Pretty much exactly what the title implies. How many players do you usually DM for, what's the largest/smallest you've ever done, and what's your experience dealing with large/small groups?
Personally I prefer to DM for anywhere from 4-6 (with 5 being my favorite number) as any less than 3 feels like I'm wasting my time with the amount of prep work I fit in and any more than 6 feels far too chaotic for my taste. The largest I've DM'd for at this point is 9, and that was honestly a nightmare where people had issues listening to each other, let alone me.
I prefer 4-5, myself. less than 4 and more than 5 usually means adjustments to encounters that, while I'm capable of, I'm too lazy to actually want to do. However, if I had a preference, less it more. 6+ players, you have too much to keep track of, made worse by everyone trying to talk over each other or getting side-tracked both in and out of games. Plus, the more people you have, the more likely a player will need to miss a session for reason X, Y, or Z. With a smaller group, a single character's absence may be more detrimental, but at least their absence is felt. When someone in a big group can't make a game, the groups I've played with or DM'd for just tend to bulldoze over the fact they're not there and pretend nothing is amiss. When one of three goes missing, you can actually work with it, make a drama or joke of it; but at least that player and their character isn't glazed over.
Smallest group I ever DM'd for was 1. 1 player in a short campaign that was an offshoot of a larger campaign. Specifically: on normal game days, that player was part of a group of 4. But then they picked up an artifact. On off-days, as their character slept, they would dream. And in their dreams, they would live through things, or interact with unknown entities.
The largest group I ever DM'd for was 12. And it was chaos. I'm never doing that again. Ever.
Never, ever more than six, and six is already pushing it. Four to five players seems ideal, for many reasons already mentioned. Things move at a much higher pace when only four players show up for my game sessions, and it's easier for me as DM to handle their individual foibles.
4-5 is the preferred range. I have run groups of up to 9 but that was a headache. Mostly because of the action economy and keeping everyone engaged at the table when it took 30 minutes to play a round. Put 9 people in an inn and my head was about to explode with the peppering of questions I was getting (and answering). The smallest is 1. Actually, my favorite style seems to be the 1 on 1 game. LOADs of character development, and as far as not killing the PCs in combat, I found it relatively easy to balance the encounters.
5 players is typically my magic number. More than that and it can become hectic and bog everything down. I suppose I could deal with less, but I enjoy 5. Sometimes though I'll do 1 on 1 like Hawksmoor mentioned for character development. However, when I do that it's typically when the player is level 1, getting to level 2. So if I have a 5 person group I'd do a 1 on 1 session for each character and end with them being at the location or event that I want ALL the characters to be at when I officially start the group campaign and be level 2 (because level 1 can sometimes be super boring). Does that make sense? Anyway, 5 is my magic number.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
I've DMed 3 people (fiancee and my two kids) and all the way up to a 9 person table (local shop).
I used to say that 4 was the best number, pace, combat, etc, but I have changed my mind since then. I have 6 players in my current home game and I am loving it. The local shop game has a fluctuating 4-6 players. I, for some insane reason, enjoy the chaos. Maybe it's because I've been behind the screen for so long, maybe it's because I'm just nuts.
I've DMed 3 people (fiancee and my two kids) and all the way up to a 9 person table (local shop).
I used to say that 4 was the best number, pace, combat, etc, but I have changed my mind since then. I have 6 players in my current home game and I am loving it. The local shop game has a fluctuating 4-6 players. I, for some insane reason, enjoy the chaos. Maybe it's because I've been behind the screen for so long, maybe it's because I'm just nuts.
I think you have to be a little nuts to be a DM. It's a semi-requirement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
I once did a group of 12 (not by choice) and it was a nightmare! It was way outside my skill to manage, and ultimately resulted in a bunch of bored players resorting to PvP.
I can generally handle about six or so, depending on the level of involvement each player wishes to have, but my sweet spot is 3-4.
I've DMed 3 people (fiancee and my two kids) and all the way up to a 9 person table (local shop).
I used to say that 4 was the best number, pace, combat, etc, but I have changed my mind since then. I have 6 players in my current home game and I am loving it. The local shop game has a fluctuating 4-6 players. I, for some insane reason, enjoy the chaos. Maybe it's because I've been behind the screen for so long, maybe it's because I'm just nuts.
I think you have to be a little nuts to be a DM. It's a semi-requirement.
