What's the minimum number of players necessary for a solid group? Excluding the GM...

What's the minimum number of players necessary for a solid group? Excluding the GM, how many different party members are needed in order to run a good game? One of my friends says GM+four, but I think you only need GM+three people to have a well-rounded group.

I'd say GM+3 is the minimum, but it depends on the people a lot. Quiet people are basically useless

Three at the minimum, four is best in my opinion. Five is OK but can get unwieldy. 6+ is for people who think they're good enough for 6+ they aren't.

One on one games can be some of the best around. Especially for evil or thieving campaigns, because you get a lot more time for character development and character-specific goals.
The player and GM have to really click, though.

>God tier 3 or 4
>okay tier 2 or 5
>shit tier 6+
>weird tier 1

I'd agree with this.

Though I've run pretty successfully with 2, but that was Vampire and intrigue.

All have their distinct advantage, there's no clear answer.

>GM+2
Tends to share the spotlight evenly between both players and the games tend to be very tightly focused. This is assuming they form an interesting team. But if you're running a two player game, I'm going to assume that you've filtered your players well.

>GM+3
Needs a tightly knit group of friends out of game to work, or one person becomes the third wheel. You're likely going to see one player taking the protagonist role, whoever they're closest to in game generally becomes the deuteragonist and then finally you're going to see the third wheel become the lancer. Without a tightly knit group, you just get two people and an awkward third wheel.

>GM+4
Is your best bet when your guys don't know each other as well, or you've got one guy who distinctly lags behind and tends to get fourth wheeled. While it usually falls into the same tropes as the three person party, the third wheel can easily just pair up for an interesting dynamic with the fourth. The large number of players also pretty much necessitates spotlight sharing.

Two is the absolute minimum for most things, and that's assuming everyone is giving 100% all the time.
Three is probably what I'd call the soft minimum, and two the hard minimum.

GM+4-5

This is the magic number for most games - you cover all the skill gaps, you always have enough if someone has to miss, you can still track individual resources, and at least one person will be "on" in a session. I find this to be the best group size for me regardless of game.

Even board games are best with 5-6 people.

I've run good sessions with 2 players but with even one shitty player the entire thing falls to shit, so really 3 players is the minimum.

This is my first campaign and I have 6 players, it's not really a problem but I would definitely prefer 4 or 5.

as other have said 3 minimum for is probably the best anything higher is just begging for trouble, Christ I remember one time where we got 8 people for a 3.5 game and that was a total fustercluck the fact we managed to kill 3 flying books in 4 hours still amazes me to this day.

>8 people for a 3.5 game

You poor unfortunate souls.

It's funny, they used to have 10+ groups in the early days of D&D, but the game was so much faster and simpler that it wasn't a big deal.

the funny part was that we started with 4 and things were going fine but people just kept trickling into our DM's house until it became utterly unmanageable

I like 2, summed it up pretty well. I mostly like investigative games so it feels like a buddy cop/PI duo game without having three or four different narratives going on at once.

5+GM is ideal. It allows you to develop a multi faceted plot while still leaving room for players to lean back and listen, and it completely avoids 'lost' players who only say something if their character attacks every other session. More can work, but it becomes an issue.

Less than 3+GM becomes too intimate. Single players get too much power over the overall story and everybody is always in the spotlight. It can work with good friends or with clearly set boundaries like at a convention. But it depends on the individual player and the group dynamic much more than a game with more players would. For a typical RPG experience, less than 3 players can be detrimental.

I've handled 8+ players and have played 1 on 1. It's still a game. There's no wrongbadfun. But experience teaches that problems arise and GMs should be aware of it when inviting players. Particularly so if it could compound other issues within the group.

A GM and 3 or 4 players is the sweet spot for standard play, but you can do with less. Some of my favorite campaigns have been 1-on-1 affairs, but you need a really a good, active role-player, who you have a good dynamic with, and obviously, you have to approach the game a bit differently.

Regardless, your friend is wrong. GM+4 players is a lot closer to being a maximum than a minimum. Adding more players quickly gets clunky, and it starts taking forever to do anything. I always get antsy with 5 players, and would prefer a smaller group, but I'll still do it. 6 players? Not even interested, unless I have reason to believe that somebody will end up drop out in short order, or that we'll almost never have a full complement of players.

Pic is a horse shooting lasers from his eyes.

Between games of 1 player and 2 players, there is a massive change. Between games of 2 players and 3 players, there is a pretty big change. From then on, it's incremental. It's just that once you pass 4 players, things are incrementally shittier.

3+GM is always the minimum. 4+GM is perfect,in my experience and opinion. 5+GM are still manageable if you're a good,experienced DM, but larger groups are basically impossible and things tend to go out of control.

Minimum for a solid group? 3, ideally you want 4-5 though.

I would say three is the minimum. With two, you have to rely too heavily on them working together exactly right. Three or more allows enough space for some healthy party conflict, voting on course of action, etc.

Four I would consider ideal. It's a better version of three and it also gives you breathing space if someone is having an off night or can't attend. At five or more I think you're going to start struggling to keep everyone involved. Five is still doable, but it just ramps up from there in difficulty.