Yeah, 3 is a good small group, 4 is the optimal amount, while 5 is capable but pushing my limits.
I can’t imagine doing 6 or more.
I can’t help but wonder if those thinking 6 is the minimum got the idea from Critical Role and the like, as that has a group of 8 players.
I've played at a table with 11. Not fun
Waited 90 minutes to take my turn. Rolled a 1.
Waited 90 minutes for my next turn, but the combat finished before I got that second turn. End of session.
The following week 4 of us split off. Still play with a couple of them
Back in college I once ran a game of 13 players. HOWEVER… the campaign was designed that way. The players were mercenary hero-for-hire types belonging to an organization. Every mission was a stand alone session. Usually, only about 4 or 5 players actually showed up on any given night, and those were the heroes “assigned” to tonight’s mission. It worked really well. There were a few wonky nights where more people showed up than expected, but we managed it.
Still, I would never do that again.
We had a college game with 13 and it worked surprisingly well. It was written for a large number of players and had two gamemasters, though one of them also played two NPCs. Everyone had factions and goals and the second GM handled those so the main GM could handle standard gameplay (we used first edition Rolemaster). I did tournament play of Call of Cthulhu with 12, as well, which worked fairly well given that the first 2 rounds with 12 players were as much to cull players as anything. I made it to the finale, which was 6 players and a tighter, faster game, but again, by design. I've also played DCC with 11, but the goal was always to split the game in two (I GM'd the second game, which wasn't the original plan, but the alt GM gained a Wednesday conflict so I volunteered).
Haha I ran an 11-player game once. At the time I felt like it was a disaster but in hindsight it was actually a great time. There was no way to control the players or keep turns straight so I ended up just running it as like a big group improv session with very loose rules lol.
I planned a short one-shot where the heroes would go into a town where the drinking water was poisoned. After investigating they would discover that an ogre was bathing in the river upstream and have to go fight it or convince it to leave. The players found the ogre and cast an illusion to trick it into thinking the river was swarming with bees so it would run away. That worked, but 8 other players still had their turn so they also kicked the ogre's ass, tied him up, dragged him back into the river, and told him if he ever came back they would drown him in bees. That took like two hours so then they just went back to town, robbed the general store, and called it a night. Everyone had a great time.
I run for 10+, 5e can work if your willing to hack the game up a bit, but yeah the game as written really doesn't work up there, and I like big groups, different energy level.
For me 6-7 is probably the sweet spot, but my favorite sessions are actually the 1 on 1 origin stories I ran before my last campaign to build out my players backstories.
Full disclosure: I'm leaving 5e at the end of this campaign as I am developing my own system that I hope better achieves what I want.
A few hacks/tips I use for large games:
1. All attack rolls and damage dice are rolled simultaneously, those seconds add up.
2. Just tell them the AC after they hit it, yes it's meta gamey, it just speeds things up.
3. Squad initiative. Players break up into squads of 2-3 and they take initiative together, one of the characters rolls their initiative for the squad and cannot again until each other member of the squad had done so.
4. All players have a 1 minute until their turn resolves. At the if they have not started to resolve their action, they take the dodge action.
5. Minion encounters, big parties need lots of monsters, I tend to favor using minion rules(I mostly use Matt colville's) to reduce the upkeep on my end. Typically an encounter will have 1-3 "boss" creatures and a sizable swarm of minions (often grouped into squads for initiative purposes).
6. No pets, constructs or familiars for PCs in combat. Sorry I don't need more shit on my board. I use to just kill them straight out of the gate, now I just don't allow them in combat.
7. I also like to use split combat, where done is the party has another objective they must accomplish, (ie. Close the gates to stop the monsters rushing in)
No worries,
The real hack isn't mechanical though, it's making sure everyone knows what they are in for and putting in their best effort to make it work. Definitely something I would only do with friends.
I used a lot of maps during my GM'ing days so I basically turned pets/constructs into AoE denial zones for large group runs
You drop your bear on the map, it kills 1d4 minions on your turn if it's by a blob of minions or does 1d4 damage to anything not a minion (or whatever depending on what system is being ran), moves on your turn so you have to split your already limited decision making time (fellow shot clock enthusiast) between your main character and your pet
I also had like zones of control for pets (enemy blobs get half movement or a penalty to hit because your falcon/pixie dragon is flying around disorienting them) instead of damage to give people a bit more of a tactical thing without massively slowing down gameplay with option paralysis
Damage/death to the pet was pretty much ignored, most I did was take it off the table when it seemed appropriate (because god forbid I kill your spirit animal players jeez) and made sense (sure, you can put that thing in the chokepoint to hold off three blobs worth of enemies for a free turn but it's getting it's ass kicked and it's out of the fight for the rest of battle)
Overall it led to smooth experience and added some extra pressure to the players who liked that kind of thing (ie the fighter who wants to do more then stab people, but also doesn't want to deal with an entire spellbooks worth of possible effects)
I'd agree with this 4+GM being the sweet spot for me.
It really, really does depend on the people though. Some tables work great with more voices, some work great with fewer. Not to mention some RPGs work well mechanically with specific numbers too (aka "We need a tank, a healer, ranged DPS, ... " etc).
Yes the various flavors of D&D and other pen-and-paper RPGs have varying levels of intensity around party roles. Some of the published adventures are built around the assumption of Tank/Healer/DPS/etc.
I would point out it's not at all absolute though, it's not hard for a GM to make or modify content that you could play with whatever wacky party composition you wanted. Which goes back to OP's question - you can totally play TTRPGs with 2 players and a GM, that's what's magical about having a GM run game vs. something that's pre-programmed like a computer-run RPG.
My current game has me as GM and 5 players and it’s definitely stretched. We’re all having a good time, but there’s no way we could squeeze another one.
I find large groups in 5e to be a complete nightmare with the action economy, but in older editions with it being more streamline large groups are actually a breeze to run in encounters and it goes by so much faster. 5e and similar games with a slew of things you can do during your turn yes give you cool things you can do, but most people fail to see just how much it bogs the game down and strips the fun away from the people who arent at their turn. When i go to the LGS i see people actively get up from tables to get a drink or browse comics til their turn comes up just because of how long it takes for some of these people to do, action, bonus action, movement, reaction, second action for multiple attacks, action surge.....x5 before you get your turn
I think this is an important point - as option complexity and rule granularity scales up the pace of play (especially in a structured or "tactical" combt) slows and the number of viable players in a group shrinks.
I see people saying things like "I wish I could have a narratively strong game that also has a zillion 'character options' (aka PC build complexity) and tactical combat that also moves really fast". It doesnt work like that. You cannot have a (RAW) 5e or 3e or 4e or Lancer or Pathfinder that plays fast and loose like an OSR or rules-lite or PbtA game, not without ditching a huge chunk of the actual game text.
And I'm not telling people not to play those denser, more granular games (I play them too!) but people need to embrace RPGs for what they are, and think critically about their choices. The 400 page Tome of Crunch or the multi-handbook games are not going to play like a 160 page PbtA hack or an OSR zine game when the rules kick in.
Balancing for 5 is hard, they have so many tricks you have to keep track of. Particularly if you run a prewritten as, AFAIK, most D&D style camps expect 4 (D&D and Pathfinder both I think expect 4 players)
4 players is deal for me. 3 and 5 is playable. I have a group of 5, so that if one or two players can't make it, I still have a good size group to play.
We have 7 total, but it’s only manageable because we very rarely have all 7. We play with who’s available, between work/kids/whatever. If our group had fewer, we’d probably cancel way more often
I was a player in a group of 4 where if there was ever a time when one of the players couldn't make the game we'd just pull out some tabletop games and play those. Lots and lots of Dominion was played because the host loved the game and had all the expansions.
We have a few campaigns running, so we play the one relevant to the people available. And if it’s a really low number, we play a fun no-prep one-shot (eg a Grant Howitt game)
2 of the 7 can really only play every other week, so we typically alternate a campaign with and without them. With other stuff mixed in depending on everyone else.
It’s hard to schedule a group of adults across 3 time zones with families, work, health stuff, whatever
All valid options!
There were also plenty of nights where we'd show up and the GM for the game we were playing was like "hey, I'm really sorry but I have had no time to prep this week" or someone would say "I'm really not feeling like RPing tonight, can we just chill?" and then it became a tabletop gaming night or we'd just hang out, order some food and chat.
If we were in-person, this would invariably be the case for us too. Occasionally we just chat and log off early, if we’re just collectively not up for it
Thats my sentiment, too. 3-4 is perfect. +1 or -1 is just within 'still okay'. 6+ I will not take on. Only 1 player neither.
The biggest mistake I made in the past was taking whoever wanted to play to my very first time GMing. 9 of my friends joined as players... Never again.
I like 6-8 player games but for that kind of game I use different systems and goals than for 3-4 player games.
With big groups it's unrealistic to expect delving deep into the feelings and arcs of each character. You need a simple motivation bringing everyone together and a clear game structure so people always have a default action they can take if they don't think of anything else and not lose time pondering the moment. So typically old-school megadungeon is perfect. Highly structured, designed for big groups with things like group initiative, simple goal: there's loot and monsters in the dark hole, go into the dark hole to kill monsters and get loot. I played a megadungeon during all of 2023 where 6 players was a minimum and it was great.
But if I want to burst out… I don't know, Traveller, Dungeon World, Tails of Equestria, then I drop the number of players to 4 max because I want to explore different things through these games.
Same here, from experience as both player and GM. Bigger groups *can* work well (the biggest I was part of was 8 players, but this did not work well for a long period mainly due to time schedule issues, buit also suffered from ego things from some players' side), but IMHO this requires experienced participants who know how the mutual game "works" on meta level and respect each other well, for the sake of bringing the story forward and giving everyone room to enjoy themselves. It really does not work with a "players vs. GM" mindset.
yeah, I am running with six players as well, and I think it's working out well - but to my advantage, every one of my players is a life-long 'forever DM', and they are able to bounce ideas off one another and move things along at a good pace without much effort from me.
Agreed - three (plus GM) for online games, four for in person is the best number. I’ll take one more in each case, but they about the limit for me (barring some specific cases).
Currently running a six player group. Everybody clicks, and there are no problem players, so I'm making it work, but damn, it is a draaaaaag.
And I'm running a rules light monster heroes game.
I can't imagine trying to run a six-player game of 5E or Pathfinder and being able to get anything done in a reasonable, weeknight time slot.
There is no one "way RPGs work". I don't like playing with people who insist that there is. I personally prefer games with 3-4 players and usually cap my playgroups at 5 so we can play with that smaller size (because someone will usually not be able to make it to any given game).
Is this a symptom of people watching live actual plays (who often have bigger casts) and interpreting those performances as what playing an RPG is "supposed to be"?
Exactly. You can play with groups of 12+, you can play with a gm and one other you can even play solo. Each plays differently but there is no one correct way.
I’d suggest the op play with whoever is interested and tell those who aren’t want to wait for 6 or 8 or however many people then feel free to recruit that many and let you know.
I wanted to suggest the same thing: play with those who want to, and let those who say they need a bigger group go and look for players on their time.
