My biggest game group is 7 to 10 players.

It actually feels "empty" when there's 4 now.

Size ALWAYS matters, even when it doesn't.  Which is always.

Quote from: CRKrueger;917398I 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.

Pretty much.  I have to agree with all this as well.  It matches my anecdotal experience as well.  (Which is also not to say it's fact, just that I've experienced this.)

Nowadays, 2-3 is about right... but 1 can be great for horror/investigative games.

Our Pathfinder group did ramp up to 7 at one point last year and that was just too many... partly, I think, because only a couple of us were friends with each other before hand... so there wasn't any social glue holding us together except for a desire to play the game. I ran games for much bigger groups back in high school, but we all knew each other and probably would have been hanging out on Friday night no matter what we were doing.

yeah I actually prefer GM + 3 players. I can do up to 5 players, but everyone gets less input, I don't think it works as well.

I don't mind GMing big groups of 6-8 at all. The more the merrier.

Most of my GM friends think running any more than 5 is CRAZYPANTS and TOTALLY UNMANAGEABLE. It might be a generational thing (They're about a decade younger than me on average) or maybe a "Starting with White Wolf vs, starting with D&D" thing.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;917592maybe a "Starting with White Wolf vs, starting with D&D" thing.

I do think it depends a bit on what game is being played. Like, I generally want really small groups for Call of Cthulhu... but I think I'd be fine running DCC with a lot more, if the chemistry was right. It's more of a party game IME.

I don't like more than six other people at my table because I get unsettled and well, pissy, in crowds larger than that.  So I prefer five or fewer, but six is my limit.

I am good with large groups (8-10), but that creates specific type of gaming experience.

I have a mixed history with having only 2 players, but 3-6 is always good.

With large groups, I certainly limit the interaction with NPC and its more work to juggle all the personalities at the table, but there can be something really fun when it works.

I've GMed a really big club tournament with IIRC, 20 players. It wasn't pleasant, in the way that a normal group would be, mostly because you can't really get 20 people to shut up and listen when you have something to say. I also had to use a microphone which isn't really fun. The one upside of that game was that killing off one character was not a huge drama like it would be with a smaller group.

All in all, it's like rock and roll. The ideal is 4 people. You can do it with more or less but it's not really going to get any better.

Quote from: CRKrueger;917398Ironically, 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 just wanted to say how damned spot on this observation was. I find GMing a small group, like about 2-3 quite easy, but when my games got to the 5-6 level is when I would finish the session feeling exhausted (mentally).

I've also found that in a large group, because it can take a few minutes for a player's turn to come up in a combat, they can "turn off" and loose focus on what's happening. Better players are referencing their rules/spells/sheet to plan their next move, but in groups of 5+ I've had to implement rules where "if you aren't ready when your turn comes up, we pass you over". I can actually watch some of the table "going dim" as it takes too long to come back to their turn, and have to encourage players to learn good habits to resolve their actions quickly so that the other side of the table doesn't fall asleep waiting for said player to figure out his move.

Players also seem more able to focus in smaller groups, and the chances of the group splitting up are very small.

Four. I've come to this conclusion just recently, with my latest party. It seems just the right size--everyone gets their moment, no one is unduly on the spot, no one is left out, everyone is essential. Or so it seems to me.

I typically run AD&D/AS&SH. My preferred party size varies with the situation. If we're talking about an ongoing home campaign where shit matters a little more, I prefer <5 people so that everyone can easily voice their ideas/concerns and be relevant without the game moving at a snail's pace. In a one-shot convention game, where shit doesn't matter that much, I probably prefer 6-8. A few extra people at a convention game gives the group (likely unfamiliar with each other or their own pregen PCs) a little more margin for error (read: deaths) without resulting in a TPK. Having said that, I have run convention games for 12-15 people (like the K&KA Social at NTPRG Con) and had a blast. Everyone's sitting around drinking beer, breaking balls, bullshitting and rolling dice. Super fun!

For D&D (and most other RPGs) the ideal size is 6 players. More than 7 is too many. 4 is the absolute minimum required.

There are very few games where this gets nudged; for example, a game like Aces & Eights can do with 3 minimum, and 7 would be too many.
Lords of Olympus would require a minimum of 5, I would think, and 9 would probably be too many.

Quote from: RPGPundit;918863For D&D (and most other RPGs) the ideal size is 6 players. More than 7 is too many. 4 is the absolute minimum required.

There are very few games where this gets nudged; for example, a game like Aces & Eights can do with 3 minimum, and 7 would be too many.
Lords of Olympus would require a minimum of 5, I would think, and 9 would probably be too many.

That's your opinion of course and you are entitled to it but such flat out declarations are unfounded. There is no hard minimum in D&D or any other game. Many, if not all, RPGs can be played with 1 player. We wont get into the Solo play thing here but even traditionally speaking 1 GM and 1 Player are all that is needed. Ive easily played 50% of my games this way for 35 years.

Many of my declarations are hard proven fact. But in this case, it is a relative declaration, it's true. Some GMs can't handle a group of those sizes and may work better with smaller groups.