The most fun I've had gaming with any version of D&D has been in sessions with lots of people (10-12) where the DM had specifically designed encounters to challenge a large group. I've experienced this with 1e, B/X D&D and 3.X D&D and all the games were an unmitigated success. The sessions were almost wholly combat/tactics/strategy oriented and the amount of "in character" roleplaying and NPC interaction was negligible, but that fits my prefered playstyle anyway, so I had a blast. I can see someone who is more interested in character development, personality exploration and storytelling being dissatisfied with a game like that, but if your playstyle preference fits, more people really can mean more fun.
More the merrier? I don't think so.
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
The Shaman
First Post
I thought so too, but I guess they're okay if they are thinly-veiled as something else.D'karr said:I thought we had a moratorium on edition wars...
Our regular 1e AD&D gaming group was seven, with one drop-in player about every third game night or so. The actual adventuring party was closer to a dozen characters with henchmen and a hireling or two, and a wilderness trek could be number twenty to thirty player and non-player characters with the obligatory drovers, cooks, and men-at-arms.
Our 3.0 group was five, with no cohorts. Hirelings occasionally added to the party.
derelictjay
Explorer
Too many at the table, yeah that could be a problem. The most I've DMed is 8 people, and I had lots of problems keeping them all in the game, the same with 7 people at the table. For me the number I want around the table is 5, with 5 I usually can have everybody having a good time with no problems. 4 and 6 players I don't have problems with.
Ranes
Adventurer
The biggest game I've run comprised 12 players and that was only a few months ago. Never again. If DMing 12 peeps wasn't enough of a challenge in itself, we were playing in a fairly loud public environment (a pub, in fact).
That said, it just about worked. This was in no small part down to the efforts of all of those involved to keep the game moving, for which I was very grateful.
4-6 is optimal for me.
That said, it just about worked. This was in no small part down to the efforts of all of those involved to keep the game moving, for which I was very grateful.
4-6 is optimal for me.
BroccoliRage
First Post
You can't blame the system for the DM having a burnout. The system being used is also not the reason the players become chaotic or pout over spotlight time.
Those are the faults of the parties named, respectively.
I've played kick-ass games with 10 people and kick-ass games with only one person on the other side of the screen. I've played bad games in both situations, as well. It's all what you make of it, and the maturity of the folks involved.
Those are the faults of the parties named, respectively.
I've played kick-ass games with 10 people and kick-ass games with only one person on the other side of the screen. I've played bad games in both situations, as well. It's all what you make of it, and the maturity of the folks involved.
For "in town" adventures with a lot of info-gathering, investigation, and roleplayed negotiations and interrogations I've found fewer players (1 to 3) is better -- any more than that and people will spend too much time sitting around not doing anything and getting bored.
For more action-oriented dungeon and wilderness adventuring more players (4 to 8, with 5-6 being the "sweet spot" IMO) is better -- everybody can get in on the action (be it combat or problem-solving) and the greater quantity and variety of resources and approaches helps the game.
I've only once GMed a group of more than 8 players and it was pretty much a disaster. Perhaps if, as Ourph mentions, I'd been running a scenario deliberately designed for such a large group and turned it into more of a large-scale wargame-type exercise it would've worked better.
4 players is a good compromise between the two extremes (not too many players for town/rp-heavy adventures, not too few for dungeon/wilderness/action-oriented adventures) if you're planning to have the exact same group of players at every session. However, players in my experience (especially adult players who actually have lives) will tend to miss sessions with some regularity (myself included) so even if 4 players is your ideal, it's probably still best to have more than that (6 or so) in the campaign so that given the inevitable cancellations you'll still get 4-5 players per session. If you've only got 4 players then you either have to be very strict about attendance or resign yourself to the fact that most sessions are actually going to have 2-3 players with an NPC'd character or two tagging along.
In the 80s my number of players fluctuated wildly between 1 and 8+. In the 90s this stabilized to 5 regular players with 2 or 3 more irregular "guest players" who would sit in occasionally -- we rarely had more than 6 at the table at once, and I don't think we ever had all 8. My current group also has 8 total players but since almost all of us (me included) have pretty spotty attendance the average players per session is usually in the 4-6 range (last session had 6, the two before that were canceled for the holidays, and the one before that had 5).
For more action-oriented dungeon and wilderness adventuring more players (4 to 8, with 5-6 being the "sweet spot" IMO) is better -- everybody can get in on the action (be it combat or problem-solving) and the greater quantity and variety of resources and approaches helps the game.
