Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I think all the groups I played in had 8-9 regular players, with usually 6-7 at any one session.
More the merrier? I don't think so.
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Masquerade
First Post
When DMing, I prefer to have 5-6 players, but have gone up as far as 8 without problems. As a player, I prefer a somewhat smaller group, maybe 4-5 players.
Sound of Azure
Contemplative Soul
2-5 is my sweet spot, and I can (just barely) handle 6 players. Any more than that, and I need an assistant.
A few years back, I had a really cool one-shot that took place over a month playing twice a week with 8 players, split into two groups, with two assistants. Each of the two groups took the role of one side in a conflict over a keep. It was a lot of fun, but I'd hesitate to do it again.
In a normal D&D game, I would have performed less well with that many players.
2-3 players allows for a lot closer teamwork amongst people I've gamed with, as well as allowing more "screen time" for each PC. It's also easier to for me to manage. 2-3 is also great for particular "niche" groups, and to tell particular types of stories that it might be otherwise difficult with a larger group (eg priest and bodyguard, two wet behind the ears thieves, two best friends on the road to adventure, father and his two sons, etc).
This method has both the strength and weakness of sometimes not having all the bases covered in terms of the iconic party.
4-5 is good for me, and requires the least adjustment to prepublished adventures, and though you are not assured of a well-rounded party, it is more likely.
A few years back, I had a really cool one-shot that took place over a month playing twice a week with 8 players, split into two groups, with two assistants. Each of the two groups took the role of one side in a conflict over a keep. It was a lot of fun, but I'd hesitate to do it again.
In a normal D&D game, I would have performed less well with that many players.
2-3 players allows for a lot closer teamwork amongst people I've gamed with, as well as allowing more "screen time" for each PC. It's also easier to for me to manage. 2-3 is also great for particular "niche" groups, and to tell particular types of stories that it might be otherwise difficult with a larger group (eg priest and bodyguard, two wet behind the ears thieves, two best friends on the road to adventure, father and his two sons, etc).
This method has both the strength and weakness of sometimes not having all the bases covered in terms of the iconic party.
4-5 is good for me, and requires the least adjustment to prepublished adventures, and though you are not assured of a well-rounded party, it is more likely.
I think part of it is to separate number of player's from number of PCs. I like 3-4 players each having 2 PCs, so 6-8 PCs in a party with maybe 1-3 followers. It's what I grew up with. These days I like small numbers because we play only if everyone can show up. With family and career coordinating 3 players + GM is hard enough.
Back in the 'ole late 70's D&D wasn't something you made public at school if you didn't want to catch grief, believe me, the D&D club players seemed to go out of their way to fulfill the negative stereotype. So that made for relatively smallish groups, again 3-4 players, but running two PCs each. In addition, we all lived at home (being teenages and all) and none of us had dining room tables that could sit much more than 6, and certainly not with all the game stuff. Finally, the one time we did get together a big group, 12 or so with a side card table, after two groups of friends of mine both found out they were closet RPGs, it ended up devolving (happily) into a party.
I prefer close-knit groups; of course if all the spouses wanted to play we could easily get to 5+ players with the scheduling ease of 3 (or easier).
Back in the 'ole late 70's D&D wasn't something you made public at school if you didn't want to catch grief, believe me, the D&D club players seemed to go out of their way to fulfill the negative stereotype. So that made for relatively smallish groups, again 3-4 players, but running two PCs each. In addition, we all lived at home (being teenages and all) and none of us had dining room tables that could sit much more than 6, and certainly not with all the game stuff. Finally, the one time we did get together a big group, 12 or so with a side card table, after two groups of friends of mine both found out they were closet RPGs, it ended up devolving (happily) into a party.
I prefer close-knit groups; of course if all the spouses wanted to play we could easily get to 5+ players with the scheduling ease of 3 (or easier).
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Same here, except my games tend to be 5 players running a party of 8-13 including henches and NPC's. When I got to 7 players some years ago, with 2 more trying to get in, I split the game into 2 parties, and after various interweavings and detours over time, that's still what I run now.Rothe said:
That said, it's fun to combine the parties for some specific event e.g. their joint home base gets attacked when everyone happens to be between adventures...as long as it only lasts for a session or two!
Lanefan
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Back in my 1e Days, 6-8 was common, 4 or 10 was unusual but not unheard of.
Personally, I think the sweet spot is about 6. Four is actually an great number, but since we live in the real world, with 6 you can have an absence or two and still have a viable game, plus it doesn't take much modification from base assumptions to run a slightly larger party. At above that, you really need to work to balance encounters, plus it's more of a chore to manage the game -- I refuse to DM more than 8. I consider 3 players the bare minimum to make it worth preparing a game.
Personally, I think the sweet spot is about 6. Four is actually an great number, but since we live in the real world, with 6 you can have an absence or two and still have a viable game, plus it doesn't take much modification from base assumptions to run a slightly larger party. At above that, you really need to work to balance encounters, plus it's more of a chore to manage the game -- I refuse to DM more than 8. I consider 3 players the bare minimum to make it worth preparing a game.
My ideal is a party of exactly six players. Here's why:
1) The game doesn't come to a screeching halt when one player has to bail. If someone has a late night at work or whatever, we can game on without being too disruptive. One player short in a four-player group could spell disaster- far less so in a six-player group.
2) The party has a good mix of abilities, even if you have two players that absolutely must play fighters, wizards, or whatever. With all the basics covered (and there's usually several players that want a basic build), a few of the players can try a 'fringe' class such as a paladin, bard, or monk.
3) The game seems more relaxed and the players seem more confident in the group's ability to take on challenges. There's still a sense of danger and tension, but a single character death doesn't derail the game.
1) The game doesn't come to a screeching halt when one player has to bail. If someone has a late night at work or whatever, we can game on without being too disruptive. One player short in a four-player group could spell disaster- far less so in a six-player group.
2) The party has a good mix of abilities, even if you have two players that absolutely must play fighters, wizards, or whatever. With all the basics covered (and there's usually several players that want a basic build), a few of the players can try a 'fringe' class such as a paladin, bard, or monk.
3) The game seems more relaxed and the players seem more confident in the group's ability to take on challenges. There's still a sense of danger and tension, but a single character death doesn't derail the game.
Similar Threads
