Group Size Optimization
-
Recently, I talked about gaming groups and their gaming habits. I’ve also talked about party composition, especially in D&D 4e. Over the last few gaming sessions, our group of four has had a member or two have to bow out during game sessions. Sometimes we had a gamemaster and four players and other times we had a gamemaster and three players. Our general rule has been that if only two players can make it, then we just call that session off. This happens usually around holidays and other event times.
Recently we invited a new player to the group. He had a fantastic time and we all enjoyed having him. If he continues to come, that will bring us up to a gamemaster with five players each session. I think this is going to really have a positive impact on our gaming group. This also led me to think about group size optimization. Here is my take on it:
(2) – Gamemaster and one player – This is the absolute minimum for most games and the most personal. The good thing about this is if the two people are available, you can game. The bad news is if one isn’t available, the game is done. You have some really cool and unique stories told for one specific character. You can also take a character out of a normal sized group and run a “side-quest” that just involves them but furthers the overall story. Not my preferred way of gaming, but doable.
(3) – Gamemaster and two players – I have run some of my best game sessions with two players. I remember running a few games for my brother and a good friend that were incredibly memorable. It seemed like we got so much done in such a small amount of time. And with three total people, the game starts to feel like a small group experience. Combats definitely have to be modified in most games, but it paves the way for defeating obstacles in other ways.
(4) – Gamemaster and three players – This is the number that my current group considers the minimum for our session. If we can’t get this many players there, we usually don’t game. I believe this is probably on the low end of what most gaming groups have. You might consider this the optimal minimum. More is usually better, but this is definitely good to go.
(5) – Gamemaster and four players – This is what my group often has played with in the past. I think this is a solid amount. If you have one person that can’t make a game session, it usually won’t hurt you to bad. You can still trudge on with the rest of the group. Lots of personalities make the game a more diverse and fun area to play, but it still isn’t so big that it slows the game down too much.
(6) – Gamemaster and five players – This type of game feels like an event to me. Get a nice large rectangular table. Game master at one end, two players on each side, and the final player at the other end. It almost seems to me like gaming was meant for this number of players. You have the gamemaster running the game and five distinct player personalities adding their two cents. If one person misses the session, it doesn’t impact you much at all. The show still goes on. This is where I do start to notice the game and combat dragging out more time-wise, if you are used to a smaller group size.
(7) – Gamemaster and six players – This is what I would call the optimal maximum. For the most part, I don’t like running for groups with more than six players. Everyone has to be patient, focused, and ready to play to keep the game moving. A major benefit to this type of gaming is that missing a player during a session is barely even noticeable. Heck, if even half your group can make it you can still game. If you’re blessed with more than one gamemaster, you could even consider splitting off into more than one gaming group just to mix things up.
(8+) – Gamemaster and seven or more players – I rarely, if ever, have played with groups in this size. I just try to avoid it. At that point, you might as well split into two different gaming groups and continue to build up. You’re blessed with a plethora of gaming friends and you should all make the most of it be downsizing the group a little. That way, everyone gets more game time. I’m not saying a group of this size would succeed, but you’d have to have a spectacular gamemaster and a dedicated gaming group.
I’ve always felt that the optimal size for a gaming group is one gamemaster with three to five players. I’ve seen it done well with other amounts, but for the most part you will see solid success with those numbers. These are just my opinions on group size optimization though.
What do you think about group size optimization?
What is the best group size that has worked for your gaming group?
Leave a Comment
November 27, 2009 at 12:09 am
I have the exact same outlook as you on Group Size Optimization. Just like you, I remember one fantastic Cyberpunk game that involved the GM and two players. We had an entire adventure play out in a single evening. The players died at the end, of course, but that dynamic and experience has remained in my memory for over a decade.
November 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I am currently running two different games with our core gaming group. The main game is a homebrew system with a group that fluctuates anywhere between five and eight players. The second game is a D&D 3.5 game with three players and 1 NPC that I as the GM control.
The main game, because of the number of players, tends to be grander in scope and the sessions are much more involved for both the players and me as the GM. More preparation, more character activity and more impact for every session mean that the players can see more of an effect when their characters are successful. Each session starts, continues or concludes a plot line and the character continue to grow as their adventures effect their lives. Running a large group can be a real test of a GM’s management skills, but when the entire gaming group is on the edge of their seat hanging on every word of the description for the climax of the plot, it is very rewarding as a GM.
The second game has been affectionately dubbed the “beer and pretzels” game because it is the fall back game that we play when the rest of the gaming group can’t get together. These are usually small single session modules that last one gaming session. We have a lot of fun playing these modules, but we do not take the outcome of the game very seriously and everyone gets a good laugh out of the misadventures of their characters.
With large groups, inevitably the party will split up and you’ll have to try to manage two separate game sessions at the same time, whew! Creating an environment that can accommodate players who occasionally miss a session is a big help too and will leave characters a plausible excuse for sitting out a session. The movie “The Gamers” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369445) handled that wonderfully and that has become a running gag in our games when a player is missing.
