You can’t play an RPG without players. Plus, we all love RPGs and want to share with other people how awesome they are, so it’s always tempting to invite just one player to your game.
But every player you add to your table comes with an inevitable and unavoidable entropic cost.
Take your total amount of playing time and divide it by the number of players: That’s the maximum amount of spotlight time — the maximum amount of focus — that you can give to each player. The more players you add, the less time each player has. You can speed things up, you can cheat a bit around the edges with multitasking and other advanced techniques, but ultimately, no matter how good a GM you might be, you’ll reach a point where individual players are no longer able to participate enough to have a good time.
A fairly concrete example of this is the typical round-based combat system: A player takes their turn and then must wait for everyone else in the fight to take their turn before they can take their next turn. Consider a table with ten players: Even if you got the per-turn resolution speed down to a fairly fast two minutes per turn, it would still take twenty minutes to go around the table. In practice, of course, it’s even worse, because the bad guys also need to take a turn, and the more PCs you have in the party, the more bad guys you need to have in the fight. Once again, you can cheat this with stuff like off-turn actions (although these typically only increase the length of a combat round), but only to a point.
Imagine an episode of a television show in which a character was onscreen for just a couple of minutes. You’d consider that a bit part, right?
That’s what having a too-high player count at your table does: It turns every player into a bit part.
Another problem you’ll run into is niche protection: It’s very easy for an RPG group to fall into a pattern of “let the PC with the highest skill bonus do it.” This sidelines other PCs, but you can route around it in practice by having different PCs be the best at different things, so that everybody gets a turn at being the PC with the highest skill bonus (metaphorically or literally).
As player count increases, though, you start to run out of niches. Some RPGs are better at niche protection than others, but at a certain point you’re also dealing with scenario dynamics that extend beyond the mechanics: How many fundamentally different types of activities are there to do in a dungeon? Or while solving a mystery? Or during a heist?
Once you run out of niches, each additional player increases the risk of your game entering a fail state in which a PC is never the best at a given task, and therefore the player never gets to do anything: The bit player becomes a background extra.
THE SWEET SPOTS
If this entropic cost was the whole story, of course, the logical conclusion would be that the ideal RPG group would always have exactly one player. And that doesn’t sound right, does it?
The reality is that there are other factors at play in determining the ideal group size. (Pun intended.) Perhaps the best way to look at these factors is to run through the various group sizes, including the features and weaknesses of each in turn.
Some GMs will have one specific “sweet spot” for group size that they’re always trying to hit. I tend to think more in terms of, “What’s right for this game/group?” Nevertheless, this discussion will, inevitably, be shaped by my own biases, so take it with however many grains of salt you feel are necessary.
I’ll also note that the player counts here do NOT include the Game Master.
ZERO. There are an increasing number of solo-play RPGs and STGs, allowing you to get your narrative tabletop fix without any other players at all. These games have a unique dynamic and they don’t always scratch the same itch as running a game for players (or playing a game with a GM), but they do have the obvious advantage of being able to play whenever you want to.
ONE. One GM, one player. This table obviously has no problems with spotlight balance and it creates a very intimate experience. This intimacy, however, also creates intensity: The GM never gets a break while the players talk to each other, and the player, similarly, can never slip into the audience stance and recharge their creative batteries. I recommend taking breaks more frequently.
The other problem with having only one player is fragility. Combat is once again the easy example: When you have multiple PCs, a single PC getting knocked down to 0 hit points is a minor problem. When you only have one PC, on the other hand, it’s a campaign ending disaster. (So you’ll want to be very conservative when balancing combat encounters, try to frame fights with non-lethal stakes whenever you can, and probably limit the number of fights in general.)
This fragility, however, is not limited to TPKs. Consider a mystery scenario in which a clue has been hidden under a rug: For the clue to be found you just need one player to realize they should check under the rug. When you have lots of players, that’s lots of opportunities for the clue to be found, but with only one player you’re far more likely to run into blind spots. Plus, the single player has no one they can take things through with and no downtime to ponder things quietly without the GM staring at them, further limiting their ability to brainstorm problems.
