Group Size and its Effect on Games

[New Start]

After listening to episode 53, I got to thinking about how group size impacts a game. Sure we all know how, large groups tend to be chaotic and unfocused. But what about the rest of the gambit? How does a group of 4 play differently then a group of 5? How does genre and mechanics influence a games size? Are the reasons why we look for a particular group size, based on habit, practicality, or something else entirely?

For example, the intimate one on one group. It’s an extremely practical group size if you think about it. You can easily find time to run a game when its just two people. The GM can incorporate more elements into the game, now that they only have one player to plan for. The atmosphere would not be as fragile as in larger groups, and the player could really immures them selves in the game. So why don’t we hear about this particular group? Is there something off putting about the idea of sitting alone with another person for 4 or more hours? Have years of gaming habit forced us not to even consider playing in a one on one game? It makes one wonder.

And that’s just one on one groups. What about two and three man groups? How do there numbers effect a game, if at all? This topic is kinda big, but also worth exploring much deeper. Your thoughts?

[Mckma]

I think 3 players and a GM would be my size of choice.  Of course, in my group of gaming friends there are like 7 other people I like to play with, so it would be kind of hard to work out.  Having an odd number helps prevent those deadlocks, and having a few people allows everyone "screen time."  However this was just a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head type of guess, so I may actually change my mind with more thought...

[clockworkjoe]

I don't have much experience with 1 player games - I enjoy seeing the players interact with each other. How will they deal with moral dilemmas, planning and so forth?

6 or more players is too many unless the game limits individual player abilities and does not place much emphasis on individual roleplaying and the rules are pretty simple to resolve

World of Darkness games are bad for large groups because it emphasizes individual roleplaying (humanity mechanics and so forth)
AFMBE is a good game for a lot of players because the rules are simple and the players are normal people
D&D can be ok if the rules are simple - low level characters and the players don't fucking dwaddle on their turn in combat
CoC is good if you aren't running a mystery because a large group is a herd of easily distracted sociopaths - they won't be able to figure out intricate mysteries or puzzles

3-4 is optimal - enough to get varied opinions and interplay between PCs but small enough for individual roleplaying

[crash2455]

I've played a couple 2-man games.  In MaOCT, 2-man games work out really well because each person can play the other person's monster, thus allowing for everyone to get screentime even if the kids are split up.

As far as most games go, I don't like to go above 4 players.  If I'm running something rules-lite, I can extend to 5 players, but that's about the limit of my strength before the game descends to madness.

It also makes me sad because Paranoia pretty much demands that you have 6 players (which I guess for what game it is, a little madness helps).

[Tadanori Oyama]

I find 3 players to be the ideal because it's just enough to allow the players to operate in a enough divisions to have options but doesn't give them enough to really gang up on anybody. Plus if people want to go in as partners there's somebody who's alone. You can split the party but it leaves somebody alone.

[Ezechiel357]

On solo-game (one to one):
Overall, I find it difficult more difficult to play/master, because it is intense and requires a constant concentration from both the DM and the player. The player is constantly under the spot light and has to come with idea and decide the next action. And if he cannot, the MJ has to "save" the game by guiding the player to the next scene. When there is more players, there is more "brain power" to drive the game and as DM, you only have to deal with the consequence of the player's choice instead of having to find ways to guide them (ideally without making it look too much "rail road").
It is probably because most of the game I master are focussed on roleplaying and investigation that I have this feedback. If it is a dugeoncrawler, it good be quite fun as the player has to really optimise and think strategy when confronting several monsters at the same time.
Also, the player has to remember everything, as nobody else will be there to remind him the critical bit of information he needs to understand/complete whatever task/situation is at hands.

There is another issue with solo game: they have to be tailor-made to the character to be sure that he has the skill/competencies/spells to get through it.

Two to three people: that's good numbers to have a mixture of abilities, different opinions and fast-pace action, without the downside of the solo-game.

Four people: it is my usual group size, you have a good mixture of abilities, some being redundant, making sure that if there is a critical test/roll to make, on will likely succeed, ensuring smooth transition to the next scene. It is also very interesting in term of RP since you can have stand off of 2 vs 2, and players have to sort out themselves how to weight one way or the other.
You might start to see some drifting as two players might engage in a non-game-related discussion, but that's easy to catch and bring back on track.

