring cohorts, try to generate NPCs the party trusts. When people start bickering use Wis checks to think to check with an NPC ally for advice. Though it adds more work to the game, I'm happy that there are 2 cohorts IMC b/c it gives me two different voices to express opinions. Both cohorts want to do what's best for their Leaders but generally want to keep the "band of heroes" together for their own good.