Got a question, been thinking about this a bit. As a player and/or a Dm what is your ideal number of players?
For my games, it is quite low, 2-3 players. I've been in some awfully slow games with a lot of players (5+ up to 7). Not much got done, coordination was lacking and difficult. Npcs would often address the group and not individual players. Going through initiative took many minutes.
When I have two players or are in two player games, the quests become personal and strongly tied to those participating. More time can be thrown into npcs, which react differently to the two players. The few shine greater than the many. Possible tactics don't necessarily suffer, because I push for npc cooperation and recruitment into the party to fill niches and for roleplaying possibilities.
Wade in good people, wade in with your views and experiences.
As a GM I usually prefer 3-6 players, anymore and certain things, especially combat tends to drag out alot, and any less just makes it annoying for me to balance encounters well.
As a player, I get to play so rarely, (for example I play in one group and GM three other groups) I'll take what I can get, as long as I can play a fighter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3-5 people.
3 people can make a well-rounded enough party that I'm not gimped as a GM. 2 people have a hard time with this, and, usually, I end up having to run DMPCs, which I detest at this point.
4 people can make an iconic party, and is a good medium amount where roles are covered, yet there is room for good roleplay and everyone gets to shine.
5 people is really nice simply because it's still small enough to handle, and because of the number, people can make really specialized characters to really suit their vision without gimping a small group that is strongly relying on them to fill some iconic role.
6 starts getting to bogged down in a rules heavy system. Also, people don't get to shine all the time, side conversations are more likely, etc.
DMpcs, as you call them, can really aid the story and keep the players interested. As a dm you do have to stay interested in them, but it can make the world more real.
3-4 people.
3 for most RP pr player.
4 not forcing players into a certain role.
5 - to much offgame talking a round the table.
6 - combat takes too long (if many monsters to try to make it channeling)or to short (to few monsters players fight about getting to kill the monster)
3
|
I have run groups up to 8 people. It took me a few months but I got them trained to plan moves in combat and use their rounds for enacting the plan. If they dithered then their turn was lost. A player only needs to lose his turn in combat once to be on the ball after that.
I prefer 4-6 people in the group. I think 6 is my ideal number because 2 people can cancel and we can still play published adventures. When I do my own stuff I can run two people in a game.
3-6 is good in my opinion, beginning with 7 you can have 2 groups with 3 players
4-5 is best, you get some offgame talk, but I like it as a GM.
3 is sometimes even too fast, but very effective roleplay wise, good for optimizers perhaps
6 is quite a bunch and you'll probably talk more about movies and food than play, but you can still manage it.
what you call DMpcs, I don't like it, I don't use it. Perhaps because I once had to sit at the table for half an hour while the GM told us about Elminster fighting Bane, and rolling for every frikking spell while the best thing our lvl 5 characters could do was to jump on Banes back and try to hold his eyes shut.
I like 3 PCs the most, especially for systems where role isnt an issue. But even if it is an issue, 3 PCs is best. 4 is still decent but you start noticing slowdown and quiet players can let themselves be sidelined a bit. 5 is tolerable, but only just. 6+ feels downright stagnant and off-putting.
Four is the ideal number of players, thus I prefer 5 players, that way if one player can’t make it the game can still go on.
|
3-5 players with 5 as the ultimate goal. I like 5 because if someone has something come up and cant make it the group plays on. I guess with my two groups the issue of too many role players doesn't come up. I always have at least 1 guy who is just along for the ride and is perfectly happy with that. 1 or 2 players act as leaders or "face" players.
Never had a 2 player and cant say I would want to. I can not stand DMPC on either side of the screen.
Edit: Ninja'd by the good Dr :)
Depends on the game I'm running.
If it's a very story intense, lots of RP, dialogue, character interaction etc, I prefer around 3 players. Since these games tend to have less action and/or combat, it gives the players more room to do other things. Also, it works out nicely because there is far, far less emphasis on optimization or "effective builds," and more focus on creating interesting characters. Even characters with horrible stats and no combat skill can be very engaging, interesting additions to the story.
If it's going to be a combat intense, action oriented game, I prefer a larger group, maybe 5+ players. This way there's more room for interesting builds, more players to help each other out in combat, and it gives me more wiggle room as a DM to throw bigger, meaner monsters at them. I can experiment with half-breeds, templates, hordes, the works, and just throw them at the group en masse, since they likely have more bases covered having more characters.
