GameBanshee Forums

Hi folks,

i'd like to know how many members yor RPG-Groups count.
Do you make differences depending on the genre you play?
We play a size of 6-7 people (including master) for fantasy and
4-5 People (incl. master) for dark future.
How do you handle it and why?

Best regards
Keltoi

My last group had 7 Players and a DM, but I found that that was a little too much because of people not showing up, work schedules, etc.

I prefer about 4 players and a GM, but it varies depending on what system you are using.

Yeah, I guess 7 Players + 1 GM seems to be the absolute maximum to me.
It is right that finding appointments which suite everyone becomes more difficult with more people but the good thing about bigger groups is, that the GM can split it up into two (or more) independent acting parts for a couple of hours (although it's sometimes most annoying having one half of the group sitting in one room, the other in another as my first GM was used to... )
But imho that will only work with fantasy-adventures.

Best wishes
Keltoi

As a DM/GM, I've had groups of 3 to 4 players and a few times of 6-7 players. Frankly speaking, the larger the group, the more difficult it gets for the DM to give everyone the level of participation they deserve, but you need some group dynamic of course. I'd say three players is the absolute minimum to get that dynamic, but I would hesitate to take any group with more than 5 players on a regular basis (though an occasional guest player would be OK). I don't like splitting groups and try to keep my players (and their characters) together, though the occasional abduction, fall in a deep hole, split up,... does happen, but it shouldn't become the rule.

we started off as around 4-5 then it actualy grew to 13 once and we had alot of fun, however there was alot of bickering and disagreaments. but it was fun, then my stupid gm decided to many people and killed half the peoples chariters. (this was before the incedent.) there were about 5 regs including me, but for 3 months straight it was 12 -13

When I imagine I was the GM and there were 13 People, it would be too much for me, too. BUT: I'd never kill any char of my group deliberately. There are other, more elegant ways to resize the group than putting lethal traps on every second step they take...
I guess your GM had not much experience in playing, either. If he'd ever rosen up a character, put his love and heart-blood in it, worked out it's history and so on, he'd never have done what he did.
Sorry but if a GM would do this to one of MY babies, (Especially "Röde Orm", my beloved Midgard char, a good looking seafarer -that seems to be something like a Vicking- and really tough warrior but also with brains) I would take my character-sheet and leave. And I would erase all the exp's my char earned on that part of the adventure so that my char might have dreamt of it but he would be still alive.
Sorry, I hope you understand what I wanted to say. It was a little difficult to write something in english when I was so angry about somebody I don't even know!

Bye
Keltoi

It varies. Me and my bro used to play when his friends couldn't come over, so we had 2 characters each totalling 4 for a basic party.

Then, theres this new campaign, HUGE one.

8 players, 3 of which had leadership.
First off, this wasn't a normal game, as we are all the children of gods, I was Bane , then 3 players got some Cohorts. I got a nightmare, a friend got a slaad, and the other got a fire elemental of large size. We are all 21st-25th level mind you.

So a total of 11 characters, 3 of which had only a couple levels in classes (the nightmare is a barbarian, and can talk, so I named him Mr. Ed.)

Now were about ready to start a normal campaign, 4 characters, and that's it.

See i prefer smaller groups because I think you are able to flesh the characters out more individually... No more than 4-5 tops

I think 6-7 players are enough. 2 frontliners, 2 wizards\sorcs, cleric, rogue and optional some other class. But we always get so lazy from foolin around that we loose inters. thats because we are playing too slow as we are alot of poeople. so thats why our game master gave us 10 sec to calculate the damage and etc. he gave us 10 sec per tern so there were cases that I haven't played my turn because I couldn't make it in time. I had a talk with my gm about meta-game thinking but it doesn't work with him. he confessed that he isn't totaly indifferen with us. he said there should be a guy that only plays as a DM\GM but everyone want to play.

I've got used to a group of 4 besides the DM...when I first started, I liked larger groups, but since this group of players have been meeting along with our most excellent DM...we've all decided that smaller is better.

Im in a 5 man group, plus we have a guest player from time to time.
I like this number as the table is full enough as it is, beer, chips and books etc...
Also, many books and rules are set on a 4 man party, ex Challence Ratings.

i dm a group of ten players, its great fun, always good ideas and more creative solutions than a small group

I prefer 4-5 (Including GM), as the group as a whole, is more likely to show up and we naturally get more done than if we were 6-7, it's really much more fun.

When we played D&D First Edition groups of 6-8 + DM was standard and doable. But I have found that with the 3.0/3.5 editions 4-5 + DM works best. Anything more seems to bog down. The mechanics have changed and this may be the reason.

We had a peak of 10 players and a DM. That got tedious and boring.
At the moment, we play with 3 and a DM, which is far better.
I don't think the change of mechanics in D&D would make it harder to play in larger groups.
Sometimes, we even play with 1 player and 1 DM. Great fun as well.

If the characters are balanced I like a 6 person party plus a DM. 4-5 is great, too. I like a well rounded party...

I've been playing more D&D 3.5 lately and I'm thinking that if you have a very traditional party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, with no weird builds and no multiclass, things will go very well.

With anything more strange though it becomes easier to have an extra person. For instance, if you have a Ranger instead of a fighter, your Rogue and Wizard may take more damage in large battles.

It also depends a lot on what types of adventures you go on. If you face a lot of undead, then you will do well with a Paladin instead of a fighter. If not, that choice is not nearly as useful.

An Illusionist can do very little until high level against mindless enemies such as vermin and undead. etc.

A Paladin's increased effectifness against undead is neglible: if they can be turned by him, they're not powerful enough to harm the party significantly. I'd rather use those turn attempts to fuel Divine feats. Those, coupled with the spells, make a Paladin a lot more useful overall than a Fighter.
A Fighter can also be easily replaced by a Druid. It would mean a significant boost in the party's overall power. Up to 6th lvl, the Animal Companion can fill the role of the Fighter, with the Druid providing extra spells. From lvl 6 onward, the Druid can start Wildshaping and still be able to cast spells. A way better "tank" than the Fighter ever will be. There's still the Animal Companion tagging along too.
A decently multiclassed Fighter/Mage can fill that role too, and do some more things. (Like Ftr2/Wiz6/EldritchKnight10/ArchMage2.) Increased size en thus reach, spells and increased mobility.
With some use of low lvl summon spells, or one of the non-core books to use find traps as an alternate trap feature, or another base class, a rogue's detect traps can be easily replaced.
The only two members I'd hate to miss, are the Cleric and the Wizard, and I don't consider Cleric-healing necessary.