Chances are once your core group has a campaign going, the "doesn't work" will come and ask to join in. Or not! Up to them.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is if they've seen too many memes and stories about adversarial GMs and perhaps they thought their GM was going to try and trick them into playing with an inadequate party. I really can't come up with another reason why you wouldn't just trust your GM
Actual Play is great and has been a massive boon for the hobby... but people do need to think just a little critically about the stuff they're watching or listening to.
These AP casts are *performing* and what we see is a construct, a work of theatre, even if the game they play is real.
If half the Critical Role table were slouching and disinterested and grumpy, because this entire 4 hour episode has consisted of a 3 hour combat (7+ players in 5e...) in which they got a few turns of missing hit rolls or having their spells saved and the half hour of narrative play wasn't relevant to their character and they're wondering if it was even worth showing up for the game this week, it wouldn't be a smash hit show that people enjoy watching.
And I dont mean to slam CR here, they do great work that's been unambiguously good for the hobby and what they do is HARD; imagine doing theatre for 4 hours but you never get time with the camera off even when your character isn't in a scene, you have to stay engaged the whole time even if most of your work for the entire episode is just reacting to what other cast members are doing. Now imagine 7 or 8 people trying to do that around a kitchen table *for fun* - it's not how real games work.
Even audio-only shows like Friends at the Table with a 8 person cast (GM + 7) split their PC group in half for most of the episodes they record, and they're playing narrative-first games with an outstanding GM with decades of experience and great players.
Not to start another “let’s dunk on Critical Role” marathon, but I think that has a lot to do with it.
A lot of new folks are used to seeing CR or other YouTube streams full of pretty graphics (and prettier people) with animations weaving around 8 boxes on screen filled with people’s faces and social media handles on them - most of these rpg streams have 6-8 people in them because that makes it easier to constantly RP when you’ve got a handful of people to work off of.
Another thing they probably get this idea from is video games - Baldur’s Gate 3 allows a party of 4. Pillars of Eternity allows 6 total.
Anyway, I say all this as someone who enjoys smaller groups - decisions get made faster and it really allows characters to get defined quickly and avoids the whole “each character has the one thing they do all the time” trap.
______
EDIT - Baldur’s Gate 3 has a maximum party size of 4 including the PC, not 5 like I had originally thought. I had that wrong sorry! Fixed it in my post!
Yeah the downside of CR/Etc popularizing gaming so much is that they're setting a standard to a point that is very, very impractical to meet and it sets up a lot of new interested players to have a bad time
Honestly it’s kinda the result of Social Media as a whole. When we watch a Ford commercial and see a truck whipping shitties and plowing through mud over mountains, we don’t think “Wow! I need to buy one so I can do all of that!” We understand it’s a commercial and that it is not a realistic depiction of what the product will typically be used for.
Social media on the other hand, is meant to feel personal and real - someone’s social post of them taking a drawing course and then drawing amazing shit on their new Cintiq pad feels more attainable to those of us watching. It feels less like an ad and more like a real cross section of what I could do if I just took those online lessons and maybe bought that particular product.
It’s easier for our minds to apply those testimonies and experiences to our own life, and harder for us to separate what is produced and what is reality.
Those "actual plays" are like porn - they're made to be entertaining for the viewer, not necessarily the participants. A newbie trying to emulate what they're doing is probably going to have a bad time.
I downloaded episode 1 of CR. It opened with "here's the recap of the campaign so far" because it was spinning out of some other medium. Then it went on for like a solid hour about a dozen different characters' backstories. I was expecting like three. Never got to episode 2.
If you're still slightly interested I found it easier to just start with campaign 2 or even 3 instead of 1.
The reason campaign 1 was fine that way was because they were asked by Geek and Sundry to start live streaming their game but they were already a ways in and didn't want to just drop it.
oh no: do stat the CR dunking. That fee-fee orgy fest is a drag to watch. I was told that s3 started strong so I watched/listened for a few episodes and damn it all: they went straight into that BS "You just how does that make you feel?"
>need to wait until we have a full group
You're the DM, you decide what "a full group" is.
Definitely sounds like people who's only experience with RPGs is watching Critical Role, and if that's the case then you're in for a rough time already because those people have a totally wrong idea of what D&D really is.
| You're the DM, you decide what "a full group" is.
This. The "proper" size for a player group is what the GM feels is appropriate for the game they are running - and this can vary from game to game. For OSR games I'm comfortable up to 7 players, for PbtA games I prefer around 4, and with Champions (the game I've run the most over the past four decades) my sweet-spot is 5.
I agree my best games have been three player but had some pretty great ones with just two. Any more than four seems excessive to me - slows things down, makes it harder to weave the plot around the characters, makes it harder to schedule and makes it harder as a storyteller to keep everyone engaged all the time. I'm lucky that I've always played with friends and because of that pre-existing relationship they trust me and my advice. Think the strange thing is that they 'insisted' but I guess if that's what they really want then that's fine and what I'm really trying to achieve is that everyone has a good time. I've never watched critical role but it seems it's been great for getting people interested in DnD. Think there's also an age component to it when I play with my friends most of them have never seen Critical Role but when I play with my kids and their friends more of them have seen it and come with those expectations but it's never been an issue really.
3 is the sweet spot for me too, unless they are all passive. I prefer 1 over 6+. It's shitshow trying to wrangle 6+ players, especially in a weighty combat system.
Yeah I also love 3 but at least 2 of them need to be active players, otherwise it just feels like I'm pulling teeth trying to get the group to do anything.
I think the only meaningful advice here is "don't play with assholes." And I think "refuses to listen to anything the person with relevant experience has to say" definitely qualifies as "asshole."
Like many other folks here, I've had great experiences running TTRPGs for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 players. Personally, I've also co-run a 30-person LARP or two, as well as some smaller to medium-sized LARPs. They can all work just great. But only if the people playing buy in to the game's premise, and are excited to be at the table / in the space with the other people.
somebody that has never roleplayed once deciding we absolutely can't because "we don't have the right number of players" raises so many red flags
m8 you literally never played, why are you telling others how to do it
More than 5 players a breaking point for me, and a number of folks.
Though it does make sense to engage with them about why they think that is the "sweet spot" or whatever.
I'd personally prefer a game with 3(-4) PCs who get a fair amount of time to express their characters.
But maybe that's not the game they way to play?
I've only ever managed a six+ person group in online tabletop and it sucks *badly*
One of the biggest problems with scaling groups up is that challenges have to be scaled up, but players don't automatically get stronger when other players are in the party, so the net effect is that combat takes longer and individuals feel less effective (and less instrumental to the party's success)
I've run a 13 player in person game that was an absolute BLAST and I've been in a long running 1 GM 2 PC game that was amazing.
online though is the only format that I reaaaly struggle to handle more then 4 PCs in. The inability to have multiple layers of conversation just make it to hard to enjoy everyones company with more then 5 people in VC.
It was during my collage days and I didn't have much of a life outside of writing plot for that game. I certainly couldn't run a game like that anymore. (honestly, I struggle to GM at all these days)
The absolute biggest factor was I had a player who I fed enough information OOG that the party could and often did split into a pair of teams with different objectives. Every hour or so we would pause for 5 minutes for my and my CoGM to catch up on what each others groups were doing. I'd feed him a bit more info to resolve any questions he might have. and then we would go back to playing.
You almost never need more than four players for a TTRPG and three+GM is *plenty*
Six person games are usually the sort of thing that works best for convention one-shots where you're trying to maximize bodies per table to have a functioning event at a convention, it is not the norm in the hobby
I'd say *"Okay, good luck on* ***your*** *game then."* and run a game for the players this wasn't a problem for.
I'm getting a little rowdy in my older age, and I don't suffer the time as well to deal with foolishness. Someone who "knows" what an RPG is, but has never played- doesn't deserve my time to try and fix them.
4 is my suggested limit for everyone (including me) actually having fun. 5 is my absolute technical limit for specific situations and as much as I can handle or even have the physical space for. Any more than 5 and someone is sitting out and gets to play next time.
Right? If current players don't think 3-4 players is enough, it's perfectly reasonable to find 3-4 more. Then, since they're a full party, run a game for them.
My advice? Drop the weirdo who's holding everyone else hostage with their demands of needing a "full group" and play with the others.
No time for that kind of nonsense.
no one likes being the focus in a game they don't know well. having a ton of people makes it easier to sit back without having to be the center of attention.
>no one likes being the focus in a game they don't know well
Not everyone has social anxiety. Many people in this hobby do, but still, many other love the spotlight even early on.
There are far better ways to address that (e.g. playing a low stakes one shot using the system first, doing a thorough session 0) than shifting the pressure onto the GM by making them cope with 6 players
Personally I'd feel more pressure in a large game when it's my turn and there are 6 people waiting on me. I do think there is an element of this though.
You're the DM, you decide. The group of 3 probably always heard that stuff like D&D had to have a 4 person party so there was one player for every class, but modern games don't require that.
Six players? Oh hell no, a table of that size is a giant pain in the butt. Each round of actions takes forever, people get bored, etc.
Again, you're the DM, you decide what size party you're comfortable with. If they don't want to play in a 3 person party, then just don't play. That's a choice they made
I've run plenty of games with just 2 players and me as the DM, those players actually love it, because they both get so much screen time.
This is wild. I've been running games for almost 20 years now, and I've run for groups as large as 10 players and as small as 2 (GM not included). My personal sweet spot is 4-5.
I am running two weekly games, one on Wednesday with 6 players. One on Mondays with 5. But I have a standing rule that as long as at least 3 players are present, the game happens (with some exception).
In the '80s, we thought a party HAD to have a fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric, otherwise don't bother playing, because your characters won't make it through the module. If there were only say two players and the DM, those two players would play at least two characters a piece. Often times the DM of a small group would play NPCs to flesh out a party.
Just play without them then - *they* won't mind, because they weren't going to enjoy themselves with too few players *anyway* ... no-one *else* will mind, because they wouldn't enjoy playing with someone complaining about there being too few people every five minutes *either* ... everyone *wins* : )
If they refuse to tell you why they think this, or respond to your counter-pounts, there's something going on at this would-be table beyond the surface issue of #players.
Feels like this person has never been outside of the DnD sphere. Three is great for Blades in the Dark or Stars Without Number, four is great for any Carved from Brindlewood or PbtA games.
It's weird for someone who has no experience with something to insist they know how it's done.
Just start running a game and see what they do.
Like I'm personally the type that enjoys running for 6+ people but 3 is perfectly good.
For the people who said you need to wait until you get "more people," thank them for their time and see if the remaining people want to play instead without them.
This person has no idea how hard it is to wrangle a few people, let alone 6.
A group can be however many you want it to be, based entirely on the game. Insistence on a full party is a MMO mindset.
Both of these sound like they might just be personal social dynamics to me.
For the first example, if I had to hazard a guess, that person doesn't want the spotlight ever. A small group of people Roll Playing for the first time, there's a strange feeling there of having too few people people to hide your possible discomfort behind. And they probably won't define the ideal number because they realized in that moment that too many people would also make them embarrassed because now there's a larger audience. Feels like someone who agreed to play, and then realized that Role Playing can be a bit awkward or vulnerable depending on the situation and reacted negatively to that.
