What is it about a game that influences average party size?

[karlindel]

There are several things in a game system that influence party size:

Speed of Resolution - the longer it takes to resolve individual actions, the fewer players you want to have.

Number of Roles Needed and Number of Roles a single character can fill - These two go together, as they combine to determine the minimum number of players for the game system (without the GM working extra hard to tailor the game to the particular roles the characters choose, of course). Basically, if the system strongly encourages a certain number of roles (like D&D which encourages the Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief), you need enough players to fill those roles. If one player can fill multiple roles (via multiclassing or the like), this can reduce the number of players you need to play the game.

Teamwork Orientation - Games that encourage teamwork (i.e. mechanically rewards multiple characters working together through synergistic abilities, powers that are stronger with more targets, buffing abilities, etc.) encourage more players. Game systems that prevent teamwork (i.e. no mechanics for aiding, buffing abilities only affect the character, etc).

 

[Umbran]

My theory is that it relates to specialization. The games that allow more specialized characters tend to encourage smaller party sizes, presumably because these hyper specialized characters will have more "time alone" with the GM.

Games that encourage teamwork tend to be aimed towards larger groups - basically, games with "roles" that need to be filled (healer, tank, utility mage, master fence, etc) often seem to be aimed at larger groups.

Any thoughts?

My first thought is that there's a logic error above: roles are specializations.

In my own experience, the game actually doesn't have much to do with party size. The upper bound is set by how well and quickly the GM can keep different balls in the air. Most GMs (again, IME) seem to prefer working with six or fewer.

The ideal lower bound is a bit musher, and seems to me to be more about how many interesting interactions you have. One GM can play the roles of a bazillion NPCs, but he or she can't handle most of them in great detail - they are usually more like character sketches, with depth reserved for a few key NPCs.

The PCs, however, each have an entire person dedicated to rendering them in full detail, so usually if you want good rich and interesting interactions, the other players are where you want to look. So, think about this as you would a TV show - how many main characters do you usually want to have? Three to five? More and you're starting to talk about an "ensemble" cast...

 

[MortonStromgal]

In my own experience, the game actually doesn't have much to do with party size.

I think World of Darkness with its Physical, Mental and Social roles begins to have characters who step on each others toes fairly quickly as you add people. 3 fills the need, each addition has to go somewhere by the time you hit 7 player characters overlap so much they aren't really special anymore. Shadowrun also worked best with 3 but the game has changed a lot so I dont think is as big of a deal anymore.

 

[Fabio Andrea Rossi]

There are several things in a game system that influence party size:

Speed of Resolution - the longer it takes to resolve individual actions, the fewer players you want to have.

In my experience, this is the most important factor to determine the number of players a game system performs better with.

That, and the complexity/tactical depth of combat in games where combat is core.

We are gaming WFRPG 2ed with 7 players and it runs wonderfully system wise, the same was true back then when we played OD&D.

We did play 4E in 7+ DM for one year and half, and it simple requires too much time for combats and brings too many combos with the powers, this is why, I think, a smaller number of players is suggested.

That aside, I agree that running for 4-5 people is the best, but this really depends on the players: if the game system is quick, you can play with 7 or more people if the party members are the right ones, if the quieter members are fine with getting less direct sun and if the DM is a good one.

Many if, I know, but these are IFs that work wonders for our Friday nights

 

[Sunseeker]

I always thought the ideal number was somewhere between 6 and 8. As you say, it allows specialization, but it also aims for good teamwork. There are a lot of good classes in every game, but when groups get smaller, it really only starts to allow for the "base" classes, and only one of them at best, sometimes two.

I also like how with slightly larger parties, it makes games less dependent on one player. When your group is around 8, you often have more than one meat-shield, multiple casters, and an assortment of others. That way if there is an emergency IRL, someone can leave and it's not going to make the game unplayable. This is the problem my deadlands group has atm, there are only 3 of us, and each runs a "buddy" NPC, making for a total of 6 characters, however, if someone is out for the week, we've lost a 3rd of the group, and the group cannot play.

I like teamwork, I always have, the "i'm so awesome at what I do, I don't need you" character really has no business being in the party to being with. And with less specialization, there's less pressure to "min-max" your character, and build something a little more flavorful to your style.

But yes, in general, I think game speed is really the defining factor. But game speed varies from player to player and game to game, so that's a tricky one too.

Basically when I make games, I increase mob numbers, then difficulty. If the team of 5 plows through 5 mobs, well maybe I'll make that 10 mobs. If they trash that, then maybe it'll become 8 mobs, but 3 times as strong. I make NPCs easier to intimidate(as more people=bigger threat), while I make them harder to sweet-talk, as the 7 people standing behind you make them less trusting of you.

