More the merrier? I don't think so.

[greywulf]

Good question!

I think it mostly depends on the quality of the players, though 4 is certainly a sweet spot. I've run a lot of games with just one (very experienced) player and had a blast, and with 30 at a convention. Never again!

I'd say that more than 6 players things start to slow down. That's when it's probably wise to have a second DM on hand to help with combats. More than 10 and I strongly suggest splitting the party - get more DMs to take 5 or 6 characters each and plan the scenario to facilitate this style of play. This works especially well for urban mystery adventures where different groups can split up to investigate and arrange to meet up to share their knowledge. Pull the entire party together for the climax and Make It Big!

I certainly don't think that having huge parties is a badge of pride, but I do agree that it can be presented that way. It's how to play the game with the number of players you have which counts. Size doesn'matter!

 

[gleicher27]

I agree with the number 5. In general at 5 people I stop looking for people to play with, and at six I effectively tell my players "that is it, no more ! We are full !"

 

[Melan]

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?

Two things here. The first is party size in individual adventures, where 3e stresses 4 members and balances the game for that number, versus 1e and BXCM D&D, where 6-8 was the norm. It is probably held up as an example of the 1e/BXCM rules-as-actually-used-by-most-people* being light enough not to slow down play with that many PCs operating together. Same like it is possible to run a combat with more foes in older editions because they have fewer abilities to worry about.

The second, brought up solely WRT Original D&D, and usually by diaglo or T. Foster, is campaign size where there are multiple parties operating in a single campaign, but rarely simultaneously. That's another play model entirely, and probably divorced enough from the current style that no meaningful comparison can be made.

Personally, I have found that six PC groups work much better in dungeons and other action-oriented adventures than smaller ones. They can accomplish more, and are far less vulnerable to the loss of one member.

In any case, does this issue (esp. the "I have 10+ players!" variety) really crop up that often? I don't think so.
________________________
*No, most people didn't really use the full ruleset with all the bells and whistles.

 

[Psion]

I'm a fan of 4-6. Over 6 is diminishing the fun too much, I think.

I had a group of 13 at one time. I was spread too thin.

 

[Umbran]

Well, it is complicated.

If you're playing D&D (of whatever edition) as a mostly tactical game, then having a large number of players having fun can be a good thing - rather like running a wargame with a large number of commanders on the field. It is a bit of a logistics problem, but it can be handled.

And I've played in theatre-style larps that had as many as 80 people playing at once - but those have most of the function space available in a hotel to operate in.

But tabletop is a bit different. The players are limited in physical space, and there's typically only one GM, who can form a sort of bottleneck. We've done tabletop games of Paranoia with 14+ players, but we have to use 2 or 3 GMs to do it well.

If your players are looking for immersion, or a lot of interactive roleplay of personalities, having large numbers at the table is usually a detriment to the game, and I'd not advise it.

 

[diaglo]

The second, brought up solely WRT Original D&D, and usually by diaglo or T. Foster, is campaign size where there are multiple parties operating in a single campaign, but rarely simultaneously. That's another play model entirely, and probably divorced enough from the current style that no meaningful comparison can be made.

yup. only once did i have 14 show. and rarely was it 11 or more.

most of the time it was around 6 to 9.

the more the merrier. as it meant a good mix of players and a good mix of their PCs. for different things to try or do or adventures to attempt.

edit: although, the club i started at school had many more than the 20 optimal. but it also had 3 referees.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I prefer running games for three players.

 

[Desdichado]

My ideal is 3-4 players. My reality is that I like 5. It's harder to get more people together on the same day, but with 5 you can still miss a player or two and have a meaningful game session. In a pinch I can do 6 or 7, but I have no interest in going much beyond that.

And that's regardless of system, BTW.

 

[D'karr]

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?

I thought we had a moratorium on edition wars...

I don't view the large groups / smaller groups part as a strength or weakness of the game it is a strength of a DM. My average group has always been about 8-10 players. I've had sessions with 12 players at the same time. In earlier editions combat was simpler so it was rather easy to keep even 12 players occupied. In the current edition the combat has more complexity and it usually takes longer so it is more difficult to keep 12 players occupied.

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”.

I find that 6-8 players is where I prefer the game.

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.)

I really don't like the 4 man party. It presents too many weak spots and even the absence of one player can ruin the game for the group.

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

Your personal preference is just that.

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

Probably because it does require more work in either edition. If you are able to do that on a consistent basis and the players are still coming to your game and having fun, then it probably shows that you run a pretty good game.

 

[thedungeondelver]

My optimal is in the six to eight range.