Number of players

1: Not enough info for me to say
2: Extremely fast and focused, many chances for deep character exploration especially if your players are good and knowledgeable, but common games may assume more players and thus may need adjustment
3: Fast, focused, and you can still play common games without much tweaking
4: Average. Can slow down a lot if your players hem-haw or don't remember game rules, but games tend to assume this number
5: Slower, easy to lose focus and derail when so many people have to share the GM's attention. Party splits and slow/indecisive/shy/inattentive players can each be quite damaging to session enjoyment.
6: Too many. Unless your group is far above average, this will go very slowly. GMs may have trouble keeping up. Cohesion can be weak
7+: Way too much. Just don't bother. Some players will barely have a chance to play.

I say 2-3 is optimal, 4 is okay, 5 is acceptable in fringe cases (i.e. very high-quality players), and 6+ is strongly not recommended

3 for me, it keeps the game quick while still allowing for dynamic interactions with the players

2 is possible if the players are generally of a similar level of experience, and willing to both carry the story.

I kind of prefer 3 in a lot of circunstances. It helps keep things smaller and more focused, and often has better party dynamics both in and out of combat as missing a role will force the players to think on their feet more and having only 2 other party members means each player can have more focus on how their character feels about each.

If you gonna play a game of challenges, then you need enough players to fill the niches the game creates. Generally, 4 or 5, but depends on the game.
But if you want to get deep into the characters and develop his goals and personalities, i think the number is 3. Roleplaying games are turn-based games, and less players are better suited for long turns

Always one GM.
At least two stangers.
At most five friends.

That's my general philosophy and i don't mean you need strangers there. It's just that if you don't know the players it's better to keep them few.

My ideal group would still be a tight knit friends group of preferably three players and one GM. Cosy.

Do you dm? I'll play a 1-1

Depends on the GM, the format and, to a lesser extent, the system. Generally I prefer 4 to 5 when I'm GMing: I play online, so it's not uncommon for someone to miss a session, and if I have 4 players, I can run the game even if someone is missing(unless the upcoming session is of particular importance or a certain player is expected to play a major role in it).

Needing to fill "roles" is only important if you have a bad GM who can't adjust the encounters and the campaign accordingly.

I enjoyed playing as a GM with 3 motivated players the most

From my expreience I'd say especially in RP heavy sessions someone always comes short with more players

Not really. Having all the roles present gives a DM a far greater tactical and storytelling flexibility. You can of course have a campaign missing some roles but you have to limit yourself and stay away from some tactics. 4 or 5 people covering all the roles is the sweet spot.

For those playing with 3 or less. How do you handle encounters? Does the party have NPCs or companions to aid them in battle?

I would think a 3 man party would have trouble with any encounter with higher than 5 enemies.

I've never been in actual 1 on 1 campagn or game, but one campaign I had was such that characters were separate more than they were together, so sessions were mostly GM jumping through all of us having 1 on 1 scenes.
Even that was really heavy. Even short scenes took from me a lot more as a player than normal group scenes. Also in situation like that, there is no way out if you are tired or not in mood. In group scenes it's easy to delegate decision making and talking to other players and just go through the motions yourself.

I'd love to play or run 1 on 1 game at some point of my life, but I also question if I have what that takes as a player or GM.

Not all games are focused around clearing combat encounters.

>Playing games with MMO "roles"
>Playing games with clunky rules that shit themselves if you have more than 4 players
>Playing games that require a GM

Veeky Forums twenty years behind the curve, as usual

That's not what I'm asking.

I just don't run DnD

It's generally a non-issue, as long as you don't expect them to handle hard encounters as well as a 4 man party would.

I think the sweet spot is 3, really, but I tend to aim for 4 for whatever reason. I can't really put into words the social engineering shit my brain is running in the background when choosing for how many people to run, but I tend to find the idea of 2 player or just 1 on 1 to be awkward.

Anyways, I'll run for 3-4 players, no sweat, but if people start missing sessions I'll lose all motivation, even if it's just one person missing two weeks in a row.

For the people in this thread who haven't ever tried 1-on-1 campaign, I would encourage you to try it. It's a very different kind of experience.

>If all players are good and will show up to every game
3
>Most groups
4
>If it is likely that not everyone will show up to every session
5

Party of 1 is a completely different type of game
Party of 2 is doable, but it can get messy if the party splits or if they don't agree on something
Party of 5 is the absolute maximum, split into smaller groups if you have any more players

What system are you playing where a small party of PCs literally can't fight a large group of enemies? Just make them weaker, bro. Anyway, you need to stop rollplaying and start roleplaying :^)

But seriously, with 2-3 PCs, all non-turn-based activities (diplomacy, puzzles, simply deciding what to do) become far better. Not only does each player get more DM time on average, it's also near-impossible anyone to be drowned out or ignored if they don't want to be. With 4-5 players, the DM can end up forgetting someone, and a single player can take charge because it's socially acceptable to yell over a bickering crowd. When there's only one other PC, it's very hard to do that. Everyone is involved as much as they want to be, without the party becoming a chaotic mess.

If you're playing a game that heavily assumes 4+ players, then scaling things down is the way to go for smaller parties.

Usually 4, 3 is good for serious games and easier, but 4 is usually critical mass for good banter
Did a very short 1 on 1 last night for a guy who couldn't make the main game earlier that day. It was the first if the campaign and none of them has played before.
There one on one was fun, although doing it for more than an hour would be tough
Although I was improvising 100%for the one on one

I'm in a two player group. It works really well if you are running something like Dungeon World or Timewizards where players have the ability to define the scope of the world

It's not that hard to scale things down. If a party of 4 was going to fight 8 goblins, a party of 3 should probably fight 6. It also has the advantage of making the players branch out to cover what they're missing. If nobody plays a Cleric, then healing potions and abilities to better prevent damage or approach battles cautiously.

