The optimal number of participants (player AND DM)!

[Decamber]

Re: Re: The optimal number of players!

Perhaps you should reword the poll's question to read: How many participants (number of players and the DM) should there be in an ultimate gaming group?

I tried but it doesn't let me change the poll question.
Although I added a line in the first post, to clarify a little.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Umbran]

I vote for, "There is no such thing as a single ultimate playing group." The optimum number of players depends very much on the style of game. I've played in and run games that really called for only three, and others that really needed 12.

 

[Gnarlo]

"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First, shalt thou take out the Holy Cheetoes. Then, shalt thou count to six. No more, no less. Six shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting, shall be six. Seven shalt thou not count, neither count thou five, excepting that thou then procede to six. Eight is right out. Once the number six, being the sixth number, be reached, then lobbest thou, thy Holy Mountain of Dew, towards thy foe... who, being naughty in my sights, shall drink it'... "

/gnarlo!

Obligatory Python reference #73. Someone else do Hitler and Nazis.

 

[Garmorn]

Depending on how you design the adventure, and the way the Players approach it, you may not need to have the four "core" classes at all.

3 Players and 1 DM is best.

Yes, but not only requires more work, it limits the posiblities. I don't like running with only 3 player even if that is what I have at the moment. The fewer people the less dynamic the interaction, the more limited the options for both the characters/players and the DM. On the other hand more active the players are individualy the few people the game can handle because of time requirements to satify each one's desire for the spotlight.

 

[greymarch]

4 to 6 players (including DM) is optimal. In fact, my gaming group wont even play unless we have at least 4 people.

 

[am181d]

The answer is definitely 6. (Five PCs + DM.) 4 PCs is okay, but players will feel forced into specific roles. ("Okay, we need one wizard, one fighter, one cleric and one rogue.") 6 PCs, and it starts to get crowded, especially in role-playing situations. 3 PCs, and it's hard to "cover the basics".

So if you picked "6", you were right. Everyone else is objectively wrong.

(I am joking about the last bit.)

 

[Mark]

Anywhere from 4 to 7 works fairly well, and adding in a few more never hurts a game if you know they're coming. But the optimal number for the game, IMO, is five including the DM. Four is the easiest number for which to design adventures.

 

[Ravellion]

I voted 5, but I think it might be 6. 5,6 or 7 would be best, for the reasons stated above.

I would never go below 3 PCs for D&D, and would probably instead play a d20 modern game, with two cop buddies or something.

Rav

 

[drothgery]

I like 5-7; four PCs is the minimum to have all the bases covered, and one or two others allows for a few tweeners and/or some PCs with a lot of overlap. Of course, the game I'm currently playing in has an Expert/Wizard/Diplomancer, a mostly-Urban Ranger Ranger/Rogue (me), an even-split Fighter/Rogue, a mostly-Rogue Fighter/Rogue, a pure Rogue, and a pure Psychic Warrior. City game, low-magic world, and you had to make a convert to gain a Cleric level. Given 14 levels of perspective, it might have been worth it to become an evangelical

 

[Zogg]

I went with 5 - that's 1 DM and four players. I think this is the ideal number for everyone to 'get enough attention' and if it comes to a vote within the party, a 2-2 split will have to be discussed rather than a 3-2 (of a party of 5) vote being used to overpower certain members.