TWO. Playing with a pair of players is still fairly intimate. There’s still a lot of fragility with only two PCs, but the players can now bounce ideas off of each other, which helps non-combat fragility a lot. (Two heads really are better than one!)
In practice, this dynamic also substantially dials down the intensity: The players will talk to each other, giving the GM a break. Focused interactions between the GM and one of the players are likely to alternate, giving each player the ability to intermittently slip in audience stance, relax, and regroup.
THREE. This is a very weak group size for me. It lacks the focus of one or two players, but combat fragility remains dangerously high. (This is not, to be clear, a specific mechanical problem: It’s a more fundamental issue of what happens when a group simultaneously loses one-third its firepower and the bad guys refocus their attacks on the remaining two PCs.)
If I’m looking at a group of three players, I will almost always try to figure out how to drop down to two players or step it up to four players.
FOUR. Having four players seems to be the sweet spot for a lot of GMs, and if we look at the issues we’ve been discussing, this probably isn’t surprising. Combat fragility is greatly reduced with four PCs and there are plenty of players to bounce ideas around. Everyone at the table has the opportunity to take short breaks, update their notes, or slip into audience stance during play, but it’s fairly easy to protect niches and balance spotlight time.
FIVE. To put my cards on the table, this is probably my default sweet spot. The dynamics of play remain very similar to four-player groups, but with one important difference: There’s an odd number of players.
This might seem like a minor difference, but in my experience, it has a huge impact when splitting the party. (And you should always split the party.) With four players, the group will always split into pairs, and at many tables they’ll end up being the same pairs every time. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a limited dynamic.
With a five-player table, on the other hand, the three-two divide has an inherent imbalance that seems to naturally lead the players to ask, “Which task needs the extra person?” This creates unstable sub-group formation, so over the course of a campaign you’ll end up with lots of different mixes of PCs. You’re also more likely to see some solo split-offs (four-one) and three-group splits (two-two-one or three-one-one). This not only creates a larger range of strategic decisions, it also results in a wider array of party dynamics, creating unique roleplaying opportunities between the players.
SIX. This is a maximum group size that I’ll run for, and I’ll usually only do it if there’s a special reason for the extra player. Basically, there doesn’t seem to be any advantage to running a six-player group compared to a four- or five-player group, but the entropic effects of player count really start kicking in here for me: Combat encounters become more difficult to balance. It’s increasingly difficult to keep things moving at the table fast enough so that players don’t become bored.
Once I get to seven or eight players, things start falling apart pretty quickly. You can certainly muddle through, but the experience is fundamentally compromised for everyone at the table compared to more manageable player counts.
The largest number of players I’ve personally run an RPG for was twelve. To make matters worse, it was a session of 1974 D&D in which most of the PCs had hirelings, sometimes multiple hirelings! The total party size was actually twenty-four characters!
It was a unique and fascinating experience. I don’t regret it. But I definitely didn’t want to repeat it!
I HAVE SO MANY PLAYERS!
Okay, despite my imprecations (and perhaps your best intentions!), you find yourself with an unmanageable number of players. The exact count we’re talking about will depend on your preferences, your skill, your game system, and your group, but unmanageable is unmanageable.
What should you do?
SPLIT THE TABLE
Eight players are unmanageable, but two tables with four players each would be awesome. So the easiest thing would be to just split up the unmanageably large group into multiple smaller groups.
The two major disadvantages, of course, are that (a) the players don’t all get to play with each other and (b) now you need to prep and run two separate campaigns.
OPEN YOUR TABLE
You can expand on the concept of splitting your table by opening your table: Instead of having a dedicated group in which all of the players meet for every session, you instead boot up a campaign where players can show up whenever they’re available and you can run an adventure for whatever the impromptu group ends up being.
