What is your "perfect" sized gaming group?

[IronWolf]

Definitely surprised at some of the larger groups! That's cool!

For me, I like to run for 4 players. I find that very manageable, makes balancing the encounters a little easier for me and easy to get each player involved in the game. However, given that life comes up, I tend towards a group of five players. That way when someone cancel we still hit my preferred number.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Definitely surprised at some of the larger groups! That's cool!

For me, I like to run for 4 players. I find that very manageable, makes balancing the encounters a little easier for me and easy to get each player involved in the game. However, given that life comes up, I tend towards a group of five players. That way when someone cancel we still hit my preferred number.

I know what you mean. In my last group that I DM'd I had 5 players and if 2 people called off I'd have to cancel the game for the week, whereas with my current group I'm playing in we had a week we had 2 people call off and there were still 4 of us playing and we decided to go ahead and play anyhow and still had a ton of fun.

 

[was]

I like 6 the best...1 GM and 5 players..its manageable if all players are there but usually one has to miss for some reason

 

[Wombat]

GM + 3-5 players is my sweet spot, 4 players by preference.

I have run one-on-ones and have run one monster game with 13 players (...eep...). Most of my games are 3-5 players. I tend to like that point.

 

[Rhenny]

I like 4 players for D&D as well. Funny how 4e makes 5 players the default party. I think that's one reason why combats take longer. Previous editions seemed to default to 4 players.

 

[steeldragons]

Didn't vote since the poll doesn't allow for ranges, but I'd say "ideal" 6-8 players and a DM.

That said anything with 3 players (+DM) is workable/can be good.

But my own personal best experiences have been with larger (6-8) groups.

--SD

 

[Dykstrav]

For Pathfinder, six players is my magic number. That allows people to have some options without feeling shoe-horned, as well as allowing character types that aren't necessarily optimal but can be situationally useful (bard, monk, multiclassed characters).

Six players is also awesome because we can play even if one or two of our players has to miss a session here and there.

Additionally, six characters seem to work better as a team. One character getting dropped by a lucky crit or a save-or-die effect (such as cause fear or hold person) isn't as devastating a loss among six characters as it is among three or four. It represents a loss of approximately 17% of the party's resources instead of 33% or 25%. The party is more survivable, even though the CR and APL guidelines don't really account for this very well.

For other games, it depends heavily on the genre, type of game, desires of the players, and so forth. I'm gearing up to run a Vampire game now that 20th Edition Anniversary Vampire: the Masquerade is out. I'm planning on three players for that game... Possibly four. I won't do more than that, however, because Vampire really demands that each character receive some "screen time" on their own.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I currently GM for 6 players on a weekly basis, but my preferred group was 5 players (and me running it). I also really like 4 players, but I like 5 a little more. I admit to loving the speed and involvement that 3 players can bring to the game, but there's not enough interaction between players for me. I mean, they can interact a lot, with 3 people in the party, you only really have four sets of interaction (A+B, A+C, B+C, and A+B+C). When you have 5 people in the party, that opens up dramatically, and I find the dynamic interactions make the interparty interactions really shine (even if there's about the same amount of it). It adds just a little more conflict without boiling things over, and I like that.

Anyways, I'd say I prefer 4-6 players, but do enjoy 3. I don't think I'd want to play in (much less run) anything more than 6, nor would I enjoy running a game as much with 2 or fewer players (though I tend to enjoy playing in that sort of situation). As always, though, play what you like

 

[Mercurius]

It depends on the game, I suppose, but for D&D the sweet spot (for me) is 5.5. No, not myself, four friends, and a dwarf, but 5-6. I voted for six because that seems like the ideal. Anything more becomes unwieldy; 4 is OK too but it has to be the right three players. When there are 4-6 players, chemistry isn't quite as important because "problematic" players are somewhat absorbed by the group, whereas if there are three or less players, one player can dominate the rest.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I know what you mean. In my last group that I DM'd I had 5 players and if 2 people called off I'd have to cancel the game for the week, whereas with my current group I'm playing in we had a week we had 2 people call off and there were still 4 of us playing and we decided to go ahead and play anyhow and still had a ton of fun.

Okay, fair enough. I suppose for me, there have to be enough people to interact and roleplay but not too many that people are left out. I'd said 4 to 6, but no more than 8, because then I feel like people are being ignored or left out. My current group started with four, accordianed between 4 and 5 for a couple of months, expanded to eight, and now we're down to five plus the DM, but one of our players is currently on hiatus, so really there are four of us and I think it's a good sized group.