Group Size for Traveller-RPG

[s-feige]

Hello together!

I hope this poll is not considered off-topic, for it's not entirely Traveller-specific.

Around here, we often discussed rolplaying group sizes, how many players a group could or would like to 'manage'. So I wondered how others think about this more meta-gaming topic.

So, regardless if you are a full-time GM, full-time-player or both, tell us how many players (excluding GM) are perfect for a group.

The choices might be a bit limited (numbers only ), but the result might be quite statistical...

Feel free to post comments, and

Have a nice day.

 

[RabidVargr]

I'd say two players plus DM are necessary to have an enjoyable game. 3 is my optimum group, allowing me to keep things easily on track with my personal max topping out at 5. At and after 5 people start getting roudy, become disinterested, or loose their focus cause you can't spend enough time on their character. PBEM's it's a bit easier, and I'll go up to 7 or 8 with those, got plenty of time to screw them over individually there.

RV

 

[Scarlett]

We once had eight at the table but two of us were refs and we were able to split the group whenever they decided to split in the game and keep the momentum going. An occasional "meeting of the refs" was required.

 

[T. Foster]

I voted for "There's No Limit" but I don't really mean it. I've been a player in groups of up to about a dozen which worked okay, but OTOH have run groups of 8-9 which seemed to be pushing the limit (or maybe even a little past it). Obviously a lot depends on the skill of the GM and the type of scenario, but I'd say in general 9 players is the practical limit, and 12 the absolute maximum (assuming 1 GM). FWIW my ideal-size group is 5 or 6 players.

 

[WarriorKnight]

Most of our early games used to be me & 1 or 2 friends.Many a Traveller games were just 1 player & 1 gm.We've had a few games where we've gotten upwards of 16 to 19 players ( of course most of them aren't there for the next session.),when we have games that big it helps that we have 3 to 4 Traveller gm's in our groups to help each other out when things get hetic.I prefer 3-4 players (which a recent "pick up" game was.)as the norm.(our average gaming group is 6-8 players though)

 

[Erik Filean]

One player is perfectly possible, but some of the fun is lost for me if there aren't several PCs playing off one another. Two or three players seems perfectly good for many RPGs (you get the banter, but each player's character getting plenty of focus), with four to six being good in a few games like Star Trek. I haven't played in a group of more than six players and a GM that seemed to have any great advantage from the numbers, and it often seems to reach a point of diminishing returns.

 

[Shadowdancer]

A lot depends on the players and the GM. I've played one-on-one, and I've GM'd for as many as 12 people.

In D&D, you need at least enough to cover all the core classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard). 6 is ideal, 8 is the comfortable max for most groups.

Traveller, the campaign is a major factor. Is there a ship? How many does it take to crew the ship? In a small ship campaign, you want to have all of the critical positions filled by PCs, if not all of the positions. In a big ship campaign, or a naval campaign, it doesn't really matter. The most players I've been ref for in a Traveller campaign is 6, and had no problems.

 

[Liam Devlin]

My answers 2-6-8, (just like the District 268!)
why?
2 is minimum for the word "group".
Other wise solo players ( 1 Ref/ 1 gamer).
6 is perfect number of balanced players vs GM.
8 is my optimum. Beyond that, a Co-GM wiould be needed (espicailly in a LARPG, or Pbem). YMMV

 

[Takei]

I played in a great campaign with just one player (myself)

My ideal group size is 4

I have run a group of 8, but it was a military mini-campaign. It ran fairly smoothly as they stayed as a section.

 

[Gallowglass]

Role playing is a social hobby, primarily focused on "social" interactions, although it has its roots in, and heavily overlaps, with wargaming. So whilst a single player and GM can work, the social interaction dimension is lost. Conersely, becuase no Ref can play multiple people simultaneously and the social hobby bit placesboundaries on the interactions between PC's, groups much above six players become unwieldy because the ref can't devote the necessary time to each player.

I have co-ref'd a game with 16 players and ran a lot of games at university that ran with six or seven players, but they all worked best when all concerned had copius free time, so the idea that the ref would get back to them in half an hour DIDN't represent losing an eighth of the playing time. More recently, with less free time, I prefer the greater focus of a smaller group, and generally run with 3 to 5 players.