If you’ve already got an unmanageable number of players, then you’ve already got a solid player base for a great open table. Even better, an open table empowers you to invite even more players to your game!
Of course, your goal is to keep your player counts manageable, so you’ll want to impose a table cap for each session.
At first glance, it might seem as if this would mean that players would end up playing less, but the quality of that play will be substantially higher. And if you have a group that only plays if a certain quota of players is met, an open table can paradoxically result in every player actually getting to play more as the open table organically routes around scheduling conflicts.
The process for this is described in more detail as part of the Open Table Manifesto.
A SECOND GM
One way to turn the unmanageable into the manageable is to get more hands on deck managing it.
There are a number of different ways that a second GM – or, more accurately, a GM team-up – can be used to good effect, but one is to bring larger player counts under control.
This only works with very specific set-ups, though. Ideally, you want to be able to split the party. (In fact, you’ll want to encourage the players to do so.) And you’ll want to have a second playing space so that the second GM and their section of the group can step away and play separately.
This effectively doubles up large sections of your playing time, allowing you to steal a march on the clock.
MULTIPLE PCs
On the other end of the spectrum, what if you don’t have enough players? (Just one or two players, for example.)
You can, of course, adjust your scenario design to accommodate a small PC group, but this can be surprisingly difficult. (Ironically, games designed to protect niches for larger groups may make it difficult or impossible for a single PC to do everything required for a successful session.)
Apply enough elbow grease, of course, and you can always make it work somehow. A more straightforward approach, however, can be to simply have each player play multiple characters.
It should be noted that this can be quite difficult for players. Some players just won’t enjoy the character-swapping, since it can be disruptive to what they enjoy about a roleplaying game. But if it works, it’s a great way to make smaller gaming groups viable!
Even if you have players who don’t want to (or can’t) take on the challenge of multiple PCs, hirelings played by the GM may be another option. This, too, can be quite difficult, particularly with everything else you’re juggling as a GM, but it can be another easy option if it works for you.
I largely agree with your sentiments. I have played/run all options.
My absolute favourite game that has been running for over 30 years is a 1:1 experience where I am a player. It is very intense, can get very emotional and the GM can really turn up the NPCs, roleplaying, character development and long-term pay-offs. Indeed you are right – in that game there is a fight every few sessions as the game tends to focus on the roleplaying and elaborate, grand plans with massive pay-offs, avoiding the need for a fight. It helps that the DM is one of the best world-builders I have ever come across. Devastatingly good at his job… and yeah… he is awful as a player 🙂
I try and be as good as him and bring in the depth to the games I run – but you are right with multiple players there are a whole slew of different dynamics and it becomes a totally different game.
The sweet spot of 4-5 players rings true for me too. Six is a tough call just manageable.
One thing to consider is your ability for players to actually turn up. Very often we are down a player, so a 6 player game ends up becoming more manageable and we don’t suffer the “missing niche” issue. 5-6 players gives you freedom to carry on without cancelling a session. (BLASPHEMY!!!)
One thing I can actually add to your article is managing NPCs in this mess:
Most parties will gather a couple of plot related/pushing NPCs, hirelings, friends, familiars or hangers-on.
How I handle NPCs and non-attending players depends on player count. With 4 or
less players these get played like PCs and partake in combat as the slow down is acceptable and they are often needed.
If we have 5-6 players actually at the table I say up front that these guys will not be in the combat… it is not realistic, but the focus is keeping the game free flowing and fun.. so “screw narrative dissonance” on this occasion!
Instead I give my players an option on their turn; they can take it as normal or grab an NPC and run them instead on their normal initiative count. This does not slow things down any and gets the NPCs (or missing PCs) involved. This is particularly useful if the NPCs actions are likely to be more fun than their own action. i.e. the wizard who has run out of spells.
They are not “roleplaying” the NPCs – they are just using them in combat, so it rarely results in a problem.
