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.
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.
I don't think whether the GM can handle the group size is the only variable. I played once in a game with a dozen players, and while the GM handled it fine, it still wasn't very fun for me. On the other hand some people thought it was awesome. Mostly the ones who would shout out in exhilaration when they rolled a 20. I think they liked the bigger audience.
1-2 = Requires special consideration
3-5 = Great
6-7 = The experience is being degraded
8+ = No thank you
These numbers seem to hold true regardless of system because it's more about the social dynamics: At 6+ the amount of attention that can be focused on each individual player seems to drop below a minimum threshold of engagement and the experience begins to degrade. Which would also seem to be why this delimiter is based on the number of players and not the number of characters: I've got a regular campaign in which 7 PCs are played by 5 players, for example, and it works great. But 7 PCs played by 7 players is virtually always a struggle.
The largest group I ever ran for, IIRC, was 14 players running a total of 23 characters (PCs and hirelings). That was certainly an interesting experience to have, but I don't recommend it. It prompted me to institute a table limit of 5 players for all future sessions of my open table.
If I had to pick a "golden number" for group size, it would be 5 players. At 3 players, the group virtually always sticks together which reduces the effectiveness of advanced pacing techniques (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/31509/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-pacing) and also eliminates a lot of potential situations, resulting in a flatter experience. At 4 players people will split up, but tend to stick to two teams of two. When you get 5 players, it seems like the point where groupings get more dynamic - 3 and 2, 3 and 1 and 1, 4 and 1, 2 and 2 and 1, etc. And the pairings usually aren't the same ones every time, which allows the group to explore different dynamics between the PCs.
I'd love to have about 15 players.
Not all at once, though. 3-5 is my favorite number at one time.
Over the 4 campaigns I'm currently running (2 per week), I have a total of 20 different players at this time.
Quote from: RPGPundit;922132Over the 4 campaigns I'm currently running (2 per week), I have a total of 20 different players at this time.
That's really awesome! I would love to have an available player base like that. If I have 1 or 2 players at any given time Im incredibly fortunate.
3 or 4 players and the GM is the perfect size, as far as I'm concerned. Just the right balance of variety and pace. Fewer than that and things can feel a little stagnant, more than that, and it takes forever to get anything done. That assumes it's the same 3-4 players week in, week out. Not a revolving door of a constantly changing roster.
Quote from: rgrove0172;922148That's really awesome! I would love to have an available player base like that. If I have 1 or 2 players at any given time Im incredibly fortunate.
Part of it is thanks to the very broad and interconnected community of gamers in Uruguay; and part of it is my local reputation.
Part of it is being able to cultivate gamers full time. 2 games every week! 4 different games!
On a related note, how big is your city?
Quote from: rgrove0172;922148That's really awesome! I would love to have an available player base like that. If I have 1 or 2 players at any given time Im incredibly fortunate.
Online is also good for this.
My current live group is 8 people, but online I have 2 groups, 4 and 6. Online is a combination of older players who are busier now, local gamers, but many who come from sites like this one.
Quote from: Headless;923250Part of it is being able to cultivate gamers full time. 2 games every week! 4 different games!
On a related note, how big is your city?
About 1.5 million.