More the merrier? I don't think so.

[Quasqueton]

Is more [than 4] players in a game [at the same time] a sign or badge of a good game? In this forum, it seems that some folks throw out “I had 12 players in my game” as if it is a feather in their cap. Especially with regard to talking about older editions of D&D – it seems that the paradigm of 6-8+ PCs in the party is held as an example of a strength of the game system, and the current paradigm of 4 PCs in a party is pointed to as a weakness of the game system. Why is this?

In my B/XD&D and AD&D1 days, I DMed for between 1 and 8 Players at a game session. 7-8 Players in a game at one time was as uncommon as 1-2 at a time. The average/norm in my groups was 4 Players. More Players at the table was never a good thing, in my experience – it never made the adventure better. In fact, the success and fun of an adventure dropped dramatically with over 6 Players. 4-6 Players is, for me, in my experience, the “sweet spot”.

In my current game, I had 6 Players at the table for about a year and a half. It was just too much for me – too many voices at the table. I dropped 2 Players. I find 4 Players at the table to be the most enjoyable and successful. (I’m older now, and not as interested in loud, chaotic gaming experiences – it has nothing to do with the game system.)

Even when I’ve not been the DM, more than 4 Players was not normal in olden days, and is not more enjoyable today.

So why does it seem that more Players at the table is mentioned/spoken of as a special thing, a badge of pride, a feather in the cap, a bragging right, a sign of a good game experience and game system?

Quasqueton

 

[el-remmen]

My ideal is 5 as it allows for a greater range in personal dynamics than 4, and is not significantly more work.

However, I run for 6, because I have a lot of people that want to play in my games and as it is I have had to cut two and not invite a couple of others to play at all.

 

[diaglo]

20 is optimal for me

 

[Gilladian]

I was often playing/DMing at a game shop. Part of the reason I gamed there was to support the shop (I worked there part time as well as being friends with the owners). So I took as many people into the game as I could fit at the table. This meant 8-10 players (2nd Ed). It was chaotic, not as fun as it could have been, and sometimes led to real problems with end-table boredom, etc....

But I AM proud of the fact that at age 20-25 I managed to control, entertain, and lead a group of 8-12 guys (I'm a woman) through an entertaining and interactive game session. I always had people eager to join the group, and was always identified as one of the "good games" to join.

It taught me a lot of people managing skills that have stood me in good stead for the rest of my life. I'm now a teacher of small groups of diverse folks (public library computer classes) and I COULD NOT do it if it wasn't for the skills I learned at the DnD table.

So, while I wouldn't do it again, was not particularly overjoyed to do it then, and think that four or five players are the perfect number (if only I could recruit one more now!), I do look back on that time as a "feather in my cap".

 

[orcmonk220]

I consider 5 the maximum I'd ever put into a game. It allows you to keep an easier track on things, alongside animal companions, cohorts, etc. Besides, you don't want too many 15th level people travelling together - One arguement and only one'll truely survive! Also, spells by the cleric etc are harder spread over a wide number of players.

 

[DonTadow]

I agree with the OP. I doubt everyone at a game of 10 to 20 players is having fun.

The idea would be 4 to 6, maybe 7 or 8 with a good group who knows the rules and role plays well.

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

While I agree that a 4 player game flows smoothly, my problem with it is that I hate running 3 player games---and with only 4 players, the odds that you'll only have 3 players at any given session (from absences of any kind) is too great to make 4 viable for me. In addition, some adventure publishers (Paizo, Necromancer) seem to work more with a 6 player ideal (I'm thinking of the Adventure Paths, specifically). Finally, having more than 4 players helps add some character classes beyond the wizard/cleric/rogue/fighter mix.

Thus, my ideal is 5-6 players to not only weather the storms of players coming and going but also for ease of use in running some of the better adventures out there--and this does cause me some issues when running WoTC adventures which more strictly adhere to the 4 player standard.

 

[delericho]

Less than 4 is problematic, as it means that one of the key party roles isn't going to be covered, or someone has to run more than one character. In general, I find that between 4 and 6 players is best, with 5 players probably being the optimal number.

Of course, this only applies to D&D. Some other d20 games work better with different party sizes (seldom more = better, though), while the Storyteller system, in particular, seems to work best with no more than 3 players.

 

[GlassJaw]

For "standard" D&D games, I prefer 5, but I can handle 6. Even though most modules and encounters assume a party of 4, I've found that even adding one character really boosts the party's chances of survivable, which in turn lets me, the DM, open up my options.

For other types of game, especially low-magic games or something more modern (Shadowrun, M&M), I prefer 3-4. There is no need for an iconic party in those types of games and I like to tailor the campaign to the characters even more in those types of games. The focus also doesn't have to be on combat in those types of games so you don't need the numbers like D&D.

 

[Herzog]

More Players at the table is mentioned/spoken of as a special thing, a badge of pride, a feather in the cap, a bragging right, a sign of a good game experience and game system, because..

Let me start by saying that it's not a sign of good game experience or a good game system.

People brag about it because increasing the number of players above 4 WITHOUT ruining the game requires effort of both the DM and the players.
Players need to keep chaos to a minimum, be well prepared for the game and be able to keep the game flowing.
The DM needs to be able to scale adventures according to the number of characters, needs to have an adventure in which every player has a chance to shine, and be able to keep the game flowing.

A BAD game system also wouldn't allow that many players without eventually giving the DM a burn-out, or players leaving the group because of reduced spotlight time.

Finally, when you do have a game system that allows for a lot of players without breaking down, a set of players and a DM who can handle the increased pressure and the reduced spotlight time, you are bound to have a set-up that qualifies as a good game experience. Not because of the amount of players, but because of the players in question, the story in question, and the DM.

Herzog