I think may GMs shy away from this as they feel it is “not a pure experience” but when I GM I am not there to run the game as written, I am there to facilitate people having fun around the table. So some “gamey shortcuts” make sense.
Is there an article somewhere in the archives about running a game with multiple GMs? Some friends and I are floating the idea for a multi-GM West Marches game, and I’m looking for any advice I can about this concept.
Another drawback of combat with a high player count is that time between turns increases the likelihood that players lose track of their plans and priorities, making it progressively harder to keep turn time down. In my experience, seven is the absolute maximum for this – if we had any non-game interruption, the players would have to reorient.
With eight to ten, which I’ve never had to GM but did play in for a campaign, there was just no way for players to stay focused for fifteen minutes no matter how engaging the narration.
I will be running a one-shot table for 11 players in a short (2 hour) session tomorrow. I plan on doing a couple of things.
1. The players will be in 2 different groups that meet up in the same location (one is tomb raiders – the other a group of historians looking for an artifact). This gives them different focus and objectives for some of the encounters – they will be using different skills to solve different problems along the way.
2. I will be using the Dread Jenga mechanic to keep the intensity up and to help keep players engaged when it is not their turn. When the Jenga tower topples on your turn you set it back up and some “event” happens – i.e. everyone makes a Dex Sv. as ice stalactites rain down from the cave ceiling. When the Jenga tower is on the table everyone is focused on what is happening or going to happen. I also have a “bag of tiles” players can pull from instead which have random events or blanks on the tiles to make sure people who do not like coordination games or are not able to play coordination games are able to be involved as well.
3. Most encounters won’t be combat – they will be skill challenges, roleplay encounters, etc.
4. No initiative – players go first around the table.
5. When there are combat encounters there will be “puzzles” to help defeat the boss or turn on/off some mechanism etc. Some players will be fighting the boss toe-to-toe some will be engaging in other mechanics to help “solve the problem.” I have a player who does not like combat and will not engage in combat – this player is making me a better GM 🙂
It’s not ideal – but I run a D&D Club at a school and this week we are short some DMs. I ran it last week for 9 players and the kids had a blast. 11 will be great too 🙂
Three players is my personal sweet spot, with four players as my favored maximum. We’re a really roleplay-heavy group, though, so three makes for the greatest RP time versus managing decision paralysis between them. Five players struggles with my players interrupting each other or getting bored quickly in combat.
Also, somehow I always end up with a GMPC that folks picked as their favorite/love interest so that basically means I never worry about player fragility 😛
Doing a one player one gm weekly D&D is a great way to bond with one’s partner. Ask me how I know ;D
Sidekicks. I ran a campaign that started with 5 players, and over 2 years dwindled to 2 players but also picked up followers (dnd 3.5) that kept the PC count around 4 to 5. Not DM controlled, player controlled extras that were simpler and less powerful so their main PC was the focus but their sidekick helped balance combat and overall utility.
Also, we tend to aim for 5 players nowadays simply because often someone is away or sick or whatever so our campaign can have 5, or 4, or sometimes even just 3 players for a session but we can still play and enjoy a regular session without having to cancel or reschedule just for one person.
Lastly, those few sessions with 3 players, are often the most memorable and fun for the players (this is a shared option I’ve heard and personally experienced) – more spotlight time and also more challenging, so don’t be afraid as the GM to run them when they come up.
Groups of 3 can also suffer from 3rd-wheel-syndrome, particularly where 2 of the 3 have some pre-existing bond (long time pals, life partners, etc). That 3rd player is going to get out-voted every time.
@Eric:
I actually have the opposite issue with 3-player groups. I have a bad habit of monopolizing decision-making, so lately, I’ve tried to play very philosophical (or irresponsible) characters who sit back and provide commentary during intra-party debates, but don’t try to choose plans. But in a 3-player group – and I am currently in two of them – the other players will consistently polarize into two definitionally equal camps, leaving me to play tiebreaker and ruining my whole effort.