With better players, I also give "turn timers", nice little 2 minute countdown to let them figure out what they need to do and then do it.

 

[Subtlepanic]

For me it's four - three players and a GM. It's the rule of three: you can't ever have an impasse. Decisions go quicker.

Forget the rules - most systems I've played work fairly well with anything above two players. Sure, D&D is mechanically "built" for four or five players. Most times, I can cater for a bit of adjustment on the GM side to rebuild things for what I think of as the "optimum" group.

For me, over the grand duration of a campaign, most time is spent roleplaying - irrespective of system - so the optimum comes out as three players, again and again. With three players we rattle through RP encounters, and everyone has the best time. Add or remove just one player, and the optimum is breached.

Of course, this hasn't stopped me playing with groups of seven players most of the time. I just can't say no =)

 

[Khazan]

Our current group (3.5 homebrew) is 7 players and, as others have noted, there is good and bad to be had with a sizable group. We are fairly strong as a group, all the "roles" are covered and backed-up, RL scheduling can be covered if one or 2 people can't make a session, and we get to enjoy the social aspect of a nice long gaming night.

I too have noticed the long slow fade of attention spans during a session, mainly due to the fact that combat can take so damn long to resolve. Add to that the proclivity for metagaming, since players are sitting idly during long stretches and the inevitable chattering begins, and that gets to be a distraction as well.

And sometimes it does feel like our group is a freakin' GANG, especially stomping through establishments in a town or city (shidaku had it right when he mentioned the Intimidation factor)

 

[Ariosto]

The games that allow more specialized characters tend to encourage smaller party sizes, presumably because these hyper specialized characters will have more "time alone" with the GM.

If so many specializations are necessary, then so many characters (not necessarily players) are necessary. I think it tends more to put a lower bound on party size.

I am not expert on 4e, but I would not want to play a solitary rogue or wizard in that game. Even a party of three might be stretched thin, I think.

In old D&D, the viability of a single character really depends on what he or she is attempting.

With just two players, the game seems to me to lose some of the social aspect that I enjoy. With just one, there are of course only NPCs to interact with (unless the player is going to talk to herself). That said, it can be an interesting change of pace. High-level characters, in my experience, tend often to go off on their own or with but a henchman or two.

I am not seeing this "time alone" thing. I think it depends on the particulars of specialization. This logistical consideration informs the design of RPGs so that they tend to be about groups of people operating together.

There certainly can be issues of having enough distinctive positions to fill. A starship's crew in Traveller might have jobs for half a dozen different specialties, but most of those might not occupy more than one person at a time. There are often also economic pressures that tend toward giving one person a couple of jobs.

The likely time between player turns with the newer rules sets may to some extent bode against parties a dozen strong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most common OD&D/AD&D party assumption I have encountered is 4-6 PCs, possibly with about as many henchmen.

Tournament scenarios overwhelmingly do not use henchmen, but often add more PCs to get maybe 8 or 9 players to a table. I think one reason is that it eases the logistics of tournaments. To provide half again or twice as many DMs and tables -- and score as many more teams -- makes it harder to accommodate as many players.

At a smaller convention, it might be preferable to have smaller teams. I don't know whether that figured in the production of, e.g., Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. That already tense scenario can be tougher with more than three players, because of the real-time limit for completion.

Different sizes and compositions of parties are good for different missions. A small, lightly equipped group tends to be better for stealthy reconnaissance, while a big and heavily armed force is often better for an assault. If you're going into the wilderness, and might want or need to fight a force of hundreds of men or orcs, then high levels are certainly good but so are numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to total numbers in the campaign, games such as old D&D and Gangbusters were conceived with multiple "parties" in mind. The original D&D set suggests a referee: player ratio of about 1:20. Much interest is to be generated by the interaction -- often the opposition -- of the plans of various alliances.

 

[Hussar]

Well, just like any social situation, there is an upper limit where things just get too crowded. Try having a conversation with eight people - possible, but, it's likely to devolve into two or three separate conversations with people kinda moving between groups from time to time.

Imagine trying to do a really role play heavy scene (regardless of system) dealing with three or four NPC's and eight players. There's still only one DM, so, he can only answer questions so quickly. It can easily bottleneck and lead to frustration.

In some games, where the primary focus was less on social interaction and more on task resolution, it tended to work easier with larger groups.

As RPG's have become more and more focused on social interactions between PC's and NPC's, the small the groups have seemed to become.