The PF group I am GMing for started with the standard four players. I started them with the module Crypt of the Everflame and everything was perfectly balanced, a happy time was had by all. Word spread around and we had a few more players join...not a big deal...up the challenge of the encounters a bit and things work out. Now, as the group is getting ready to enter the final part of the module trilogy, City of Golden Death, the player party has grown even more. Now, I have a party consisting of a half-elf fighter, a human fighter, an elven paladin, a human barbarian, a human cleric, an elven wizard, a half-elf rogue, and a human ranger...8 PC's! I will have a lot of adjusting and encounter balancing to do to say the least. All this has got me wondering if there is a hard limit on the size a player party should be? I think it's great that there is so much interest in my particular game, I know some gaming groups have the opposite problem, but shouldn't there be some kind of cut-off? Thoughts and theories?
|
Since I have been GMing off and on for many years I can tell you thier is no such thing as a hard limit. That being said I can also tell you that you should only accept as many PC's as you think you can resonable handle.
I have always (with VERY rare exception) worked for a min of 3 to 6 PC's tops. For most things I have run at least three are needed and I find if I try to run more than six ppl it becomes to difficult and the FUN factor for everyone goes down hill FAST.
Hope this helps you,
Arbarth
Old School GM
|
One of the worst blessings that can happen to a GM is having too much interest in your game. With too many PCs combat gets bogged down, not everyone gets a chance to shine and people feel left out, more chances for spot light hogs, and just a general over taxing on the GM. I generally cap my games at 6 players, and that's pushing it. Sometimes I'll allow a 7th but that's only on rare occassions. For your next game I would advise either going off of a first come first serve basis or potentially doing try outs. I know one game I played in you had to present your character and back story and did some roll playing one on one with the GM before he announced who got in. Now, this is good and bad because those that don't get picked can feel slighted and leads to a fracturing of a group. Be care if you implement this strategy.
Generally my ideal group is about 5 players.
Oh, heavens, of course there is such a thing as too many PCs (or players)! No question at all.
After some experience, I discovered that I simply will not DM for a group larger than 6. (5 is optimal for me.)
I have a groupo of seven in an online game, and because it is an online game that's manageable. I wouldn't have more than six players around a table, five would be my ideal number.
We play with 7 and yes IMO that is to many. Upping the encounter level pretty much seems to cease to be an answer after 5 or 6. The fact that the entire d20 system is based on the 4 PC's concept is it's biggest weakness over previous versions. If the other 6 people in my group weren't some of my best friends we would have split along time ago. IMO the optimum group size is 5. This allows the four food groups to be satisfied and gives the PC's a chance to have one non-standard kind of PC. Personally if I were you I would suggest the group break into two.
In the end combat encouters come down to number of actions, and a 7 or 8 PC group just gets so many actions, and has so many HP and options that they can be difficult to challange with out having to go over the top. This especially becomes true at the high to very high levels.
My party in STAP had a paladin, monk, fighter(2 hand), ranger (2 hand) when we reached 20th level that was 20+ attacks amongest just them per round with a rouge, witch, and wizard to back there play. It was quite possible for the five us to deal 1000hp damage in a single round vs evil opponents. The game wasn't built for that.
All of my GMing has been for small groups, but the game I'm playing in had 6 until this week when we lost one. I have to admit I'm kind of relieved that we're going down to 5. The guy we're losing is a great guy, but solely from a game perspective I feel that even 6 is slow and clumsy.
Splitting them up would be a good idea I suppose but I am the only GM in the gaming group and it would be way too difficult on me to run two seperate games. The tough thing is that we are all good friends and so asking a few to "not play" this time around is rough.
Ahhh... This is a topic near and dear to me. I currently GM exclusively for a club at the high school I teach at. I volunteer my time, because I love RPGing, and because I enjoy watching the glint in people's eyes as they experience the greatness of role playing (knowing they are forever hooked, and will be gamers for life, as I am). Initially the club was only five people, IMHO a great number. Word spread (as you say) and soon the group was ten people. At that point I started looking to other players to GM so we could separate the groups. No dice. None of the players felt comfortable enough with the rules yet to GM. Ergo? I was GMing a group of ten PCs, and to add to the difficulty they were of disparate levels. Cut to a year later. Word continued to spread, and at our "peak," if that's what you want to call it, I had a group of seventeen people!
At that time I did NOT have Kyle Olson's sweet Combat Manager, and running encounters took, sometimes, three to four sessions in a row to complete. Needless to say I sat down with some of the "veteran" members and we decided that it was necessary to cull the groups, or split them up. Even so, I still have a regular group that is nine people strong, and another group that is sporadic at best.
