What is your "perfect" sized gaming group?

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I was just curious as to what everyone thinks about the size of their gaming groups and what is the magical number of people to have at their table.

I feel as a DM that I like to have 5 players, I've gamed at and DM'd at tables from 2 people (just me and a player) up to 8 (with 7 players). I feel that 6 at the table with 5 players is my magical number. So for the purposes of this poll I'll have from 2 all the way up to 8+ to see what people like. Feel free to explain why you feel the way you do about the number you have.

As for my explanation of why I like 5 players and 1 DM, more than 6 people at the table makes for a crowded table and way too many side conversations going on. I've had more fun playing in the 5 Players or less situations, but 5 to me is a nice group that can get a lot done in the course of a campaign and each bring something cool to the adventures.

Thanks!
Trav

 

[jasper]

7 players and me as Dm. Covers the basic pc types(medic, mage, thief, fighter) and allow others to explore other classes. Also gives a fudge for when players don't show. And gives a much more social feeling to the game as if I working on something the 2 or so pcs or doing the other players can roleplay conversations, socialize with those not throwing dice, help with chores (trash pick up during the game, food runs etc) Plus with that many at the table friendly inner party conflict is easy to start, and paranoid against npcs can be juggled with some pc thinking the NPC is major villian and others think he just flavor. Furthermore, if death of pc only becomes a speed bump for the group. the group can continue on the adventure while the players rolls a new pc up. Or successfully begs the group to raise dead.

 

[Desdichado]

3-5. 3 ideally, but since all the gamers I know don't have the luxury of always making gaming their top priority, 4-5 is probably better so that I can have at least three people at the table every session.

 

[grodog]

I prefer 6-8 players + 1 DM, regardless of whether I'm DMing or playing. I'm comfortable DMing up to 12 players if necessary at con games, game days, etc.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

My group is 5 players and me as GM. I find that's a perfect size so that if one or two people cant make it I can still run a game with 3 players (provided that it's not a climax or building toward a climax then I like to have everyone present).

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I prefer 6-8 players + 1 DM, regardless of whether I'm DMing or playing. I'm comfortable DMing up to 12 players if necessary at con games, game days, etc.

Wow you like big groups. I played in a group of 8 (7 PCs) and got annoyed very easily with all the side conversations going on and lack of speed in the game, so many of the people would take like 10 minutes to decide what to do during their turn and I would assess the situation at hand and decide within a minute. Perhaps it was the group itself and having some newer players or maybe the DM just couldn't control the table, but it soured me on playing with that many ever again.

Not sure how you are able to DM up to 12 players, seems like quite a chore to me and DM'ing shouldn't be a chore.

 

[howandwhy99]

10+ are by far my favorite for both running and playing, but smaller isn't necessarily bad either. 3 or less can get really hard though and just aren't as fun, if only because there aren't as many contributing.

I've said this before, but a single Caller for the group or one for each group if they split up is essential to fast pacing. In almost every case where the players do not work as a team or treat the game as if they each must take turns playing to the referee the game quickly turns to suck. What do I do as a player on my off time? Sit on my hands? The DM is the only one engaged at every moment in the latter case.

I much prefer the DM engaged only when the necessary and everyone else engaged 100% of the time. Yeah, there are casual players, folks who like to sit back, but that's at there option. He who hesitates is lost and all that. It's certainly their option though to not contribute.

Here's a big game example: I ran a two session Dread game at a friend's con and it went very well even when the group of eleven split in two. As the referee I simply walked between the two rooms they choose to separate themselves into and responded to everything each was trying to do. They loved it. I simply did not need to be in the room for them to keep engaging in game play for at least 5 minutes. And when they came back together the heavy party interaction continued. For much of the game I just watched, they did not. They were all concentrating hard, thinking about everything going on, and what they wanted to do next. Sleep dep was the only reason the game eventually slowed down.

It isn't always like that. I believe groups need to learn how to coordinate themselves. Plus, in early sessions or even just beginning a normal session action typically begins slowly, but pacing and involvement are far more dependent on the player group than on me. My top talking speed (like any other participant) is the only real impediment on my end. Well, that and knowing what's going on behind the screen. If none of the players take any actions, I end up sitting there anyways watching the game clock tick by for when I need to present the next timed event.

 

[S'mon]

The most wonderful games seem to happen with smaller groups - 3 or 4 players & DM.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I prefer 6-8 players. The bigger the group, the more likely you'll have some people unable to make a given session. So to get 6-8, I find I need about 9-11 in the group. Plus, on those rare sessions where everyone shows, I can still manage 11 and have fun.

There are notable changes in the game for me when it drops below 6 or goes above 12. I can run 4 or 5 or 12 to 15, but it isn't nearly as fun. There are different techniques needed for group sizes, roughly:

1-2
2-4
4-6
6-10
10-12
12+

Obviously, with some overlap of range bands and techniques and personal inclinations (and rest!). My best and favorite techniques are centered pretty heavily in that 6-10 band.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

It's very interesting to see the results thus far and what everyone is thinking constitutes their optimum group. Perhaps I should have given "ranges" instead of actual hard numbers or allowed for more than one choice in the poll and I'll keep that in mind for the next one I post.

I'm actually a bit surprised that there are so many of you who like the BIG groups at the table. If I would have guessed before the poll, I would have said that most people would be going between 4-6 players (which in total votes combined is true) not 7+ (which is currently leading in individual numbers).