| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously 4 is the standard. I find that running for 5 requires only a little fiddling around the edges (add extra mook or two per fight) and it allows for a more well rounded party. For 6 you will need to adjust fights, especially if they are single enemy encounters. This means more prep time on the front end.
In my opinion any more than 6 and you are very unbalanced. It would require you to redesign most encounters and you may even have issues with too many people to fit in some of the smaller battle locations.
You can scale up encounters and treasure allocation to a larger party. Note that adding more enemies will usually be more pleasant for the players than increasing the level of individual enemies, but that's also more work to run an encounter with so many initiative pieces.
The bigger question is what are you comfortable managing at a group size. Personally I find 5 players to be fine for in person but I struggle to wrangle 6 players. Virtual benefits more from smaller groups, so I'd suggest keeping it to the 4 baseline. But if you really wanted to include all 10 players, splitting them into two tables of 5 is workable.
Two other considerations: bigger parties and more enemies can sometimes really crowd Paizo maps, especially if players are using eidolons, summons, or animal companions. And large groups make group wide buffs better, making bards even better than they already are.
I would suggest 4-5. Note that its also not just general party size, but what you personally can handle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question goes beyond basic numbers, but as a base 4 would be normal (and as an AP, a bit on the tough side), 5 would be simpler (though not necessarily easy due to AoEs or focused fire), and 6 would require tweaking if only due to corridor and room size. A party with excellent teamwork, both on the battlemat and at the table, follows these numbers a bit tighter so you might need to tweak more for deviation, but I find that quite rewarding.
New players will also alter those numbers, though in my experience an engaged newbie outperforms any veteran who makes too many assumptions (often due to meta-analysis or tropes). It's often enlightening to hear a veteran mislead a newbie. :-P
But most importantly is the social aspect. I doubt all ten of those players will have the same expectations, temperament, maturity, table culture, and so forth as you and each other. Which is to say, you may have six even seven excellent players that would sync so well that the table would run smoothly enough for everybody to get table-time (which might be padded w/ e-mails for extra RPing) and where the investment of tweaking the AP feels appreciated. Or there might only be three, where it's simply better to run w/ a GM-NPC, Free Archetypes, or otherwise make the AP easier because all the other players would degrade the game.
It reminds me of advice I'd read long ago to avoid RPGing with anybody you wouldn't want to hang out with, no matter how willing to fill slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally prefer 5 for Paizo APs. Both from a scheduling aspect -- if one person can't make a given session, you still have 4 and can run (sure you might be down a role, but most parties can make it work for a session). When you start with four and drop to 3, its much harder to make things work.
I find that not adjusting anything when running for 5, aside from dropping a bit more treasure every now and then to match the WBL expectation works very well for fine tuning the difficulty to what my players enjoy. (Rather than adding weak templates, or +1 level to players, or FA).
The game assumes a party of 4, but from everything I’ve heard works pretty well with 5; the game’s tight math and tactics are a little more forgiving with an extra body in play. Things tend to fall apart with more or less players than that, though.
I personally prefer 5 for Paizo APs. Both from a scheduling aspect -- if one person can't make a given session, you still have 4 and can run (sure you might be down a role, but most parties can make it work for a session). When you start with four and drop to 3, its much harder to make things work.
I missed this aspect too. Being a person down at the table isn't unusual, especially if you have an older group with families instead of kids or singles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My regular group consists of 5 players including me and our GM and I think that is the sweetspot. Enough to have a good 2 player frontline, 2 casters/ranged and a wildcard. It is also easier to have good skill coverage without compromising the original PC concepts people have. Balancing around 5 is pretty easy as well, hardly a thought needed.
3 to 5 is easiest to balance around (3 can be a bit rough for players even when making encounters easier, tho). If you want to balance encounters for 6-7 people it is best if you have a good amount of experience both as a player and as a GM. The encounter guides are solid, but the higher the player account, the easiest it is to do encounters that either fall flat or completely demolish the party due to small things stacking up.
The game starts to fall apart with more players. You have to do tweaks to keep it reasonable:
1) adjust module difficulty - obviously you need more opponents
2) player air time gets to be too short. There is nothing really you can do except remind players to be prepared for their turn, and don't waste time.
