What is the maximum amount of players a GM should ever try to handle in one session?
5
>>43937194
4-6 is the sweet spot.
6 at absolute maximum. Anything beyond that, and you'll be wrangling cats.
N-1.
>>43937194
Depends on the DM's competenceand sperglord tolerancehonestly.
If you're new, or someone trying out at being a DM for the first time, I would say start out with 4 PCs max; who are hopefully not strangers.
I think the maximum I have ever seen a DM competently control has been 8 during a single session.
Been having the best performance with 3 lately, cuts the bullshit down and still gives plenty of potential for encounters, utility combinations and roleplay
>>43937194
It depends on the GM and the game.
Some GM's thrive off of bigger groups of players bouncing off each other and then responding to the GM. Others need a more personal one-on-one atmosphere to gaming.
The game itself is a huge factor. Some are rules heavy chug-fests that grind to a halt when you add to many players. Others are rules light that can allow more players easily. Or fall apart at the seams.
Best advice is to trust your instincts. If you feel it would be too many players for the game, then you're probably right.
3 ideally, 4 max. Anyone who gives you numbers higher than this doesn't GM and is bullshitting with no idea what they're talking about.
depends on the system and theme of the game but I'd say 6 is max, 4 ideal for the most part.
minimum 3
maximum 6
Am I really an outlier for running quests for just 1 person?
I have a group of friends I want to run for, but getting us all together at once is near impossible.
>>43937515
One-player campaigns are the outlier, yes.
>>43937194
3 is the goat. 4 is comfortably doable but at least one person will get distracted/lose engagement at any given moment, after that things get exponentially worse for everyone since people will be getting distracted/it will be tough to involve everyone
>>43937515
I have done competitive role playing with 4 friends taking turns playing through the exact same scenario each trying to get the farthest. that's fun
>tfw would love to run a more character driven, more intimatenot in an erp way you pervertsgame for just like 2 other people
>tfw every group I've ever had seems to think they "need" more people when it gets down to like 3.
>>43937549
Time/score attack campaigns? I was not aware this was a thing.
with more than 5-6 you start getting problems whether they're all doing the same stuff or doing things separately
you can stretch things a bit to accomodate a few more but giving proper attention to more than 10-12 is unmanageable most of the time
more than that I only know one solution that works, larp rules, where the players have full narrative autonomy and the gm(s) are only there to validate some actions and move the large scale plot forward. still even in larps its not recommended to have much more than 20-25 people per gm or it can quickly get out of hand.
>>43937194
The maximum is 4
>>43937592
3 players or lower is sometimes hard to manage, because one player being absent makes it difficult to play. 4 is generally the minimu unless you have a group that you are absolutely guaranteed always shows up outside of emergencies.
>>43937194
6 + DM is absolute Maximum
4-5 + DM is the sweet spot
3 + DM is "You must be light on people this week"
>>43937608
Freeform at a table while we were high actually.
Kinda like that tough yea.
3 is best
you don't need a fourth wheel, let alone a fifth
anything over 6 and that is really pushing it and makes combat take for ever.
Played in a game with 16 people before, that was fun.
I think the ideal is 4 players though.
The safe number, 3-4. The upper limit, 6.
I'm one of those lucky DM's who has the good problem of having too many players. The most comfortable and manageable size I've had is 3-4 players, but the max I've dealt with was 8 which was way too many. The problem is mainly keeping everyone on task, especially those who are waiting for their turns.
My current party wobbles between 5-7 players and the largest problem I have is keeping everyone focused. Everyone wants to play the game, but they also have too many stories and opinions bottled up before they arrive that they vomit up during the session. Ultimately, everyone's having fun and laughing together, but when everyone has a story about what happened at work that day or they really want to talk about that episode of some show they all watch, it really can kill serious moments in the game and derail the mood I try to set. I noticed the exact opposite when DMing a smaller party using the same people. It was much easier to keep everyone on task and they got far more into the actual story than they currently do with the larger group.
I ran a zombie survival game of 16 people. It ended with one of the players trying to drunkenly punch me in the driveway.
Most I ever had was 12 players and that was for a game where we wanted to play test a module for a game club event.
Usually average 5 players and a gm nowadays.
I'm doing a campaign with 7-8 members and 2 DMs, one mainly for story, one mainly for mechanics. Will this work?
>>43938779
Yes. I can speak from experience that assistant DMs are a big help in keeping a game running smoothly. That said, the story DM must shoulder at least some of the mechanical burden, and the mechanical DM must contribute to the story somehow.
>>43938853
That is what I was thinking, I plan to be the mechanic DM and teach the party (As well as the other DM) Pathfinder. I already have the core of the world set up somewhat and plot ideas but I will hand off the burden to him as I have troubles making a story before coming up with the perfect ending.
