What is your "perfect" sized gaming group?

[ExploderWizard]

Its hard to vote because the type of game has a huge influence on the perfect number of players. Right now I have 9 players in my Dragon Age campaign. Not all of them make every session so in a situation like I have for tonights game (4 players can't make it), I still have a solid group of 5. If I only had 5 or 6 players to start with, the session would likely be cancelled.

If I were running COC theres no way I would want 9 players at the table. For that type of game the right atmosphere would be nigh impossible to maintain.

I'm just very glad that I have the space for 9 people when I need it.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Depends on the game but generally 3-5 PCs
D&D = 5
Shadowrun = 4
Vampire = 3

 

[AeroDm]

3-5 PCs + DM.

If the game is going to be more story driven, I prefer fewer so that each can have a bigger piece of the limelight. If the game is more casual, let's go kill some stuff, then I prefer larger to smooth out random flukes that lead to a TPK. I've GMed a fair amount in the 6+ with one session at 9 or 10 and it wasn't my thing. Rounds take so long that side conversations are unavoidable, these are distracting and tend to make turns take even longer because they need to figure out what they missed, and scheduling is a nightmare.

As a player, I'd lean towards the lower end as well. I'd hate to be 1 of 10 in a game where you take turns.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have had a variety of numbers, but for my last campaign I had three players, which seemed like a really good number. Three is just enough to be dynamic, but few enough that it allows spotlight time aplenty for each character.

There are many great dramas based around a three-character set. Examples: Lord of the Rings (Frodo, Sam, Gollum), Star Trek (Kirk, Spock, McCoy), Fringe (Olivia, Peter, Walter). Perhaps some English major could articulate this better than me, but three characters in a room really seem to spark off each other nicely.

 

[SteelDraco]

My preference is also five players for the type of game I prefer. Everybody gets some subplot that way and a chance to shine. I'm running Savage Worlds right now for a group of seven, and it does drag. Two people were gone last night and it flowed much better.

System mastery matters, though. D&D would probably be okay with the same group, as everybody knows it better.

I'm getting ready to run a campaign of Masks of Nyarlathotep adapted to Deadlands with exactly five players, looking forward to that.

 

[The Shaman]

It depends on the game I'm running.

Some campaigns work better with a smaller number of players - espionage or swashbuckling, frex - and others are more fun with a band of merry men, like the classic dungeon crawl.

So, one size doesn't fit all.

 

[Dausuul]

For me, 4 players is the sweet spot. 3 is workable but not ideal, 5 likewise. 6 is the maximum I would ever run a game for--I don't run with 7+ players, and it's not my preferred play situation either.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Assuming D&D? I prefer having 2-3 players, each running 3-5 characters.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I've played with a variety of group sizes, each with its own pros and cons. For me, the answer really is "However many can have fun in the group" whether that be 2 total or 11 total or somewhere in between.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I've played with a variety of group sizes, each with its own pros and cons. For me, the answer really is "However many can have fun in the group" whether that be 2 total or 11 total or somewhere in between.

I too have had fun in groups ranging from 2 people (back in 2E my best friend and I did a whole 1-20 campaign together) all the way up to my current group I'm playing in with 7 people (6 players), which has been a blast so far. Reason I asked was just to get a feel for what people preferred as their group number trying to nail down a bit more specificity.