More the merrier? I don't think so.

[Davelozzi]

I have 7-8 players now and used to have a couple more, but that's not because I want to have the group that big, simply because I have a number of friends who like to play (and no one else in my core group generally runs anything). Things are definitely pretty slow this way and I think we'd have more fun with a smaller group.

That said, I feel like the larger group was less of a problem in 1e & 2e. Mostly this is because the rules were less rules (I don't want to get into an edition war, and understand that 3e streamlined a lot with the core mechanic, but the sheer weight of options with feats, spells, PrCs, etc. definitely makes for a more complicated experience overall). Of course another issue is simply that before there wasn't really a core assumption about the size of your group but now it is wired into the whole CR/EL system.

I would certainly prefer a smaller group, and I would agree with some of the previous posters that 4-6 is the ideal range, with 5 players being optimal. Even if it means loosening up or evening letting go of the CR/EL system, I would prefer for the game to assume more of a range like this.

 

[tennyson]

4 players at the table is definitely the "sweet spot" for me. Our group meets that number and the adventures are always smooth and enjoyable.

 

[Mark CMG]

I will play with anything from three to seven but prefer four, five, or even six as a good number of players (plus DM).

 

[Dragon Vindaloo]

My group has five players in it; I wont play with less than three players at the table but feel anything more than five is too many for me.

I have had seven players at one point and although fun it often got frustating and became a knightmare of chatting, people going for a fag/toilet/snack break, misunderstandings about 'where characters are' and people mishearing things. I like four the best; if you can find four good players who are really into the game its golden.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'd have to say 6-7 is optimal. 4 is nice, but that usually hurts a lot when 1 of the 4 goes down in a fight, & there's no other option for that 1's abilities.

As of now, I'm running a game with 11 players in it, & it's rough. I'm a bit flattered that 11 people are interested enough in playing in games I DM, but I'm considering splitting the group into 2 smaller groups (I haven't yet, since I need to see how my weekly schedule's going to be beforehand).

I like 6-7 overall because it allows for 4 of the group to cover the classic class roles (fighter/cleric/mage/rogue), while the other 2-3 can cover new territory or play characters you can feasibly serve as back up (bards, psionic classes, etc.). There's a large enough group for a feeling of diversity, but not too large of a group where a player may feel like he's just playing another version of someone else's character.

Also, I like the 6-7 member group because ideally/hopefully, that should have at least one party member each having the highest score in one of their attributes that no one else has (one PCs the strongest; one's the quickest; etc.). In the case of a 7 member group, the 7th PC may have good above-average scores overall, but not outshine the rest of the group.

 

[Desdichado]

You can't blame the system for the DM having a burnout.

While in general I agree with your post, I'm going to nitpick this particular claim, at least. I've been burned out on a system that I felt wasn't doing what I wanted it to, or was actively contributing to the gaming experience being more cumbersome and/or difficult than I would have liked. When that's a case, a larger group only makes the problem worse.

 

[Darklone]

As always, it depends on the players. If you have many "I run along" players, you can have big groups with one or two real active players without any problems (up to 15). If you have several active and imaginative players who work well together, it's harder, but still no problem.

As soon as the PCs start to play more against themselves than anything else, you can forget about the campaign... but still have a lot of fun. My favorite plot hook, the evil bastard who kicked the whole group down, works wonderfully to unite the PCs.

Big groups are nice if you have a huge group of friends that likes to come by for a friday evening till saturday morning gaming with a lot of beer, good food and fun.

 

[BroccoliRage]

While in general I agree with your post, I'm going to nitpick this particular claim, at least. I've been burned out on a system that I felt wasn't doing what I wanted it to, or was actively contributing to the gaming experience being more cumbersome and/or difficult than I would have liked. When that's a case, a larger group only makes the problem worse.

I can see why you would feel that way, but is that really the system's fault? What I mean to say is, maybe your inappropriately wielding the system, or not being imaginative enough.

Don't take this as an insult or me looking down my nose at you, because I'm not at all. I'm saying that if you're using, say, Gamma World to play a wild west-type game, then perhaps you should switch to using Boot Hill or d20 Past. IF you're extremely inventive, you could use Gamma World to such an end. And if you're jsut running out of ideas or tired of the system, that's your fault and not the system's. If I'm being unclear, feel free to tell me so.

Again, this isn't meant to be offensive at all.

 

[howandwhy99]

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 think this is a lot of presuming without much fact. A game can be extremely fun with any number of players. It takes four to play Bridge, but it's awfully fun once you have those four. A game that can be run with more people isn't necessarily more fun, it just allows for more people to play.

