As a player, I like small parties... like 3 characters... no pets... let's do this. You are always doing something, turns come back around quickly. Things are intense because you are always borderline short staffed. I love the challenge/solution matrix of a small party, I feel it forces creative gameplay.
As a GM, I still prefer smaller parties compared to larger ones. Turns are quicker, less to keep track of... enemies don't die before everyone gets a turn. It is so tedious, almost boring/lame when you have Player-A TWF'ing, Player-B with Rapid Shot/Manyshot, Player-C has an Animal Companion... NPC-A is TWF'ing, NPC-B has Rapid Shot/Manyshot, NPC-C has an Animal Companion... as the list gets longer, the turns take longer, it's a drag.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4-6 player characters is the optimal group size to me.
We also implemented house rules that each character was allowed only one other permanent combat controllable character (such as animal companions, mounts, undead, etc). Basically you can only have thing you control beside your character with an exception for when you summon multiple summoned creatures with a single spell.
This doesn't mean you can't have a familiar, or even multiple different things you could choose between to go into combat with you, but you only get to choose one and the others don't exist for the purposes of combat.
I have definitely played with necromancer characters in the past that had teams of undead and it was awful.
For comparison's sake, we usually have 4-6 players in the Starfinder and PF2 games we played but those games seem to go much quicker. I think just because the complexity of options available in those game is less than that of PF1.
There has dedinitely been a learning curve for me as a GM...
To speed things up, I had TWF'ers and Rapid Shot'ers start rolling in advance. Which worked until enemies started having nice things (like Cut From the Air and/or Opportune Parry & Riposte)... things that could negate incoming hits with a better, opposed roll. I suppose it's my fault for complicating things by giving the enemies such abilities... but it sucks watching entire gangs be butchered by Flurry of Bows before they can even engage the front line... gotta give them something to try combat the blizzard of bane arrows coming from the party's ZAM/Inquisitor sitting up there on their Flying Carpet.
I couldn't imagine running a large party where multiple people had pets, TWF'ing, multiple archers... I wouldn't have fun anymore, and that's a problem.
GM's need to have fun, too.
4-6 players, depending on a few things. If you have a couple of players that don't always show up, then I want 6 players. If everyone is always there, every time without fail, then I want 4. the game plays fast and fun with 4-5, but 3 is usually too few to enjoy but 6 tends to bog things down. so having a couple of extra players to always guarantee 4-5 is where I like to be.
As mentioned above, we have also limited the "secondary" characters (no ediolon, no animal companions, no followers etc).
My main group consists of just 3 people. Me, my buddy Hister, and my friend J. So we play with a 2 man party usually. We thrive pretty well most of the time. I certainly enjoy the intimacy of such a small group
I'm old school and like large parties. 6-8 characters.
5, enough for all the usual roles to be covered even if everyone is a hybrid class
It sounds like I'm in the minority here, but I tend to prefer smaller groups of 3-5 players with a GM. It keeps the game running at a nice pace, there are enough players to have some fun party dynamics, and it's easier for us to meet and play regularly when we all have busy schedules.
I will also say that my first full game was actually a solo campaign; my GM adapted an adventure path to be played by one person. It was actually a really fun and low pressure way to get into the game, though my GM also seemed to be having fun fleshing out the world and playing many different characters. So I'd say there's a place for one person games too; you would just need a player and a GM who would enjoy that kind of experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was surprised to figure out that 3 players works best for my group. Everyone pays attention, everyone contributes, everyone has fun. With 4 players it already gets fragile, with 5 usually one player drops out mentally. It's similar with the group I am playing in, even though both groups have only two people in common.
And honestly, as a GM I enjoy that a party of 3 PCs is less powerful and has more gaps, so more encounters are actually challenging. I have to be careful with disabling effects (getting reduced to 2 active PCs is harsh), but the current campaign has few of them anyway. Next one will have hero points and a houserule inspired by hold person: If you get removed from battle by any effect but death, you can spend a full-round action to roll another save, each round. This way both sides can use battlefield control crap without spoiling the fun, hopefully...
I like the number to be between three and six, though I often have as many as eight, depending on who can make the two and a half-hour drive from Memphis to attend my sessions. We're going to have our first in-house game since March this coming Saturday, and as of today, I'll have five players, one who almost always has to play by Skype because she doesn't always get the chance to come down this way.
I have often GM'd for groups of higher than eight, and while that's more than I'm usually comfortable with, I manage to make it work.
The largest I've ever GM'd for is 16 for a club in high school. Never again. It was a disaster. I'm quite happy with my 2 man group I play with now
I was surprised to figure out that 3 players works best for my group. Everyone pays attention, everyone contributes, everyone has fun. With 4 players it already gets fragile, with 5 usually one player drops out mentally.
