So, Covid has totally trashed the game I run, with 6 players. In fact, given the latest set of lockdowns where I live, we can't even meet, so my game is on hiatus. No, don't talk to me about Roll 20 or the equivalent. The crosstalk on voice channels is brutal, plus the prep time on Roll 20 is a ton, let alone the stress it puts on my rig.
So I am playing in an online game (Discord and screen sharing), but with only 3 players (I am a Halfling Scout Rogue) and the DM. I am loving it. Further, I had an opportunity to play a couple sessions in person with a DM and 2 players, before Covid shut that down. In both cases, I have come to realize that the game is far superior with a tiny group.
I know that the optimal character size is recognized as 4, but there is no question that with an ultra-small table each player MUST shine, and is given every opportunity to do so. Role play is now considered as important, as opposed to bogging the game down with a large table. Also, as stated in the 1st paragraph, when playing with such a small group, the cross-talk issues fade away, since there are so fewer voices. And the game from the DM's perspective is easier, with far less worrying about Action Economy issues for the BBEG's. Every action by a character now has meaning. A key miss, or failed save, or Nat 20, can turn the tide of any situation.
When Covid is finally tamed, sometime in 2022, I really am looking forward to restarting my own game, but I am even more anxious to run or play in a super small group or 2 or 3 players.
Picture the dynamic in a discord roleplay community. you can have more than one set of inter-player roleplay things going on in different parts of the city without a dm.. thought the one I'm in has tagged NPC players as a specialist sub DM to act as shopkeepers and such.. [ get staff character xp as pay ]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Itinerant Deputy Shire-reave Tomas Burrfoot - world walker, Raft-captain, speaker to his dead
Toddy Shelfungus- Rider of the Order of Ill Luck, Speaker to Friends of Friends, and Horribly big nosed
Jarl Archi of Jenisis Glade Fee- Noble Knight of the Dragonborn Goldcrest Clan, Sorcerer of the Noble Investigator;y; Knightly order of the Wolfhound
As utterly bizarre as the very idea is, I find myself in concordance with VS. D&D games have a tendency to swiftly balloon out of control - "hey, you guys have a game going? Can I play, too?!" since DMs are far scarcer than players...but the game gets better and more engaging with each player not at the table. I've never had a chance to play duos before, but I know that each player added after the fourth 'official' guy significantly decreases the time each player gets to really indulge in playing the game, and 6+ parties introduce so much role overlap that nobody really gets the chance to be cool. People who enjoy playing really versatile characters with many multitudinous talents and skills may as well not bother with 6+ tables; their versatility means nothing in an adventuring mob that's basically already got two of everything.
A smaller-than-normal group not only gives each player the chance to really dig into their character and the game, it also extends the life of the campaign, as a duo or trio can't handle nearly as much nonsense as a mob. It flattens the power curve of the game and lets the DM stretch out challenges, since the group's overall power grows more slowly than a mob game. DMs can also be freer with loot, especially of the problem-solving sort, as the issue of Magic Item Power BLoat doesn't matter nearly as much when the PCs only have two or three actions to throw at things. A normal game doesn't care about half the items a DM might want to experiment with, but your two-player game with no rogue will be overjoyed to find a Chime of Opening (Y'know, that thing nobody remembers exists?), and frankly a low-count group is the only one where a DM should consider letting the players have a Shield Guardian. There's things a DM could do in a low-count game that they just couldn't get away with when running a game for an adventuring mob.
It may seem selfish to a lot of people to cut so many players out of a game. But if you ever get the chance to play (or run!) a duo or trio game, give it a chance. It can be an entirely different flavor of D&D.
I agree completely. It's much more fun in smaller group than in a bigger one, my ideal size is 3 players plus the DM. The group that I game with plays at my house and I'm strict about limiting us to 5 players plus the DM in my house at a time.
Agreed! My ideal group size as a DM is 4 players plus me. After that point, I’m happy to run hack-n-slash adventure series (which are awesome!) but when it comes to roleplaying, less is more.
Having DMed for more that 25 years, I found the best size for a story/role playing game is about 4 (+/- 1). For a more combat type game 6 is better. Above that it gets to much for the DM to track. I have played / ran many games with 4 to 5 people and some up to 12.I have ran everything from Rolemaster to 1st thru 3rd addition. One thing to keep in mind when it comes to size is how much attention does each player wants from the DM. I tend to be quite and pass an occasional note when being a player. On the other hand my wife is a strong role player and will take up more of the DM's time.
Table discipline is a other factor. If your group has very good table discipline and only talks when their character is up or when the DM is doing non interactive "paper work" the a large group can carry a role playing game the one with less than ideal discipline (most groups don't have great table discipline.)