Lot of responses, thanks guys.
Yeah since I have sessions of either, a lot of combat or a lot of character interaction, 3 is perfect. 2 is damn nice.
In larger parties, what I have found is:
1) There is always someone newish, or less focused which slows it right down.
2) Too much non-game chatting. Oh the stories that are told.
3) Getting everyone at the table at the same time is difficult (my players or the people I play with, are now into their 20s, and some are just too hip/trendy/tired to turn up on time).
4) As they stream in, it becomes a let's fill in Frank situation, go over all the relevant details again.
Animation, we have similar experiences.
Karkon, you have trained them well! I have used the lose a round threat before, perhaps I should implement it a bit more. Waste a round in real life, waste a round in game.
|
Gotta go with 3-5. Six can work, but I've been dealing with 7-8 and it has been noticeably more difficult.
I think who those 3-5 are also makes a greater difference than the exact number. I have a player, love him like a brother, but when he's not there having trouble with his character and making forced jokes, the game runs much much smoother. :/ There were also many nights in Afghanistan where I sat down with my three players and never got started due to non-gaming discussion.
Live, my regular tabletop game is 4 people currently. Originally it was 8, but after some drama, 2 of the players rage quit (primarily over an issue unrelated to the game) and three had to stop coming for scheduling reasons. I can run anywhere in this range live, though 8 people requires me to juggle angry, spitting cats.
Online, my ideal number is between 4-7. I like the complex interpersonal character development that comes with an ensemble cast bouncing off each-other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2-4, possibly 5 if the group isn't too chatty. More, and one have to be very disciplined to make it work in my experience. (Actually, have only played one one off where it worked)
With 4, it's very easy to balance encounters, and even with some out of game chatting, everyone gets to do their thing. Same thing with 3, as long as the partycomp is made to work in the campaign.
My current favorite however, is 2 players. With 2 characters each. A lot easier to organize gaming nights, and with 2 characters each it's not terrible if they make one character that's not optimized for fun in combat - at least the two groups I run there is more experimentation in what people play and how they play them than if they had just had one character. Not to mention, every player gets as much spotlight as the GM in a lot of cases, making people a lot more involved. The worst bit is of course solving practical problems ingame, as more people would often mean more diverse ideas and variation.
For me, the ideal is 3 players. Barring that, I'm quite happy with 2 if they mesh really well, and I am accepting of 4. But for each player beyond 4, my focus divides too much, and the game experience changes. I can't cater to 7 or 8 people by any stretch of the imagination.
But then, I don't run pre-written adventures or anything--I do totally off the cuff games that are extremely character focused, so, yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best game I ever played had 2 players, each controlling 2 characters. You need to be mature about playing them as 2 truly separate people, but we had a blast.
For PbP, I think smaller is better. There are 4 goblins, but I just started another one with 6 players. We'll see how it goes.
|
3-5 people.
3 people can make a well-rounded enough party that I'm not gimped as a GM. 2 people have a hard time with this, and, usually, I end up having to run DMPCs, which I detest at this point.
4 people can make an iconic party, and is a good medium amount where roles are covered, yet there is room for good roleplay and everyone gets to shine.
5 people is really nice simply because it's still small enough to handle, and because of the number, people can make really specialized characters to really suit their vision without gimping a small group that is strongly relying on them to fill some iconic role.
6 starts getting to bogged down in a rules heavy system. Also, people don't get to shine all the time, side conversations are more likely, etc.
I basically agree with this. My magic number is 4-5. 3 is a hair low, but still fine. 6 is a bit high, but still fine if the DM can handle it (not all can).
At 4-5 people get the ability to make those truly interesting characters without worrying about the party lacking versatility (though I try to encourage players not to worry about that anyway). At 3 people tend to gravitate towards the iconic roles, which can be boring. At 6 people tend to get distracted and it gets harder to DM.
what you call DMpcs, I don't like it, I don't use it. Perhaps because I once had to sit at the table for half an hour while the GM told us about Elminster fighting Bane, and rolling for every frikking spell while the best thing our lvl 5 characters could do was to jump on Banes back and try to hold his eyes shut.