That's interesting to me, because I would normally be inclined to include an extra person to account for the fact that someone is going to check out. But you saying fewer people encourages people to stay more involved gives me something to think about.
Anyway, I would usually say five people is my ideal. Four people to get the basics covered, and then one extra for the wildcard factor. And if a group doesn't have the bases covered in favor of additional wildcards, so much the better.
I don't care, as long as the GM doesn't cancel when 1-2 don't show up and the rest of us are eager to play.
Punishing all of us or one or two flakes is unfair, even if it is in the guise of good intentions like "I don't want them to miss the story" (clearly they didn't mind) or "to leave you shorthanded" (just downgrade the CR).
I had one GM who cancelled every session if we missed anyone...In a group with seven players.
I don't care, as long as the GM doesn't cancel when 1-2 don't show up and the rest of us are eager to play.
Punishing all of us or one or two flakes is unfair, even if it is in the guise of good intentions like "I don't want them to miss the story" (clearly they didn't mind) or "to leave you shorthanded" (just downgrade the CR).
I had one GM who cancelled every session if we missed anyone...In a group with seven players.
Oh man... I see both sides of that issue.
I don't care, as long as the GM doesn't cancel when 1-2 don't show up and the rest of us are eager to play.
Punishing all of us or one or two flakes is unfair, even if it is in the guise of good intentions like "I don't want them to miss the story" (clearly they didn't mind) or "to leave you shorthanded" (just downgrade the CR).
I had one GM who cancelled every session if we missed anyone...In a group with seven players.
At my table, if a player can't make it / doesn't turn up then their character is a player controlled NPC. I only intervene if the controlling player does something completely out of character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I DM'd a D&D2e game one time with 16 players. We had planned an all-day barbeque and game session with players who we used to play with but no longer lived close enough for them to gather in our group. It went surprisingly well, all things considered. Then they realized I'd dropped the entire party into The Land of the Lost and everyone threw their dice at me at once...lol. It took a few minutes for people to gather up their math stones but it was worth it.
I don't care, as long as the GM doesn't cancel when 1-2 don't show up and the rest of us are eager to play.
Punishing all of us or one or two flakes is unfair, even if it is in the guise of good intentions like "I don't want them to miss the story" (clearly they didn't mind) or "to leave you shorthanded" (just downgrade the CR).
I had one GM who cancelled every session if we missed anyone...In a group with seven players.
this is exactly why we have 5-6 players in our group, that way if 1-2 don't show up, we still have 4-5 players which is enough for a good game.
I typically run with 3-5 players. Less players means more interaction/faster turns/faster decision making. Interesting thoughts on the 5+ players can lead to people kinda tuning out mentally when it's not their turn in combat and out of combat can be taken up by other players. I have definitely seen that occur.
I typically run with 3-5 players. Less players means more interaction/faster turns/faster decision making. Interesting thoughts on the 5+ players can lead to people kinda tuning out mentally when it's not their turn in combat and out of combat can be taken up by other players. I have definitely seen that occur.
yeah, too many people cause turns to take too long and thusly people tune out/get distracted. 4-5 seems the ideal number to prevent this.
I like 3-4. 5 max.
3 seems optimal for speed and enough roles covered while adding different points of view and rp interactions between players & GM. 4 is a bit slower but offers a bit more of the later...or it can.
4 the game speed is generally okay. 5 it slows a lot. 6 it's a painful crawl. I honestly think this is why so many AP's go unfinished because as slow as it is for a player it's a nightmare for a GM especially at the higher levels. 6 can kinda work at low levels.
I'm not saying 6 player's can't be fun as sometimes the humour and different personalities and pc mechanics can add a lot. However, they can just as easily take away and almost certainly slow the game down.
Of course the GM and players matter. A really adept GM with no overly demanding players can have a quick orderly game with more players than a lacking GM and inconsiderate players.
I find sometimes when there is a game and only 2 or 3 people show up you get more done that night then with a full group.
If I ever GM again I would aim to keep the group at 3-4 players at least for Pathfinder. Something like Deathwatch could be run with 2-3 players. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting to me, because I would normally be inclined to include an extra person to account for the fact that someone is going to check out. But you saying fewer people encourages people to stay more involved gives me something to think about.
Oh, I started with 5 players, it's just that two dropped out lately. I chose to only GM when all remaining 3 are around, which can be troublesome at times - today our session got delayed, again. Still, agreeing on common play times is easier with less people - though not as easy as I would have hoped.
A really adept GM with no overly demanding players can have a quick orderly game with more players than a lacking GM and inconsiderate players.
We figured out that technology can really help. In Roll20 you can combine many rolls to a single macro, like a full-attack, including crit confirmations and special effects on hit. As the GM I only have to type the macro name (such as #020) to let it all happen. Example macro for a cornugon, copy and adapt as you like:
Devil with a spiked chain goes on a rampage!
