Minimum time and/or number of players to game?

[eris404]

The last couple of months I have a been a gamer frustrated. We have one player who is out for the next month or so and a few casual players who have limited availability anyway. Even I (and I am rabid gamer) have missed a few games due to pesky "real world" concerns. The last game session was cancelled because of timing: the DM and one of the players couldn't make it until after 5, and my boyfriend and I had plans at 6.

Now, we tend to play long-term campaigns and usually a lot of things happen in a session. Besides the difficulty of getting a missing player caught up, very often the DM will plan a session with a particular character's abilities or background in mind. Sometimes he or she can adjust, but sometimes not. Some of our DMs dislike playing with fewer than four players and some have run sessions with as few as two players. Because we (and by "we," I mean "me") tend to talk a lot, a session less than four hours long seems awfully short.

So, I'm just wondering if the rest of you have rules or any feelings about the mininum number of players needed for a session or the minimum time you require for a game. Do you have any special tricks for playing with less than your full group or in short sessions?

 

[S'mon]

At school my daily lunchtime 1e game was 45 minutes, with usually 2-5 players; 2 players was fine, 1 player sessions also worked ok. I'm not sure if 3e is playable in 45 minute chunks, certainly you can't use miniatures. I've run 2 hour (edit) 3e sessions with 1 player and that works fine.

 

[S'mon]

Actually, funny thing is, the fewer the players, the shorter the optimum session length! So if you're short of both players & time, hopefully it balances out...

 

[KB9JMQ]

I like to have a minimum of 3 players and myself and at least 3 hours.
Less than that on either account just doesnt work for me.
I would rather do something else.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Probably 3 and 3.

Less than three, unless the campaign was at a point where 2 could reasonably go off and do some side quest on their own, is not worth it. I don't like using people's PCs as NPCs as it can cause problems if said PCs meet an untimely demise, and two PCs are generally insufficient for most tasks.

Less than three hours, by the time you figure in getting settled and catching up and the social non-gaming stuff, isn't worth the aggravation. I'd rather just hang out or play board games.

 

[diaglo]

20 is optimal.

but i usually like to run at least 3.

 

[freebfrost]

With summer around the corner, I am about to lose some gamers to the golfing greens, so this is very timely for me.

I'd say the minimum number of players for a D&D game is 3. Some games lend themselves to smaller groups - Call of Cthulhu comes to mind - but I think that you need at least a triumvirate in action to keep a D&D game running smoothly.

When I run the smaller groups, I tend to keep the action at a higher level. Not just combat, but the whole flow of the game. That way, if the smaller group finds themself at an impasse, they are plunged back into something to kick-start their progress. I also try to remove the non-playing characters from the game, rather than use a "silent mode" method to keep them in the game. I would rather sideline them with a cold or other contrivance and keep it a bit more real, instead of having a nigh-invulnerable pc shadow the party.

As far as time, I'd say at least 3 hours. I think 4 is optimal, and my group usually meets for 5, but we include time out for lunch.

 

[Crothian]

So, I'm just wondering if the rest of you have rules or any feelings about the mininum number of players needed for a session or the minimum time you require for a game. Do you have any special tricks for playing with less than your full group or in short sessions?

In one group I'm driving about 30 minutes to the exact other side of town, so we game for at least 4 hours. If I'm driving that long one way I want to have a decently long session. In that group we have 5 players and the rule is as long as 3 can make it we game. THe missing characters get played by other people. WE only game every other week, so we want the sessions to happen as often as possible.

THe other group we don't play if anyone is missing, but we usually game 5-6 hours. I'm not sure how fullfilling it would be to game three or less hours. It would feel like we are stoppping as it starts.

 

[eris404]

Yeah, I have to agree with the "3 and 3" for another reason: one of our players has to drive a significant distance to get to game and I want it to be worth his time. Also, I love getting immersed in the game - if it's less than 3 hours, I feel like I just got to the good part and we have to stop already.

Athough, I did play in a session where there was only one other player and it was nice - lots of role-playing, a couple of minor combats. But, we were at a point in the campaign where the DM could do this easily, which in our group isn't all that often.

I hate running PCs as NPCs, too, because it tends to be just a bother - maybe we don't have the character sheet or we don't know the character's strengths or we can't figure out what the mysterious writing on the back of the sheet means.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

An addendum -

Someone mentioned lunchtime at school. I did that oh so many moons ago. In a situation where you can game every day for short periods, 45 minutes sessions and player continuity aren't as big a deal. Missing a daily lunchtime session isn't much worse than a long bathroom break :0