Been there, and it's terrible. It's like "Why are we even playing? The NPCs are going to kill all of the bad guys, and nothing we can do makes any difference." I do keep a GMPC in my current game, but I'm not always GMing, so he's my PC when I play. When I run, he'll talk and interact with the party, but he isn't involved in combat at all, so I don't have to worry about rolling for him. I like the setup, because I get a direct in-game voice when I need to drop suggestions.
I'll run the game with 3-5 although 4 is the ideal number for me.
If 3, I am actively looking for a 4th player. I won't do 6, unless I have 5 and my son or grandson ask to play. They always have a spot at the table.
I currently have 4 players, and they requested a DM NPC (cleric) as they were getting the collective keisters handed to them, and the party druid was not big on healing.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
I usually DMed a group of about 6 people (fluctuating of course). At one point, having people who kept calling off, people who didn't show for whatever reason, we had one week where we had every person still in the area who played and had been invited. One session of 10 players for one DM, so I can officially say that 10 people (in 3.5) is too many. I didn't even know how to scale and balance it at that point, not sure what everyone could do. We had multiple level ranges to even further complicate it, with the lowest level being a lvl 10 half-celestial paladin, the highest were the 18th cleric, the 18th wizard, the 18th rogue, and the 15? half-dragon fighter/wizard. We managed one combat. I can't even remember how that ended for the next week.
I've always found about 5-6 right. Sometimes combat becomes a drag, but usually we work together to keep it going.
3-5 people.
3 people can make a well-rounded enough party that I'm not gimped as a GM. 2 people have a hard time with this, and, usually, I end up having to run DMPCs, which I detest at this point.
4 people can make an iconic party, and is a good medium amount where roles are covered, yet there is room for good roleplay and everyone gets to shine.
5 people is really nice simply because it's still small enough to handle, and because of the number, people can make really specialized characters to really suit their vision without gimping a small group that is strongly relying on them to fill some iconic role.
6 starts getting to bogged down in a rules heavy system. Also, people don't get to shine all the time, side conversations are more likely, etc.
Exactly this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DMpcs, as you call them, can really aid the story and keep the players interested. As a dm you do have to stay interested in them, but it can make the world more real.
I disagree vehemently. I think that letting the GM have a PC is one of the worst things you can do to a game.
I just realized I'm on the verge of a thread-jacking. If anyone else wants to reply on this particular topic, we should make a new thread instead.
I usually end up running for just one or two players sometimes. I think it really depends on the GM.
I like 4-5 the best. In my current game (not actually Pathfinder, but still) I have 4 players and if someone cancels I call the game off. In the D&D game I'm playing, however, we have 5 players and frequently soldier on if we lose one person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With only two players you don't get a real group dynamic going on. Just a back and forth. With more then six it becomes to much to manage and coordinate everybody. My range is 3 minimum to 6 maximum. 4 or 5 is ideal.
I like anywhere from 1 to 4 players -- I adjust the game and adventure depending on the numbers. 1-player games run like a tactical exercise or heist. With 2 players, you can run things like a "buddy" movie (Lethal Weapon or 48 Hours or whatever). 3-4 works for more standard games. Start getting into the 5+ range, and I'm often unable to make sure that some players aren't getting lost and/or underrepresented.
DMpcs, as you call them, can really aid the story and keep the players interested. As a dm you do have to stay interested in them, but it can make the world more real.I disagree vehemently. I think that letting the GM have a PC is one of the worst things you can do to a game.
Ah it is all good. I'd like to hear why you think that, and it is relevant to what is the best sized party.
I think I understand where you are coming from though, and the reservations about dmpcs. That might also be a label of scorn, so when I say I run dmpcs with a party of two, I should be clearer. They aren't actually dmpcs, they are npcs. Sometimes I want them to do different things, acts that might be more entertaining for me, but firstly, they are characters, secondly, the game is not mostly about them, but they can of course shine and contribute. So it isn't about me playing a game and dming at the same time, god no, I've seen that go badly and been a part of that years back. No, this is me adding believable npcs to the small party, to make it a richer experience. Npcs aren't just quest givers, or villains, you can add real allies, characters that grow with the players, you know?
I find the party npcs actually die more often than the players, because I fudge dice for them less. So they are a part of the party, and they help, but they aren't quite as lucky, to put it that way.
