How big do you like it?

Your gaming group size that is. How many is too small, too big or just right?

Does it depend on the game? If so, how so?

Personally Ive always had small groups, as a matter of available players and not necessarily by choice, but I find I prefer it. One on one gaming has probably provided the best atmosphere and most rewarding sessions by far with two players a close runner up. After that I feel what the TABLE ENVIROMNENT gains from more personalities is offset by what the GAME itself loses in the way of focus. Just my two cents. Ive witnessed sessions of 5, 6 or even 8 players and frankly, no thanks = GM having a hard time keeping everyone engaged and therefore lots of sidebar discussion and other nonsense, just not my thing. Your mileage undoubtedly varies though!

Quote from: rgrove0172;917374How big do you like it?

Your gaming group size that is. How many is too small, too big or just right?

Does it depend on the game? If so, how so?

Personally Ive always had small groups, as a matter of available players and not necessarily by choice, but I find I prefer it. One on one gaming has probably provided the best atmosphere and most rewarding sessions by far with two players a close runner up. After that I feel what the TABLE ENVIROMNENT gains from more personalities is offset by what the GAME itself loses in the way of focus. Just my two cents. Ive witnessed sessions of 5, 6 or even 8 players and frankly, no thanks = GM having a hard time keeping everyone engaged and therefore lots of sidebar discussion and other nonsense, just not my thing. Your mileage undoubtedly varies though!

Too small is not a problem. I have played solitaire games to generate settings and flesh them out. I have played one-on-one to get in some really intense good roleplaying. My sweet spot is between three and six players. Over ten and it starts to get bogged down and on the edge of overwhelming for me.

A lot depends on the players themselves with me because my preferred GM style is to be reactive to what the players do and have the consequences of their actions build the adventure.

3-5 players is my sweet spot. Past 8 and I start to bog down. Less than 3 can be good, but it tends to lack a certain sparkle that I can't quite pin down in words.

Cant find it. But there was a simmilar thread here or on BGG/RPGG on group size.

For me as a DM 6 is about my normal limit. Ive GMed for up to around 12 before but 3-6 is my most comfortable range as its easier to track whos talking and keep everyone in eyesight. I've also DMed for 2 and 1 even.

The current group I am playing in is 3, counting myself. 2 years ago was in a short lived campaign that had about 8. But the numbers fluctuated alot.

My sweet spot is 3-5. I'll avoid going over this at all costs.

I find this range allows for some group dynamics I appreciate (splitting the party, intra-party conflict, etc) while keeping everything still manageable and focused.

2-4 is best for me. 1 and 5 are okay. I do not find big groups glamorous, but tedious, especially being in one as a player.

I prefer smaller groups. For me, when the player group begins to get around 5 or more, it becomes harder and harder to make sure everyone is getting some time. As well, since most of my games are run in houses, hosting a large groups get difficult- heck, even 5 players plus one GM is six people, which can crowd many dining room tables or living rooms.

3 players and a DM.  
It also depends on what you are trying to do.  
One can pull off an infiltration, two can set up a sweet con, three is an elete strike force.  

Once you get to five you are a mob. And 7 is clusterfuck.  Sure you might get shit done, but it will be by wrecking things every time.

That said I want to run Amber and I need 8 or more committed players for that.

I think 3-5 is the sweet spot.  

1 is absolutely awesome for roleplaying, but it presents lots of challenges when the character comes up against opposition willing to do combat.  

2 is great also, but you get two players and they, almost instinctively or subconsciously I think, form a Team, and work together with a high degree of efficiency.  I'm not saying that roleplaying necessarily suffers, but the Team identity is there in addition to the Individual identity.

Once you get at least 3 in there, then people seem to shift mentally to a Group, and keep their own goals a little more separate, keep their secrets a little more guarded.  There will be camaraderie and working together, but there will also be roleplay and focus on the Individual.

4-5 is the same as 3 really, only the larger you get the more Individual the goals seems to become as it becomes less likely that two characters will really be in sync the more characters you get.  Generally I prefer an odd number just because it makes it easy if there's ever a party vote, you don't need them to call on an NPC tie-breaker, which puts the decision into my hands.

Above 5 is certainly doable, but at this point the game engine will be the limiting factor I think.  The lighter the game rules, the easier larger groups will become.  Also, I have more of a "hands-off" GM style, so a larger group nudges me more towards being active, querying the characters for input to make sure that some of the less vocal players are involved.  Sometime a player just hangs back because their PC hangs back, sometimes they're shy or just don't want to bother with being heard in a large group.  Ironically, the larger the group, the more active the GM has to become, to control the chaos and keep things focused on the characters, as drifting into OOC becomes a lot more prevalent typically with larger groups.

I agree with everything Krueger says. I'll add that part of the challenge of a one-on-one game is the need for more prep. With three players and above, a fair amount of the session is going to the players talking to players. Whether they debating the next course of action or some kind of subplot has emerged between them, you can count on their interactions eating up a fair amount of session time. Combats will take longer to resolve as well.

With a single player, the GM presents a situation, and the player instantly responds. The pace of the game can zip along. What seemed like a big enough adventure to occupy a three hour session might be over in an hour with one PC.

This isn't always the case. When there is a single NPC, they can actually indulge in a half-hour conversation with a shopkeeper if the mood takes them. In a typical group, everyone else would be ready to murder them for dragging the game down. However, with just one PC and GM, there is never going to be anyone else sitting around bored. Still, it is not a bad idea to ready for a much faster moving game.

3-5 Players is the sweet spot IMO. I don't have problems rolling with more or less, but this seems to be the point where it all comes together.

3 players is optimum to me, with 2 or 4 also working pretty well. Any more than 4 and I find it leads to too much cross-talk and not enough focus on the game.

Preferably 5 players plus one GM. I'm not surprised it's a common reply so far. I think 5 is near the sweet spot of number of people manageable versus having an interesting group dynamic happen.

1-4. 5-6 is ok. 7-10 can have attention-per-person issues. Over 8 and I start to think of ways to break things up, involve assistants or a structure of some sort, depending on the type of game.

Really depends on the game system and game I want to run.

And the people involved.  I have a few players that are so good they make the game faster and run smoother.  they literally help run session-stuff, like they know who keeps track of what and who keeps notes and who knows the rules on the  magic system in x and who's mapping...etc.  I have a few of these guys online, as well.
Then I have other players who I love, but that hog spotlight and like to pick on one little detail at no advantage to the game...I can handle one of them to every three of my really good players.
Some players want to play my advanced rulesets, knowing they take longer and have more moving parts, but more granularity.  Some of my other players have no patience for them so we use simpler rulesets.