Five people: occasionnaly, I run game with 5 players, and I don't enjoy it has much. Drifting becomes more common, having to repeat and describe several times the same element increases, overally slowing down the pace of the game.

Above: Never tried, nor want to.

[Mckma]

I think the biggest problem I've had recently calling for my desire for 3 is that my "group" so to speak is 9 people I think (including myself).  The problem is not that there are a lot of people per se, it's that I can't get a regular commitment/attendance from everyone.  Once again not a big issue, but when the number can vary from 3 to 7, it's tough to really prep effectively.  For those in a similar circumstance (if any) do you have any suggestions?  What I'm going to try is organize via Facebook, thinking about not really running a long campaign (unfortunate, but potentially beneficial), and having a number of 2-3 session scenarios and one shots in mind, prepping each week depending on the number of players.  It will be interesting to see...

[Ezechiel357]

For those in a similar circumstance (if any) do you have any suggestions?

Yep, we had a similar problem in a game of Deadlands, with 10+ potential players.

We never played with the full group (thankfully !), the GM set the following rules:
- we were all part of the same posse (gang), hence knew each other and at least tolerate each other antics, so it was forbidden to make a complete antagonistic character;
- we had to admit that some characters would be phasing in and out, without in-game reason;
- there was a tacit "hive-mind" within the posse to allow characters to come in and out;
- when a scenario was lasting more than one session, half of the player of the next session should belong to the initial group;
- otherwise, we had an internet site, and first ones to register for the game where part of the next game (with the caveat of continuing game), and no, we did not accept "I am registering by default to every game", you had to do it each and every time;
- finally, the Gm was setting the number of player he was taking for each game, and no, no negotiation.


After a few months, natural trimming occured and we ended up with a core group of 5-6 players and we were taking turn, does playing 2-3 games in a row would make room for those who did not play in the previous game. Since we were playing every week, it means that possibly every three or four weeks, you had to pass your turn, which was hardly a problem since it was an opportunity to play in another game or watch a movie :-)

[New Start]

“On solo-games (one to one): Overall, I find it more difficult to play/master, because it is intense and requires a constant concentration from both the DM and the player. The player is constantly under the spot light and has to come with ideas and decide the next action. And if he cannot, the DM has to "save" the game by guiding the player to the next scene. When there is more players, there is more "brain power" to drive the game and as the DM, you only have to deal with the consequence of the players choices instead of having to find ways to guide them (ideally without making it look too much like "rail roading").” - Ezechiel357

Wow, I didn’t even consider what effect group size would have on the pacing of a game. Idle banter between players does give the GM a mental breath between narration. This is a good tie-in to episode 37.

“I've played a couple 2-man games.  In MaOCT, 2-man games work out really well because each person can play the other person's monster, thus allowing for everyone to get screen time even if the kids are split up.” - crash2455

Great! Where you the GM or a player? If you were the GM, did you choose ‘two man group’ for any particular reason? Did you have any of the problems that Ezechiel357 had? Did everyone have fun?

“I find 3 players to be the ideal because it's just enough to allow the players to operate in a enough divisions to have options but doesn't give them enough to really gang up on anybody. Plus if people want to go in as partners there's somebody who's alone. You can split the party but it leaves somebody alone.” - Tadanori Oyama

Do you think this group size curves ‘player logic’ responses to adversities? As in, “I’m going to point my gun in her face, because I think she mite be a cultist.”

Thanks for your input!

[crash2455]

Great! Where you the GM or a player? If you were the GM, did you choose ‘two man group’ for any particular reason? Did you have any of the problems that Ezechiel357 had? Did everyone have fun?

I was the GM.  The games were two-man games because we couldn't find any other players at the time.  Two players is not nearly as difficult as what ezekiel described a one-player game to be.  In fact, it's fairly easy to run because there can be a lot of solid RP between the players while you think of the next scene, but the players are pretty much always actively engaged in the game, so they stay focused and you don't have to keep explaining things.

[SageNytell]

The first game I uploaded to the Community podcast site is a game of Call of Cthulhu called A Pleasant Night in Emerald Grove, with ten players and one part player / part co-DM over four sessions. The other sessions are still waiting to be edited, the final session basically killed my desire to ever post it (semirelated nonsense with a breakup) but will be uploaded at some point in the indeterminate future. Two of the sessions were at full capacity, the first and last, and I think the game shows off that with certain systems, large groups can be done... but control does start to break down and the game may suffer because of it. The other session we uploaded was Well of Sacrifice, with four of the players from the big game, which was a lot more focused, a lot more fun to run, and I believe more fun for the players as well. Next week I'll be trying Wild Talents for the first time, and for that first session I'm actually just going with my two most experienced players, because I am not trying another system for the first time with 10 players.