It also helps a lot that combat goes faster and people are more focused since there's less to keep track of. It's a big difference if one person in 5 isn't paying attention versus one in 3.

Currently playing with a group of six (including DM). Only real problem is scheduling, other than that we are doing fine, Lots of character interaction and minor conflict going on which is nice.

In general i'd say 1 to 4, maybe 5 if you know each others and have the same schedule, otherwise it's a clusterfuck, i'm doing a 1 GM 6 Players atm, we planned to play once or twice a week but we can barely play twice a month because of schedule and last moment annulation.

6 because one person usually cancels and I don't pull punches (player deaths are common). I don't bother hosting regular campaigns for new players. Instead I run one offs with premade characters until the players in question know the rules.

G*2+2=P
#of GMs =G
P=Max Players

1GM=max. 4

Depends on the game.

Up to 50

1-5
6 becomes cumbersome in most systems, as each player has more time they have to wait, and the gm is burdened with having to keep all 6 of them in mind.
I encourage anyone who hasn't yet to try a 1-on-1 session, it's alot easier to start and resume a campaign when only 2 people are needed, the gm only has to fit the campaign to what 1 player would find interesting, the player gets alot more time to play, and sometimes it's the best way for a gm or player to become more familiar with a system.

Don't concern yourself too much with filling roles.
A game can be a more unique challenge when the players have to find out what to do about not having a good source of ranged damage, or not having revives, or not have any melee fighters. If it's too hard to play it like that, the gm can prepare slightly easier encounters, or can give the players a magical item that can sort of fill in one of the roles.
Even if you want roles, you can have 2 players and have each player have a build that fulfills 2 roles, and if you have only a couple of players each player getting an npc that they control wouldn't be much hassle.

I think it's fine for things to become much harder when one player get knocked out.
It teaches the players that they need to stay together and act smart to do well.

What system are you talking about? It sounds more like a board game than a true ttrpg, but I want to know.

Out of curiosity, are you someone prefers to hang out with friends in groups?

One GM
Three Players
No more than two spectators (when applicable)

Personally I like 1 player games, lets that player set the course, so to speak.

If multiple players, I kind of like 3, that's a good number that's big enough to deal with certain threats and small enough to have time to focus on each of the PCs individually.

4-5

>Does it vary according to system?
Obviously you retard.

Four is the sweet spot.

This. If you got more than 5 players you need several GMs, and in order to have multiple GMs, they have to be good GMs, and know each other well.

Depends ENTIRELY on the DM's abilities to retain order, and the system's demands. I've seen games run with 2 players, some with 8.

There is no generalized optimal, save for what is demanded of both setting, mechanics, and relative time allotted to the session. (Even if your DM can manage it, it's no fun if, because of the sheer amount of players, you only spend 20 minutes of the 4 hour session being able to do anything.)

While is my opinion, I second .

GM + 4 players is perfect
3 players is doable, 5 is managable
2 is too few, 6 players starts to drag and people get distracted
GM + 1 player is ERP tier, 9+ is not possible to manage

Depends on the set... I mean system. The simpler the system, the easier it is to handle more players of course.
Having done GMing for all sizes of groups with various systems, I've come to conclusion that 4 players is optimal for game progress and manageability, but personally I can handle 6 players pretty ok, as long as they are invested in playing and aren't totally lost with the system.
Anything above 6 players will turn into a shitfest, one form or another. I've ran game for 8+ players with no chance of splitting the group, and it was god awful looking back at it.
In general I wouldn't run a game for fewer than 3 players, maybe 2 if they were really invested and the system is suitable for so few characters.

I prefer large groups, makes it more fun when I throw big things at the party.

4-5 is around my comfort zone though. 3 if you wanna go small.

For myself, 3-5. Best is 4 though

> roles
>a thing invented by mmos
Someone find get-a-load-o'-dis-grot-cam.jpg, I'm stuck on my phone.

Generally speaking, more system complexity equals lower optimum group size. If you're playing 3.casters, you want to avoid going past four or five players tops, because the game shits itself harder and harder as more people waste table time paying through spell lists. On the other end of the spectrum, Paranoia wants you to bring at LEAST six players and can easily deal with more, because the longest any player will ever spend reading stuff during the game is three seconds peeking at the hidden info side of their own character sheet, and arguing the rules with the gm is literally grounds for the execution of the clone who does so.

What's wrong with two players? It sets nice dynamic between the players, like a buddy cop movie feel.

People are insecure about seeming homosexual. I play with only one player. I also fuck them.

I say you want 4 players playing, so pick five so when one isn't there you can play with four.

5 players and you still run if only 4 can make it, assuming your sessions are

I usually play in groups of 5-6, recently started DMing a group of 4. Honestly I prefer the bigger groups as long as there's no major problem players to drive out everyone else.

the good side is that each player has a critical component of the story, the downside is there isn't an "audience" so to speak, so that dynamic feels forced for the DM's benefit

1, 3 or 4 plus GM.
1 allows for more intimate game play
3 is ideal for when you want fast decision making between the plsyers
4 is for more player drama and inter party conflicts

>Party of 2 is doable, but it can get messy if the party splits or if they don't agree on something
Adorable.

>For those playing with 3 or less. How do you handle encounters?
By not being retarded and thinking everything is something meant to be defeated and balanced for the players to be able to beat it in straight combat.

Have a have a couple less enemies than normal