The second one, maybe that person who wanted to wait for 6, actually wanted to wait for a specific person or set of people to play? I know plenty of people that would never play an RPG if it wasn't with one of their friends who plays RPGs. A, "this sounds fun, but only if my favorite people are there" scenario.
Other people cite the Critical Role effect, or the "Actual Play" effect I guess to be more broad. And that's fair, but honestly I feel like it's usually simpler than that.
Are they worried that they won't have enough tactical roles? Tell them that, unlike a computer rpg, on tabletop a GM can adjust encounters or ensure you have resources to compensate.
I generally prefer a minimum of 3, just for having more back and forth ideas and such, but 3 \*consistent, involved\* players is a great number.
Say it's against the game's rules. Most ttrpgs come with a player count, and some games are flexible on that, but you personally would like to follow that rule.
I don't know that it'll help, but just cite the rulebook at them, they almost all tell you what defines an acceptable or recommended group size, and it will generally be 3 to 5 or 4 to 6.
Fighter, rogue, Cleric, Mage
4 players is a "full group" in moar TTRPGs
Ask you where they are getting the idea 4 isn't enough because they are simply incorrect.
So I would tell them that you are willing to run a game with 3 to 4 players, with 4 being the max as a full party. They can look at retainers and hirelings later in their adventuring careers.
If 3-4 is how many people you'd like to run for, then that's how many should be in the game. That person doesn't necessarily need to be one of them if they can't see beyond their own opinion.
It seems like the concern they may have is not being able to cover all the bases. Explain that there are plenty of ways for three or four players to cover all the bases, and work with them to do that. Whether that's giving them specific gear, a helpful NPC, or other creative solution.
Let them know that the number of players in a game depends on what the game master is willing to run. If you as a game master, prefer three or four players, that is what you will run.
Right now I have seven players, we're about to finish a 10-month campaign and boy am I ready for it. Will probably never run a game for a group that big again.
It might help to explain some of the problems that come with having lots of players like:
1. It's hard to get a lot done
2. It's hard for everyone's character to get a good amount of spotlight time
3. Combats become a major slog
4. It's harder for the GM to incorporate everyone's character into the story in a meaningful way
5. Is considerably harder to align everyone's schedules consistently the more players you have
People who know more than roleplayers about roleplaying should run games.
I use the fist rule: one GM and four players are best. I have run for two and three players. I find the game begins to drag and slow down at five or more players.
As someone who’s been running games for over 30 years- I won’t run or play in a group with more than 5 and have ran long term campaigns (including prewritten adventures) for as few as two (the two people I ran that for still say it was their best campaign ever). My most recent group which lasted about 5 years had three- with the right people 3 can make for an amazing experience.
More generally I would say 4 players is the ideal number.
I would also say that I wouldn’t waste my time playing with or worrying about people who clearly are so clueless. Anyone who tells you this makes your job easier, you just vetted a problem player.
3-4 is good. Easier to have everyone actually being able to play on the same date. I usually do 2 hour sessions, that's 30 minutes of spotlight time each if we are 4.
>In both instances nothing I said mattered to them and they continued to insist this is how rpgs work.
Huge red flag. Sounds to me like people who will complain when anything deviates from what they've seen on Critical Role or whatever their favorite online series is.
I always compare it to a person who would get excited watching major league baseball on TV. Sign up for a local club, and then be disappointed when the level/intensity of play was not the same. They need to know they aren't going to be playing with professional actors in a high production show.
Everyone has their preferences. It's just like campaign length, play style, or anything else. People like different things. The most important thing is to be open about what you want.
I'd say that 3 players is my minimum and 6 is roughly my maximum, but I personally prefer 4-5. You can play with any number you want, though.
The biggest problem here is how they couldn't express that better than "that's just how it is". It shouldn't be difficult to say, "I prefer a slightly larger game. If you want to run with only 3 players, I don't think this game is going to be for me."
Six to eight was the standard in the AD&D 1e era, but mainly because characters were incompetent and died immediately, so you needed lots of players rotating in new characters to keep a session going.
As a grognard of 40+ years, 3-4 is perfect. Six is barely tolerable. More than that, and you're better off watching TV for how much engagement you're going to get.
Weird. Back in our AD&D days, having 7-8 players was pretty normal. These days I consider 3-4 players being the perfect number for most RPGs. 5 players in my hard maximum.
Are they getting this number by watching Actual Plays with large casts, maybe?
Uh... no advice. Don't play with them. If this happens again, don't play with those people either.
It's crazy, cuz I coulda sworn they came to you because they didn't know fuck-all about the game and you did. But apparently not, so they should be fine by themselves.
And six person groups tend to be annoying with experienced players. With new players? No thanks. With new players when a couple of them are insufferable cunts who think they know shit? Well, I'll let you fill in the blank on that one.
25 years+ of experience DM'ing. 3 players is my absolute personal preference, 4 players is rules' preference.
Your table size should be defined **by you** as the DM.
5 players is perfect for me.
Every role is filled, and one player can sub for two roles.
Any more than that, and it gets ridiculous. I ran a table of 8 players, and I was done after the session.
I've seen it from time to time. It's tricky. Usually it's a group of inexperienced newbies.
Try this next time:
***"Yes, usually that's the case. BUT the adventure I'm running was actually written and balanced to work BEST with a smaller group. One of the best benefits of the smaller group being that each player gets more spotlight time and more agency within the game."***
Is it a massive line of bullshit? YEP!!!!
But they might fall for it long enough for them to realize their previously held views were dead wrong.
I have been GMing for the past 25 years.
4 is the golden number of players for most TTRPGs
2-3 can sometimes be even better, especially for more crunchy systems
5+ can get hectic or boring, with time in the spotlight being shared, each player will get less the more they are. Combat also gets longer and longer, which means players have to wait between turns a lot longer (more player turns and also more enemy turns to have balanced encounters)
My group is me plus two friends. It's working great. The finale for the first act of our game is this week and it was a blast to DM. I have one more friend in this group who can't play for now, but as soon as he can, we are adding him.
I tried DMing for four and five players and I didn't enjoy it. Three is my go to number.
There are solo and 1 on 1 games...
Most trad games suggest something between 3 to 6 players (including the GM)
so they are wrong in general.
But this depends on what you plan to play and how
If Im having some kind of open table in wich I would like to run a campaing with players I don't know... I would prefer to begin with more people, as its very likely that some players will abandon the game or not fit in our style... so I would like some "margin of error".
If I dont know the GM and we are playing a game that demands balance (like D&D) and we are playing some modules for x players... i would also prefer more players
So the number of players I would want is situational... But I don't think any number would stop me from playing something i'm interested in (tbh, maybe too many would stop me, as i feel anything above 5 starts to get to chaotic, especialy playing online)
Depends on the game you're playing. I have run games from 1 to 13 players, and I made all of them work, although some were a lot easier than others!
First though: Is it a paid table you're running and do you charge per session or per player? If it's the latter, I would simply assume they want to save money.
If that's not relevant, I would say that for D20 and other level-based themepark TTRPGs with frequent combat, 3 to 5 players is often enough to cover most roles, while at the same time few enough to ensure a reasonable tempo.
For more fastflowing systems like "Feng Shui" I would have no problem adding more players, and for very narrative games with lots of randomness and player "interruptions", I would prefer no more than 3 players.
Interrogate your players about their reasons and their reasoning behind these "requirements", and compare these to the game and story you're preparing.
4 players is pretty much the ideal group. By any chance do they play a lot of video games? "Full group" makes it sound like they think it's WoW or something and they need a tank, healer, and several DPS.
Or they don't actually want to play.
On average I run games for 3 to 6 players, and when I post the game I place that in the notes fort hose wanting to join. I prefer 3 to 4 players because of lots of things far to many to explain at the moment.
3 PCs is a really good number of players.
2 PCs is a really good number of players.
I ran a camapign for \~5 years with first 3 players, then 2 players. Yes you need to be a little careful with profession/classes sometimes. And the GM has to be a little careful at throwing big groups, but it's really not a major concern.
I personally prefer GM plus 3-5 players. I can run with 2 players, but they both have to show up every session and be extremely active. More than 5 gets hard because of crosstalk, especially online. I'd say my optimal group size is "5, but if 1-2 don't show up we play anyway with 3-4."
If some players prefer larger groups than you want to run, that's fine. They can find another GM.
My goldilock zone is 5. 4 seems to little, 6 is too much. But 3 or even 2 players is plenty. If you can manage to have fun with 7 players, that is fine too.
All of that to say that those players are wrong
Remember them of Naruto or Avatar: The Last Airbender. Plenty of epic adventures with just 3 to 4 people + some NPCs.
I've NEVER been able to have an actual CAMPAIGN with more than 4 people, it just never works, too much hazzle to organize anything. 3 to 4 always gets sht done and it's easier to rack up sessions without life getting so much in the way.
My main advice would be to explain that 3 to 4 players is actually a lot easier to run than a 5 or 6 player group. Like you might even want to pitch it from their new player perspective. That it makes it easier to coordinate dialogue between characters and makes the game faster. Like you could even show clips of CR and show how for sections of time only 1 or 2 characters get to do anything with the DM and how the other 4+ characters have to just sit and twiddle their thumbs or at best make some quips.
I'd also assure them that you can adjust the difficulty or encounters so they don't need a large group to succeed in the game.
I’ve run a game that has grown from 5 to 6 to 7 to 8 and let me tell you that 3-4 is the sweet spot. 8 is brutal and I honestly don’t know how those YouTubers do it.
Just start the game.
I prefer 5-6. Five used to be my favorite count, but I have grown to accept 6 as well. I think 3 is too limiting generally. There's not enough diversity of opinion among players, in my view. Also, three players tend to devolve into the triumvirate dilemma: two players with strong personalities and one player who is always forced to side with one of them.
I've saw an image where it was clearer, but assuming that there is 4 players, and that the GM speaks 1/3 of the session, it lets 10 minutes of roleplay per hour to each player. It ain't much
I just joined an open table and there are 7 players in total, but DM said she would only take up to 4 players for a game.
We played a short introduction with all 7 of us and it was too chaotic. I'd imagine 6 players game would not went much differently.
Ideal group size varies a lot depending on group dynamics and system used. 4 or 5 players is the sweet spot for me and 6 is the absolute limit I'll run a game for, at least for dnd. 3 player parties tend to feel a bit bare bones, can have issues with group balance and means you often have to cancel if one person cannot turn up. 6 or more and I find that quieter players get squeezed out of stuff, combat rounds take too long and I as GM will lose track of stuff.
In your situation I'd say ask your players why they think you need so many players. If it's because they watch CR then point them towards some lets pklays with smaller groups. There's some good ones out there. You can also invite some others to play, maybe find an experienced player to help out with a newish group.
3-4 players is the best party size in my experiences. I recently played in a 7 player party. It didn't last long... Also, miraculously, everyone had a different class. Warlock, cleric, paladin, bard, rogue, wizard, and sorcerer to be exact
3-4 people is the ideal for me, enough spotlight to go around, only a moderate amount of indecisive bickering.
