Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 3285659" data-attributes="member: 3854">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</blockquote>

Verification