 

[ElliottWJames]

One question that got left out - how many characters per player. For Traveller I'd normally say 1, mainly because of the logistics of moving them. Military focused campaign, then go to 2. Got me thinking because in my current CoC game people have two one 'employer' one servant - think "Gosford Park" for the idea. Servants can't go where the employers can and vice versa. Well it is set in England in 1924.

 

[sinbadsam]

I have found that I have my best games with four to five players. Again a minimum of three is needed for a game.

 

[Simon Jester]

If you've got the right roleplayer, one player games are perfectly reasonable and enjoyable, but I tend to try to get at least three involved.

For Traveller games, I find that the most fun can be had, both by myself and my group, if there are five players. It allows for two groups, if necessary, and it doesn't kill the game if one of the players can't make it for a session. Everyone usually gets enough "screen time" but can still have enough slack time to use the facilities or get a drink without having to call a group break.

The maximum number of players I'll run with any regularity is seven, but that's only if I know the players well. I'm willing to run larger groups for single-shots, like at a convention, but it's not something I'm really comfortable with. The maximum number of players I've ever GMed for was 15, and it was just little ol' me behind the screen.

Explanatory addendum: It was a Cyberpunk game so most of them died (stupidly) fairly quickly. I'm not usually willing to kill someone out of a game, but with Cyberpunk it's almost part of the setting, and they were doing some truly stupid s#!t anyway.

As demonstrated above, other game systems tend to have other player "settings." My response here refers only to Traveller.

Simon Jester

 

[plop101]

For the Ideal Group, I'm thinking 7 total.

5 player characters

1 referee
This is the creative idea guy. Comes up with campaign concept, adventures, etc.

1 referee assistant/administrator/cook-steward
This is the guy who brings the number 2 pencils, has reems of blank Traveller forms,
can provide pretzels/peanuts/potato chips/nachos on demand. Fills in for referee as needed.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Originally posted by Simon Jester:
I'm not usually willing to kill someone out of a game, but with Cyberpunk it's almost part of the setting

Wow! I've heard of tough GMs, but nothing THAT tough! That's hard core, even for Cyberpunk.

Although, God knows I've wanted to kill some of my players outside the game from time to time.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Elliott James:
One question that got left out - how many characters per player. For Traveller I'd normally say 1, mainly because of the logistics of moving them. Military focused campaign, then go to 2. Got me thinking because in my current CoC game people have two one 'employer' one servant - think "Gosford Park" for the idea. Servants can't go where the employers can and vice versa. Well it is set in England in 1924.

-------------------------------------------------
In my TNE-beladonna mission, with only 4 players each ahd at least two-one in command group/ one inenlisted, as actions took place at times where one set of players wasn't "allowed" in by rank/ or Soc, and vice a versa. Two is minimum, and I usually have em roll one Officer & one lower ranking rating/ civilian.
As has been pointed out, with a high stupidity factor, one can lose a PC in traveller, or any other game. I believe in high mortality when the fewmets hit the impeller blades.
Gets their attention when Mr Answer-ALL NPC gets splattered in front of them, and THEY have to get THEIR arses out the Crack they just landed in.
YMMV.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I once ran a Cyberpunk campaign in which all of the players had two characters -- one set were corporate employees trying to engineer a hostile take-over of another corporation; the other set were members of a black ops group the Corps hired to do their dirty work. Worked pretty well.

I have never tried multiple characters for players in a Traveller campaign, though. I will have to give that some thought.

 

[Flynn]

While I'd run Traveller for as little as one other player, I've found that the ideal group size is 4-5 players and a Referee. I can push things by running for more, with the consequence of focussing less on the PCs and more on just the story and the game mechanics. I prefer a good balance on character focus and running a good game.

My two Credits,
Flynn

 

[Weaver95]

Six is the upper limit of what I can handle in a group. That's enough players so that if one or even two can't make it (due to illness, or job stuff or whatever) we still have a decent size group no matter what and everyone can have a good time. Six is about the largest amount I can run with as a GM as well, any more than that and I lose my place and kill off player characters until I get back down to a group of six.

 

[Solo]

4 players is optimum to me for any rpg, but, being a big fan of Ars Magica I like the idea of troupe play (more than one character per character with varying power/social levels) in Traveller. My only problem, planning on running T20 and I feel it's character generation is a bit complicated. My players might not want to sit through a night of multiple character generation. Perhaps in the future...

-S.