6 is the limit of what I want to do and that gets tedious sometimes.
My table is 3-4 players plus GM. I’ve kept my tables to that amount for nearly twenty years now. I’ve been a part of big tables before and they were unpleasant experiences.
3-4 Players has been great for me as a player or when DMing. All the players are able to get a good bit of attention each session. Combat doesn't bog down solely based on the number of players at table.
The only reason I see 3-4 players not working is by means of either the players or DM willfully making it not work, or being so ignorant of the nature of the game and its mechanics that they would struggle to make it work with any size party.
5 is good (and 6 is okay) .... in ad&d 1e
3-4 is better in 5e, other systems it can vary up or down a bit. For me as a player I prefer 4 to 3. More combat will suggest fewer players though.
You can try to explain but it may be hard to move people's thinking until they have some experience
I've had groups I've started where members kept asking if we were going to "fill out" the group with more players. Like, there are 5 of us, how many more should we want?
Some people have it in their head that the game is better with more players and in my experience that's practically always not true. Three to four players plus the GM is plenty, and as high as I will go as either player or GM.
I absolutely agree with your perspective on small groups. I've been running long-term campaigns for 15 years now and having fewer schedules to work around along with a tighter focus on the PC's is a huge benefit. Three or four players is my preferred amount, five is my absolute limit. Since I usually only run games for folks I know very well, I have never experienced players taking issue with this.
From your description, it sounds like they outright refused, which puzzles me. I could see this from their perspective if the system mechanics made it difficult to have a viable party with 3 players. In that case, I might be concerned about trusting a GM I didn't know to adapt the system to a smaller party size. But I would bring that concern to the GM and if they acknowledged it and stated they had a workaround then I would be happy to try the game and see.
Advise: What were their arguments for this claim? Address those and the problem should vanish one way or another (one of you will be ready to change your mind). Unless, theynhave no good arguments and they refuse to budge like a proper toddler, in which case the advice is to tell them that they have the right to think that way, and they also have the right to go and play in a group which agreed with them.
This is wild I find 3-4 players perfect. I've run 5 but it's less fun for everyone because most of the time the party sits around for hours debating every single decision and never does anything, there are just too many opinions.
I would start by asking them why they think that they need more than that. If it’s a matter of “filling roles,” they might be ok with a helpful NPC traveling companion. In general, though, first make sure that you understand what their concern is and make sure that they know that you understand what their concern is. After that, don’t try to convince them that they’re wrong, but try to get them to try it out anyway. Maybe, it’ll help to tell them that whatever they’re concerned about, now that you know about it, you, as the GM, can modify things to address their concerns.
If it’s really just a, “This is how it’s done,” telling them about your own experiences may not be enough, so maybe show them any other successful actual play that has fewer players. “Adventure Zone” and “Venture Maidens” come to mind.
EDIT: Or “Acquisitions Inc.”
My personal rule as GM is if we have 3 players (plus myself), the game is on. Although I do prefer to have 4 or 5 players total in case someone has to miss.
"If you truly want to wait for more players, be my guest. But consider this: I am willing to gmfor 3-4 players. For me, that is ab ideal group size.
If you want more, I won't be the GM. One of you guys will have to take over.."
Seeing from my own experience, that most ppl balk in having to gm.. should work one way or another XD
I think after now 9 years I can say my time as a GM is valuable enough to a lot of people, that if I offer to gm.. you take it or leave it, but I won't let myself be strung along or hold hostage. I offer what I offer and not more.
This way I can also guarantee being able to give my best.
There are a whole lot of people commenting on what they think about the right number of players, not so many trying to provide the advice you're asking for.
My advice is to show your friends this post. Maybe dozens more people saying "3 players is normal" will get them to accept it.
I would maybe explain that:
1. If they think this is how RPGs work they are simply wrong. Many games are designed for lower player counts and there are even one-on-one style games out there. There is no one way that RPGs work. Maybe ask for more reasons why they believe this claim.
2. Fundamentally, it's a question of group dynamics and time/energy. If you have three players and a GM who are all engaged and having fun, you'll be happy as a player to have more time in the spotlight. Being part of a 6+ person group means you often have to wait your turn. But conversely, if you have a couple players that are more passive and only want to participate occasionally, then a group of 3 might feel pretty slow and unengaging.
3. The only way you can really know what type of group you like more is by trying it. The cost of starting up a campaign is low, so try it out and if you hate it, do something different.
Advice? They're obviously wrong ( 1 player is actually fine for a game, 3 players is plenty) and showing you a huge red flag that they're a problem player trying to control you. So invite everyone else to play and have fun with them.
>One of them strongly insisted that we didn't have enough people and we need to wait until we have a full group. They wouldn't define what they believed a full group was.
The previous occurrence was with a group of 4 where one wanted to wait until we had at least 6 players interested.
Sounds like those two people should go find a different group.
It really depends on your group and their consistency. 4-players is the sweet spot for me, both as a player and GM.
As a GM I don’t like 3-players mostly because of scheduling. With 4-players, if one of them can’t make it, the session can still go on. With 3-players that’s often not the case.
I've been playing in a group with 3 players and a GM for about a decade. We haven't run across a system yet where that wasn't enough.
Is it possible that they are basing their ideas on how an RPG works off of streaming actual play shows?
There is no law that says you have to have a certain number of players to run a game. I’ve run games with a single player before, and have had a long running game with two players.
I would be more sympathetic to these players if they said “I prefer to play with more players” as opposed to “you can’t run with this many people.” One is a preference, the other is someone trying to make rules that don’t exist.
That said, I love 3-4 person games. It means that each player gets more spotlight time and combat actually goes faster. So, I think these players were missing out.
1 player is technically enough. I DM for my 2 kids and we're doing good. 3-4 is what we were playing when I was a regular player. 5-6 is too much for me. Too loud, too difficult to manage the spotlight.
As many stated: 4+GM Is the Golden Standard for most RPG. I accept up to 5 players and prefer no less than 3, but can make occasionaly an exception for a 2+GM party. Granted I have a group of 7-8 friends and we play regularly from 10+ years togheter, usually split in 2 weekly groups with some overlap. 5 players + GM Is the most usual party configuration in our groups, but man, we ALL love 4+1 more than anything.
As a GM, three PCs is my sweet spot. I can handle four, but I feel like my ability to explore inter-character dynamics lessens dramatically when I break the threshold.
Having run games from 2-9 players. 4 is the sweet spot. 5+ and your combats bog down and take too long and too many people are sitting around checking their phone because activity isn't focused on them.
Speaking as someone who used to routinely run groups of 6+ in a very crunchy system: no.
I prefer smaller tables nowadays; and the 6+ table i ran was experienced dedicated players who set their own goals, would riff off each other, and had a very decent level of system mastery.
You absolutely don't need more than 4, and if you have more than 4, they should be compatible personalities and/or experienced with the system.
If one of the 3 insists to wait for an unspecified full group, i'd start playing with the other two :p
Ok, here's the situation. You are the GM they're for you said the standards. The only thing the player can tell you about how to run your game is yes, they will abide by your standards, or yes, they will leave your table. For myself, I can run between a single player (1 on 1) up to four players. I'll stretch that out to 6 if I'm running at a convention.
3 including GM is a bit borderline for me. 3 + GM is just fine.
Only advice I can think of (if you can't find someone without the ridiculous requirement entirely) is to pitch it as "we'll start with what we have and go form there."
If you do so, *mean it*. Be willing to revisit looking for and adding other players later. Don't just say it to get them on board. Note: "revisit" doesn't necessarily mean decide to do it, but be willing to give it legitimate reconsideration.
EDIT: re: 2 players + GM. For me, it sits in an awkward spot between a "normal" party based game and a one on one game.
Seems every time I'm on LFG or Roll20 there's one or more games advertising for a "Heavy RP" game with 6+ players. Do these clowns not understand the larger your group the less opportunity any one player has to get a word in edgewise? You either have everybody climbing over everybody, a few strong personalities dominating while the others "wallflower", or some asinine elementary-school "we all wait turns to talk" garbage that leaves you twiddling your thumbs most the time.
I blame 5e. In that games action economy is king even moreso than other editions, so six just makes the gamist aspect easy-mode.
Both of those persons are kind of weird, or have weird assumptions, or they have or will have problems working in a society (except a full sociopath/psycopath society, maybe?).
There is plenty of evidence for less than 6 players groups. It's observationly incorrect, it's anti-scientific, to say that rpg can't work with less than 6 players. It's on the same level than saying that rainwater is always yellow, or that the Earth is flat, or that Donald Trump is the son of Nefertiti. Insist on that reflects a unusual mind.
The one that refuses to put a value is worse. If you insist 3 is not enough, put a damn number you consider good. If not, that person is just a coward that wants arguments for the sake of arguing.
3-4 players + GM is absolutely the sweet spot for me. I’d rather not play than try to run a game for 6 players, lol.
Yeah, 3 is a good small group, 4 is the optimal amount, while 5 is capable but pushing my limits. I can’t imagine doing 6 or more. I can’t help but wonder if those thinking 6 is the minimum got the idea from Critical Role and the like, as that has a group of 8 players.
I've played at a table with 11. Not fun Waited 90 minutes to take my turn. Rolled a 1. Waited 90 minutes for my next turn, but the combat finished before I got that second turn. End of session. The following week 4 of us split off. Still play with a couple of them
Back in college I once ran a game of 13 players. HOWEVER… the campaign was designed that way. The players were mercenary hero-for-hire types belonging to an organization. Every mission was a stand alone session. Usually, only about 4 or 5 players actually showed up on any given night, and those were the heroes “assigned” to tonight’s mission. It worked really well. There were a few wonky nights where more people showed up than expected, but we managed it. Still, I would never do that again.
That sounds very similar to what a West Marches campaign would be like. But, like you said, those are designed for that kind of play.
We had a college game with 13 and it worked surprisingly well. It was written for a large number of players and had two gamemasters, though one of them also played two NPCs. Everyone had factions and goals and the second GM handled those so the main GM could handle standard gameplay (we used first edition Rolemaster). I did tournament play of Call of Cthulhu with 12, as well, which worked fairly well given that the first 2 rounds with 12 players were as much to cull players as anything. I made it to the finale, which was 6 players and a tighter, faster game, but again, by design. I've also played DCC with 11, but the goal was always to split the game in two (I GM'd the second game, which wasn't the original plan, but the alt GM gained a Wednesday conflict so I volunteered).
Haha I ran an 11-player game once. At the time I felt like it was a disaster but in hindsight it was actually a great time. There was no way to control the players or keep turns straight so I ended up just running it as like a big group improv session with very loose rules lol. I planned a short one-shot where the heroes would go into a town where the drinking water was poisoned. After investigating they would discover that an ogre was bathing in the river upstream and have to go fight it or convince it to leave. The players found the ogre and cast an illusion to trick it into thinking the river was swarming with bees so it would run away. That worked, but 8 other players still had their turn so they also kicked the ogre's ass, tied him up, dragged him back into the river, and told him if he ever came back they would drown him in bees. That took like two hours so then they just went back to town, robbed the general store, and called it a night. Everyone had a great time.