>>43939608
>Pathfinder
No wonder you need an assistant.
I've run a campaign with 11 players before. Worked better than you would expect. I kept combat to a minimum and when it did happen it was usually set up in a way where individual actions were less important than overall strategy.
Sure, half the group wasn't paying attention at a given time but they didn't need to. I managed to get most everyone involved each session and everyone had fun, so I'd call it successful.
Would NOT want to do it again though.
I can run a six player game. It's doable, but loud and about doubles my time required to get everyone back on track.
I've had a couple of very satisfying 2 player games that I've run, but they were one shots. I don't think I'd be comfortable running a campaign as such with less than three players.
However, in my experience, four players and a GM is definitely the best.
Worst time was when I invited a few players round to play games, invited a couple of extra people under the assumption that someone would drop out or not be interested. Nine people showed up because some friends were brought around as well. It was loud, it was difficult, people were getting hella bored because it took ages for turns to finish, there was crosstalk and often half the players were talking about something else and I couldn't get their attention.
Never again.
Six maximum.
I had consistently large groups for a long time, but more recently I've really enjoyed my really involved, enthusiastic three.
>>43937194
With the unrealistic assumption they all have the basic rules 100% down-pat, constantly pay attention, efficiently resolve their actions, and almost never devolve into bickering? Six. That's still pushing it, though.
With more realistic assumptions about players? Five, but it will work better with 2-4.
>>43937194
I have gmed 5,6, and 7. It is hell, with 5 being the best. 4 players sounds like bliss.
>>43940706
This guy's got it.
4 is such a good number for players. 6 is my maximum, unless it's for co-op war games.
>>43937194
Why are they all posing with their beers up? Why is it important for us to know they're drinking? I never understood why people hold up their drinks in pictures. It'd be different if I was making a toast or something and you took a picture of me. But if I'm just sitting at table drinking and you take my picture, I'm not gonna hold up my beer. I don't know why I'm so confused by this behavior. It's just weird to me.
>>43940914
>I don't know why I'm so confused by this behavior. It's just weird to me.
Because you have autism.
>>43940914
Have you honestly never heard of toasting
Or, say, gestures. Non-verbal communication? Any of this ringing a bell?
For me, it really, really depends on the group.
I will never DM for more than 6 people. Ever.
If the group is great about attendance and no one ever misses a session? 4 is perfect.
If there's regularly one person missing, even if it's a rotating person? 5.
Groups with 3 just...need way too much help to survive.
I'd probably never DM for 2.
1 player only if it'sERP.
>>43940963
I mentioned toasting as an exception in my post. I highly doubt these dudes were making a toast at their table. Pretty sure they're just drinking and gaming and someone decided to snap a picture, so they hold up their beers. I'm not saying it's bad. I just think it's weird that people do it.
>>43940967
GMing for a single player can actually be good fun. In my experience, it results in far deeper stories and better characters.
>>43937194
No more than 7.
>>43940984
Do you think it's weird that people smile at cameras too? Or that they strike poses, maybe stand slightly differently?
Maybe they were like "hey, let's have a picture of everyone having fun and do things that visually convey fun times are occurring" and your objection is they're not all dour-faced with their arms crossed.
>>43940914
>>43940984
Holding up one's drinks is a sign of respect or camaraderie, similar to toasting. If the other party doesn't have a drink (like someone looking at a photo), then simply holding up one's drink as if to toast is usually sufficient to convey the same idea.
>>43937442
This guy knows
>>43940984
Seriously, you might have genuine autism.
You know what it means when people wave, right? Or when they hold up two fingers, or give a thumbs-up? Holding up a drink is a similar gesture.
I can't believe I honestly had to spell that out for another human being.
>>43940991
I haven't actually been in a "True" one on one game, but in the ad eva game my group played a while backwhen we were all students with lots of free timewe'd do mini-sessions during the week with any combination of players just for more character interactions.
My GM and I did a whole multi-session flashback arc for my PC just cause we would get bored, and it was a blast.
>>43941026
I don't think it's weird for people to smile. It's just odd to me that holding up your beer is something people do in pictures, outside of a aforementioned example of toasting. I have no problem with people conveying emotion and I'm not mad that they're doing it. I just think it's odd.
>>43941039
Thanks.
