Game WISH asks,
What do you think is the best cast size for the games you’ve played? What are the factors that go into your answer: genre, play group, gaming system, etc.?
Basically, 4-5. The best games I’ve ever played or run have had groups that size. Large enough that there are enough possibilities for different interactions and strengths. Small enough that everyone gets plenty of face time with the GM and each other. Large enough that if someone can’t make it, it’s not a disaster. Small enough that you can fit easily around a table. I’ve found that number to work pretty well in most genres and groups I’ve been in.
Six can still work, especially if you end up with groups of three or two. Seven, though, means lots of downtime for individual players, even if they’re all in a single swarm. It’s too easy for folks to get distracted, or resort to other passtimes to while away the hours. Plus it’s nigh impossible for the GM to subplot for that many, and group melees take for-frelling-ever.
The only possible thing to bump above the 4-5 number might be an Amber game. The mechanics free up a lot of time, and it’s relatively easy to drag people in — or push people out — of the current spotlight. It’s still rough on the GM, though.
Another problem with larger numbers is that the personal commitment drops. If you’re one of 7-8 players, it doesn’t seem like as much of a big deal if you no-show a session. (If you’re one of 2-3 players, on the other hand, it can feel like too heavy a burden, like too much is riding on you, and you may feel compelled to be there beyond what’s probably proper.)
I currently have five in my Spycraft group, and that’s just peachy. I’d rather not have more. My previous effort for a supers campaign foundered under seven players (and my unrealistic desire to run heavy subplots for each of them). My Amber campaign ended up with 4-5, but was up at 6-7 at times, which was, in fact, probably too many.
I do undestand, though, how the numbers creep up. It’s difficult to say no, and it’s often difficult to invite person A, who you really want, without inviting person B, whom you’re less sanguine about (even if they’re not spouses). And, of course, as a primary social gathering, the temptation is to invite in all your friends, esp. if you’re only running one game … (Piece of advice: don’t. Accept the word of One Who Knows.)
(via Doyce)
One thing that we’ve kicked around, experimented with, but have never been able to make work is team “GM-ing”. For either a really large group of players, or a large playing area (e.g., to exaagerate, the Ringworld!), you split up duties.
> Still quoting Starhawk, huh? I guess you really haven’t changed all that much in 20 years!
My old D&D group started with 4 players. Unfortunately, most modules were for “a party of 6-8 adventurers,” which left me with few choices:
1) Expand the size of the group. Not great, as you noted above. Two people did eventually join, but I wish they hadn’t. They did not add to the enjoyment.
B) Alter the difficulty of the module. Not great either, because I’m not terribly creative (which is why I used modules in the first place), and attempts to adjust them tended to create an imbalance that snowballed. It did help that the players were fond of multi-classed characters. I didn’t often run into the problem of a vital class/ability not being represented in the party. Plus, advancement was slower, so I was able to use more modules appropriate for a given level range before they advanced past it.
III) Have players run two characters. They enjoyed it, but it was awkward when a character knew something that his player’s other character didn’t know. My core group seemed to play it pretty fairly, though.