| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Macresto |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 09:14:48
Hello everyone
I have a question regarding the preferred number of players it takes for a good session. I'm asking because I have the feeling that many DM's prefers a lot of players players (6+).
To me the best number is 4, minimum 3 and absolut maximum is 6. With 6 and more some players tend to "hide" themselves thus making their characters unimportant and easily forgot. And to me that is unacceptable. As indifferent I might be on weight and food supply I stand steadfast on the rule that ALL must be doing roleplaying when attending an rpg-session.
So what is your opinion ? |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 15:29:17
5 is the maximum number of players i can handle mentally as a DM. the minimum is 2. 1 player is possible in an emergencey if you have to play a single-mission with a player, but it takes an extreme amount of atttention from the DM. Especially because there are no roleplaying between players. The DM is on all the time. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 23:42:09
I feel between 4 and 6 is a good number. this also depends on the players. It seems that there is always at least one player that is there for just social reasons and doesn't really add much to the overall roleplaying environment. Also, sometimes not everyone can make every session. When I joined the group I am currently in, there were about 9 people, but only about 6 or 7 would show, and at least two were more observer than player. Unfortunately, we also have one player who must have the spotlight on him continuously thereby ruining the fun for others
There is a supplement called Robin's Laws of Gamemastering that talks about party composition and the author actually titled the various people you find in a game. I cannot remember what he called the social gamers.
Mkhai Wati |
| Xysma |
Posted - 18 Jul 2005 : 19:42:53
I agree that 4 players is a good number, but for the past several months we've been reduced to 2 players, and it has led to some good roleplaying opportunities. |
| Lashan |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 19:20:26
Five players is my magic number.
I've tried with more and it always gets ruined. Six is OK, but I really prefer five.
I've been dreaming of running two gaming groups per week in the same adventure area (Pools of Radiance) and have them compete and/or help each other. |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 14:54:20
Roleplaying with 2 characters per player is demaning, yet fun. You have no clue how insane you look when you role play a Paladin and a CN Rogue.
"Can't we stay for the platnum, no we must venture forward to save that town, but the platnum, no it is the just way to continue on, but ...but the platnum!"
"Um, are you alright"
"Are you asking the rogue or the paladin, because right now they're both busy". |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 14 Jul 2005 : 15:32:41
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
I usually just roleplay with my wife - she runs for me and then I run for her the next day, very equitable.
That does sound very fair. Now all you need are children who game....
quote:
The only other game I run is a monthly game where I have 5 players, which is more than enough to handle.
Sounds like you have a first hand current experience of the differences in gaming with a group versus a single person.
quote:
They just want to go to Myth Drannor and clear out the devils - problem is, they are only 5th level - oh well, here's to dreaming!
They wouldn't happen to be elves from the Nierdre clan would they?  |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 14 Jul 2005 : 14:37:37
I usually just roleplay with my wife - she runs for me and then I run for her the next day, very equitable. The only other game I run is a monthly game where I have 5 players, which is more than enough to handle. At least there is no in-fighting in the group - They just want to go to Myth Drannor and clear out the devils - problem is, they are only 5th level - oh well, here's to dreaming!
C-Fb |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 14 Jul 2005 : 14:33:40
Bah, it's probably easy because my player's dont try to abuse it.. |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 14 Jul 2005 : 14:21:07
That was excactly my concern... Roleplay between 2 characters controled by the same person. I am impressed if you can handle it and full of admiration on the same account, but i wouldent try it myself.
But if it works you wont hear a single word of critisicm from me. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 15:36:35
quote:
Originally posted by Faramicos
[...]
But to the point. Do you seriously mean that you have players controlling severeal PC´s? I find it hard to believe that it can benefit the game to have players controlling 2 characters. Please explain the idea of players with several characters... How can it fucntion?
The first time I done it, was with a solo-player campaign, but one of the character was more a "side-kick, cohort, whatever".
In another campaign, this same player asked me to have 2 characters, this time it was more a problem, because conflict could occure between the two characters (a human rogue and a halfling paladin!). Again this time, the halfling was more a side-kick and a funny character (compsulve honesty personality).
When I introduced my girlfriend to D&D and it was a sucess, I made her play 2 characters to learn about 2 classes and I ran two NPCs (of 2 different classes) to show her how they works too. (There was no problem here, because roleplay was mininal.)
Of course, problems come when the roleplay between the 2 characters of the same player are "arguing" or the like.. the player has to talk for each of his "personality" and this can slow the game and the DM has to watch that he don't neglect one of them..
Any of you have done something like this? |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 14:59:15
The DM-Player ratio in any game relies on the players themselves. If you have players that are mature enough to, in most cases, keep themselves in line as far as non-turn based game play, you can increase the number of players. Players like this are very hard to find and are usually a bunch of DM's who are playing in another DM's campaign. In this case, 5-6 players might work. If a DM ever feels that his players aren't mature enough to handle themselves, he should limit it to 3-4. The unfortunate thing being that immmature players don't appreciate being 'cut-down' in size.