The other real benefit of npcs in the party, is it actually can damage the npc-player divide. Yeah the players might treat some npcs badly, and have no remorse. But characters they have adventured with, relied upon, joked with and divided loot with after a hard struggle, they become real characters, not just another npc. The potential for conflict, believable conflict is also good, when a player forgets the above, and starts to treat them like they don't matter. Tries to steal their loot ("they are npcs, they shouldn't get any"), goes against their beliefs, ignores them. This can lead to in character arguments (what do we stand for eh? Why are you taking all the treasure?) and even challenges.
In one game I'm running, one Isgerian noble pc had a long running rivalry with an npc chaotic good Andoranean hobgoblin swashbuckler (strange background). They had argued, had fought, each had a victory to their name over the other. However, the pc squabbling with the npc, was walking a very dark and selfish path, and this became more obvious when the other player sided with the npc. There were adventures together, there were adventures apart in Isger, but the pc conflict with the npc ended up representing something a lot larger. It blossomed out into an opportunity for the pc to roleplay who his character was, and the oppression of this npc was the first step to neutral evil. Eventually this led to his demise and a very large combat of the "noble" pc and his soldiers, outnumbering and versus a good monk pc, the hobgoblin swashbuckler and a small party of looters (with a good cause, just trying to survive and feed their families, but a mob demanded the noble bring the looters to justice... mob justice). This wasn't actually the end of the evil noble, but, he did later die in a bandit ambush hot on the tail of the pc and npcs.
So yeah, if those npcs are almost real figures, fighting alongside and sometimes against a pc, it can really add to the game.
-
Yes Kirth, just like a "buddy" movie. Those are some of the best experiences.
Got a question, been thinking about this a bit. As a player and/or a Dm what is your ideal number of players?For my games, it is quite low, 2-3 players. I've been in some awfully slow games with a lot of players (5+ up to 7). Not much got done, coordination was lacking and difficult. Npcs would often address the group and not individual players. Going through initiative took many minutes.
There are methods I use as a GM to get through most of this quickly. Addressing a group isn't actually a bad thing most of the time either, since addressing the group welcomes the whole group to participate, and makes them feel more like a team rather than a company of lone wolves.
If big parties are getting you down; I recommend using a variant that was used in the D&D Basic set in 3E, where everyone is assumed to have an Initiative of 10 + their mods, every combat. Everyone can get into a routine of who goes first, and you can even place people around the table based on initiative order if desired. NPC initiatives can be rolled ahead of time, or can also use the 10 + Mods method, and you just roll a d20 to determine ties (high, PC goes first, low NPC goes first).
When I have two players or are in two player games, the quests become personal and strongly tied to those participating. More time can be thrown into npcs, which react differently to the two players. The few shine greater than the many. Possible tactics don't necessarily suffer, because I push for npc cooperation and recruitment into the party to fill niches and for roleplaying possibilities.
Wade in good people, wade in with your views and experiences.
Small parties can end up with more "personal time", but it's not something that's assured. It's entirely possible to include everyone's backstory or personal motivations in the game, but it might not be every session. In many cases, this is like a TV show. Every other episode, somebody pushes forward with their personal stuff. Trying to make every session about all the characters' personal ordeals is rarely comfortable to do, nor is it particularly interesting story telling most of the time.
Likewise, multiple backstories and such give you more to work with when making your campaign. Get burnt out on a certain story arch for a bit? Well, let's have player #4's PC's family show up and introduce a plot hook, or have a chance encounter with a mysterious stranger from #5's past, etc.
Personal Opinion
As a GM, I think anything greater than 6 is the optimal party size. There are three major reasons for this.
1) You are hanging out with far more friends. ^-^
2) As a GM, I scale up the encounters based on the number of players (as a rule of them, each additional PC is +25% more XP budget, since it's +25% of a party of 4), which leads to grander encounters with lots of teamwork.
3) As a GM, I don't divide XP by more than 6 regardless of party size (as the chart for XP dividing suggests capping it at 1/6), which means that parties of 7+ will actually gain bonus XP points, because the encounters are scaled up but the XP divide is capped at 6.
For example: I decide I'm going to make a CR 4 encounter (1,200 XP), but my party is 8 players large (double the normal 4 person party), so I increase the XP budget by +100% (2,400 XP). I fill out the combat with 12 CR 1/2 NPCs at 200 XP each. When awarding XP, I use the XP Point Award table and pass out 35 XP per enemy to everyone, which means that each member received 420 XP, as opposed to 300 XP each.
EDIT: My typical party size is generally 3-6 though. Sometimes we get more people together though.
