Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5288023" data-attributes="member: 80487">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.</blockquote>

Verification