>>43940967
Running one on one is fucking great for text-based over the internet
You get so much more in depth to a character and you also get to do fun things like dream sequences and "I have to save my family" without the whole table groaning
Not to mention it's slower paced and easy to do comparatively since one person's motivation is a lot easier to facilitate than three or, God-forbid, sixThough I'd try ERP with a faceless internet dweller because romance is one thing I cannot RP at all
10: Immeasurable Chaos
09: Maximal Chaos
07: Too Much Chaos
06: Controllable Chaos
05: Slight Chaos
04 Ideal
03: Slight Wistfulness
02: Controllable Sadness
01: Too Much Sadness
00: Immeasurable Sadness
>>43938195
Go on
I have a GM right now that once played a twelve person game. Each player had a long and connected backstory and put a lot of thought into their character. They started in a prison, and never made it out of the prison. One guy opened a nitro canister or something and lit a flame. It exploded, killing every one... except him. Game was over in fifteen minutes.
>>43941391
Troll of the year, all years.
>>43937263
this. any time a social group reaches 8 people it will inevitably split up to sub-groups of 4.
>>43938195
Which part of the body is 'the driveway' a euphemism for?
>>43937194
Depends on what system you are running and what your group is like. If you're running a rules-light system and your sessions involve a lot socializing between characters where they're sort of keeping each other entertained rather than staring you down waiting for what the orcs are going to do next or whatever, you could probably handle 10 people as long as they're not retarded.
With something like D&D I'd be really reluctant to go above 4. Not because it's too hard or anything, but because of how little time you end up actually playing as opposed to rolling for shit or looking things up.
I do 6 it's alright but they keep trying to bring more people i keep having to say no.
It sucks because they want to get their friends involved but i don't have the time for another game and anything above 6 is terrible
>>43940967
>Groups with 3 just...need way too much help to survive.
This one I never understand. People saying that things are "too hard" for the group.
Are they completely retarded and incapable of trying to tackle things they can handle? Do they never hire help? Or is the DM just too fucking lazy to run anything except pre-written adventures and refusing to adjust the encounters?
If my players show up with a street urchin, a senile scholar and a stablehand with a club foot, I figure out what sort of stuff they'd reasonably get involved in and something they might actually be able to handle, I'm not going to just throw them into a murderhobo dungeoncrawl and then bitch on /tg/ that my players are shit at making characters or that my group is too small.
>>43941484
Try to run something rules-light some time.
That's what I did when people wanted to bring in more players and some of them were completely new. We ended up basically never playing PF again because people were still having fun but without most of the out of character work.
>>43941560
This guy gets it. The guy he's responding to should be boiled in hot oil if he ever decides to get involved in gaming ever again.
>>43937251
Thread ended here, 5 is bad enough but any higher is just awful
>>43937194
>What is the maximum amount of players a GM should ever try to handle in one session?
Generally five is the maximum if we assume the GM is female. One player gets her mouth, one player gets her pussy, one player gets her ass, and she uses each hand to jerk off two additional players. You might be able to fit in a sixth player if the GM is sufficiently busty enough and the other players can make room for a tit fucker.
Only four if the GM is male.
>>43942066
>not going for triple anal
Leave /d/ and never come back.
>>43937292
/thread
Further question for the thread:
Do people think the concept of the four humors might play into the reason why 4 players is so often seen as the ideal?
>>43937194
I'm dealing with 7 in my online game. It's not so bad.
>>43943969
4 is ideal because the archetypical D&D party consists of a warrior, a mage, a thief and a cleric.
>>43937592
Having team a two player campaign, it can work out. You have to have a dedicated player base though.
Depends on the GM, system and players.
Dozen I'd say is about the max most combat orientated systems can handle, like D&D.
Side initiative with layered actions speed things up quite a bit in large groups, round robin just gets unwieldy and boring after a few players.
>>43944127
That's nice. How about for the rest of us who don't play D&D?
>>43944117
How do you manage communication?
My groups always have huge issues with accidentally talking over each other, starting at the same time, etc. if there are 4 or more people in the game.
Do you, like, take turns talking according to a rigid "out game initiative" list, or what?
There is a group at this local college running a DnD 5e with 8 people, but they have 2 DMs working together to build the story. They've been running weekly sessions for the past month and from what I hear they're having a great time and the campaign hasn't flown completely off the rails yet.
I'm in a group which has 7 players and the GM seems to cope OK, although one of them is a wallflower who rarely does anything unless prompted. We tried a session with one more guy and he wasn't able to really do anything with the GM being too distracted by everyone else. So I guess seven is that GM's maximum.
Minimum 4, maximum 6. Any more than that you'll not give players enough spotlight time
1440.
The game lasts 24 hours. Each player gets one minute EXACTLY to roleplay. There is no combat. Nothing but a brief short story for each, coming together eventually into a tale of 1440 special sowflakes, falling into a pile and disintegrating into a solid, grey mass of bland simplicity.