We do not suffer from insanity. We enjoy every bleeding moment of it!
I started with four but it somehow worked its way up to seven. Four was great in having more one on one time, but I like seven because there is more to explore when you can get them to spread out and have enough offence/defense that the team is pretty even so you don't have to worry about killing a player every time someone does something stupid, it makes the buddy system of travel a little bit easier, and there's less arguing about "Well I want to go here" "But I want to go this way!" "But I want to check out that room there!" They can disperse their own ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I pick on no one. I leave everything to the fate of dice. -rolls 1- Dah, crap.
Pretty much exactly what the title implies. How many players do you usually DM for, what's the largest/smallest you've ever done, and what's your experience dealing with large/small groups?
I have two style games - weekly scheduled games, and persistant chats over discord. The scheduled games I insist on a max of 5 at the most, but 4 most comfortably. My discord had around 22 people at one point, but they were all doing their own thing rather than needing constant oversight.
My typical group is 4-5 players, but I've DMed groups anywhere from 1-7 players. I strongly prefer the 4-5 range, as I think this is the sweet spot in terms of time management and intra-party interaction.
However, I've also run several very successful campaigns for smaller groups, which can give more time to focus on character development. I really enjoy developing separate plotlines for each character, and this can sometimes be difficult even with 4 or 5 players, especially if they are all very much into the roleplaying aspect of the game.
Anything more than 5, and I think you need to have strong ground rules in place for players' combat turns, group decision-making, table talk, and other situations. You also need to very adept at bouncing between characters in all situations and making sure everyone gets a chance to describe their actions; otherwise, you either end up with a situation where the loudest players run roughshod over the others or where you're playing Bureaucracy and Dragons.
I've DMed 3 people (fiancee and my two kids) and all the way up to a 9 person table (local shop).
I used to say that 4 was the best number, pace, combat, etc, but I have changed my mind since then. I have 6 players in my current home game and I am loving it. The local shop game has a fluctuating 4-6 players. I, for some insane reason, enjoy the chaos. Maybe it's because I've been behind the screen for so long, maybe it's because I'm just nuts.
I think you have to be a little nuts to be a DM. It's a semi-requirement.
We do not suffer from insanity. We enjoy every bleeding moment of it!
I've found insanity to be by far the best method of DMing myself. Works even better when everyone around the table has at least a bit of it.
Same as many here, I've DM'd for up to 9, it was very suboptimal. 1 or 2 I also don't enjoy, personally, 1 on 1 can be great I'm sure but it's really just not my thing. For 2 my preference is to have both people run 2 characters and fabricate a party of 4 that way. It can be problematic with inexperienced role players but it's been a while since that's been the majority in a group I've run. 3-5 is a great amount, it runs smooth, everything flows quickly, designing combats is easy, it's great. 4-6 is my preference though, as I prefer greater amounts of player interaction and just a touch more chaos and unpredictability. It also lets me go a little more hog wild in combat design and lean more towards fewer, more epic (and memorable) fights rather than smaller, well balanced and paced encounters, which are fun, sure, but not as fun in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pretty much exactly what the title implies. How many players do you usually DM for, what's the largest/smallest you've ever done, and what's your experience dealing with large/small groups?
Personally I prefer to DM for anywhere from 4-6 (with 5 being my favorite number) as any less than 3 feels like I'm wasting my time with the amount of prep work I fit in and any more than 6 feels far too chaotic for my taste. The largest I've DM'd for at this point is 9, and that was honestly a nightmare where people had issues listening to each other, let alone me.
I prefer 4-5, myself. less than 4 and more than 5 usually means adjustments to encounters that, while I'm capable of, I'm too lazy to actually want to do. However, if I had a preference, less it more. 6+ players, you have too much to keep track of, made worse by everyone trying to talk over each other or getting side-tracked both in and out of games. Plus, the more people you have, the more likely a player will need to miss a session for reason X, Y, or Z. With a smaller group, a single character's absence may be more detrimental, but at least their absence is felt. When someone in a big group can't make a game, the groups I've played with or DM'd for just tend to bulldoze over the fact they're not there and pretend nothing is amiss. When one of three goes missing, you can actually work with it, make a drama or joke of it; but at least that player and their character isn't glazed over.