Is there a number that's too big? I'd say yes, just for feasibility of actually being able to accomplish anything. RPG's as a hobby are archetypically done with small groups. I think a lot of the time that's due entirely to a low per capita number of any local population that can: A) find time to meet, B) can adequately socially interact with each other, and probably most importantly C) are actually active gamers.
Like you said, it's a great problem to have too many people that want to play. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a problem. I don't think any two GMs will ever agree on an exact number because every GM can tolerate a different level of "bigness." I do think that every game has a threshold though. It's up to each GM and group of players to figure out what that is.
In my experience 4 is optimal and 6 is the limit.
5-6 is a good number anything above that directly approaches chaos. game for 12 people once i think we got through one combat for the 6 hours we played. easy remedy.... start killin people off.
5-6 is a good number anything above that directly approaches chaos. game for 12 people once i think we got through one combat for the 6 hours we played. easy remedy.... start killin people off.
Well...I do let the dice fall where they may in game but I won't simply assassinate a PC for no good reason...not too sporting, heh.
Splitting them up would be a good idea I suppose but I am the only GM in the gaming group and it would be way too difficult on me to run two seperate games. The tough thing is that we are all good friends and so asking a few to "not play" this time around is rough.
Why can't any of the other players DM for a group? Having a small group of three would be an ideal starting environment for them, and it isn't fair for them to expect you to do the DM-work all the time, you will burn out eventually.
I'm somewhat hesistant to suggest this, since Pathfinder is awesome and I'm posting this on paizo.com.
But if you have that many people at one table, and you definately don't want to split it up. I suggest playing a more rules light game such as Savage Worlds. Which is designed with very simple rules and plays much quicker.
Why can't any of the other players DM for a group? Having a small group of three would be an ideal starting environment for them, and it isn't fair for them to expect you to do the DM-work all the time, you will burn out eventually.
I'll have to bring it up when we play next. As far as not being fair to me...I don't feel that way at all. I have been at the helm GMing games since the 1E days so it's fun for me too!
I don't like more than 4 PCs, though I can live with 5 if necessary. I find 3 PCs is optimal for the level of challenge and roleplay I like to offer.
That said, I don't see why you should have trouble GMing two separate parties. Each party obviously gets less game time since you have only so much time to do GMing - but at least everybody gets to play (on their turn). If you GM the same module, this actually reduces the workload for you, as you only need to prepare once (more or less).
The largest group we had were 12 players. They had a DM and a co-DM to help run battles. That's 14 all together. However, we had a huge table. It worked out and was a lot of fun.
However, I played in another game that had 5 people and a 6th joined. He had to sit on the couch because the dinky little apartment only had room for a small table and 4 chairs. It turned out to be a confusing disaster.
So, my personal limit is the size of the table. As long as there is room for everybody to comfortably, I say you are good.
Bottom line: Is everybody still having fun? If yes, then its OK.
Bottom line: Is everybody still having fun? If yes, then its OK.
This.
Can you have too many PCs? Yes.
Example 1) I ran a one-shot when I was in high school for about 10 people (some experienced gamers and others not so much) and the first combat took 4 hours. Ridiculous! We never went beyond the first combat.
Example 2) I played in a group with 8 players once, and it took about 45 minutes to an hour in between each action. Talk about being bored. I never went back.
My current group has 6 PC's and that is the maximum I think I will run. Four seems too few to me (have done that before also) so 5 is probably my ideal, although I have no real issues with 6. I just wouldn't want to go above 6 PC's.
I've had up to 10 players at a time. It's fun, but it makes for slow combat. And when the inevitable digressions start...well, it can be difficult to get a lot done in a day's gaming session.
|
Largest game for me was 13 players. I can say it's a bit much to handle. My normal game is 7 players hase been for some time now. It's not that hard just need alot of planing on the DMs part. The thing is I have a standing rule at the table if you don't know what a spell dose. You better know befor your turn what your doing. I'm not wasting 10 min so you can look up what spell you want to cast. I'll skip over them why they look up the spell or what ever it is they want to do. Untill there ready with the rules for it. Ther should be no reason any one combat action. Should take longer then 1min to find the results. Thats the hardest part with a large group keaping the game flowing. If your runing more then 4 new players. Then your just asking for problems.
Ive run 17 PC's at one table but once i get to around the 8 to 10 mark i start to assign CO DM's responsable for a spesific world aspect like terain/weather, combat, maghic etc.
seems to work just fine as it alows for flexability and consistency.
Managed 12. 8 can be done. 4-5 Optimal IME.
7+, you must change playstyle most times.