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 don't know where you played, but your experience was nothing like the dozens of groups I knew of in the late 80's to early 90's in Milwaukee and the surrounding area. No one wanted only 4 people to play. The average group size was 6-8 players. Four was "enough to play" with any less than that considered unfun. This was the opinion of most every player I met before the new edition. I started in a 2 player game, so I don't think less than 4 is unfun, but I have no practical experience relating to yours. Games in 2nd edition didn't really slow down until 8-9 players for us.

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.)

Maybe this is what you are encountering above? 15 years ago it was a bit of an ego trip for DMs to be able to run large groups. I think it is very much like judging a LARP today. A LARP judge who can run 20-30 people well has a heck of a lot of energy, experience, or is very well organized. It's a challenge and badge of honor to be able to run so many and to do so well. Maybe this is the source of presumption?

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

Again, I have no idea where you played, but almost everyone I ever encountered before leaving the hobby in '95 had a different experience than you. Heck. Even all the GenCon tournament games I attended 89'-94' were maxed out at 8 people. It was very common to have a full table and I'd be willing to bet I attended one or two where more than 8 played for the full four hours. Some tourney judges wouldn't even run a game with 4 players or less because of the module requirements. I don't think the 1000's of players in those tournaments were not having fun because eight people were playing at their table.

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?

That's a lot of attributes. Bragging rights, sure. But better game? Is hide and seek better with 3 people or 8? It's preference and, yes, rules of the game certainly come into it.

Our OD&D game could be run with 20 people because to play doesn't require dealing with the Referee for every moment you interact in character. There is simply more to do even though the rules are fewer. It's a style not easily emulated in other games. In my 3.5 game I have 5 (maybe 6) players and it feels a lot like the old 2e games for me. I'd prefer 6 as an average and could probably handle one or two more with practice. I'd never dream of playing with 20 under the new rules. This isn't a drawback for me. They are simply two different games.

 

[kaomera]

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?

Speaking strictly from a personal standpoint, it's not that the 4 PC party is in any way a weakness of the system (especially since I prefer to run with a couple more players than that), it's just that a) I never played 1e AD&D with less than six players ~ games where canceled if fewer than 5 players showed up, and b) I never knew anyone to play AD&D with fewer than five players. This isn't in any way saying that my AD&D experiences where better than my current 3.x experiences. In fact, I'd have to say that from a strictly mechanical standpoint 3.x is a much better game than AD&D (personal opinion only). What made the play in AD&D as good as my current games was that we entertained ourselves, rather than expecting the rules to be fun in and of themselves (if you can see what I mean ~ I'm not at all sure I'm being completely clear about it... Sorry...).

So, personally, I'm quick to jump in with stories about 20+ players at a session (spread around various sofas and chairs in a recroom; without a battlemat there was no need to actually fit everyone at a single table) when the idea that 4 is the "standard" number of players in AD&D, it's because a) that statement does not match my experiences, and b) a lot of the fun of AD&D (for me) was in getting a dozen+ guys together who where all really excited about the game and would pay attention to every little thing that happened, even if, say, your character was engaged in something elsewhere in the campaign and you didn't get to actually "play" more than making a few suggestions for how some NPC retainers should act...

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 agree with 4-6 being the "sweet spot" (at least unless I can find a dozen or so 11-year old Übernerds, obsessed with the idea that AD&D is the coolest thing they have ever seen and the need to "do it right"), but I also do think that within that range more is, indeed, better (for me at least). If I could get a group of exactly 6 players, who would all show up (nearly) every session, that would be awesome! But, mostly, I can't. Having 7 or 8 players in the group (nowadays) is simply a matter of "insurance", and I still have weeks when so few (<4, or the wrong 4 or 5) show up that I have to skip a week.

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.)

Right now I'm finding somewhat of the opposite. With less than 5 or 6 (barring having one of two particular players show up) there are painfully long moments of silence when no-one at the table wants to speak up. But, from the sound of it, if I was DMing your group I suspect that I would have experiences much more similar to yours.

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

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's not a "bragging right" or any such. It is a "special thing" because, frankly, I'm nostalgic for the days when a Vorpal sword seemed like some kind of pure vision of Awesome, and at the same time myself and every DM I knew where far, far too afraid of being called "Monty Haul" to ever include one in our games*. However, for me at least, and from 1978 to 1984 or so, gaming with less than 6 was completely abnormal. It's could be that this was some kind of crazy fluke thing, but I've seen too many others echo that sentiment to believe so.

* As an aside, related to the thread about wishes in AD&D: the only times (5 or 6, IIRC) that I ever included wish-granting items in my games was in a specific attempt to get one of my players in particular to wish for a Vorpal sword, so that I would have an excuse for such foolishness... Of course, none of my players where ever so "foolish" to actually wish for a Vorpal sword... Just imagine the mischief an AD&D DM could have gotten up to with a request like that!