I like 3. You get varied opinions and skillsets. Just make sure there’s 3 relationships, not one and a tagalong.
One thing that’s worth considering for player count is the system you’re running. In particular, 3e and later D&D and Pathfinder (and I’m sure other systems I’m less familiar with) have encounter balance mechanisms built around the number of PCs in the party, and the standard they assume is 4. When you have more or less players, then, you need to adjust the encounters to fit the balance for that group size. However, because the standard group math is for 4 players, adding 1 more or 1 less player often makes the math awkward. In my experience, 4 and 6 are the easiest sizes to GM these systems for in this respect, because it’s easy to add a third monster to an encounter with two monsters in it, or make a boss slightly tougher.
I’d also point out too many NPC’s can be an issue. having heard horror stories of WW games of nothing happening for an entire session but a parade of NPC’s on the train. not conflict, definitely not fighting, but just intro after intro after intro (like the scene of Agatha Christies Murder on the Orient express character intro taking up 4 hours!!!).
it didn’t quite as there was a 30 minute interlude of the DM and his girlfriend talking in character.
Definitely a pacing/infodump problem. and one wherein the players need telepathy to understand what the Dm’s goal was as well.
Have some in your pocket.
have some random generation tables for filler NPC’s and go really play, not prep.
@Arivia: Pathfinder 2e has rules explicitly for this. Encounters are built based around an EXP “budget”, with each monster costing a certain amount of EXP based on its level relative to the players. The more players you have and the harder you want the encounter to be, the more EXP you have in the budget, and vice versa. And likewise, as you add or remove players you increase or decrease the EXP budget for each “difficulty” of combat.
It’s honestly such a robust system, especially with how tight the math is. If the math says it’s a Severe encounter, it’s probably going to down a player.
@Alexander Anotherskip Davis: As a rule of thumb I try to avoid introducing more than one NPC per scene. And as another rule of thumb, if I run into a scene where I need an NPC to establish something I always go through my list to try and find an existing NPC I could reuse. Can’t always stick to that rule, sometimes you just *have* to have multiple NPC’s or introduce a one-off, but it helps keep the cast in check.
I’m the anti-Alexandrian I guess. 1 person is my absolute favorite followed by three. If I have two, I’ll either split to a pair of 1-player games or recruit up to a three-player game. I go up to 8, but I really don’t like going over 5.
One reason for the difference, I think, is that I don’t use balanced encounters. The difference in lethality for a party or a soloist is irrelevant when the power scales of the players and NPCs are far enough apart. I also train my players in every game (except TFOS and others without lethal mechanics) to treat every fight as potentially deadly. So they don’t always assume they can win. Which means when they’re solo they are already used to approaching situations in a variety of ways.
Hi, Alex! Great writing! I play via internet on a live chat and, ironically, my favourite party sizes are respectively three > one > two > four pretty much regardless of system. Five I will not run to since I then begin to have trouble multitasking between two different scenes and begin to have to pause one to run another.
I do not enjoy four-player games because this is where the “party” mentality begins, which greatly cripples the intimacy I try to create in table. I’ve found out that three is where people still consider the group small enough to worry less about “the party” as a whole and more about the actual individuals they’re interacting with. However, sometimes, a party mentality is desired so it’s not entirely out of my deck. i.e. games where players are supposed to be a team sent by a bigger and more powerful organization.
To why I like three better than two, it is because two-player structures are too fragile. A lot of people don’t know how to play duo dynamics and roleplay as if they were on a bigger group rather than just having literally a single ally they can rely on, which basically means “not taking enough initiative and just laying out options for others to take”. Almost all duo experiences I had, but one, were a side-character just there tagging someone else to help when called. And frankly if I wanted a protagonist I would have made this a 1:1 to begin with 😛
That one duo that went well was fantastical, though, and it was both my first time GMing to those players and the first time the two of them ever met. It was a murder mystery and both were very competent, just had different skillsets, so when they could, they would break down problems in two parts and each would go act on their niche.
