Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Seghan 03-10-07, 11:29 AM	Is 4.0 really the ideal size for a party? I have often been in games with 5.0 - 6.0 players, and I find having the extra people to be fun. But it seems in the Adventure Game and all the classic parties, there are 4.0 players. Hmmm.
_SIN_ 03-10-07, 11:37 AM	4.0?.....5.0 - 6.0??..... people???...:thinks:
leather_book_wizard 03-10-07, 11:38 AM	4 is the most common number of people in a party, because it is best to have the Warrior, Divine Guardian, Sneaker, and Spell-slinger roles filled. However, there is nothing wrong with having more than 4 party members. Also, you know you could have just put 4 instead of 4.0, right? It's not nice to decieve people into thinking you are talking about one thing, when in reality you are talking about something else.
Artector 03-10-07, 11:39 AM	4 is a nice number to play with, everyone has to have a decent character, but it works. Above that it lets you play classes that are a little off-base, and still be effective and useful.
Thunder Dragonbane 03-10-07, 11:43 AM	I have been in games where it was only myself and the GM, and they went just fine. I have run games with 15 players, and while it was hectic, it worked out prety good. No 4 players is WotC trying to find a way to tell you what to do, and how to play. Having less makes the game more interesting, having more seems to make it more difficult. But it is all about play style.
High Octane 03-10-07, 12:28 PM	How do you have decimal people? Slice off a foot and thats .07 people or something? What if hes just short? Is he then .85? What if he then plays a halfling? Doe that ake him .425? What about a fat guy like me? Am I 1.2 people? (1.3 after a trip to BK. Bacon burgers.)
Elemental_Elf 03-10-07, 12:36 PM	How do you have decimal people? Slice off a foot and thats .07 people or something? What if hes just short? Is he then .85? What if he then plays a halfling? Doe that ake him .425? What about a fat guy like me? Am I 1.2 people? (1.3 after a trip to BK. Bacon burgers.) The way I was thinking would be this: If your medium you count as 1.0. If your a small Character you only count as 1/2 of a Medium dude so you're counted as .5. If you are large your counted as being better than everyone else so you are 1.5. If you have a familiar you get an auto +.25 and if you have an Animal Companion you get a +.5. :P
Romtos 03-10-07, 12:42 PM	The way I was thinking would be this: If your medium you count as 1.0. If your a small Character you only count as 1/2 of a Medium dude so you're counted as .5. If you are large your counted as being better than everyone else so you are 1.5. If you have a familiar you get an auto +.25 and if you have an Animal Companion you get a +.5. :P So...the Fellowship is like 7.0 people, instead of 9? Tolkien has betrayed us! :weep:
High Octane 03-10-07, 12:44 PM	The way I was thinking would be this: If your medium you count as 1.0. If your a small Character you only count as 1/2 of a Medium dude so you're counted as .5. If you are large your counted as being better than everyone else so you are 1.5. If you have a familiar you get an auto +.25 and if you have an Animal Companion you get a +.5. :P If tha animal companion eats the familiar does it become .75? Sort of Highlander-type?
Fireclave 03-10-07, 12:52 PM	To avoid board-reader runtime errors, please declare your num_Players variable as an integer :P But to answer your question, the rules for CR assume you are using in party of four, and therefore most modules will do the same. But it's not that hard to adjust the game for more or fewer players.
aotrscommander 03-10-07, 01:56 PM	But to answer your question, the rules for CR assume you are using in party of four, and therefore most modules will do the same. But it's not that hard to adjust the game for more or fewer players. Yes. Generally you increase the number of opponents of the same CR, rather than up the CR with fewer opponents (though you can do the latter). However, the solitary BBEG problem tends to occur more frequently with the latter (especially with 5-6 players.) Personally, I was a bit surprised at 3.x's party size, since I have always considered six to be the optimal number; enough to cover all the bases with a couple of spare slots, not too many that it's difficult to keep track of. (I for one wouldn't have more than 8 players - though if you spread the load out you can easily have more than one character per person if you reallu need it - as I think that's the limit I can control. plus, many more and players would start to get bored waiting for their turn to come up!
TheChilliGod 03-10-07, 02:00 PM	B-but you can't have 4.0 players! They're not out yet! Best just stick with the 3.5 players, until they get around to releasing the 4.0 players. I've heard that the 4.0 players will come with extra munchkin, and the rare roleplayer sets are going to be extra loud. Can't wait. (Well, that's what I thought the topic was about. *Shrug*)
fatal error 03-10-07, 02:24 PM	So no one else finds the title a humorous reference to 4th edition while simultaneously drawing all you gullible fools in to what is probably an entirely pointless question by the OP; merely created to justify his title joke. Anyway, I prefer 3.5 (that is, an integer with an average of 3.5 over multiple games, a maximum limit = 4.0 and a minimum limit = 3.0), the more people are added the easier it is for players to become distracted, start chatting among themselves, and generally not participate as much.
rudie 03-10-07, 02:45 PM	4 is ideal, its small enough to have fun and large enough so all the bases are covered. I find that up to 6 people is a good choice, that way everyone can play exactly what they want. Any more and it gets to be a cluster you know what.
aotrscommander 03-10-07, 03:31 PM	So no one else finds the title a humorous reference to 4th edition while simultaneously drawing all you gullible fools in to what is probably an entirely pointless question by the OP; merely created to justify his title joke. Oh, I did; I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. (Heck, the best way to get people to look at threads is with a good title, so, hey.)
Singer_of_the_Song 03-11-07, 01:31 AM	If tha animal companion eats the familiar does it become .75? Sort of Highlander-type? THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.
Dougan Axehammer 03-11-07, 03:56 AM	I generally prefer a party of 5. It's in the range of your average party of 4-6 characters, which makes adjusting an enounter not to difficult. And, since it is a prime number, if ever there needs to be a decision on something (like which way to go), then there will always be a majority vote.
talkingbeatles 03-11-07, 02:55 PM	Yeah, I'm DMing a group right now with five people, and this is one of the best groups I've ever DMed. Five people, I think, is really where it's at. It just seems so rounded in my opinion. Four people should be fine to play with though. And I really wouldn't suggest going above six.
DarkNick 03-11-07, 03:22 PM	As a DM I prefer 3 players. I just feel that there is less downtime between players and the game naturally becomes more intensive. Maybe it is just the dudes I play with, they seem to work better in a smaller group.
High Octane 03-11-07, 03:23 PM	THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE. ....point five.
RadicalTaoist 03-11-07, 04:47 PM	I personally like playing with 4.5 players. I accomplish this by cutting one of the guys in half below the ribcage before each session. I wonder why no one wants to game with me anymore. They must like smaller groups. :confused:
Neutronium_Dragon 03-11-07, 05:05 PM	I'm pretty sure that the "4-person party" standard was the result of their surveys and studies back when they were prepping for 3E. Six-person parties had sort of been the assumed standard previously, but actual gaming groups tended to number five people, and one of those is the DM.