>>43945387
Honestly though, I'd love trying to run a game for 10+ people. The most I've run was 8 and it was a nightmare, but I was far less experienced back then, drunk, and one of the players tried to fuck a dragon's corpse.
>>43937194
Are these people related or is the underchin thing a common trait with nerds?
>>43945055
Well, that's really the reason, it likely stems from that dynamic. Five isn't uncommon,but as some other anons have posted, any more and it starts being small subgroups.
>>43937194
I was a first time GM and I tried to run mutants and masterminds; people told me it'd be good for what story I was trying to do. On top of that I had exactly one session under my belt as GM, none of really knew how to do M&M not even me, and I had gone almost 36 hours without sleep.
I invited four. One brought his wife, two were brothers and they invited two of their brothers. So seven.
They smashed through everything and then they got to the last boss. They were PL6(?) And I made him probably high 8, I added some powers because I didn't want him one shotted.
Instagibbed two players and the rest couldn't hit him for the rest of the night. One of my players had accidentally thrown one of my die in the trash, it was loud because there was wargaming, some nerd came up and tried to tell us we should play DnD instead because its better, and I missed out on the single stormcast in that one magazine.
Fuck that night. I didn't lose control or pass out or get drunk though. They were just bored. I still hate the little faggot who threw away my die, he's a thirteen year old edgelord who asks questions constantly
Give me patience lord for if you give me strength I'll kill the niglet
>>43942066
The funny part about this shitpost is that it concludes that 4 to 6 players is still the ideal amount to have, like the rest of the posts in this thread.
>>43943969
>>43944127
>>43945055
Actally I think >>43942066 might be on to something, even though most games don't degenerate into orgies. At least we're all thinking of fucking each other over at all times.
>>43937442
I've GM'ed 5 guys quite succesfully, the major issues were logistics and general noobness from everyone involved, myself included
Finding a time when everyone was able to play was problematic at times
Six, if this is one player's first-ever session.
Five otherwise. There's no game, no party that justifies more than 5 players.
>>43942066
>having a female GM without a big enough rack for titfucking
scrub
>>43937194
Most I've ever done was 6.
>>43937194
I've done 11 at parties I used to throw. Over the course of 7 birthdays, 3 thanks givings, 5 4th of julys and one one occasion and chaotic Christmas my group of Hyper Focused, incredibly well coordinated, and horribly under-prepared bumbling idiots managed to not only stop a cult, but still manage to accomplish said cults goal by accident AND destroy the world. They loved the whole game.
>>43937442
My DM ran with 6 players yesterday and it was perfectly fine. It's really about the players.
>>43945055
Okay, Street Samurai, Mage, Face and Decker instead.
I DM for 8 people at a time. It's a real slog and you have to pretty much be on at all times and not be afraid to lay down the law, but I've had experience before with handling large groups of children so handling a medium sized group of adults isn't as bad.
I remember Kevin Siembieda, of RIFTS and Palladium fame, claimed his favorite group size was between 8 and 12 players, and that he'd run a game every saturday night that had about 26 people, but would sometimes get up to 32.
I think Kevvie may be a bit full of it but jesus, I can't even imagine trying to run a group with 12 people, let alone more than 20.
>Join an online campaign
>Set in historical England, 14th century
>Make my character, typical Knight, has fought in the Crusades and come back victorious
>Join the roll20 room
>Immediately see something wrong
>29 players
>29 players and a GM
>What the fuck
>I decide the GM must be utterly insane and go with it to watch this clusterfuck
>Three fighters, five or so bards, two clerics(and no spellcasting), and around twenty something commoners, aristocrats, and the like. The party has basically no combat capability.
>First session begins
>We're on a pilgrimage to a shrine
>That's it.
>Just a shrine
>It's only about a week's ride away.
>First session is literally everyone sharing their character backstories, some Knight and some old lady with a bunch of dogs telling us what they've done.
>Realize that after two hours we're only through half the characters' backstories.
I left after the first session
>>43937442
Wrong. I've only been running games for 10 years and I can easily handle up to 7 players without wanting to shoot myself.
Then you get the other DM in the store and he's got 11 players. They have been in the same dungeon for 7 sessions now.
>>43952371
When that Aprill with his shoures sote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the night with open ye,
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages:
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmers for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, 9 couthe 10 in sondry londes;
And specially, from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The holy blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke.
>>43952371
Canterbury Tales. Try harder.
>>43940991
Sounds weird, unless youre playing a game for an audience
>>43952856
Nice job.
>>43952892 here. Wish I had read further before commenting.
>>43937194
4-6 generally
I have personally had 8 at one time, managed only because I kept their attention and extra talking to a minimum.
>>43940914