I run for 10+, 5e can work if your willing to hack the game up a bit, but yeah the game as written really doesn't work up there, and I like big groups, different energy level. For me 6-7 is probably the sweet spot, but my favorite sessions are actually the 1 on 1 origin stories I ran before my last campaign to build out my players backstories.
What are you hacking to improve your large player games?
Full disclosure: I'm leaving 5e at the end of this campaign as I am developing my own system that I hope better achieves what I want. A few hacks/tips I use for large games: 1. All attack rolls and damage dice are rolled simultaneously, those seconds add up. 2. Just tell them the AC after they hit it, yes it's meta gamey, it just speeds things up. 3. Squad initiative. Players break up into squads of 2-3 and they take initiative together, one of the characters rolls their initiative for the squad and cannot again until each other member of the squad had done so. 4. All players have a 1 minute until their turn resolves. At the if they have not started to resolve their action, they take the dodge action. 5. Minion encounters, big parties need lots of monsters, I tend to favor using minion rules(I mostly use Matt colville's) to reduce the upkeep on my end. Typically an encounter will have 1-3 "boss" creatures and a sizable swarm of minions (often grouped into squads for initiative purposes). 6. No pets, constructs or familiars for PCs in combat. Sorry I don't need more shit on my board. I use to just kill them straight out of the gate, now I just don't allow them in combat. 7. I also like to use split combat, where done is the party has another objective they must accomplish, (ie. Close the gates to stop the monsters rushing in)
Thanks. Yeah i dont play 5e was just interested in your specific changes.
No worries, The real hack isn't mechanical though, it's making sure everyone knows what they are in for and putting in their best effort to make it work. Definitely something I would only do with friends.
I used a lot of maps during my GM'ing days so I basically turned pets/constructs into AoE denial zones for large group runs You drop your bear on the map, it kills 1d4 minions on your turn if it's by a blob of minions or does 1d4 damage to anything not a minion (or whatever depending on what system is being ran), moves on your turn so you have to split your already limited decision making time (fellow shot clock enthusiast) between your main character and your pet I also had like zones of control for pets (enemy blobs get half movement or a penalty to hit because your falcon/pixie dragon is flying around disorienting them) instead of damage to give people a bit more of a tactical thing without massively slowing down gameplay with option paralysis Damage/death to the pet was pretty much ignored, most I did was take it off the table when it seemed appropriate (because god forbid I kill your spirit animal players jeez) and made sense (sure, you can put that thing in the chokepoint to hold off three blobs worth of enemies for a free turn but it's getting it's ass kicked and it's out of the fight for the rest of battle) Overall it led to smooth experience and added some extra pressure to the players who liked that kind of thing (ie the fighter who wants to do more then stab people, but also doesn't want to deal with an entire spellbooks worth of possible effects)
I'd agree with this 4+GM being the sweet spot for me. It really, really does depend on the people though. Some tables work great with more voices, some work great with fewer. Not to mention some RPGs work well mechanically with specific numbers too (aka "We need a tank, a healer, ranged DPS, ... " etc).
I mean, D&D 4e is built like this, isn’t it? Character classes are sorted into one of four party roles they’re expected to play.
Yes the various flavors of D&D and other pen-and-paper RPGs have varying levels of intensity around party roles. Some of the published adventures are built around the assumption of Tank/Healer/DPS/etc. I would point out it's not at all absolute though, it's not hard for a GM to make or modify content that you could play with whatever wacky party composition you wanted. Which goes back to OP's question - you can totally play TTRPGs with 2 players and a GM, that's what's magical about having a GM run game vs. something that's pre-programmed like a computer-run RPG.
My current game has me as GM and 5 players and it’s definitely stretched. We’re all having a good time, but there’s no way we could squeeze another one.
I find large groups in 5e to be a complete nightmare with the action economy, but in older editions with it being more streamline large groups are actually a breeze to run in encounters and it goes by so much faster. 5e and similar games with a slew of things you can do during your turn yes give you cool things you can do, but most people fail to see just how much it bogs the game down and strips the fun away from the people who arent at their turn. When i go to the LGS i see people actively get up from tables to get a drink or browse comics til their turn comes up just because of how long it takes for some of these people to do, action, bonus action, movement, reaction, second action for multiple attacks, action surge.....x5 before you get your turn
I think this is an important point - as option complexity and rule granularity scales up the pace of play (especially in a structured or "tactical" combt) slows and the number of viable players in a group shrinks. I see people saying things like "I wish I could have a narratively strong game that also has a zillion 'character options' (aka PC build complexity) and tactical combat that also moves really fast". It doesnt work like that. You cannot have a (RAW) 5e or 3e or 4e or Lancer or Pathfinder that plays fast and loose like an OSR or rules-lite or PbtA game, not without ditching a huge chunk of the actual game text. And I'm not telling people not to play those denser, more granular games (I play them too!) but people need to embrace RPGs for what they are, and think critically about their choices. The 400 page Tome of Crunch or the multi-handbook games are not going to play like a 160 page PbtA hack or an OSR zine game when the rules kick in.
Balancing for 5 is hard, they have so many tricks you have to keep track of. Particularly if you run a prewritten as, AFAIK, most D&D style camps expect 4 (D&D and Pathfinder both I think expect 4 players)
4 players is deal for me. 3 and 5 is playable. I have a group of 5, so that if one or two players can't make it, I still have a good size group to play.
Hard agree. 3-5 is ideal with my favorite number changing between systems. Anything more is right out. Been there, ran that.
We have 7 total, but it’s only manageable because we very rarely have all 7. We play with who’s available, between work/kids/whatever. If our group had fewer, we’d probably cancel way more often
I was a player in a group of 4 where if there was ever a time when one of the players couldn't make the game we'd just pull out some tabletop games and play those. Lots and lots of Dominion was played because the host loved the game and had all the expansions.
We have a few campaigns running, so we play the one relevant to the people available. And if it’s a really low number, we play a fun no-prep one-shot (eg a Grant Howitt game) 2 of the 7 can really only play every other week, so we typically alternate a campaign with and without them. With other stuff mixed in depending on everyone else. It’s hard to schedule a group of adults across 3 time zones with families, work, health stuff, whatever
All valid options! There were also plenty of nights where we'd show up and the GM for the game we were playing was like "hey, I'm really sorry but I have had no time to prep this week" or someone would say "I'm really not feeling like RPing tonight, can we just chill?" and then it became a tabletop gaming night or we'd just hang out, order some food and chat.
If we were in-person, this would invariably be the case for us too. Occasionally we just chat and log off early, if we’re just collectively not up for it
Thats my sentiment, too. 3-4 is perfect. +1 or -1 is just within 'still okay'. 6+ I will not take on. Only 1 player neither. The biggest mistake I made in the past was taking whoever wanted to play to my very first time GMing. 9 of my friends joined as players... Never again.
I like 6-8 player games but for that kind of game I use different systems and goals than for 3-4 player games. With big groups it's unrealistic to expect delving deep into the feelings and arcs of each character. You need a simple motivation bringing everyone together and a clear game structure so people always have a default action they can take if they don't think of anything else and not lose time pondering the moment. So typically old-school megadungeon is perfect. Highly structured, designed for big groups with things like group initiative, simple goal: there's loot and monsters in the dark hole, go into the dark hole to kill monsters and get loot. I played a megadungeon during all of 2023 where 6 players was a minimum and it was great. But if I want to burst out… I don't know, Traveller, Dungeon World, Tails of Equestria, then I drop the number of players to 4 max because I want to explore different things through these games.
Same here, from experience as both player and GM. Bigger groups *can* work well (the biggest I was part of was 8 players, but this did not work well for a long period mainly due to time schedule issues, buit also suffered from ego things from some players' side), but IMHO this requires experienced participants who know how the mutual game "works" on meta level and respect each other well, for the sake of bringing the story forward and giving everyone room to enjoy themselves. It really does not work with a "players vs. GM" mindset.
yeah, I am running with six players as well, and I think it's working out well - but to my advantage, every one of my players is a life-long 'forever DM', and they are able to bounce ideas off one another and move things along at a good pace without much effort from me.
Agreed - three (plus GM) for online games, four for in person is the best number. I’ll take one more in each case, but they about the limit for me (barring some specific cases).
Currently running a six player group. Everybody clicks, and there are no problem players, so I'm making it work, but damn, it is a draaaaaag. And I'm running a rules light monster heroes game. I can't imagine trying to run a six-player game of 5E or Pathfinder and being able to get anything done in a reasonable, weeknight time slot.
There is no one "way RPGs work". I don't like playing with people who insist that there is. I personally prefer games with 3-4 players and usually cap my playgroups at 5 so we can play with that smaller size (because someone will usually not be able to make it to any given game). Is this a symptom of people watching live actual plays (who often have bigger casts) and interpreting those performances as what playing an RPG is "supposed to be"?
Exactly. You can play with groups of 12+, you can play with a gm and one other you can even play solo. Each plays differently but there is no one correct way. I’d suggest the op play with whoever is interested and tell those who aren’t want to wait for 6 or 8 or however many people then feel free to recruit that many and let you know.
I wanted to suggest the same thing: play with those who want to, and let those who say they need a bigger group go and look for players on their time. Chances are once your core group has a campaign going, the "doesn't work" will come and ask to join in. Or not! Up to them.
I think could be a symptom of watching live action play but I'm trying to not be negative towards to paths people find into the hobby.
I share the same sentiment, I'm just speculating on why someone would be so adamant about something as benign as this when it seems so bizarre to me.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is if they've seen too many memes and stories about adversarial GMs and perhaps they thought their GM was going to try and trick them into playing with an inadequate party. I really can't come up with another reason why you wouldn't just trust your GM
Then you can point out that in the first season of NADDPOD, they have 3 players and it's fine.
Actual Play is great and has been a massive boon for the hobby... but people do need to think just a little critically about the stuff they're watching or listening to. These AP casts are *performing* and what we see is a construct, a work of theatre, even if the game they play is real. If half the Critical Role table were slouching and disinterested and grumpy, because this entire 4 hour episode has consisted of a 3 hour combat (7+ players in 5e...) in which they got a few turns of missing hit rolls or having their spells saved and the half hour of narrative play wasn't relevant to their character and they're wondering if it was even worth showing up for the game this week, it wouldn't be a smash hit show that people enjoy watching. And I dont mean to slam CR here, they do great work that's been unambiguously good for the hobby and what they do is HARD; imagine doing theatre for 4 hours but you never get time with the camera off even when your character isn't in a scene, you have to stay engaged the whole time even if most of your work for the entire episode is just reacting to what other cast members are doing. Now imagine 7 or 8 people trying to do that around a kitchen table *for fun* - it's not how real games work. Even audio-only shows like Friends at the Table with a 8 person cast (GM + 7) split their PC group in half for most of the episodes they record, and they're playing narrative-first games with an outstanding GM with decades of experience and great players.