2-5. Any more, and it gets too slow for my taste. I allow really good stats, so characters are powerful and don't need much help.
...Kyle Olson's sweet Combat Manager...
This is the first time I've heard of Kyle's Combat Manager. I will never run a session without this again!
Around 6 it becomes unmanageable.
I'm only having 6 in my CC game because one player is likely leaving for good in July, and I hate bringing PCs in mid-adventure path because the old PCs don't know and like them and they don't grasp the mood of the campaign as strongly.
I've DM'd for 8 before. I will never DM for 8 again. Combats taking entire sessions is absurd.
In my opinion:
3 players = maximized roleplaying, character centric... but needs very good party balance which is highly unlikely
5 players = medium to high roleplaying potential, low to medium character centric, has great party balance which makes the game run great
8 players = no roleplaying, no characters, extremely difficult to balance the game
17 players
You are a saint.
Who are you calling a fifth wheel??? That's fighting talk where I come from.
I remember a college game at our games society. Rob McWilliam and his Unfeasably Large Playing Group. (Name changed to protect the guilty). There were anywhere from 8 to 13 players around his table. I have no idea how he managed to even remotely run it. I haven't run with more than six since I was a teenager, I think I did play Champions Superheroes with 8 once as a seventeen year old. Or maybe that was just six, with two characters each...
Ah, the enthusiasm of youth.
Six is fine if you know the players well, I don't really think four is enough, it's too easy to just fall into class-defined roles.
Im not syaing like just indiscrimnatly kill people just you know when you throw the cr monsters thats 2-4 additional above the level because of the double players said monsters tends to knock pcs senseless... althought really even those big things get butchered by numbers i think you just have to double all your encounters. cr made for 4 players you have 8 so double :D (which is probably nicer then my method of taking out half the part right at the start with a aoe or save or boned spell)
|
|
I just went through this. With nine players and one GM around a tiny table in a cramped space and single encounters taking up to 10 hours to complete, I finally told the group they had two options: they could split the party and I'd run both groups in the same campaign on separate days, or a few of them could leave the group and play in a separate campaign altogether.
I'm running World's Largest Dungeon, which is a large enough campaign that I could have split the party into two teams and let them explore different parts of the dungeon simultaneously.
I gave the players a deadline and, when it didn't look like they were going to give me an answer, I made a list of players who were the most problematic and cut them from the roster, telling them I would just run a separate game for them on an alternating Sunday. Luckily, one of my players stepped up and said he'd run the other campaign for the cut players so I wouldn't have to pull double duty.
This might not work for you if all your players get along and don't cause many problems, but I cut people based on a few factors:
1. Consistently showing up late
2. Scheduling difficulties resulting in multiple consecutive absences
3. Poor gamemanship including but not limited to antagonizing other players, consistently plotting against and hindering the efforts of the party and general douchiness.
4. My personal distaste for particular playstyles. I'm not afraid to admit that.
Now, I'm down to five players, things are running much smoother and people seem to be happier.
Creative Director
|
My current Thursday night game has 9 players. One of whom is a summoner, so that's more like 10 characters.
It's far too many.
My preference is 5 players. 6 is normally my upper limit.
My main concern with games that have too many players is the simple fact that the more players you add, the less time each player gets to actually "play," since while the time he/she takes on his/her turn doesn't change no matter how many players you add, the time that he/she waits for other players to take THEIR turns increases quickly.
So yeah, to answer the original question—7 players is too many.
.
..
...
....
.....
Depends of the table.
We run between 7-9 man sessions with minimal problems.
Occasionally the volume can escalate but we take care to reign it as needs dictate.
Pathfinder, for us, is one of the easier systems to run, the numbers at the table being what they are.
Now, Deathwatch + 140 points requisition?
..good bye clock, beautiful clock.
::
Acid test - is it acid? yes/no.
Actual OT acid test - are you all having fun? yes/no
Will reducing the number of bodies at the table increase your fun? yes/no
Do you yes/no
Experiment. Fiddle. Tinker.
Organisation is key [be in the same page with Co DM's]
Co DM's alows for split/multiple groups
Sandbox alows the PC's to drive the plot (timelines are a must)
I once ran a World of Darkness game with 11, almost all of whom showed up every session, and many of whom I had side sessions with as well.
With larger groups, the dynamic changes. It becomes harder to sit down at a table and have all the PCs in the same place. What I often found myself doing was letting the individual PCs do their own thing or pair up to investigate things. That only works if a) you've got a campaign premise that will handle it (Kingmaker for example), and b) you've got players who can entertain themselves when they're not "on" (or you have a GM assistant). I've had several good evenings running things thus, but it really is an entirely different experience than four or five, and won't work well for adventures when everyone is expected to stay together.
