TheRPGSite

Whats your ideal gaming group size?
For me, its 5.  6 is already pushing too many players in any game other than Amber; while 4 is ok, but if more than one person miss a session you can't play anyways.

With 5, even if 2 players miss a session, you can still run a game.

I can play with 3, though it requires that all 3 players be very committed to coming.

RPGPundit

1 GM and 4 players. 3 players is workable. 5 players starts to get out of hand, as you get lots of off-topic banter and diversions during rule look-ups or when one or two PCs are the focus of the action.

Four players and one GM is my preference.

I'll happily run with lower numbers, right down to one-on-one, but with anything over five players I feel like the game loses focus.

I find that 4-5 players gives the optimum level of inter-player interaction for me. If there's 3 and less players the players don't bounce off each other quite so much, and so end up discussing things really quickly and then waiting patiently for the GM to tell them what happens next as opposed to getting into any interesting IC discussions. There's also too few PC agendas and backgrounds for me to riff off - I find I have to work exponentially harder to come up with additional stuff to keep the game moving.

6 or more players I have the opposite problem: there's so much inter-PC discussion that play slows to a crawl unless I'm constantly having people with guns kick down the door, and there's so many PC agendas and background elements in play that I can't really do them all justice: either I end up focusing on a few and effectively forget one of the PCs entirely, or I try to cover them all and end up not treating any particular element with the care and attention it deserves.

4 to 5 players is the sweet spot for me.

A few years back I once had to GM a scenario for 6 players using 'Battlelords of the 23rd Century' - We may finish figuring out the 1st combat turn by the 23rd Century.

I once ran a Dragonfist game using 3 players that always ended 2 vs 1 in arguments.

I've GM'd Traveller using 1 and 2 players as a teen and that was OK but I prefer 4 players - but it needn't always be the same 4 - my FtA! crew take turns GMing.

Five is optimal, I can manage 6 and all have fun, but more than that is clumsy and difficult, and works only with a few very limited and controlled concepts. (I considered running a Wizard's Duel/nee Pokemon inspired game and have players be wizards AND their pets, that worked well for a slightly larger group, since they paired up to work together anyway.)

Less than 3 is alright but not optimal-- I've run solo games but prefer multiple players.

4 is optimal for me for a one-shot.

It's been too long since I've run a campaign, but I'd say four as well.

Five is the sweet spot.  For a while there I was running a game with eight, which was just ridiculous.  Fun, but ridiculous.  Ridiculous.

4 players and 1 GM is perfect for me - all niches can be filled, there's choice and variety for intercation within the group, but everyone still gets a big chunk of the attention and action.
5 players is OK, but can be tough to handle in more complex systems as Shadowrun, while 6 is the absolute maximum to me and demands a relatively simple system as FTA or Cthulhu.

In my first years as gamer, it was 2 players and 1 GM. As we played most of the time Shadowrun we had probably more diversified and "multi-classed" characters then the designers ever intended, but it was fun to have such weird combos as Samurai Chameleons and Riggin' Summoners to be sufficiently diversified to cover the needed niches.
The good point was that there was much attention for everyone, much room to do your own thing, and it was definitively true to the genre where double teams are the standard (Johnny Mnemonic and Molly, Case and Molly, Cowboy and Sarah etc.)
It's an interesting experience to have such a small group, but I wouldn't want to have it as default.

With a new group, 5 is my max, 4 is ideal.  However, the group I have now is very focused, so I can allow 6. This usually happens on a temporary basis when a friend comes to town, and he or she's usually eager to game so there's no disruption.  

But, I like 4.  I like designing adventures based on weac character's unique skills, abilities, and subplots, and this allows me to give each one screen time on a fairly regular basis.  

Pete

I like three or four, plus me. I used to run regularly with six, but these days I like it more intimate.

Depends on what I'm running. I can run hack and slash for as many as twelve (I'm a freak) but... for anything other than fighting, that's alot to keep  track of. I'd say five or six in that case.

Not counting the GM: 5 is my sweet spot; 3, 4, and 6 are all OK too.  I don't run for less than 3 and I've tried up to 8 at once and that lasted all of one session (insanity!)

With my current thing of short (6-18 sessions), closed-ended campaigns, with 1 or 2 of the players changing between campaigns, 4 is what I've been going for. With the pool of 20 or so players I've access to at any time, 3 is actually the most I can have and be sure everyone's on the same page in terms of game play style. But because you never know exactly how the campaign will go, you need 4 to make sure you get those 3. Also, if any of the players aren't able to make it, a session that usually has 4 going to 3 is no sweat, 3 going to 2 can be a bit harder.

So I'm a bit torn at the moment whether 3 or 4 is the best number for my GMing and preferred play styles. I think I might have to go with Pundit on this one - 3 is best if you know they'll all show up every time, 4 is the compromise.

The low number comes about from the style I have as a GM, as in my sig. If you give the players and their characters complications rather than obstacles, that's best sorted out by a smaller group - 5 or 6 will never sort anything out because of the inverse relationship between group size and speed of decision-making.

I like small groups.  I've happily played with 1 GM plus 2 players... but the two players need to be pretty committed.  In an ideal situation, I'd have 1 GM and 3 players.  Again, you need all three of the players to be pretty committed.

4-5 players + a GM.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

4-7, counting the DM.

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 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.