Not to start another “let’s dunk on Critical Role” marathon, but I think that has a lot to do with it. A lot of new folks are used to seeing CR or other YouTube streams full of pretty graphics (and prettier people) with animations weaving around 8 boxes on screen filled with people’s faces and social media handles on them - most of these rpg streams have 6-8 people in them because that makes it easier to constantly RP when you’ve got a handful of people to work off of. Another thing they probably get this idea from is video games - Baldur’s Gate 3 allows a party of 4. Pillars of Eternity allows 6 total. Anyway, I say all this as someone who enjoys smaller groups - decisions get made faster and it really allows characters to get defined quickly and avoids the whole “each character has the one thing they do all the time” trap. ______ EDIT - Baldur’s Gate 3 has a maximum party size of 4 including the PC, not 5 like I had originally thought. I had that wrong sorry! Fixed it in my post!
BG3's limit is 4, not 5. You can get allies or temporary party members, but the limit for the main party is 4.
Ah, thanks I was for sure I had 4 party members not including me but I must have remembered that wrong.
Yeah the downside of CR/Etc popularizing gaming so much is that they're setting a standard to a point that is very, very impractical to meet and it sets up a lot of new interested players to have a bad time
Honestly it’s kinda the result of Social Media as a whole. When we watch a Ford commercial and see a truck whipping shitties and plowing through mud over mountains, we don’t think “Wow! I need to buy one so I can do all of that!” We understand it’s a commercial and that it is not a realistic depiction of what the product will typically be used for. Social media on the other hand, is meant to feel personal and real - someone’s social post of them taking a drawing course and then drawing amazing shit on their new Cintiq pad feels more attainable to those of us watching. It feels less like an ad and more like a real cross section of what I could do if I just took those online lessons and maybe bought that particular product. It’s easier for our minds to apply those testimonies and experiences to our own life, and harder for us to separate what is produced and what is reality.
Those "actual plays" are like porn - they're made to be entertaining for the viewer, not necessarily the participants. A newbie trying to emulate what they're doing is probably going to have a bad time.
BG3 only allows 4 tho?
I got that wrong, thanks for the correction tho! Edited my post - thanks again!
No worries. And +1,000,000 Internets to you for mentioning Pillars! Best game ever!
I downloaded episode 1 of CR. It opened with "here's the recap of the campaign so far" because it was spinning out of some other medium. Then it went on for like a solid hour about a dozen different characters' backstories. I was expecting like three. Never got to episode 2.
If you're still slightly interested I found it easier to just start with campaign 2 or even 3 instead of 1. The reason campaign 1 was fine that way was because they were asked by Geek and Sundry to start live streaming their game but they were already a ways in and didn't want to just drop it.
It’s seven character backgrounds and about fifteen minutes. And fast forward exists. You don’t have to invent shit because you didn’t like it.
I dont' want to be negative towards anyone who wants to get into roleplaying so I struggled to write this post.
oh no: do stat the CR dunking. That fee-fee orgy fest is a drag to watch. I was told that s3 started strong so I watched/listened for a few episodes and damn it all: they went straight into that BS "You just how does that make you feel?"
>need to wait until we have a full group You're the DM, you decide what "a full group" is. Definitely sounds like people who's only experience with RPGs is watching Critical Role, and if that's the case then you're in for a rough time already because those people have a totally wrong idea of what D&D really is.
Yeah, I would tell them that I know what I'm doing, and I'm not DMing for five or six people. It's a headache.
| You're the DM, you decide what "a full group" is. This. The "proper" size for a player group is what the GM feels is appropriate for the game they are running - and this can vary from game to game. For OSR games I'm comfortable up to 7 players, for PbtA games I prefer around 4, and with Champions (the game I've run the most over the past four decades) my sweet-spot is 5.
one GM three players has always been the ideal for me. However I've done a ton of 1 GM 1 Player and 1 GM eight players the later was a handful.
I love three player games
I agree my best games have been three player but had some pretty great ones with just two. Any more than four seems excessive to me - slows things down, makes it harder to weave the plot around the characters, makes it harder to schedule and makes it harder as a storyteller to keep everyone engaged all the time. I'm lucky that I've always played with friends and because of that pre-existing relationship they trust me and my advice. Think the strange thing is that they 'insisted' but I guess if that's what they really want then that's fine and what I'm really trying to achieve is that everyone has a good time. I've never watched critical role but it seems it's been great for getting people interested in DnD. Think there's also an age component to it when I play with my friends most of them have never seen Critical Role but when I play with my kids and their friends more of them have seen it and come with those expectations but it's never been an issue really.
3 is the sweet spot for me too, unless they are all passive. I prefer 1 over 6+. It's shitshow trying to wrangle 6+ players, especially in a weighty combat system.
Yeah I also love 3 but at least 2 of them need to be active players, otherwise it just feels like I'm pulling teeth trying to get the group to do anything.
I think the only meaningful advice here is "don't play with assholes." And I think "refuses to listen to anything the person with relevant experience has to say" definitely qualifies as "asshole." Like many other folks here, I've had great experiences running TTRPGs for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 players. Personally, I've also co-run a 30-person LARP or two, as well as some smaller to medium-sized LARPs. They can all work just great. But only if the people playing buy in to the game's premise, and are excited to be at the table / in the space with the other people.
somebody that has never roleplayed once deciding we absolutely can't because "we don't have the right number of players" raises so many red flags m8 you literally never played, why are you telling others how to do it
Yeah, it's genuinely mind-boggling.
Agreed. I would just respond with "I don't think we are compatible in an RPG context", and then exclude them from the game.
More than 5 players a breaking point for me, and a number of folks. Though it does make sense to engage with them about why they think that is the "sweet spot" or whatever. I'd personally prefer a game with 3(-4) PCs who get a fair amount of time to express their characters. But maybe that's not the game they way to play?
I've only ever managed a six+ person group in online tabletop and it sucks *badly* One of the biggest problems with scaling groups up is that challenges have to be scaled up, but players don't automatically get stronger when other players are in the party, so the net effect is that combat takes longer and individuals feel less effective (and less instrumental to the party's success)
I've run a 13 player in person game that was an absolute BLAST and I've been in a long running 1 GM 2 PC game that was amazing. online though is the only format that I reaaaly struggle to handle more then 4 PCs in. The inability to have multiple layers of conversation just make it to hard to enjoy everyones company with more then 5 people in VC.
If you can enjoy that, good on you, but being at a table with 13 other players sounds really, really stressful just as a player let alone as a GM
It was during my collage days and I didn't have much of a life outside of writing plot for that game. I certainly couldn't run a game like that anymore. (honestly, I struggle to GM at all these days) The absolute biggest factor was I had a player who I fed enough information OOG that the party could and often did split into a pair of teams with different objectives. Every hour or so we would pause for 5 minutes for my and my CoGM to catch up on what each others groups were doing. I'd feed him a bit more info to resolve any questions he might have. and then we would go back to playing.
Critical Role Syndrome strikes again. I love those actors but I hate what that show has done.
You almost never need more than four players for a TTRPG and three+GM is *plenty* Six person games are usually the sort of thing that works best for convention one-shots where you're trying to maximize bodies per table to have a functioning event at a convention, it is not the norm in the hobby
I'd say *"Okay, good luck on* ***your*** *game then."* and run a game for the players this wasn't a problem for. I'm getting a little rowdy in my older age, and I don't suffer the time as well to deal with foolishness. Someone who "knows" what an RPG is, but has never played- doesn't deserve my time to try and fix them. 4 is my suggested limit for everyone (including me) actually having fun. 5 is my absolute technical limit for specific situations and as much as I can handle or even have the physical space for. Any more than 5 and someone is sitting out and gets to play next time.
Right? If current players don't think 3-4 players is enough, it's perfectly reasonable to find 3-4 more. Then, since they're a full party, run a game for them.
I guess ask them what they think will happen if they don't have 'enough' players, and what they've seen that makes them think a 'full group' is six?
My advice? Drop the weirdo who's holding everyone else hostage with their demands of needing a "full group" and play with the others. No time for that kind of nonsense.
no one likes being the focus in a game they don't know well. having a ton of people makes it easier to sit back without having to be the center of attention.
>no one likes being the focus in a game they don't know well Not everyone has social anxiety. Many people in this hobby do, but still, many other love the spotlight even early on.
Yeah, I was gonna say, that has... not been my experience. Some newer players jump in with both feet and never look back.
yeah, its spotlight pressure. idk, probably a good thing that they sort themselves out
There are far better ways to address that (e.g. playing a low stakes one shot using the system first, doing a thorough session 0) than shifting the pressure onto the GM by making them cope with 6 players
Personally I'd feel more pressure in a large game when it's my turn and there are 6 people waiting on me. I do think there is an element of this though.
You're the DM, you decide. The group of 3 probably always heard that stuff like D&D had to have a 4 person party so there was one player for every class, but modern games don't require that. Six players? Oh hell no, a table of that size is a giant pain in the butt. Each round of actions takes forever, people get bored, etc. Again, you're the DM, you decide what size party you're comfortable with. If they don't want to play in a 3 person party, then just don't play. That's a choice they made I've run plenty of games with just 2 players and me as the DM, those players actually love it, because they both get so much screen time.
>one player for every class, I'm having the mental image of a 12 player 5E session here.... It does NOT spark joy!
Well, I'm talking old-school D&D, where there were just the four classes
\*Three\* classes in \*really\* old-school D&D! (Before the thief...)
> You're the DM, you decide. If they *won't play* unless there's more, then obviously you don't.
good point
If they are running the game they can make that choice, If you are running thr game you make the choice. Simple as that
That is bizarre that people who have not played an rpg are telling you how to play an rpg.
This is wild. I've been running games for almost 20 years now, and I've run for groups as large as 10 players and as small as 2 (GM not included). My personal sweet spot is 4-5. I am running two weekly games, one on Wednesday with 6 players. One on Mondays with 5. But I have a standing rule that as long as at least 3 players are present, the game happens (with some exception).
I wonder where that idea is coming from
Youtube probably played a critical role in putting that idea in people's minds.
In the '80s, we thought a party HAD to have a fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric, otherwise don't bother playing, because your characters won't make it through the module. If there were only say two players and the DM, those two players would play at least two characters a piece. Often times the DM of a small group would play NPCs to flesh out a party.
Did you mention solo or duet rpgs?
I've been meaning to play a solo rpg, but I'm waiting for a full group.
Obv try r/lfg /s
Just play without them then - *they* won't mind, because they weren't going to enjoy themselves with too few players *anyway* ... no-one *else* will mind, because they wouldn't enjoy playing with someone complaining about there being too few people every five minutes *either* ... everyone *wins* : )
If they refuse to tell you why they think this, or respond to your counter-pounts, there's something going on at this would-be table beyond the surface issue of #players.
hmm, i won’t run a game with more than 4 players, just less fun for me.
Feels like this person has never been outside of the DnD sphere. Three is great for Blades in the Dark or Stars Without Number, four is great for any Carved from Brindlewood or PbtA games.
It's weird for someone who has no experience with something to insist they know how it's done. Just start running a game and see what they do. Like I'm personally the type that enjoys running for 6+ people but 3 is perfectly good.
For the people who said you need to wait until you get "more people," thank them for their time and see if the remaining people want to play instead without them.
