Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Create a free account

Why Only Large Groups??

I am kicking the tires looking for a new group for Monday nights. I am very surprised to see most groups are all 6 players, or more. Been playing for a few years on Roll20 and many years DM'ing or playing in person so I have "been around" One of the main things that breaks groups apart is scheduling conflicts. Time management is very hard with 4 players and a DM, but with 6 (or more) plus the DM I can see many problems just over the horizon, mostly due to level of commitment. This low level of commitment is even more so for on-line free games it seems. So this got me thinking toward pay to play as this tends to have a much higher level of commitment and it's more likely everyone will show up to game time. BUT, there is also the concern of actual personal play time. 6 players, everyone wants some of the spotlight, some not prepared for their turn or just learning the game and asking questions, among other things, etc. I feel this would lead toward much time of me, as well as other players, waiting to engage. This is not a certain problem but seems highly likely, especially if there is one or more "I'm the star of the show" type person. I am not opposed to larger groups. I see there could be many challenges, but also some great rewards. Some challenges could be over come with commitment levels of everyone involved. Some problems would need heroic time management and communication by the DM and players both in game and out. Is the large group syndrome an effect of the professional, popular D&D games? People see the actors having fun in large groups so they think this is the way to go? Is it a slight thought of greed to fill pay for play seats (I doubt this as it's not much money) Is it a thought, from the DM, to just help spread the love of D&D? Or is there something else? Am I reading too much into this?
This is an interesting concept, though perhaps not the proper forum for such a discussion. With six, the GM has some comfort of what happens if a player drops out midway, when you lose a player in a 4 player game, it's suddenly VERY thin, combats can be dicy, RP can really collapse if that player was a major role player in that regard, as generally there's an uneven weight of people engaging actively with the narrative.  Even if it is even, you've lost a quarter of your story interaction.  In a six player game, the damage is going to be less, giving you time to replace the seat and intigrate the new person into things. Money I've no doubt plays a role in it, a four person game at even 25 dollars a seat is 100$ per week for that GM, which not a ton given the work and expectations set upon them, even if just running a prebuilt adventure that is doing some of the lifting in terms of story and setting rather than some madlad trying to cook it all themselves.  With a six seater, it'd be 150$.  While you're not exactly paying your rent with this, it's still a pretty noticable increase (50% in fact) which can make it a little more appealing, that's some extra order out money or gas money. A part may be that while not all characters get a spotlight as often, more players can interact, this means during RP times, the GM may have to do less work if the players are engaging.  A talk with an NPC, the GM needs to hold one voice, in a four player party, means they're holding about 20% of the conversation, on a six player it's more like 10%, and the more players there are, the more likely it is they'll respond to questions, letting the GM focus on the plotting and buying well valued thinking time while the players engage each other. Gameplay, if there's a run of bad combat dice, two players going down is REAL bad for a 4 player group, but a six could absorb that damage and likely rally and win a fight (or spare the actions per round to stabalize the wounded), even in a harsher game that kills players, this larger pool allows the story to survive with the surviving players (while the dead can re-roll while the game contiunes). It could be a party comp issue.  With four players, D&D in particular, but story telling in general, tends to want particular elements (Tank, Healer, DPS), and a lot of GM's (and parties) can be gunshy about disrupting this (or at least their perceptions of it, no end of the times I've heard "Well there's not a cleric, so I guess I have to be a Cleric", regardless of any truth to the matter).  With six players, you're much more likely to end up with more diverse groups.  This extends to narrative themes too.  Havering two players be "The big guy" or aim to be a lancer can be rough when they're sharing so much of the space and nothing to bounce off of for interparty RP.  Six players makes this a lot more comfortable, now this shared stage can become a more interesting compariative between the two, there's enough of 'them' for there to exist in the party an 'us', while with just four, it's harder for that 'them' to exist. No doubt the populatity of streamers and live plays going will influence aspects of it, with of course Critical Role taking that spot light.  For better or worse that is (I had a friend more or less lose a friendship as he fell in love with watching it, inspiring him to GM, only to realize later that real players don't have his script and even if they did, they are not going to follow it, sorta resenting his players for it).
For paid games specifically, more players = more money. 
1712610387

Edited 1712610507
So, in regards to better options. I usually prefer 4-6 players in a campaign on average for 3 hours of play. Grant it, I charged based on per player who shows up, but I am still willing to run for at least 3 players minimum based on demand. If the party isn't familiar with each other or doesn't prefer the playstyle of the game after a session or two, they usually drop out. My games are always open to the public unless it's a private party of 5 or more who sign up at the beginning.  I always make sure to ask everyone what they wished to do during certain events. No one usually takes the spot light unless majority of them let it happen. They are free to private message me through discord or in whispers to do something during a moment. Larger groups are always better in setup because it makes things easier for the party to work together in combat or roleplay situations. Now, if you're looking for a group for Mondays, the best thing to do is either hire a DM or run a short campaign yourself and test the waters.
Just my opinon, from a healing player perspective. I would like 2 tanks, healer, wizard& rogue at the very least. just me though.
More players make it easier to play when someone can't make it and to continue if someone drops out. I have a Monday game starting next week if you're interested. It's only 3 players so far. Cost isn't really a functional issue in my game as the session fee is fixed and I just split it between the players who attend. More players means it costs less but you get less stage time. Fewer players means it costs more but you get more stage time. My players don't seem to care as long as it's 3 to 6 players.
As a few stated, 6 players means when people drop out which seems to be inevitable with strangers on the internet, the game can keep going.  When there's only 4 it can derail a game quite quickly when people drop off the planet.