On that note, one must remember that to play isn your campaign is a privaledge, NOT A RIGHT! If you need to kick out a player and he takes it personally, he shouldn't be playing any way for involving his personal feelings with a game. If a player actually threatens to complain to wizards that your are violating his 'game rights' by not giving him that Holy Crusader (thank goodness in my case is was only a joke), SACK HIM! |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 10:40:42
In my current group there are 3 players (I am DM) and a single NPC who have been with them for some time. That is no less than a perfect combination...
But to the point. Do you seriously mean that you have players controlling severeal PC´s? I find it hard to believe that it can benefit the game to have players controlling 2 characters. Please explain the idea of players with several characters... How can it fucntion? |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 12 Jul 2005 : 18:14:59
In my current campaign we started with 4 players and went up to 6.
There is no "DM PC's" but sometimes an NPC stay with them for a large part of an adventure.
Since last week, we are back to the 4 originals players (but one of the 2 more PCs has stayed as a second PC for one of the player).
At 6 player's is was really painfull, talks before doing something were long, chaotic and at least 2 players were not saying anything, just waiting that a decision is made..
Afther this experience, I think that 4 is still the magic number and more than that, I would prefer to have 3 players with 2 PCs each, than 6 players.. of course if the players know the rules enough to manage it. |
| Antareana |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 08:43:15
it depends on the players. I have a campaign for 5 players and it works well (though it gets noisy from time to time) - we are not too slow AND the campaign is heavily based on playing out the character's feelings.
Then I have played another campaign once with our DM and 2 other players of our group (one of the "main" players was missing that time) and nothing worked. I nearly did all the RP alone.
So when you have a mix of quiet and strong players, a very small group (2 players) seems to be better to improve the activity of the quiet one. But when you have not too noisy and quite good players, there should be no problem with 6 PCs or even more (RPing on Cons functions pretty good even when you have a lot of players) |
| Bendal |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 13:51:16
Back in college I had a campaign that had 10 players in it initially. That was way too many, and it soon got down to six, which was manageable but still hard to keep everyone focused and in character. I agree that 3-5 is a good number, providing a good mix of character abilities and small enough to keep everyone involved. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 01:33:34
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I tried playing with about 8 people one time, three of which had only played once or twice before. That was a complete nightmare!
I've had a not dissimilar experience. My current group is of five, and that's a decent number. Three or four would also work but six or upwards would probably be starting to push it. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 11:44:56
quote:
Originally posted by Fletcher
Single player games rock! It allows the GM to totally focus the game on a single player and that player's goals. The GM and the player have much more control over the course and style of the game.
Exactly, great opportunities for role-playing in single player games.
|
| Sadonayerah Odrydin |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 17:47:58
quote:
Originally posted by Fletcher
Single player games rock! It allows the GM to totally focus the game on a single player and that player's goals. The GM and the player have much more control over the course and style of the game.
That is very true, but I didn't like it too much when I was playing in a single player game. It wasn't as much fun as with two or more people. |
| Fletcher |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 16:57:13
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
To me, it all depends on the DM and Players involved. I've seen an organized DM handle players into the double digits. Consequently, I've seen an adaptable DM handle a session where there was only one player.
Single player games rock! It allows the GM to totally focus the game on a single player and that player's goals. The GM and the player have much more control over the course and style of the game. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 12:44:59
quote:
Originally posted by Macresto
Hello everyone
I have a question regarding the preferred number of players it takes for a good session. I'm asking because I have the feeling that many DM's prefers a lot of players players (6+).
To me the best number is 4, minimum 3 and absolut maximum is 6. With 6 and more some players tend to "hide" themselves thus making their characters unimportant and easily forgot. And to me that is unacceptable. As indifferent I might be on weight and food supply I stand steadfast on the rule that ALL must be doing roleplaying when attending an rpg-session.
So what is your opinion ?
To me, it all depends on the DM and Players involved. I've seen an organized DM handle players into the double digits. Consequently, I've seen an adaptable DM handle a session where there was only one player. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 05:49:54
I tried playing with about 8 people one time, three of which had only played once or twice before. That was a complete nightmare! |
| Vangelor |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 00:36:22
Well, aside from worldbuilding and set-up, which I tend to think of as "playing with myself" , I prefer to have 3 or 4 players. The maximum I can really handle is about 5. Beyond that, someone is nearly always late or missing, as often as not the one I unwisely let borrow a game book until the next session. I get creative in coming up with ways to incapacitate the characters for a session their players miss!
Seems like 3-5 is the golden mean here. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 21:13:15
I think I have to concur that 3-5 is best. I had a lot of fun with a group of just two players, but your party definately has a lot that they will be missing as far as critical skills. They made up a fighter and a cleric becuase that was the only two classes that they felt could be a group of two.