Personally, I prefer 4-6 characters. 5 is my perfect group size, I am used to running for 5 players that gives enough wiggle room for class mix, roleplay and enough bodies to make the party formidable.
Right now, I am a player in a Council of Thieves game and we have 4 players, I really wish we had one more. We've fallen into the Fighter, Cleric, Arcane Caster, Other configuration. In our case, a Urban Ranger is our 4th but he will likely multiclass into rogue.
My regular group has six players. We're running a Pathfinder game and during some moments it feels like too many. I think it's because of the character choices (TWF ranger, TWF rogue, summoner with melee pet, melee wizard, zen archer, melee cleric). Also lots of skill overlap. Lots of characters trying to do the same thing. We're also 2nd level so it's not like the cleric and wizard (my character) can focus on casting.
I hate to admit it but I actually had more fun when the ranger and rogue bowed out for a couple of sessions. Felt like I wasn't stepping on anyone's toes.
Hopefully the crowdiness will lessen as we get higher level (for fights at least).
I have to agree with most of the people on the forum. I've run games with everything from 3 to 7 people. Three is a bit harder, as everyone has to be very very good, and something's not being handled.
My sweet spot is 4-5. There's enough people so if one person doesn't show up, it doesn't kill the game. There's also enough people to cover the bases and allow people to not have to uber optimize
6 is too many, but can be done. Beyond that, I just can't do it anymore.
I find 5-6 is about right, because that means if someone doesn't show up, you have 4-5 and the party can still carry on without too much hinderance.
3 is my ideal number.
4 works well, just not as well as 3.
5 is where the wheels start to come off the wagon.
6 is not managable in Pathfinder (but I could do it in a lighter game system, like core 2E).
Though all that being said, back in college, I ran a D&D 3.0 table with 15 PCs. We ended up breaking the group into different sub-factions, with each smaller party (usually consisting of 3-5 people) meeting one day of the week besides, and the "whole group" meeting for our 2pm to 2am session on Saturday, which ended up evolving into a dice-based LARP more than a proper tabletop experience, where I had to let PCs start just adjucating things on their own. Reserved several rooms in one of the engineering buildings, and people just walked around with rulebooks and dice. Every now and again, I'd make one of the more experienced PCs Co-DM for a few hours, but it was really just me at the helm for the most part. (Though the midweek "breakout sessions" remained a more traditional tabletop style.) So each PC was playing twice a week, but I was GMing 4 nights a week. GPA didn't do so hot that semester, but it was fun.
Now, post-college, yea, can't really do that. Running 2 games a week with 3 PCs each is enough for me.
Put me down as another DM who favours 5-6 players..I'll take up to 7 for a PbP though
I had a group of 12 once..for The Worlds Largest Dungeon..it was a nightmare.
Well at that point we had a core group of 6 regulars..and 6 players who might or might not have shown up on any particular night.The game only lasted 3 weeks anyway recently I've been running Kingmaker with a rotating cast..any 4/5 out of the 8 characters we have while the others go and do something else.
I usually prefer 3-6 players.
I can and have run larger groups. I simply expand on what I currently do.
I have a player keep track of initiative (sort of co GM), and if a player doesn't know what their player is doing when their turn comes up, then they are delaying while the next in line goes.
I also ask players to roll multiple dice at once, especially for multiple attack, with color coded dice, so that the attacks and damage can be done as soon as the dice stop moving.
Those are what I consider the two keep components in keeping the duration of fights down, especially in larger groups.
|
I like having 5 or 6 players, because it means that one or two people can be absent from the game and we still have enough people to play. My current group started with five, then one dropped out (due to a schedule change) and two more joined at the same time for a total of 6, which has worked very well for me. Now the fellow who dropped is able to rejoin, which pushes the group up to 7. I'm really going to have to crack the whip during encounters now.
4 players is my optimal number. I won't go above 5. Even when you have 5 players it takes a toll on role playing and slows the game down.
Addendum: I'm currently in Switzerland for work, so my players restarted a campaign which I "oversee" by email or skype (we are testing our developping campaign setting too).
two players become masters. now they are 9 players and 2 GMs (one player left).
2GMs can manage things better if they are similar in style or tasks are strictly separated.
I prefer 4 as a minimum with a max of 6, although the best tangent game I ran was 8-9 most sessions. I push as much work as possible off on the players and just run the world. My last group included 2 hard-core rules lawyers that handled rules and combat for the most part. The other players dealt with combat order, spell templates, etc. Egad! I got soooooo lazy!