I think DM + 4 players works quite well. DM + 3 and DM +5 are also workable, though I like DM+4 a smidge better. DM+2 is a little too small for my taste except in very special scenarios and DM + 6 is just too many players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, Covid has totally trashed the game I run, with 6 players. In fact, given the latest set of lockdowns where I live, we can't even meet, so my game is on hiatus. No, don't talk to me about Roll 20 or the equivalent. The crosstalk on voice channels is brutal, plus the prep time on Roll 20 is a ton, let alone the stress it puts on my rig.
So I am playing in an online game (Discord and screen sharing), but with only 3 players (I am a Halfling Scout Rogue) and the DM. I am loving it. Further, I had an opportunity to play a couple sessions in person with a DM and 2 players, before Covid shut that down. In both cases, I have come to realize that the game is far superior with a tiny group.
I know that the optimal character size is recognized as 4, but there is no question that with an ultra-small table each player MUST shine, and is given every opportunity to do so. Role play is now considered as important, as opposed to bogging the game down with a large table. Also, as stated in the 1st paragraph, when playing with such a small group, the cross-talk issues fade away, since there are so fewer voices. And the game from the DM's perspective is easier, with far less worrying about Action Economy issues for the BBEG's. Every action by a character now has meaning. A key miss, or failed save, or Nat 20, can turn the tide of any situation.
When Covid is finally tamed, sometime in 2022, I really am looking forward to restarting my own game, but I am even more anxious to run or play in a super small group or 2 or 3 players.
Picture the dynamic in a discord roleplay community. you can have more than one set of inter-player roleplay things going on in different parts of the city without a dm.. thought the one I'm in has tagged NPC players as a specialist sub DM to act as shopkeepers and such.. [ get staff character xp as pay ]
Itinerant Deputy Shire-reave Tomas Burrfoot - world walker, Raft-captain, speaker to his dead
Toddy Shelfungus- Rider of the Order of Ill Luck, Speaker to Friends of Friends, and Horribly big nosed
Jarl Archi of Jenisis Glade Fee- Noble Knight of the Dragonborn Goldcrest Clan, Sorcerer of the Noble Investigator;y; Knightly order of the Wolfhound
As utterly bizarre as the very idea is, I find myself in concordance with VS. D&D games have a tendency to swiftly balloon out of control - "hey, you guys have a game going? Can I play, too?!" since DMs are far scarcer than players...but the game gets better and more engaging with each player not at the table. I've never had a chance to play duos before, but I know that each player added after the fourth 'official' guy significantly decreases the time each player gets to really indulge in playing the game, and 6+ parties introduce so much role overlap that nobody really gets the chance to be cool. People who enjoy playing really versatile characters with many multitudinous talents and skills may as well not bother with 6+ tables; their versatility means nothing in an adventuring mob that's basically already got two of everything.
A smaller-than-normal group not only gives each player the chance to really dig into their character and the game, it also extends the life of the campaign, as a duo or trio can't handle nearly as much nonsense as a mob. It flattens the power curve of the game and lets the DM stretch out challenges, since the group's overall power grows more slowly than a mob game. DMs can also be freer with loot, especially of the problem-solving sort, as the issue of Magic Item Power BLoat doesn't matter nearly as much when the PCs only have two or three actions to throw at things. A normal game doesn't care about half the items a DM might want to experiment with, but your two-player game with no rogue will be overjoyed to find a Chime of Opening (Y'know, that thing nobody remembers exists?), and frankly a low-count group is the only one where a DM should consider letting the players have a Shield Guardian. There's things a DM could do in a low-count game that they just couldn't get away with when running a game for an adventuring mob.
It may seem selfish to a lot of people to cut so many players out of a game. But if you ever get the chance to play (or run!) a duo or trio game, give it a chance. It can be an entirely different flavor of D&D.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree completely. It's much more fun in smaller group than in a bigger one, my ideal size is 3 players plus the DM. The group that I game with plays at my house and I'm strict about limiting us to 5 players plus the DM in my house at a time.
Professional computer geek
Agreed! My ideal group size as a DM is 4 players plus me. After that point, I’m happy to run hack-n-slash adventure series (which are awesome!) but when it comes to roleplaying, less is more.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Having DMed for more that 25 years, I found the best size for a story/role playing game is about 4 (+/- 1). For a more combat type game 6 is better. Above that it gets to much for the DM to track. I have played / ran many games with 4 to 5 people and some up to 12.I have ran everything from Rolemaster to 1st thru 3rd addition. One thing to keep in mind when it comes to size is how much attention does each player wants from the DM. I tend to be quite and pass an occasional note when being a player. On the other hand my wife is a strong role player and will take up more of the DM's time.
Table discipline is a other factor. If your group has very good table discipline and only talks when their character is up or when the DM is doing non interactive "paper work" the a large group can carry a role playing game the one with less than ideal discipline (most groups don't have great table discipline.)
I think DM + 4 players works quite well. DM + 3 and DM +5 are also workable, though I like DM+4 a smidge better. DM+2 is a little too small for my taste except in very special scenarios and DM + 6 is just too many players.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.