More the merrier? I don't think so.

[Aus_Snow]

The most players I have had in one group was in fact 12. But that was a fair while ago. Nowadays, I actively limit groups to 6, maximum. Often, they are fewer than that.

4 or 5 is the most common, overall. It just seems to work, very well.

I've run, and played in, groups of everything from 1 (OK, not a group, but still) to 12. And in recent times, with those experiences to inform me, I've coincidentally settled on the suggested party size according to 3rd edition D&D. This doesn't bother me one way or the other.


. . . but it does tend to be a convenient coincidence.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

This is the problem if we picked up 3.5 again after our current game ends, can I handle 6 players? I ran into problems with 4 players in 3.0 once they got around 9-10th level. My brother was saying how I should run 3e again but I don't know if the number of players would be a huge problem. Then I run into potential problems with published adventures written for the 4 player team...

 

[Li Shenron]

I DMed groups from 3 to 6 (IIRC) and also "solo runs" (but eventually never with 2 players).

I wouldn't go much farther than that, not because combat takes more time or there is more DM's job, but rather because it means that there is a higher change of (1) two characters being tactically similar and one of them straight better than the other, and (2) some shy players never ever get any opportunity for roleplay or be in the spotlight.

 

[Piratecat]

I've been in a game with 10-12 players, and it was an unmitigated disaster. I prefer the 6-7 range, myself.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I have found that five or six is a good number for me for D&D, and having two players come back to my Call of Cthulhu GURPS game (after having four for a while) six gets a little rowdy.

I have gamed with eight PCs in D&D and GURPS and that was the cutoff point--too much happening at once! My brother and I split the group and about half of them went to play under him during the same time slot.

 

[kenobi65]

I prefer running for 5-6 players. I've had a 3E campaign with only 3 players, and that's as small as I'm comfortable going. In another group I DM, I've had to put a hard-cap limit of 8 players; the group was threatening to get even larger, and I just don't enjoy running for that big a group.

Back in college, in the 1E days, I DMed a group that could get as large as a dozen (we had lots of players sort of float in and show up occasionally); that just got too chaotic.

 

[Mark Hope]

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

Well, I can't really agree with your initial premise. If you are referring to the recent "I've Never Played AD&D1e" thread, I haven't seen any bragging comments in that thread of the kind that you claim exist (apart from a single tongue-in-cheek remark by dungeondelver). Just frank, unbiased remarks by other posters on their experiences (oh, I also did mention having 12 players, but said that it was awful). Are you referring to other posts in other threads? If so, I'd like to see some quotes backing up your claim of bragging. Otherwise I feel that your proposition is somewhat provocative and smacks of edition warring. If that's not the case, then no harm no foul and no hard feelings .

Moving on from there, we used to have groups of 6-8 players in the 1e days because that's how many folks wanted/were able to play on a regular basis. We were all mates and rarely turned anyone away. Under 2e, my gaming group blossomed in size and I ended up running 2 separate groups of 6 players. Under 3e, I specifically chose 5 as the system works best with that number imho. 4 players is too close to the minimum (meaning that the loss of a player can skew the party's chances) and more than that becomes unwieldy. I found 1e and 2e were easier to run with larger groups, simply because of the lower number of options that needed to be kept track of at any given time. There's no value judgement there - that's just the way it was.

I also agree with the comments that other games work best with different numbers of players, especially WoD, which seems optimal with only three.

 

[the Jester]

I prefer a group of 6-8; that way, the game goes on if some, or even up to half, of the group can't make it. I don't like having to call the game on account of one person being unable to make it.

Plus, I like to hang out with my friends, and I have lots of them, and we "hang out" by playing dnd (among other things).

 

[Aaron L]

20 is optimal for me

20?! God, I coouldn't even imagine that. I can't take 20 people together in one room, let alone trying to play D&D with that many, in any edition.

I like 4-5 players.

 

[Sunglar]

I’ll admit that too many players at a table can be hard to handle, distracting at best, disastrous in the worse cases. When I started gaming I interested most of my neighbors and many classmates in D&D. That meant that early on I had anywhere from 8 to 14 people interested in playing.

Things eventually changed and by high school I had settled into a regular group of 5 players, which in my opinion I think is optimal, having said that I must admit to rarely having so few people at the table.

In college those that played and wanted a spot at the table quickly doubled or tripled. Eventually I settled into my DM/GM once week, homebrewed only, routine that has kept me going for 14 years. Knowing what I wanted to do and what I could give the game, allowed me to run a game that met regularly and attracted many people.

For those last 14 years the average at the table has been 7 to 8 players. Optimal, no, but these people are friends first and foremost and while sometimes things drag and not everybody is in the spotlight, we understand because we care more for the friendship than the game.

I run games with lots of politics and role-playing. To avoid adventure drag and distractions, and the times where inevitably each PC has their own agenda I have created forms for note taking that allow me to manage campaign info with expedience and efficiency. Also I use a clock to make sure everybody get enough spotlight time, and lost of handouts.

5 players is optimal, but I am happy to have 7 friends around the table with me right now.