For me 4 > 3 > 5 > 2 > 1 > 6.
I would enjoy 2 and 1 games but I’m not ready for it, 3-4 means players take some of the load. 5-6 works is it’s fairly relaxed, everyone knows what they’re doing, and there’s not too much turn taking, but that’s not usually the case. 4 seems to work very well, I haven’t played enough for the problems with polarising to manifest, compared to the logistical problems of smaller or larger groups.
I think “three really engaged players” or “five players who come 80% is the time” would also work well. And have some benefits. For me four does have some problems, when the group isn’t QUITE full enough for evolve to have things going on, but trying to run full time with 3 or 5 hasn’t worked better
Another advantage of going from four to five is that it’s easier to adapt when one player can’t make it to a session. When I’m running for 4/5 players, I probably won’t change much; with 3/4, I’ll probably be rebalancing some encounters.
This all seems accurate, and I say that as someone who runs two long running games whose players counts have gone as high as 10, but have never been lower than 7 (barring a session where some people are missing for whatever reason). And because they like my npcs, they tend to have a small horde of npcs running around after them.
It’s really difficult. And there are lots of down sides (namely, making content that is both winnable, and challenging to upwards of 10 hero characters, and keeping track of everyone’s…everything, especially in combat) but we’ve been doing it for the better part of 10 years and we have a flow. That said, we are adjusting things all the time to try to make it easier, and my players have figured out how to maximize their moments. When I’m on my game, I feel like I do a good job of moving the focus from person to person, and queuing people for their moments. Pacing is prime, and when I do a good job, my players do too. When I’m not on my game, it can be a real slog, and those sessions suck. That said, with that many players, if even three people don’t show up, I have a full party. We almost never have to cancel a game.
With a party that large, itt helps to adjust your story telling expectations. You can still have moments of roleplay and depth, but they will be more like a beat than a full scene or something. It also works best outside of dungeon play. I’m just finishing a long run through the Tomb of Annihilation, and it’s been really fun, but it’s clearly not designed for upwards of eight characters wandering its narrow halls. That said, I made it harder to scale with their capabilities, and that has been a fun challenge. The whole voyage to the Tomb was much more dynamic for the larger group, they could split up (both in time and space, sometimes being a few hours or days apart) and we could bounce back and forth, but have enough separation that people were curious about what was happening with the other group, but not feel like they were missing out. Where if they are just on the other side of the room, there can be five people running across the room to check out what’s going on.
I will say, the one method I found to keep combat dynamic and interesting was the Phase System, I found on a blog I cannot remember. But it basically separates all combatants into groups, and then once those have been established, the combat runs through the groups and each group basically gets a turn. Within that, all participants essentially declare an action. Actions are resolved at the same time, with individual initiative rolls for things that would cancel each other out. Things like legendary actions and lair actions become a little wild, but it is some of the most intense and dynamic combat I’ve ever played, and none of the players are ever bored, or have any down time at all really. OF course after those sessions, I was as crispy as burnt bacon, so we had to take a break from it. But I’ve received many requests to bring it back.
I also run a smaller game that has 4-5 players, and I’ve found that really is the sweet spot when it comes to storytelling and roleplay. You can really dig into a scene, and people can really sink into their moments without taking much away from the other players. This can be achieved with a larger group, but it requires pretty gracious behavior from your players, and they all have to be as invested in everyone else’s story as much as their own. Which is a pretty tall order at the best of times.
But even after having done this for many years now, and with no plans to stop, I have to agree that 4-5 is best.
IME, one-on-one play doesn’t benefit from a strong GM role. The traditional hierarchy/role division only begins to really help once you hit three people (one GM and two players).
As for the higher end, I’ve been in a couple of games with greater than six players (one as GM, one as a player) and have definitely felt the strain. Often, one only even gets to player counts that high by taking in players who are troublesome or less than serious, further harming the experience.