What is your "perfect" sized gaming group?

"Magical" number of people at your table


I would like 5 players and me. The thing on roles is good, but more realistically that means two players a can not show and I can still play. Right now we have 4, so it requires two to miss to cancel the game, but before it was 3, so anyone misses, no game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Depends on the game (system, and sometimes adventure).

For D&D (3e and 4e) I generally prefer 5 players + DM.

For most other games, I prefer 4+1. However, I'm willing to stretch to 6+1, and can adapt down to 3+1. I generally won't run for fewer than 3 players, and I only own 7 chairs, hence the limits!
 

I've played in a game with about 10. It might have been fun if I'd been on the side of the table that the DM was actually paying attention to. 5 or 6 is nice.
 



My preferred group size is 6-8 players and me (at least when I'm dming).

My "quorum" is 3 players; less than that and we don't usually play. But if half the group can't show and I've still got a quorum, the game goes on. No one player's stupid relationship drama, important work emergency or family crisis stops the game.
 

For me, the perfect number of players is 3. It's enough to have interesting interactions and relationships. In more tactical games, it's enough to have crucial roles covered. On the other hand, the group is still small enough that everybody gets a lot of screen time and the pace is good. That's why I aim for this group size for one-shots.

In campaign play, I prefer four player group, for logistic reasons. If somebody can't come for some reason, I still have three people left. If it was a group of three to start with, then one absentee would reduce it to two, to few for a good session.
 

I voted 3, 1 GM + 2 players, because that is the current size of our group. It has been 3 for a couple of years and probably will be indefinitely. We've been playing a lot of Savage Worlds which works well for 2 heroes with a few extras. That game could accommodate any number of players, though.

I would love to recapture our 3 other lapsed players that are still (somewhat) local, but I really don't think it will happen. One guy says he would come if I resumed my 3.0 game, but 3 players feels a little light for D&D to me. I would prefer 4 and have a great (IMHO) D&D game in mind for 5. If I had 6, I've got a Rifts game that I would love to run.

So, system matters--what we play. But more important is who I play with. We're all long-time friends. The 2 guys I play with currently are friends of 10 & 20 years. The others are similar. I haven't wanted to find a new group or players, although I considered it at certain points. More likely, I would get into something like 40K or just stop playing altogether.

So, I am really glad to have a small group of really good friends to game with.
 

No one player's stupid relationship drama, important work emergency or family crisis stops the game.

This made me laugh!

Aside from laughing at Jester's above quote, I was looking at the poll results today, it's more in line what I thought would be the general consensus of the people who play/run games here. I was quite surprised when early on it was the bigger groups that led the pack, now it seems people like to play in groups from 4-6.
 

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.

Thats because a big complaint in 3E was that the game assumed 4 players but most people played with 4-6 plus a DM.

------------------

I'm down for 2 players and a DM up to 6 players and a DM. I won't DM for more or less than that and I don't want to play with more or less than that.

Preference is probably 5 players and a DM.
 

Remove ads

Top