More the merrier? I don't think so.

[Allensh]

20 is optimal for me

Is that because OD&D suggests 1 DM to 20 players as the optimal ratio?

Allen

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

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

This is simlar to the Fantasy Trip game I'm in now. We have 6 players and 13 PC's and henchmen.

 

[S'mon]

For ease of GMing, leaving aside party survivability, I think 2-3 players is optimal. 4-6 is fine; 7 is the most I'll GM for regularly, and it can be tough, especially in 3e.

 

[Hussar]

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.

QFT

Over the past few years, running online chat based games where the flake factor seems to be so much higher than in FTF games, I often had 8 players just to be on the safe side. After much sifting and weeding, I've now got 6 rock solid players who I can count on pretty much every week. Actually, honestly, I have 5 rock solid players and 1 who is seemingly growing roots.

4-6 has always been the norm for me and for anyone I knew as well.

 

[diaglo]

Is that because OD&D suggests 1 DM to 20 players as the optimal ratio?

Allen

referee. not DM.

we are referees.

 

[MonsterMash]

Personal preference as both player and GM is 4-5 players and one GM, I have run for 7 IIRC, but I find it tricky in face to face gaming.

 

[Evilhalfling]

sounds like we have alot of agreement.
3-6 is a good size, more makes everything more difficult.
I have gone to 8 players running convention games, and it works fine for 4 hr one-shot
my home game only has 3 (due to a recent birth) and we are looking to add 1-2 more.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I have played in a group of near 35 players. Now Imagine alot of them having leadership!

Anyway I have 5 players that are able to come every week. 13 if everyone I liked to game with was still available. I like alot of players though and myself have DMed 15, but finding people that you actually like to game with is a problem, that and the space to play is trouble too.

 

[werk]

I prefer 4-6.

I'm only currently in one group with more than that, and I'm about to leave because...well...it sucks. I get to do something once every 20-30 minutes and combat is a just stupid...and it's all combat because otherwise I'd get to do something maybe once an hour.

I think big groups speaks to low quality of players or low availability of DMs. YMMV

 

[SpiderMonkey]

3 or 4 is the sweet spot for me. You have to balance it between group dynamics/inter-party rping and spotlight time. 2 players in a group will guarantee that each gets a lot of spotlight time and little "loading" time, but the interaction between them won't evolve _that_ much, and they may be unequipped for the challenges. 5 or more, IME, has too much "loading" time and not enough spotlight time for anyone. Folks get bored and fidgety.