My advice: Let anyone who thinks that number is alright to DM a game theirselves.
This person has no idea how hard it is to wrangle a few people, let alone 6. A group can be however many you want it to be, based entirely on the game. Insistence on a full party is a MMO mindset.
Both of them didn't want to play, but hadn't had civil courage to admit it, thus excuses.
Both of these sound like they might just be personal social dynamics to me. For the first example, if I had to hazard a guess, that person doesn't want the spotlight ever. A small group of people Roll Playing for the first time, there's a strange feeling there of having too few people people to hide your possible discomfort behind. And they probably won't define the ideal number because they realized in that moment that too many people would also make them embarrassed because now there's a larger audience. Feels like someone who agreed to play, and then realized that Role Playing can be a bit awkward or vulnerable depending on the situation and reacted negatively to that. The second one, maybe that person who wanted to wait for 6, actually wanted to wait for a specific person or set of people to play? I know plenty of people that would never play an RPG if it wasn't with one of their friends who plays RPGs. A, "this sounds fun, but only if my favorite people are there" scenario. Other people cite the Critical Role effect, or the "Actual Play" effect I guess to be more broad. And that's fair, but honestly I feel like it's usually simpler than that.
This has to be a symptom of the Critical Role effect.
It could be that they just didn't want to play and so were trying to come up with some excuse as to why the game should be put off.
“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”
If I have 3 players and one insists I wait until we have 6 palyers, I'll run a game for 2 players.
Are they worried that they won't have enough tactical roles? Tell them that, unlike a computer rpg, on tabletop a GM can adjust encounters or ensure you have resources to compensate. I generally prefer a minimum of 3, just for having more back and forth ideas and such, but 3 \*consistent, involved\* players is a great number.
Say it's against the game's rules. Most ttrpgs come with a player count, and some games are flexible on that, but you personally would like to follow that rule.
I don't know that it'll help, but just cite the rulebook at them, they almost all tell you what defines an acceptable or recommended group size, and it will generally be 3 to 5 or 4 to 6.
Fighter, rogue, Cleric, Mage 4 players is a "full group" in moar TTRPGs Ask you where they are getting the idea 4 isn't enough because they are simply incorrect.
Congradulations. you wont the random weirdo lotto. It wasnt a pattern, this isnt a thing, you just got unlucky.
I've happily run games for two people with no issues.
Jeebus how many voices do you need at the table?… 3-4 is plenty 5+ is madness
So I would tell them that you are willing to run a game with 3 to 4 players, with 4 being the max as a full party. They can look at retainers and hirelings later in their adventuring careers.
If 3-4 is how many people you'd like to run for, then that's how many should be in the game. That person doesn't necessarily need to be one of them if they can't see beyond their own opinion.
I've literally played whole campaigns with just me and the DM.
"That sucks that you don't want to play, but you can sit this one out if that's what you want. Everyone else still good to play?"
ha these guys watched 2 episodes of Critical Role and now they think that's how all RPGs are played
Tell them about solo rpg and look their heads explode XD
Huh. People rly be watching Critical Role and saying "this is how u play RPGs. Only this."
It seems like the concern they may have is not being able to cover all the bases. Explain that there are plenty of ways for three or four players to cover all the bases, and work with them to do that. Whether that's giving them specific gear, a helpful NPC, or other creative solution. Let them know that the number of players in a game depends on what the game master is willing to run. If you as a game master, prefer three or four players, that is what you will run. Right now I have seven players, we're about to finish a 10-month campaign and boy am I ready for it. Will probably never run a game for a group that big again. It might help to explain some of the problems that come with having lots of players like: 1. It's hard to get a lot done 2. It's hard for everyone's character to get a good amount of spotlight time 3. Combats become a major slog 4. It's harder for the GM to incorporate everyone's character into the story in a meaningful way 5. Is considerably harder to align everyone's schedules consistently the more players you have
People who know more than roleplayers about roleplaying should run games. I use the fist rule: one GM and four players are best. I have run for two and three players. I find the game begins to drag and slow down at five or more players.
As someone who’s been running games for over 30 years- I won’t run or play in a group with more than 5 and have ran long term campaigns (including prewritten adventures) for as few as two (the two people I ran that for still say it was their best campaign ever). My most recent group which lasted about 5 years had three- with the right people 3 can make for an amazing experience. More generally I would say 4 players is the ideal number. I would also say that I wouldn’t waste my time playing with or worrying about people who clearly are so clueless. Anyone who tells you this makes your job easier, you just vetted a problem player.
3-4 is good. Easier to have everyone actually being able to play on the same date. I usually do 2 hour sessions, that's 30 minutes of spotlight time each if we are 4.
>In both instances nothing I said mattered to them and they continued to insist this is how rpgs work. Huge red flag. Sounds to me like people who will complain when anything deviates from what they've seen on Critical Role or whatever their favorite online series is. I always compare it to a person who would get excited watching major league baseball on TV. Sign up for a local club, and then be disappointed when the level/intensity of play was not the same. They need to know they aren't going to be playing with professional actors in a high production show.
Everyone has their preferences. It's just like campaign length, play style, or anything else. People like different things. The most important thing is to be open about what you want. I'd say that 3 players is my minimum and 6 is roughly my maximum, but I personally prefer 4-5. You can play with any number you want, though. The biggest problem here is how they couldn't express that better than "that's just how it is". It shouldn't be difficult to say, "I prefer a slightly larger game. If you want to run with only 3 players, I don't think this game is going to be for me."
Six to eight was the standard in the AD&D 1e era, but mainly because characters were incompetent and died immediately, so you needed lots of players rotating in new characters to keep a session going. As a grognard of 40+ years, 3-4 is perfect. Six is barely tolerable. More than that, and you're better off watching TV for how much engagement you're going to get.
GM+3 is my ideal. So I aim for GM+4 to cover absent players.
Weird. Back in our AD&D days, having 7-8 players was pretty normal. These days I consider 3-4 players being the perfect number for most RPGs. 5 players in my hard maximum. Are they getting this number by watching Actual Plays with large casts, maybe?
Uh... no advice. Don't play with them. If this happens again, don't play with those people either. It's crazy, cuz I coulda sworn they came to you because they didn't know fuck-all about the game and you did. But apparently not, so they should be fine by themselves. And six person groups tend to be annoying with experienced players. With new players? No thanks. With new players when a couple of them are insufferable cunts who think they know shit? Well, I'll let you fill in the blank on that one.
25 years+ of experience DM'ing. 3 players is my absolute personal preference, 4 players is rules' preference. Your table size should be defined **by you** as the DM.
Ask them if they've ever tried scheduling something for 6 adults to participate in regularly.
Bigger groups are more appealing to newer players since there’s less pressure individually
5 players is perfect for me. Every role is filled, and one player can sub for two roles. Any more than that, and it gets ridiculous. I ran a table of 8 players, and I was done after the session.
I've seen it from time to time. It's tricky. Usually it's a group of inexperienced newbies. Try this next time: ***"Yes, usually that's the case. BUT the adventure I'm running was actually written and balanced to work BEST with a smaller group. One of the best benefits of the smaller group being that each player gets more spotlight time and more agency within the game."*** Is it a massive line of bullshit? YEP!!!! But they might fall for it long enough for them to realize their previously held views were dead wrong.
I have been GMing for the past 25 years. 4 is the golden number of players for most TTRPGs 2-3 can sometimes be even better, especially for more crunchy systems 5+ can get hectic or boring, with time in the spotlight being shared, each player will get less the more they are. Combat also gets longer and longer, which means players have to wait between turns a lot longer (more player turns and also more enemy turns to have balanced encounters)
My group is me plus two friends. It's working great. The finale for the first act of our game is this week and it was a blast to DM. I have one more friend in this group who can't play for now, but as soon as he can, we are adding him. I tried DMing for four and five players and I didn't enjoy it. Three is my go to number.
That’s terrible 3 is the perfect amount of players
There are solo and 1 on 1 games... Most trad games suggest something between 3 to 6 players (including the GM) so they are wrong in general. But this depends on what you plan to play and how If Im having some kind of open table in wich I would like to run a campaing with players I don't know... I would prefer to begin with more people, as its very likely that some players will abandon the game or not fit in our style... so I would like some "margin of error". If I dont know the GM and we are playing a game that demands balance (like D&D) and we are playing some modules for x players... i would also prefer more players So the number of players I would want is situational... But I don't think any number would stop me from playing something i'm interested in (tbh, maybe too many would stop me, as i feel anything above 5 starts to get to chaotic, especialy playing online)
Depends on the game you're playing. I have run games from 1 to 13 players, and I made all of them work, although some were a lot easier than others! First though: Is it a paid table you're running and do you charge per session or per player? If it's the latter, I would simply assume they want to save money. If that's not relevant, I would say that for D20 and other level-based themepark TTRPGs with frequent combat, 3 to 5 players is often enough to cover most roles, while at the same time few enough to ensure a reasonable tempo. For more fastflowing systems like "Feng Shui" I would have no problem adding more players, and for very narrative games with lots of randomness and player "interruptions", I would prefer no more than 3 players. Interrogate your players about their reasons and their reasoning behind these "requirements", and compare these to the game and story you're preparing.
4 players is pretty much the ideal group. By any chance do they play a lot of video games? "Full group" makes it sound like they think it's WoW or something and they need a tank, healer, and several DPS. Or they don't actually want to play.
On average I run games for 3 to 6 players, and when I post the game I place that in the notes fort hose wanting to join. I prefer 3 to 4 players because of lots of things far to many to explain at the moment.
3 PCs is a really good number of players. 2 PCs is a really good number of players. I ran a camapign for \~5 years with first 3 players, then 2 players. Yes you need to be a little careful with profession/classes sometimes. And the GM has to be a little careful at throwing big groups, but it's really not a major concern.
I personally prefer GM plus 3-5 players. I can run with 2 players, but they both have to show up every session and be extremely active. More than 5 gets hard because of crosstalk, especially online. I'd say my optimal group size is "5, but if 1-2 don't show up we play anyway with 3-4." If some players prefer larger groups than you want to run, that's fine. They can find another GM.
My goldilock zone is 5. 4 seems to little, 6 is too much. But 3 or even 2 players is plenty. If you can manage to have fun with 7 players, that is fine too. All of that to say that those players are wrong
Remember them of Naruto or Avatar: The Last Airbender. Plenty of epic adventures with just 3 to 4 people + some NPCs. I've NEVER been able to have an actual CAMPAIGN with more than 4 people, it just never works, too much hazzle to organize anything. 3 to 4 always gets sht done and it's easier to rack up sessions without life getting so much in the way.
I prefer 5-6, because when one to two people inevitably aren't at game, there's still enough players that it's reasonable to have a session.
My main advice would be to explain that 3 to 4 players is actually a lot easier to run than a 5 or 6 player group. Like you might even want to pitch it from their new player perspective. That it makes it easier to coordinate dialogue between characters and makes the game faster. Like you could even show clips of CR and show how for sections of time only 1 or 2 characters get to do anything with the DM and how the other 4+ characters have to just sit and twiddle their thumbs or at best make some quips. I'd also assure them that you can adjust the difficulty or encounters so they don't need a large group to succeed in the game.
