How many players is too little / too much?

[Falenthal]

Part of it has to do with the roles that the players have taken upon their characters. We feel it when someone is absent.

That's fully right. I think, from the comments here and there, that most of us have a somewhat volatile group (I don't know if that's the correct word, but I guess you'll get my meaning). Me, for example, I can say that I have 2 sure players, and then there are 3 more that do usually come to the sessions, but aren't alway able to. Most of the time we change the session date to allow the group to be at least of 4 adventurers, but while we mostly manage, even that's not always possible.

We suddenly lack the archer in the last minute, or the silver tongued Lake-man, for example. We always try to come up with an in-game explanation for it (and it adds up to the story of the campaign), but it's a shame that real life keeps us from having together a weekly dosis of shared pleasure.

By the way, I think it suits really well the theme that our most absent player choosed to be an elf. You know, they always disappear when you need them most....

[SirGalrim]

I prefer 3-4 players in most role-playing games, depending on how active they are and how the group dynamics work. But still I often end up in having either 2 or 5 players, depending on where I play. Two players really takes away a lot of internal role-playing in the group. Its often the same discussions that happens every time, and that can be tedious. While 5 players still can have a great dynamic and a lot of role-playing that involves everyone, mechanics tend to slow down in most game systems with more that four players. And decision making for the whole group can sometimes take a very long time. Again depending on the group dynamic. I have played with 6 and 7 players, and I only do that as exceptions. It is to many for me to give everyone opportunity to shine every session. I am sure some could handle it. But for me it is to stressful.

Though in TOR I would say makes it a bit easier to be many, and harder to be few. Because of the mechanic I really would not play with two players. I have played it with three and it worked okay. 4 to 5 seems to be the sweet spot. As mechanics are easier, and don't clog up that much with more players I believe I would have an easier time managing a large group in the game than in more traditional game systems.

I would say for TOR 2 players are to few, and 7 players are to many.

[Mauricio_MdS]

I'd guess Journeys probably requires that we need at least 4 characters (some combination of players and LMC if needed).

I don't think that it's such a problem and I don't think it's really necessary to allow a character to take more than one role. The journey rules are already balanced by the fact that more players equals to more hazards. Let's say that a character is traveling alone as a guide: his probability of facing a hazard is only 1/12. His probabily of facing a hazard that must be tested by a role different of the guide is less than 5% of all journey rolls (7/144).

[aramis]

I'd guess Journeys probably requires that we need at least 4 characters (some combination of players and LMC if needed).

I don't think that it's such a problem and I don't think it's really necessary to allow a character to take more than one role. The journey rules are already balanced by the fact that more players equals to more hazards. Let's say that a character is traveling alone as a guide: his probability of facing a hazard is only 1/12. His probabily of facing a hazard that must be tested by a role different of the guide is less than 5% of all journey rolls (7/144).

2 players with no Numenorean means almost half of the hazards encountered autofail.
You are required to have always and only 1 guide... so G, 10, & 1-3 are always filled. that's 5/12 right there.
The other 3 roles have 2 slots. And a sauron is always an empty role if one exists, unless the GM's being VERY nice. so 7/12 are doable, and 5/12 are autofails without a numenorean.

For a party of 3, you can fill 3 roles - so 9/12 are filled, and 3/12 are fails.

[tomfish]

Contrary to many posters here I think that above 4 players (face to face) is difficult to manage (for me). I have very talkative players who like to roleplay quite a lot, and more players would therefore mean more indecision and less "active" time for each of them.

I am truly amazed to see LM who seem comfortable managing 6 or 7 players, for me it would be total chaos (I think).

[Majestic]

For awhile on of my games (that has been ongoing for 25 years) had ten regulars, so each time everybody showed it was one GM and nine players (face-to-face). We took turns GMing, too, so it was more than just me running that many (though I was the overall 'Main GM' keeping everything straight.

[Feanor]

Exactly what Terisonen said.

[Elmoth]

I prefer 4 players myself, but anything between 3 and 5 is OK. I have also run some game (not all TOR) with one or 2 players and it can work, but it is trickier since the spread of capabilities tends to be smaller and the opposition needs to be scaled down somewhat.

[gentlemansavage]

I've been running a campaign for almost two years now. It started with four other players, and a year ago three more joined. We're all friends outside of RPing so I wasn't worried about personalities. However, seven players is extremely difficult to manage effectively. It is very hard to organize spotlight moments for all seven people each session, and though they don't voice any complaints I can tell some people phase out in the course of events because there's too much downtime for their character.

The part I struggle with most is combat. Perhaps someone could help me, but I've found it difficult to scale up combats from published adventures so they are actually challenging for my fellowship. The book keeping in combat is a bear, too, and with so many people it can get very grindy (even for me, who generally likes RPG combat).

The last caution I'd mention is that with seven people it can be hard for players to carve out their character's niche. People are definitely stepping on each other's toes in various areas (healing, close combat fighter, ranged fighter, etc.) and it causes dissatisfaction when others "steal thunder."

My guess is that 4-5 heroes is perfect.