Optimal number of players?

[AwesomeOpossum74]

What would you consider the optimal number of players for a DnD session? My friend and I are working on building a group.

I played a game last night that had 7 players and the DM. Game play was fun, but went pretty slow. In the course of about 2 1/2 hours I think I played about 5-6 times.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Challenge Rating for monsters, at least in 3rd edition, are based around assuming 4 players.

I have played with a range of players between 9 and 2, I personally think 4~5 is ideal.

 

[was]

Six..because one or two never show up, and if they all do it's manageable

 

[Water Bob]

A long time ago, I started insisting that everybody show up, so inviting 6 and hoping to get 4 is not an issue for me.

I think 3-4 players is optimal. If I had to pick one, I'd go with 3 players and 1 GM. It's easiest to schedule with a fewer number of players, and 3 opinions is enough to keep the game creative from a players' persepective.

 

[MerricB]

EDITION MATTERS!

In original D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D and AD&D 2E, the number of characters (not precisely players) is generally in the 6-10 range and dropping as time goes by. The more individual role-playing you want to do (2E) the fewer players are better. With generally simultaneous combat resolution in the earlier editions, it handles larger groups of players a lot better.

At low levels, you want larger groups of characters because of the lethality of the system at those levels. At higher levels, smaller groups become feasible.

In D&D 3E, the system was designed around 4 players, but generally 4-6 players works well. More tend to slow the game down, especially at high levels. Having each player choose their action when it's their turn rather than the group initiative of earlier editions is a chief part of why it takes longer.

In D&D 4E, the system is designed around 5 players, but I've found lower numbers work better. I'm very happy running a group of 3 with 4E, and would say 3-5 players is optimal; by the time you hit 6 or more, the combats take a very long time.

Cheers!

 

[the Jester]

Merric's right; the system you are using matters.

From your other thread, you're playing 1e. I would say "the more the merrier, up to about eight". Be prepared to play when four or more players are present; do not be afraid of parties with a variety of character level.

 

[Water Bob]

EDITION MATTERS!

Good point. And, I'd take it a step further in saying: GAME MATTERS!

The Conan RPG, for example, is much easier to play with just one player (playing one character) than any of the D&D editions. A game like Classic Traveller can be easily scaled to accomodate a single player also, or several characters.

Still, if I was asked, overall, for any RPG, what is the optimum number of players, I'd still say: 3-4 players and one GM.

This fits games that are focused on single or few heroes, like the James Bond RPG (A 00 Agent and two sidekicks), and you've got enough to play group focused games like 1E AD&D (Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric).

 

[VariSami]

I use 3.X as the system I run, and I prefer 3-5 players. Most of my games have 3 since that's about the number left after a few persons notice that that don't have the time to play fortnightly or weekly, or that the campaign in question doesn't fit their tastes after all.

Being left with 3 players does pose problems sometimes but since I avoid running hack n' slash campaigns in any case, the CR of monsters is a lesser issue. The biggest problems arise when player's don't realize the need for a wide variety of capabilities since a small group will probably be missing on something anyway.

 

[Yora]

Regardless of the game played, 4 is optimum, with 3 and 5 also working quite well, but everything else not.
6 is somehow the magic number at which group dynamics kick in and the brain triggers the reflex to let two or three people take charge and just go along with that. If all players are of a very active type that wants to provide input on all descisions, 5 people still works. If there are one or two players who don't push forward to get themselves heard, even that is too many. Having two highly active players and two quiet ones is a bit difficult, but otherwise 4 works very well. If you have two very active players and one quiet one, 3 is a small enough group where that doesn't matter and the others will ask the quiet one for input.

However, I once played in a Shadowrun game that had 7 PCs and 10 people in a tiny kitchen, that was a blast. Because most of the game was bulshitting about the incedible plan we came up with to investigate a warehous, with everyone having ideas how their characters could contribute.My sniper got to the othershore of the river to give fire support from the riverside, where there was no wall and I had open sight on almost the entire yard and the insde of the building.
And then of course, being Shadowrun, we completely ed it up. ^^
Shadowrun works well with large groups because it's a genre that works a lot with large teams of specialists doing there thing in a very condensed timeframe. Getting the contract, scouting the location, planning the mission, and executing it was the entire adventure. Nothing with talking to NPC, getting to learn the background of the world, dealing with the landscape, and what you all get in many other RPGs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Having DMed between two and ten, I'd say three or four is best. Two isn't quite dynamic enough; three-person groups are common throughout dramatic fiction. Anything more than four and my head starts to hurt and it becomes harder to involve everyone to the extent I'd like.