SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Ideal Group Size

Started by RPGPundit, November 22, 2007, 12:08:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mcrow

4-5 players + a GM.

I've run a game or two with just two players and it went ok.

Zachary The First

For me as a GM, 5 players seems to be the sweet spot.  Big enough for plenty o' diversity, but small enough where tracking stuff and adjudicating/placating/adjusting isn't unmanageable.
RPG Blog 2

Currently Prepping: Castles & Crusades
Currently Reading/Brainstorming: Mythras
Currently Revisiting: Napoleonic/Age of Sail in Space

C.Jay

I'm GMing with three players at the moment, and man it's hard.  Mostly because we find it tough to ensure that everyone can be there.  It's supposed to be weekly, but the last few months have been more like a game every 3-4 weeks.  We used to have four players, but one dropped out and it sure does make a difference.  There's a much bigger jump in the dynamic between 3-4 players than there is from 4-5, I think.

I'd like to have five.  That gives better flexibility in the face of uncertain schedules, I think.  Now to start recruiting...
 

Illegible Smudge

Whilst I'm happy to run with up to six players (though I don't think I could handle more than that), I prefer to run with small groups. 1 GM and two players is ideal for me, provided that you can be sure of their commitment. But then in my experience, there is usually a core group of committed players in any group, and it's the same less-than-committed players who pull out regularly, the players who make up the numbers. Given that as a GM I go out of my way to try and include every character and give them subplots to run with, a no-show from any player is equally damaging. I'd rather stick with a small group of players I know are as keen to play as I am.

So there's that consideration, and then I just find that two players makes for a really dynamic team, that actually gets things done rather than argue about convoluted plans, and works well together. There's no fifth wheel or noisy fighter to alert the guards, and the two PCs need each other, making for a more tense, exciting and fast-moving game.

I've never tried a one-on-one game though, and I'd be interested to give that a shot some day. I suspect it'd have its advantages, in terms of fitting better with traditional narratives, but that the disadvantages would probably outweigh things in the end.
 

Kyle Aaron

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI like small groups.
Tyberious' presence reminded me of what another gamer I know said: "The ideal kind of group is one where I don't have to GM."

Does the group size people like change depend on whether or not they're GMing? I don't know, myself - I rarely get to play, so I haven't had the chance to try different group sizes.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Kyle Aaron

Quote from: Illegible SmudgeI've never tried a one-on-one game though, and I'd be interested to give that a shot some day. I suspect it'd have its advantages, in terms of fitting better with traditional narratives, but that the disadvantages would probably outweigh things in the end.
I've done it and it's fun. It's very good for any "lone hero" sort of campaign - postapocalyptic, spying, modern crime, Highanderish-immortals, and so on.

One thing is that the player and GM have to be fairly good friends. If you have five or so people at the game table, it's okay if none of you see each-other aside from gaming, or have much interest in each-other's lives. The game still happily moves along. But one-on-one has a greater intensity, and requires more player-GM trust, and doesn't have any quiet moments where you can just sit back and let someone else do all the talking and thinking.

You find that, whether meaning to or not, you reveal a lot more of yourself than you would in a larger group. It's not like you're having Oprah-style confessionals, just that you can't help but reveal things, one way or another. That's why I say you need the friendship. Of course, if you already get along well, then that one-on-one gaming, you'll probably become friends. Unless of course you're quite a reserved person - then you'll have a miserable boring and uncomfortable time with one-on-one stuff.

It can be a lot of fun and very rewarding, but is not for everyone. You'd have to be really into gaming, and pretty open with people.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Tyberious Funk

Quote from: Kyle AaronTyberious' presence reminded me of what another gamer I know said: "The ideal kind of group is one where I don't have to GM."

Does the group size people like change depend on whether or not they're GMing? I don't know, myself - I rarely get to play, so I haven't had the chance to try different group sizes.

Well, again, it really depends on the type of players... but whether GMing or playing, I prefer a smallish group.  I think I'm a more active and engaged player when I'm not competing for "screen time" with too many other players.  The problem occurs when you have, say, three players and two of them get a kinda dumbfounded look every time you encounter a problem.  Or worse still, not knowing how to handle a difficult scenario, they go off and do something stupid.  

There will be sessions where I'm just plain tired, or not mentally "switched on"... and I need to know that the other players can pick up the slack and keep the game moving.  If you can't completely rely upon your fellow players, then it can be good to have a slightly larger group.  IMHO, a slightly larger group means 4 players instead of 3.  That way, if I'm having an off day, surely someone will keep the group alive and the campaign ticking over.
 

Koltar

SIX players or less.

 Right now I have FOUR players, we could use maybe 1 more player and a recurring guest star player character.

Back in the '80s , when I ran the FASA Star Trek RPG  - used to say 6 or less because that was the number that would fit on a standard transporter pad.

Worked out to be a really good rule of thumb.


- Ed C.
The return of \'You can\'t take the Sky From me!\'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUn-eN8mkDw&feature=rec-fresh+div

This is what a really cool FANTASY RPG should be like :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WnjVUBDbs

Still here, still alive, at least Seven years now...

Pseudoephedrine

Running
The Pernicious Light, or The Wreckers of Sword Island;
A Goblin\'s Progress, or Of Cannons and Canons;
An Oration on the Dignity of Tash, or On the Elves and Their Lies
All for S&W Complete
Playing: Dark Heresy, WFRP 2e

"Elves don\'t want you cutting down trees but they sell wood items, they don\'t care about the forests, they\'\'re the fuckin\' wood mafia." -Anonymous

Imperator

Sweet spot is 4 + GM for me. I am happy with less, and can stretch until 6. I do a lot of 1 on 1, and it's great.
My name is Ramón Nogueras. Running now Vampire: the Masquerade (Giovanni Chronicles IV for just 3 players), and itching to resume my Call of Cthulhu campaign (The Sense of the Sleight-of-Hand Man).

Vadrus

My group would probably be considered a nightmare by most people, when everyone turns up there are 8 of us, several members work rotating shift patterns so miss sessions every couple of weeks (different weeks than each other but occasionally overlapping), others tend to turn up at different points through the evening, so one some weeks we start with 3 or 4 of us at 8pm and might have a full compliment of 8 by the end or on other weeks we might only have 4 or 5 by the end of the session.

However we've learnt to play with this pattern over the years and everyone seems to be engaged and enjoying things (and they keep coming back!) so we must be doing something right.

Though in an ideal world 4 or 5 players that turned up on time every week would be nice ;)


Vadrus

Edit: Of course the biggest group I've ever run for was when we used to play in the 6th form common room at school, at some points I had 30 players in the Call of Cthulhu Campaign. We were young and started as a group of 6, but playing in a public area meant people kept watching, then rolling up characters, and then joining in. It was chaotic to put it mildly, but was great fun at the time.