Smallest group I ever DM'd for was 1. 1 player in a short campaign that was an offshoot of a larger campaign. Specifically: on normal game days, that player was part of a group of 4. But then they picked up an artifact. On off-days, as their character slept, they would dream. And in their dreams, they would live through things, or interact with unknown entities.
The largest group I ever DM'd for was 12. And it was chaos. I'm never doing that again. Ever.
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters
I think the main challenge for larger groups is keeping the tempo up in combat.
Never, ever more than six, and six is already pushing it. Four to five players seems ideal, for many reasons already mentioned. Things move at a much higher pace when only four players show up for my game sessions, and it's easier for me as DM to handle their individual foibles.
4-5 is the preferred range. I have run groups of up to 9 but that was a headache. Mostly because of the action economy and keeping everyone engaged at the table when it took 30 minutes to play a round. Put 9 people in an inn and my head was about to explode with the peppering of questions I was getting (and answering). The smallest is 1. Actually, my favorite style seems to be the 1 on 1 game. LOADs of character development, and as far as not killing the PCs in combat, I found it relatively easy to balance the encounters.
5 players is typically my magic number. More than that and it can become hectic and bog everything down. I suppose I could deal with less, but I enjoy 5. Sometimes though I'll do 1 on 1 like Hawksmoor mentioned for character development. However, when I do that it's typically when the player is level 1, getting to level 2. So if I have a 5 person group I'd do a 1 on 1 session for each character and end with them being at the location or event that I want ALL the characters to be at when I officially start the group campaign and be level 2 (because level 1 can sometimes be super boring). Does that make sense? Anyway, 5 is my magic number.
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
Follow my Campaign!
Ardanian Calendar
I've DMed 3 people (fiancee and my two kids) and all the way up to a 9 person table (local shop).
I used to say that 4 was the best number, pace, combat, etc, but I have changed my mind since then. I have 6 players in my current home game and I am loving it. The local shop game has a fluctuating 4-6 players. I, for some insane reason, enjoy the chaos. Maybe it's because I've been behind the screen for so long, maybe it's because I'm just nuts.
It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
Follow my Campaign!
Ardanian Calendar
I once did a group of 12 (not by choice) and it was a nightmare! It was way outside my skill to manage, and ultimately resulted in a bunch of bored players resorting to PvP.
I can generally handle about six or so, depending on the level of involvement each player wishes to have, but my sweet spot is 3-4.
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters
I started with four but it somehow worked its way up to seven. Four was great in having more one on one time, but I like seven because there is more to explore when you can get them to spread out and have enough offence/defense that the team is pretty even so you don't have to worry about killing a player every time someone does something stupid, it makes the buddy system of travel a little bit easier, and there's less arguing about "Well I want to go here" "But I want to go this way!" "But I want to check out that room there!" They can disperse their own ways.
I pick on no one. I leave everything to the fate of dice.
-rolls 1-
Dah, crap.
My typical group is 4-5 players, but I've DMed groups anywhere from 1-7 players. I strongly prefer the 4-5 range, as I think this is the sweet spot in terms of time management and intra-party interaction.
However, I've also run several very successful campaigns for smaller groups, which can give more time to focus on character development. I really enjoy developing separate plotlines for each character, and this can sometimes be difficult even with 4 or 5 players, especially if they are all very much into the roleplaying aspect of the game.
Anything more than 5, and I think you need to have strong ground rules in place for players' combat turns, group decision-making, table talk, and other situations. You also need to very adept at bouncing between characters in all situations and making sure everyone gets a chance to describe their actions; otherwise, you either end up with a situation where the loudest players run roughshod over the others or where you're playing Bureaucracy and Dragons.
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters
Same as many here, I've DM'd for up to 9, it was very suboptimal. 1 or 2 I also don't enjoy, personally, 1 on 1 can be great I'm sure but it's really just not my thing. For 2 my preference is to have both people run 2 characters and fabricate a party of 4 that way. It can be problematic with inexperienced role players but it's been a while since that's been the majority in a group I've run. 3-5 is a great amount, it runs smooth, everything flows quickly, designing combats is easy, it's great. 4-6 is my preference though, as I prefer greater amounts of player interaction and just a touch more chaos and unpredictability. It also lets me go a little more hog wild in combat design and lean more towards fewer, more epic (and memorable) fights rather than smaller, well balanced and paced encounters, which are fun, sure, but not as fun in my opinion.