I've only once GMed a group of more than 8 players and it was pretty much a disaster. Perhaps if, as Ourph mentions, I'd been running a scenario deliberately designed for such a large group and turned it into more of a large-scale wargame-type exercise it would've worked better.
4 players is a good compromise between the two extremes (not too many players for town/rp-heavy adventures, not too few for dungeon/wilderness/action-oriented adventures) if you're planning to have the exact same group of players at every session. However, players in my experience (especially adult players who actually have lives) will tend to miss sessions with some regularity (myself included) so even if 4 players is your ideal, it's probably still best to have more than that (6 or so) in the campaign so that given the inevitable cancellations you'll still get 4-5 players per session. If you've only got 4 players then you either have to be very strict about attendance or resign yourself to the fact that most sessions are actually going to have 2-3 players with an NPC'd character or two tagging along.
In the 80s my number of players fluctuated wildly between 1 and 8+. In the 90s this stabilized to 5 regular players with 2 or 3 more irregular "guest players" who would sit in occasionally -- we rarely had more than 6 at the table at once, and I don't think we ever had all 8. My current group also has 8 total players but since almost all of us (me included) have pretty spotty attendance the average players per session is usually in the 4-6 range (last session had 6, the two before that were canceled for the holidays, and the one before that had 5).
Phlebas
First Post
I regularly was involved with groups of 10 or more when at the university gaming club as we had a real shortage of Ref's - thats a real challenge coping with a mix of beginners and experienced players. Turning away people wasn't really an option, but you did have fairly high drop out (possibly because of group size) though it still normally stayted above 8
But its not ideal...
Nowadays my group is 6, which i think is perfect as we often have reality interfering and people missing sessions, so even then we have 5 active players which allow more interesting characters and group dynamics than a 3/4 character game
I would be very careful about allowing any more players - more likely to 'split' the game and have 2 parallel groups
But its not ideal...
Nowadays my group is 6, which i think is perfect as we often have reality interfering and people missing sessions, so even then we have 5 active players which allow more interesting characters and group dynamics than a 3/4 character game
I would be very careful about allowing any more players - more likely to 'split' the game and have 2 parallel groups
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
D'karr said:I thought we had a moratorium on edition wars...
All in all, I'd be happier if you reported problematic posts instead of making snarky comments about them somewhere that a moderator might not notice.Shaman said:
That being said, I don't see this thread as an edition war. It's discussing something else, and I'm not seeing OD&D played up as inherently superior to 3e. Everyone, please maintain that.
Steel_Wind
Legend
I have regularly run Rolemaster campaigns for a few years for a group of 8 (occasionally 9). I really don't recommend it though.
Those campaigns were - more or less - instances where friendship and inclusiveness was put before the quality of the game.
I am running 3.5e now for a group of 6 which I find comfortable. I would agree that 4-6 is the sweet spot - and would agree that adding a 7th player would not be something I would do without a food reason. "The game is full".
On the subject of bragging rights: having actually run a regular game with 8 or 9 players in it, the bragging rights come down to 1) actually being able to do it and 2) having people want to be in your game strongly enough that they are willling to put up with reduced face time. In that sense, there is a certain DM Machismo to make the boast.
There is no question, however, that groups larger than 6 tend to make for a qualitatively inferior game experience for all involved. Every now and then - a large group can be kind of fun though - with the right scenario, the right players - and the right DM.
Those campaigns were - more or less - instances where friendship and inclusiveness was put before the quality of the game.
I am running 3.5e now for a group of 6 which I find comfortable. I would agree that 4-6 is the sweet spot - and would agree that adding a 7th player would not be something I would do without a food reason. "The game is full".
On the subject of bragging rights: having actually run a regular game with 8 or 9 players in it, the bragging rights come down to 1) actually being able to do it and 2) having people want to be in your game strongly enough that they are willling to put up with reduced face time. In that sense, there is a certain DM Machismo to make the boast.
There is no question, however, that groups larger than 6 tend to make for a qualitatively inferior game experience for all involved. Every now and then - a large group can be kind of fun though - with the right scenario, the right players - and the right DM.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Beyond six, a group gets unmanagable, IMO. I've had up to 11 players at one time in my Midwood game, and everything from CRs to just keeping everyone busy was an absolute nightmare.
Similar Threads
