Tabletop RPGs: Team Size

[travisjhall]

So, for the first time ever, I'm considering writing a tabletop game to be run at a Melbourne con. (I've written team games before, but I've only run them in Brisbane.) The basic plot of the game points towards teams of four players, but I've had it suggested that five players often work better.

Now, my own preference has always been to base the

Comments

[crowroadaw]

Five tends to be the 'default' group size for tabletops. So from a scheduling point of view, it fits better for organizational purposes.

From a purely within-the-game perspective, I like five players because it allows uneven distribution. With four PCs, the only way you can be in a minority position is to be alone. Five allows 2:3 splits. Five also allows a single PC to function as a 'swing' vote (it's a good idea if there are multiple issues on which different PCs can be in that position, of course).

So yeah, I like five character dynamics.

[capnoblivious]

Mm - I agree with that aspect of the dynamics. Six lets you get a 3:3 deadlock. Five's also a good number for apportioning spotlight time.

I've had some success with writing "optional" characters - characters that have enough character hooks to be worth playing, but fewer plot hooks (such that they can be dropped out). So a five player game might have one character that's easier to leave out if someone has to, I don't know, stay home with a sick baby, or a five player game might have a sixth character to slot in if someone's sib has turned up from out of town.

But ... I think it's ok to write a four player game, and if the game wants four players and rejects a fifth, then it's a four player game.

[travisjhall]

So, an odd number is good for dealing with issues - both making sure that a majority can be achieved to force a decision and to spotlight one PC for a particular issue.

But what about for light-hearted games where issues are few and far between, and the play is about dealing with the problems with style, rather than searching for a means to overcome the problems? It does occur to me that when we know full well in advance that everything's going to work out right for the heroes, dropping down to four players gives %25 more opportunity for each character to show off finesse.

Looking back, my old team games were all five-player. It just worked out that way. But yeah, in the case of that cop drama, there's no way I'd take it to five players, and for the game I'm considering in the shorter term, I'm hesitant.

[capnoblivious]

So, an odd number is good for dealing with issues...

Indeed. But also ... (shuffling of feet, embarrassed cough) ... for giving the illusion of dealing with issues, in an otherwise tunnel-of-fun game.

But, yeah, with your cop drama, I can see the two teams of partners working best.

[kingtheseus]

Phenomenom usually runs tabletops for 5 players, and Melbourne cons usually run for 4 players. I'd usually try and design a game that fit into the standard for that city.

IMHO:

Five players doubles the number of possible dynamics between PCs, and is good for political and social games.

Four players is good for focusing attention, and leads to better teamwork oriented games.

[travisjhall]

I don't think it's so true these days that Melbourne cons focus on 4 players. There seems to have been a gradual shift. I remember saying a number of years back that one of the major Melbourne cons tended towards 4 and the other to 5, but now I can't remember which was which, so I'm thinking that it's been a progressive shift.

That said, I could check out the most recent sets of games for the Melbourne cons, and try to choose a con to run at that uses more 4-player games. Consistency does make things a little easier for those planning teams.

[ingysledge]

Dark Aether origianly had 4, well connected characters. I wrote an optional 5th because I wanted it to be able to run in Melbourne and Canberra (at the time the players number thing was quite distinct). I was so worried about the 5th character being a 5th wheel that he because so integral to the game that I wouldn't run it without him.
My point is: if 4 works best go with that. Don't shoe horn in a 5th. But, you may just find that the 5th simply makes the game. Try it and see.

[pagrin]

Given you said you wanted to run at a Melbourne Con, that means rego will be covered by AON

[kayjay1970]

GM time is also an issue. In some games the players will always be interacting together and it isn't a problem, but if you have a game where you will be spending a lot of time running individual action with one player or one player is 'doing his thing' for a while you can rapidly get to the point where people are twiddling their thumbs for too long. It just depends on the game a bit.
I personally always find 6 too many. 4 or 5 are both OK.