To me, the perfect number is 5. That way it feels like you've got a decent force, there's enough people to feel like it's a fun social event, and you know you've got a decent, diverse party with a little room for redundancy where you want it (I'd prefer at least two melee characters to keep things away from the ranged folks if at all possible, lol). It can still get a little hairy with people talking over each other, but it's still manageable.
4 is also good, and 3 can work. But with 6 or more NOTHING ever gets done. People are more likely to step on each others toes, people fall asleep waiting for their turns, and it's harder to keep track of what everyone is up to (I'm sorry to say, I have friends who tend to "misinterpret" rules to their advantage and even flat out lie about their dice rolls. I don't care that much about it, since I still figure it's just a game, but I still watch them like a hawk...)
|
For me ideal is 6, I shoot for 4-8. Less than 4 and things get hard, more than 8 and the group just bogs down and things are to slow.
I consider 6 perfect. Small enough that tactics and speed is still pretty good, yet large enough the group can make mistakes or have a bad run of luck and still pull things off. My problem with only 4 is one run of bad luck of bad plan can all to quickly lead to a TPK if the wrong PC goes down at the wrong time. With 6 you have more leway as most roles will get a backup of some sort for them.
|
|
I've run everything from 3-12 players. 5 is the magic number, but 6 is what I usually end up running. 5: Breaks ties immediately during decision making, moves at a decent clip and divides the spotlight fairly well even during short sessions.
I tell players before hand that committing to a campaign is like committing to a sports team. Yes we're there to have fun, but attendance is expected and if you think you have somewhere you'd rather be do not commit to the campaign. This has fostered a healthy attendance rate, and the ettiquette to let me know when players are not going to show up.
As a GM, I find 5 to be the ideal number, with no less than 3 players, and no more than 6.
That said, '6 per GM' can work too, as I've help run a campaign of up to 22 players, which was typically broken down into groups of 5 or 6 for most sessions, with mega-sessions every few months, bringing all the groups together for one massive, epic battle. Was also interesting, in that we allowed players to switch between groups between sessions (all the groups play at the same time, in different rooms, so you could try to be in all the groups at once).
... God, I miss messed up, all night, weird-ass college campaigns...
Sometimes I do like running/playing a 1 on 1 session, 2 person parties are fun too, if done sparingly. I've found that 4 or 5 is best, because my group has the most experience in the form of me and 2 of my friends (I'm 16 with about 5 years under my belt, another is my age with 4, and the last is also my age with about 8 I think), so I usually GM unless one of the others wants to do a stint. That leaves 2 experienced players to guid the less experienced and streamline things.
|
|
Part of ideal party size is controlling how much discussion happens in combat.
With 3-4 players, there will be less "Oh I wanted to cast this, don't go there." and "Where should I go this turn?". I had to house rule speaking as a free action to once per turn in order to try and put the kibosh on combats with my 6-member Rise of the Runelords party taking 90 minutes each.
For me, I think the ideal size is 5. I get the impression most PCs aren't as awesome as Paizo seems to presume a 4-member party to be, based on the CRs they give creatures. Five PCs gives you a bit more power and gives each player a bit more flexibility, at leat when it comes to Adventure Paths. For home-written adventures, you can do a lot more tailoring and need not get most of the standard "roles" filled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an "in an ideal world" scenario, which is completely ruined by the fact that there never is an ideal world table.
Ideally, I'd have 4 players who would always show up, would be engaged in the story, pay attention, and never get distracted by their phones or iPads or each other.
None of that ever happens.
Because my ideal is 4, that mandates at least 4 players. I say "at least" because if there's more than 4, I don't have to cancel a game every time any one of the 4 can't make it.
This situation is further complicated by the fact that many times people come in pairs. In one game I've got two father/son pairs, and in another a father/daughter pair.
In any event, what I've got is one table with seven players and one table with five (and the table with seven is actually nine, but one player is out of state long-term and another has virtually dropped out of the game). The five player table meets one Sunday a month, and we schedule it when everyone can make it.
The eight-player table meets every other Friday, and whoever can make it shows up. There is no typical number of people; sometimes players will disappear for a month or two and often will disappear for a game, and I never know how many I'm running for until that night. Sometimes it's four; other times it's seven, and once in a rare while it's eight; it has been nine a couple of times.
It's hell on a plot, I'll say that :)