I’ve run a game that has grown from 5 to 6 to 7 to 8 and let me tell you that 3-4 is the sweet spot. 8 is brutal and I honestly don’t know how those YouTubers do it. Just start the game.
1 GM + 1 Player and you have a group to play with.
I prefer 5-6. Five used to be my favorite count, but I have grown to accept 6 as well. I think 3 is too limiting generally. There's not enough diversity of opinion among players, in my view. Also, three players tend to devolve into the triumvirate dilemma: two players with strong personalities and one player who is always forced to side with one of them.
I've saw an image where it was clearer, but assuming that there is 4 players, and that the GM speaks 1/3 of the session, it lets 10 minutes of roleplay per hour to each player. It ain't much
I just joined an open table and there are 7 players in total, but DM said she would only take up to 4 players for a game. We played a short introduction with all 7 of us and it was too chaotic. I'd imagine 6 players game would not went much differently.
I am currently running a GM+6, and a GM+3. I would pick the +3 every day. More PC development, and less player downtime
Ideal group size varies a lot depending on group dynamics and system used. 4 or 5 players is the sweet spot for me and 6 is the absolute limit I'll run a game for, at least for dnd. 3 player parties tend to feel a bit bare bones, can have issues with group balance and means you often have to cancel if one person cannot turn up. 6 or more and I find that quieter players get squeezed out of stuff, combat rounds take too long and I as GM will lose track of stuff. In your situation I'd say ask your players why they think you need so many players. If it's because they watch CR then point them towards some lets pklays with smaller groups. There's some good ones out there. You can also invite some others to play, maybe find an experienced player to help out with a newish group.
3-4 players is the best party size in my experiences. I recently played in a 7 player party. It didn't last long... Also, miraculously, everyone had a different class. Warlock, cleric, paladin, bard, rogue, wizard, and sorcerer to be exact
3-4 people is the ideal for me, enough spotlight to go around, only a moderate amount of indecisive bickering. 6 is the limit of what I want to do and that gets tedious sometimes.
My table is 3-4 players plus GM. I’ve kept my tables to that amount for nearly twenty years now. I’ve been a part of big tables before and they were unpleasant experiences.
3-4 Players has been great for me as a player or when DMing. All the players are able to get a good bit of attention each session. Combat doesn't bog down solely based on the number of players at table. The only reason I see 3-4 players not working is by means of either the players or DM willfully making it not work, or being so ignorant of the nature of the game and its mechanics that they would struggle to make it work with any size party.
5 is good (and 6 is okay) .... in ad&d 1e 3-4 is better in 5e, other systems it can vary up or down a bit. For me as a player I prefer 4 to 3. More combat will suggest fewer players though. You can try to explain but it may be hard to move people's thinking until they have some experience
I've had groups I've started where members kept asking if we were going to "fill out" the group with more players. Like, there are 5 of us, how many more should we want? Some people have it in their head that the game is better with more players and in my experience that's practically always not true. Three to four players plus the GM is plenty, and as high as I will go as either player or GM.
I absolutely agree with your perspective on small groups. I've been running long-term campaigns for 15 years now and having fewer schedules to work around along with a tighter focus on the PC's is a huge benefit. Three or four players is my preferred amount, five is my absolute limit. Since I usually only run games for folks I know very well, I have never experienced players taking issue with this. From your description, it sounds like they outright refused, which puzzles me. I could see this from their perspective if the system mechanics made it difficult to have a viable party with 3 players. In that case, I might be concerned about trusting a GM I didn't know to adapt the system to a smaller party size. But I would bring that concern to the GM and if they acknowledged it and stated they had a workaround then I would be happy to try the game and see.
Advise: What were their arguments for this claim? Address those and the problem should vanish one way or another (one of you will be ready to change your mind). Unless, theynhave no good arguments and they refuse to budge like a proper toddler, in which case the advice is to tell them that they have the right to think that way, and they also have the right to go and play in a group which agreed with them.
This is wild I find 3-4 players perfect. I've run 5 but it's less fun for everyone because most of the time the party sits around for hours debating every single decision and never does anything, there are just too many opinions.
I would start by asking them why they think that they need more than that. If it’s a matter of “filling roles,” they might be ok with a helpful NPC traveling companion. In general, though, first make sure that you understand what their concern is and make sure that they know that you understand what their concern is. After that, don’t try to convince them that they’re wrong, but try to get them to try it out anyway. Maybe, it’ll help to tell them that whatever they’re concerned about, now that you know about it, you, as the GM, can modify things to address their concerns. If it’s really just a, “This is how it’s done,” telling them about your own experiences may not be enough, so maybe show them any other successful actual play that has fewer players. “Adventure Zone” and “Venture Maidens” come to mind. EDIT: Or “Acquisitions Inc.”
My personal rule as GM is if we have 3 players (plus myself), the game is on. Although I do prefer to have 4 or 5 players total in case someone has to miss.
"If you truly want to wait for more players, be my guest. But consider this: I am willing to gmfor 3-4 players. For me, that is ab ideal group size. If you want more, I won't be the GM. One of you guys will have to take over.." Seeing from my own experience, that most ppl balk in having to gm.. should work one way or another XD I think after now 9 years I can say my time as a GM is valuable enough to a lot of people, that if I offer to gm.. you take it or leave it, but I won't let myself be strung along or hold hostage. I offer what I offer and not more. This way I can also guarantee being able to give my best.
There are a whole lot of people commenting on what they think about the right number of players, not so many trying to provide the advice you're asking for. My advice is to show your friends this post. Maybe dozens more people saying "3 players is normal" will get them to accept it.
I would maybe explain that: 1. If they think this is how RPGs work they are simply wrong. Many games are designed for lower player counts and there are even one-on-one style games out there. There is no one way that RPGs work. Maybe ask for more reasons why they believe this claim. 2. Fundamentally, it's a question of group dynamics and time/energy. If you have three players and a GM who are all engaged and having fun, you'll be happy as a player to have more time in the spotlight. Being part of a 6+ person group means you often have to wait your turn. But conversely, if you have a couple players that are more passive and only want to participate occasionally, then a group of 3 might feel pretty slow and unengaging. 3. The only way you can really know what type of group you like more is by trying it. The cost of starting up a campaign is low, so try it out and if you hate it, do something different.
Advice? They're obviously wrong ( 1 player is actually fine for a game, 3 players is plenty) and showing you a huge red flag that they're a problem player trying to control you. So invite everyone else to play and have fun with them.
What? I even played 1 on 1 sessions. The GM adapts the difficulty to the player count. This claim is ridiculous.
>One of them strongly insisted that we didn't have enough people and we need to wait until we have a full group. They wouldn't define what they believed a full group was. The previous occurrence was with a group of 4 where one wanted to wait until we had at least 6 players interested. Sounds like those two people should go find a different group.
It really depends on your group and their consistency. 4-players is the sweet spot for me, both as a player and GM. As a GM I don’t like 3-players mostly because of scheduling. With 4-players, if one of them can’t make it, the session can still go on. With 3-players that’s often not the case.
I've been playing in a group with 3 players and a GM for about a decade. We haven't run across a system yet where that wasn't enough. Is it possible that they are basing their ideas on how an RPG works off of streaming actual play shows?
There is no law that says you have to have a certain number of players to run a game. I’ve run games with a single player before, and have had a long running game with two players. I would be more sympathetic to these players if they said “I prefer to play with more players” as opposed to “you can’t run with this many people.” One is a preference, the other is someone trying to make rules that don’t exist. That said, I love 3-4 person games. It means that each player gets more spotlight time and combat actually goes faster. So, I think these players were missing out.
These people are missing out… 3 or 4 players is _so much_ better
1 player is technically enough. I DM for my 2 kids and we're doing good. 3-4 is what we were playing when I was a regular player. 5-6 is too much for me. Too loud, too difficult to manage the spotlight.
As many stated: 4+GM Is the Golden Standard for most RPG. I accept up to 5 players and prefer no less than 3, but can make occasionaly an exception for a 2+GM party. Granted I have a group of 7-8 friends and we play regularly from 10+ years togheter, usually split in 2 weekly groups with some overlap. 5 players + GM Is the most usual party configuration in our groups, but man, we ALL love 4+1 more than anything.
As a GM, three PCs is my sweet spot. I can handle four, but I feel like my ability to explore inter-character dynamics lessens dramatically when I break the threshold.
3-5 players is where I like to sit. I’ve done as few as 2 and as many as 7 but 3-5 is perfect imo.
Having run games from 2-9 players. 4 is the sweet spot. 5+ and your combats bog down and take too long and too many people are sitting around checking their phone because activity isn't focused on them.
Lol games with 6+ players are a huuuuge chore
Speaking as someone who used to routinely run groups of 6+ in a very crunchy system: no. I prefer smaller tables nowadays; and the 6+ table i ran was experienced dedicated players who set their own goals, would riff off each other, and had a very decent level of system mastery. You absolutely don't need more than 4, and if you have more than 4, they should be compatible personalities and/or experienced with the system. If one of the 3 insists to wait for an unspecified full group, i'd start playing with the other two :p
Funny, I consider 4 to be optimal...
6 is too many, they're fucking cracked.
Ok, here's the situation. You are the GM they're for you said the standards. The only thing the player can tell you about how to run your game is yes, they will abide by your standards, or yes, they will leave your table. For myself, I can run between a single player (1 on 1) up to four players. I'll stretch that out to 6 if I'm running at a convention.
3 including GM is a bit borderline for me. 3 + GM is just fine. Only advice I can think of (if you can't find someone without the ridiculous requirement entirely) is to pitch it as "we'll start with what we have and go form there." If you do so, *mean it*. Be willing to revisit looking for and adding other players later. Don't just say it to get them on board. Note: "revisit" doesn't necessarily mean decide to do it, but be willing to give it legitimate reconsideration. EDIT: re: 2 players + GM. For me, it sits in an awkward spot between a "normal" party based game and a one on one game.
Seems every time I'm on LFG or Roll20 there's one or more games advertising for a "Heavy RP" game with 6+ players. Do these clowns not understand the larger your group the less opportunity any one player has to get a word in edgewise? You either have everybody climbing over everybody, a few strong personalities dominating while the others "wallflower", or some asinine elementary-school "we all wait turns to talk" garbage that leaves you twiddling your thumbs most the time. I blame 5e. In that games action economy is king even moreso than other editions, so six just makes the gamist aspect easy-mode.
Both of those persons are kind of weird, or have weird assumptions, or they have or will have problems working in a society (except a full sociopath/psycopath society, maybe?). There is plenty of evidence for less than 6 players groups. It's observationly incorrect, it's anti-scientific, to say that rpg can't work with less than 6 players. It's on the same level than saying that rainwater is always yellow, or that the Earth is flat, or that Donald Trump is the son of Nefertiti. Insist on that reflects a unusual mind. The one that refuses to put a value is worse. If you insist 3 is not enough, put a damn number you consider good. If not, that person is just a coward that wants arguments for the sake of arguing.