Having experience running both large and small groups, I’d be the first to admit that large groups can be a challenge, but the rewards can also be greater than with small groups. The biggest drawback to large groups is that the GM must be very flexible and adept at coordinating that many people. For me, a small party is more intimate and as a GM you can focus more on character development. Large parties tend to be less centered on the individual characters, and more focused on the impact characters can have on the campaign setting.
December 1, 2009 at 9:00 am
NOTE: The following is baseed solely upon my experiences GMing and playing. your experiences may be different.
I prefer small groups. I think a 2 PC+1 DM is the best for IN depth roleplay, since it’s easy for each player to have individual growth, and if the party splits up, it’s fairly easy to develop interesting sides stories, Npcs, and plots for each without one PC or the other feeling like they are sitting there forever waiting for their turn.
Having played with all sizes of groups, I’ve found for the most part that the scale of RoleplayHack/slash is proportional to the number of players. The more players you have, the less people roleplay and have interesting individual storylines, and the more the game focuses on combat and dungeon crawls.
I tend to think it’s a simple matter of math. 2 people splitting up , given 10 minutes each, means no one is sitting twiddling their thumbs for more than 10 minutes at a time. 5 people, given 5 minutes each, and that’s 20 minutes before it gets back to you–not to mention that when it is your turn, you have time for 1 conversation before your time is up. Not to mention that it’s 5 times as much work to keep track of everybody’s storyline, Npcs, etc.
SO really, 1-2 players will tend to give you A high role play/low Combat game. 3-4 players will give you a nic mix, and you can plaay with it a little more. 5 and up, and you either need a coDM, or it’s going to be a fairly heavy combat game, with little character developement outside of combat.
December 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm
@ Chris Stevens – I actually miss doing super small group games like that. I think those small group games are perfect for testing out systems. You can bounce things off a few trusted gamers and they give you time to slowly work through a game.
@ SirGryphon – I like the idea of the bigger groups being grander in scope. You actually put an idea in my head regarding that. I definitely think the larger groups can be a greater reward, if you can manage it. Your players have to be on board a little bit and help you though.
@ Dracomax – I haven’t observed that with small and large groups, but I can see your point. With a one GM + two player group, I’ve gotten a LOT of roleplaying done. I think it’s smaller, more personal, and the GM only has to focus on a few things. But a larger groups can bring more ideas to the table. … I’ll have to pay attention to that more with the group sizes now that you’ve mentioned that.
December 2, 2009 at 1:49 am
The size of my gaming group has fluctuated, I started with one player, then had three and at the most I had six but four players and me seemed to be the constant number.
Now, that the number of players has dipped down to two I find I am in recruiting mode again, mostly because half the group left for good midgame and my campaign was designed for four players!
Six was really too many, particularly when as the initative order gets very long and players get bored between rolls.
Really, it’s a personal preference but I work best with four as I know I can manage to get the players some time in the spotlight.
December 5, 2009 at 2:26 am
I’d really love to see you or John tackle the topic of DMing for one player. I’ve been wanting to DM a game for my girlfriend, if only to satisfy my “backseat DM” tendencies that emerge while my she plans the weekly game.
I’m currently in the process of repurposing Khyber’s Harvest as an adventure for her tiefling warlock and my dragonborn fighter, with 2 empty slots that will be filled by rotating NPCs that she’ll run in combat. I’m envisioning it as like a single player PC RPG.
I’ve been able to find some articles and discussion boards addressing the one-player one-DM setup, but many of them are not 4E-specific, which means they don’t address the teamwork demands of 4E, or treat this situation as a combat-heavy miniatures game — much like the DMG suggests — which wouldn’t suit my girlfriend’s preference for story and character relationships.
I’m sure you and John would have an insightful take on this subject, since your blog has generally favored story and fluff-rich gaming over arcadey crunching.
December 5, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I mostly agree with the article here. Maybe I favor things just a little bit smaller, but these are all solid observations.
When I was in highschool, everybody who gamed had different schedules and I ended up playing alot of “one on one” games after school. When I got to college, I finally found a proper 5+ player group and found I had become spoiled. When you’re 1-2 players, you have a tremendous amount of freedom. With 4 or more, you really don’t.
December 8, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I agree with your observations, Sam. I treat my game group like an ensemble TV show cast and for me the ideal size is five or six players. If two have to miss a session we can still carry on, if one or two people play two characters.
With a tactical minis based game like D&D 4E, keeping it at six or below is actually pretty crucial. There is a lot more battle-map studying, distance measuring and number crunching which means the game can grind with too many people at the table. But I can handle up to eight with a game like Shadowrun; one that doesn’t have required roles to be filled in order to play effectively and abstracts combat a bit more.
December 9, 2009 at 10:00 am
@ Wesley:
I totally balked at you saying, “Shadowrun… abstracts combat a bit more.”
I have always thought that Shadowrun was just the opposite (Simulation-based).
I guess you could say that Shadowrun is more abstract in the way that you don’t need a battle map as much as you would in 4E. But 4E is way more abstract with regard to how damage is handled. I’m curious on yur take, though.