With three, you at least have a good spread of skills/powers, and with 5 you can have all the "main" classes covered and a wild card. Beyond that, as a DM, it becomes difficult to focus on the individuals and to run a cohesive combat as well, unless all the players are very personally diciplined. |
| Sadonayerah Odrydin |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 20:20:39
I have no experience DMing, but when I've seen larger groups play, it's a lot harder to keep them focused and in character. When I first started gaming, we had 8 players and it was SO hectic. No one stayed in character for very long and we practically got nothing done.
As a spectator and potential DM, I'd say ideally, 4-5 is a great number. and that's if everyone one of those 4-5 only have one character. In that group of eight players, we had, combined between us all, 9 creature characters as well. |
| Fletcher |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 16:11:11
I prefer 3-5 players, but if you have a cohesive group that manages tangents from the game well, and can get back on track, then larger groups can have great dynamics.
I played in a group of 12 players for 4 years and we had many a great game. It required strict control and the occasional shout of "TANGENT!" to get things back on track.
As a GM, I prefer to run 3-5 players. Two players tend to run out of ideas pretty fast. And it is difficult to keep more than 5 players at a time interested. There is only so much spotlight time. |
| Forge |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 13:49:48
Well, while a group of 3-4 is preferable, a larger group can be definitely doable, provided you have a good group of players. This was proven recently in a very large game session of about 9 players where one group broke off, and walked into another room to actually roleplay independant of the GM, while the other group worked more mechanics and such under the aegis of the GM (Gray btw, and he handled it with aplumb.) Occasionally one person from each group would migrate to the other with a bit of new information, and occasionally a point would be clarified for the RP group by the GM, but overall it was one of the best RP sessions I've had in a while. |
| Jindael |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 13:07:44
Having just recently, in the last 2 months or so, come from a group that was 8 players and one DM, I can say with certainty that my preference is for 3-4 players as well. And that includes when I’m running, also.
It didn’t help matters that my DM had almost no crowd control, and 4 of us (me included) were loud and quick to speak when something happened, others were extremely distractable, and for about 2 months there, the GM was also babysitting her infant granddaughter. Baby =’s game off. Although, it was kind of amusing for the DM to look at her granddaughter, and say, in that overly cute voice you use to speak to babies; “There going to get eaten by the mean dragon, yes they are. All crunched up to little bits!”
When I joined this group, there were 4 people total, GM included. I made the 4th player, and shortly after, summer ended and one of the players was still in highschool, so he quit. (Also, I think the poor 16 year old was creeped out by us old folk.) and a new guy came in. So, with just 4 players, this was the peak of that gaming group, I think. Darius the Paladin, Samandra the elven fighter/cleric, Voltar the insane mage, and Chirichi, the gender confused elf with a figting style that resembled a very much vexed blender. (That would be me). Great group. Great game and plenty of time for just 4 people to have the spot light. Once the group grew, spot light time got short, and any poor NPC who we needed to speak too was surrounded by 8 heavily armed adventures and pestered with questions, as we all tried to find out what we wanted to know at once.
In addition, my GM had no idea how the 3.X challenge rating system worked, and constantly over challenged us, trying to compensate for 8 players instead of 4, and then gave out to much treausure, making her have to seriously over challenge us again. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 12:46:21
quote:
Originally posted by Faramicos
I have been a DM for several years and tried groups of varying size. My experience is that the ultimate group is with 3-4 members. This number leaves space for the individual to use their characters creatively and nobody is pushed into the background by dominating players. It is easy for the players to be an active part of the game and the sessions runs smoothly... My experience are, that when you exceed 4 players the game begins to slow down in pace and it is practically impossible to set up a fast paced adventure... Furthermore it is hard to run a thrilling and actionpacked battle when the combat-turns have to shift between more than 4 players... My favorit is 3 players for the roleplaying part, 4 in general but i can stretch it to 5 as an absolute maximum. Anymore is damaging for the game...
I´m echoing you, only saying that I have some very good game sessions with a group of 5, so I, personally, think that this number is a good one, too. |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 10:57:10
I have been a DM for several years and tried groups of varying size. My experience is that the ultimate group is with 3-4 members. This number leaves space for the individual to use their characters creatively and nobody is pushed into the background by dominating players. It is easy for the players to be an active part of the game and the sessions runs smoothly... My experience are, that when you exceed 4 players the game begins to slow down in pace and it is practically impossible to set up a fast paced adventure... Furthermore it is hard to run a thrilling and actionpacked battle when the combat-turns have to shift between more than 4 players... My favorit is 3 players for the roleplaying part, 4 in general but i can stretch it to 5 as an absolute maximum. Anymore is damaging for the game... |
|
|