ATT [[1d20+26]] [[1d20+21]] [[1d20+16]] [[1d20+22]] [[1d20+22]]
(Crit) [[1d20+26]] [[1d20+21]] [[1d20+16]] [[1d20+22]] [[1d20+22]]
DMG [[2d6+11]] [[2d6+11]] [[2d6+11]] & stun (F) [[2d8+5]] [[2d6+5]]
Unholy [[2d6]] [[2d6]] [[2d6]] [[2d6]] [[2d6]]
After this experience I even consider using scripts at offline sessions, maybe starting Roll20 just for the macros...
I like running for 3 players, I can keep a group that small engaged even if they aren't gamers and I can easily tailor the game to the sort of game and characters they all like.
I'll run as many as 6 if I have to, the game won't be as well run, but if everyone wants to play and not just socialize, then I could make it work. Any more than 6 and everyone needs to be actively moving the game along and be willing to get personal roleplay in on the side without distracting from the group's play.
I think the largest group I ran for was about 10 playing once a month for a couple years. Character balance was all over the place, so I was essentially running two combats every encounter. One for the powerful and one for the weak, and not everyone knew which group they should be on. Loot was soaked up by louder personalities, people who were just there to socialize complained and had no idea what was happening. I've been asked to run that game again, even by people I was sure weren't enjoying it, but I thought it was an enormous pain. I'd use a much simpler game system for a group that large if I tried it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting to me, because I would normally be inclined to include an extra person to account for the fact that someone is going to check out. But you saying fewer people encourages people to stay more involved gives me something to think about.Oh, I started with 5 players, it's just that two dropped out lately. I chose to only GM when all remaining 3 are around, which can be troublesome at times - today our session got delayed, again. Still, agreeing on common play times is easier with less people - though not as easy as I would have hoped.
A really adept GM with no overly demanding players can have a quick orderly game with more players than a lacking GM and inconsiderate players.We figured out that technology can really help. In Roll20 you can combine many rolls to a single macro, like a full-attack, including crit confirmations and special effects on hit. As the GM I only have to type the macro name (such as #020) to let it all happen. Example macro for a cornugon, copy and adapt as you like: ** spoiler omitted **
After this experience I even consider using scripts at offline sessions, maybe starting Roll20 just for the macros...
Yep Combat Manager is a godsend.... http://combatmanager.com/
I'm looking to try Astral for online and in person games.
I'm in the 3-5 range, and am playing all three at the moment right now. What's interesting is the difference in how we handle people not being getting involved.
The 3 player group is really relaxed about missing or moving sessions to accomodate real life, but once we start playing we're all very focussed on the game.
In contrast the 5 player game doesn't get cancelled unless the GM or 3 player are unable to make it, but it feels like there are more occasions where one player is at the table but disengaged from the action - and it's not always the same player, so it's not specific to an individual.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ran Feast of Dust with a rotating 8 player table. Most of the time there were six or seven character, but one weekend when everyone made it, I assigned one of the players to GM a second table and we completed a short dungeon crawl as two tables encountering the same dungeon in parallel universes (a DM fiat event that everyone went along with).
Very dramatic when we returned to a full table and finished the scenario as a full group.
I've found that any more than 8 pc's requires coGM's usually in charge of one aspect of the game eg combat, enviroment/weather, magic, plot/npc's etc...
ATM I'm running a group of 12 with one coGM for combat that meets for two days about once every 3 months that so far works well.
Communication is key!
My group met for the first time last Saturday since March 14th. There was the usual "I forgot what I can do at this level" chatter. But honestly, that happens when we meet on our regular every other week basis. I've been gaming with most of these people for over 30 years and as the default GM for most of that time I just patiently wait for people to get their crap together. Then we have fun.
Two week reminders via email. Once a month GM strat meeting via group chat. Two weeks out I send a leadup from where we left off.
The guys have their [expletive] together and plenty of time to plan.
The prebrief and set rules are explicit and the players well aware of time sucks and plan accordingly.
No AP's can be used as they allow to much pre prep.
I run a very sandboxy game and coGM's allow for party splits and active subplots.
As to the balance question. Don't bite off more than you can chew and running is a required tactical/survival choice.
No AP's can be used as they allow to much pre prep.
Why is pre-prep bad?
For me, 4-6 is great, for a specific number it depends on the players. Most of the time I think 5 is great for survivability, variety of skills/abilities, etc. If you've got 4 excellent players you might not need more. 6 is my max, more than that and the game slows down too much.
J
Sysryke is right in that with that much lead time and easy access to AP's, it is impossible not to meta game.
Audio record the sessions (cellphone works) and have a computer transcribe them into txt later.