A lot of things depend on group dynamics, as well. One of our players doesn't 'play nicely with others', as a kind way of putting it - putting her into a larger game exacerbates this, but in smaller groups it hasn't really been an issue. If your group has people who take charge, or work well together, upscaling might work better for you. Just realize that anything with combat more complicated than 'roll attack, roll damage' will take FOREVER with more than five or six people, especially if you're trying a new system with unfamiliar players.

My personal preference is about five players. We usually play with about six, and with various guests that number has ballooned to about twelve people with regular cameos factored in, so the next few months will be interesting with the new campaign I'm planning.

[Flawless P]

My usual group is around 7-8 people. The nights where we have only 5 we get alot more story stuff done but otherwise it still works out.

One of my groups I play in is only 4 with a 5th person who does regular appearances.

[AdriRaven]

My group is usually about 6 people, including myself.  Occasionally, two others join us for a grand total of eight, which fills the table we play at.  Bear in mind, that in general, three of those are very good roleplayers who will focus on the game and try to get things done and progress the story, whatever it may be.  The other two are generally the type who turn their brains off and either get off onto useless tangents at the drop of a hat, or get into useless and disruptive arguments at about that same rate.  Of the two off-members, one is a chaos-causer who instigates trouble not because it's what his character would do, but rather because he thinks it's funny to make the other players have to take up his slack.  The other one is a bit of a random fellow who can always be counted on to take simple instructions and go off into the most insane tangents.  In one game, upon being rescued from a sinking ship by a mermaid and taken to a small air pocketed cavern, the character was told to swim back outside, then go 'up and THAT way' to get to where he needed to go.  Said character happened upon a boat that was going the opposite way, and tried to smuggle himself aboard, despite it going the wrong way.  Long story short, he managed to get himself killed and the ship sunk after he was discovered by the crew.

That last episode pretty much took up most of our night as the ST was trying desperately to give him enough of a clue to get back with the group...  Leaving us with nothing to do but twiddle our thumbs and groan.  In a smaller group, I expect that the problem players are a little easier to deal with, because you can more readily skip around and not lose too much momentum.  It's hard enough trying to cope with a large group of good players, but when you add problem players and size, it gets dangerous in a hurry.

[New Start]

I think the biggest problem I've had recently calling for my desire for 3 is that my "group" so to speak is 9 people I think (including myself).  The problem is not that there are a lot of people per se, it's that I can't get a regular commitment/attendance from everyone.  Once again not a big issue, but when the number can vary from 3 to 7, it's tough to really prep effectively… - Mckma

That is definitely another problem with large groups, the more people you have, the harder it is to schedule a session that all the players can make it to. And when players start having to keep day planners to remind them there‘s a game, it can really kill the fun of it.

The first game I uploaded to the Community podcast site is a game of Call of Cthulhu called A Pleasant Night in Emerald Grove, with ten players and one part player / part co-DM over four sessions. The other sessions are still waiting to be edited, the final session basically killed my desire to ever post it (semi related nonsense with a breakup) but will be uploaded at some point in the indeterminate future. Two of the sessions were at full capacity, the first and last, and I think the game shows off that with certain systems, large groups can be done... but control does start to break down and the game may suffer because of it… - SageNytell

Hm, I will half to give that a listen to. It sounds like it will be educational. What made you want to run for ten people?

World of Darkness games are bad for large groups because it emphasizes individual role-playing (humanity mechanics and so forth). - Clockworkjoe

This gets me a little worried. I’m planning to run a Changeling: the Lost campaign this May, but I have six people that want to play in it. Now I’ve run and played enough WoD games to know that keeping the horror in, can be a challenge. However, I don’t want to disallow anyone from joining.
I have thought about splitting the group in two, and running two different games of the same setting; but I wanted to here your thoughts on how to deal with this dilemma?

[SageNytell]

Hm, I will half to give that a listen to. It sounds like it will be educational. What made you want to run for ten people?

Self-destructive masochistic tendencies. I'm going to try to upload Episode 2 tonight or tomorrow, it had the smallest group and the biggest scares.