3) focus fire can break the game. With 6 instead of 4 actors it become quite probably that you can take a character down from full health to nothing in one go. Or your boss monster is crippled before he gets a go and is dead before he gets a second. That is not a very satisfying experience. It should happen only occasionally, but it can become regular. I find I have to deliberately defocus the enemies - which many consider soft cheating by the GM - and or provide immunities or beef monsters health.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am running 7 players in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion adventure path. That is too many players.
I manage well because 5 of the players are very experienced. One of those experienced players is my wife who assists me, such as looking up obscure rules during combat. And the 2 newer players are smart, cooperative, and good at the game, so they are no trouble, either.
However, I have run three other adventure paths. They ran for 2 to 2.5 years. The Ironfang Invasion campaign is 3 years old this month and we are only halfway through the 5th module. It might be that PF2 plays more slowly than PF1, it might be that the players have added so many side quests that I rewrote the adventure path to end at 20th level rather than 17th level, but I believe that the main reason is that the large number of players is slowing down progress. Combat takes longer with more combatants on each side.
Ironfang is a really easy campaign to extend though... There's a lot of roleplay, room for expanded encounters, and a big stinking optional subsystem.
Companions, Familiars, Summoners - all need to be seriously reconsidered in large parties. They just take up time and space.
Obviously 4 is the standard. I find that running for 5 requires only a little fiddling around the edges (add extra mook or two per fight) and it allows for a more well rounded party. For 6 you will need to adjust fights, especially if they are single enemy encounters. This means more prep time on the front end.
In my opinion any more than 6 and you are very unbalanced. It would require you to redesign most encounters and you may even have issues with too many people to fit in some of the smaller battle locations.
This is the way.
I try to do 4 minimum, I like 5 equally well. 6 teeters on the edge of being unplayable, requiring a lot of modification to keep encounters at the same challenge (recall APs and the like are usually based on 4 person groups). The increase to the amount of required prep is usually a non-starter for myself, as I simply don't have the free time to do it anymore.
Also combine that with decreased screen time for each individual player, and physical space limitations of encounter spaces (a lot of rooms simply wont accommodate 6 players + the enemies for balanced encounter + potential pets).
It's doable, but I find it better to set a limit of 5 players.
In my home games I prefer 3 players, 4 is good, 5 is a bit of a chore, and 6 is straight up not fun. If my players were all pro-level I bet 6 would be fine, but they're pretty casual about the game.
Some people mentioned running two groups of 5 but I really have to advise against running two groups in the same adventure concurrently. Your notes would have to be god-tier to not get them mixed up in your head regarding which group did what, and how each NPC's mood toward the party has been affected.
In my home games I prefer 3 players, 4 is good, 5 is a bit of a chore, and 6 is straight up not fun. If my players were all pro-level I bet 6 would be fine, but they're pretty casual about the game.
Some people mentioned running two groups of 5 but I really have to advise against running two groups in the same adventure concurrently. Your notes would have to be god-tier to not get them mixed up in your head regarding which group did what, and how each NPC's mood toward the party has been affected.
I assume you are talking from a GM point of view, right?
I GMed for a group of 3 as well and it was a blast, but I can see things getting unnecessarily inconvenient on their part sometimes even tho I'm pretty sure thay had a good time as well. I had to add NPCs to help them out with certain skills and I had to dumb down a bit some encounters due to them having only one melee martial.
In my home games I prefer 3 players, 4 is good, 5 is a bit of a chore, and 6 is straight up not fun. If my players were all pro-level I bet 6 would be fine, but they're pretty casual about the game.
Some people mentioned running two groups of 5 but I really have to advise against running two groups in the same adventure concurrently. Your notes would have to be god-tier to not get them mixed up in your head regarding which group did what, and how each NPC's mood toward the party has been affected.
Foundry and fog of war makes tracking which party did what somewhat easier if you're running the same campaign. I've often done it.
That said, you could also just run two different campaigs. I'll reiterate though that I agree 5 players is pushing it past the fun point for virtual play.
Harles, it you're not already, I suggest adding an "application form" for players. With making people answer the right questions just to be considered, you can learn a lot about whether you want to play with them. That includes their role-play style and level of investment.
Our go to is 3-5. I play on a server with a rotating cast that often has 6 player parties. Those are fine but not my favorite. 3 feels a bit too rough, 4-5 feel mostly the same to us.
I only GM for groups of 2-4. Anything above 4 feels like a slog to me.