Number of Players for King Arthur Pendragon

[creativehum]

What number of players have people found as the "sweet spot" for Pendragon?

I'm asking because I was planning on getting a game going, but some folks have moved back and my gaming group has swelled to six players plus GM, and I think that is going to hinder the game. So I'm polling on thoughts/experience people have.

Thanks!

[SaxBasilisk]

Based on my limited experience, I feel as if four players is about right. It gives enough momentum to continue if someone can't make it, and it provides time for the GM to pay meaningful attention to each player's motivations and goals.

Also, combat is more complex than some other RPGs, with its multiple skill comparison-knockdown check(s)-damage-armor-wound level calculation cycle-move cycle. This is not a criticism, but it does increase the amount of time spent with each player, which might lower engagement during combat for a large group. The same goes for winter.

I'm sure others might have different experiences.

 

[Morien]

I find four to be just about right too. It easily splits into two pairs as well. With three, there is more of a risk of 'third-wheel' when it comes to intra-PK interaction. I used to have six players and it was a bit of a chore. I currently have five. The problem is that with more players each of them gets less screen time. So it also depends what kinds of players you have. If some of them are more passive and happy with it being so, then six might work. But if all of them want plenty of screen time and personalized adventures and such, then six is going to be tough. Also, what is the reliability? If you are often missing a player due to scheduling conflicts or such, then in effect you have just five players present each time.

As for combat: I strongly recommend having the Players handle their opponents rolls, too. Thus speeds up combat a lot when I don't have to do the opposed rolls one by one and can just ask each Player what the result was. Naturally this works better when the Players have more experience with the system. And I do roll for important enemies and such.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Morien

[Tizun Thane]

3/4 is the ideal number for me.

[Morien]

8 hours ago, creativehum said:

I'm asking because I was planning on getting a game going, but some folks have moved back and my gaming group has swelled to six players plus GM, and I think that is going to hinder the game. So I'm polling on thoughts/experience people have.

One thing I would likely do in a situation such like the above is to check with the players as well. For instance, if they like having a large party with limited time in the spotlight but sharing in all the adventures together, no problem with a larger group. However, if they want to be in the spotlight more, one option with a group of six would be to split them into two groups of three and run two campaigns in parallel.

Granted, while GPC + published adventures give you a nice skeleton, if you want to focus more on the individual families and such, you still have to do some prep work. On the other hand, the two campaigns can also crosspolinate: the family events in one can also be used as background events in the other ("Oh, you heard that the Lord of Marston had a spat about the tolls that his neighbor imposed? They ended up dueling about it!"). And if you really wanted to, if the campaigns happen to sync, you could even bring the two groups together to fight in battles, where there is less personalized stuff anyway. A lot of early GPC especially is non-specific, other than the Sword Lake. You can easily have both groups participating in the Bayeux expedition (randomizing a bit what happens inside the town as it is being sacked), for instance, and even swapping stories about that when you have a common session.

So in short, you could have them occupy the same world, even, just with the conceit that there is a bit of an alternative timeline feel there with one group doing the Sword Lake in one, the other in the other one. But like arranging marriages between the families would be possible as well, decreasing the overhead you have as the GM to make the world more 'alive', as you have the six players doing part of the work for you. But you still benefit from being able to give each player more screen time in each session you play with them.

In Anarchy, though, things are likely to diverge more, so it might end up separate campaigns as far as campaign events are concerned. Unless... if you want to make it even more political in a way, you could have ALL six players decide which way they want Salisbury to go, thus adding a bit to the intra-PK politicking. This would obviously make some things easier for you, as it continues on a more or less common timeline. On the other hand, it might be more interesting for you and perhaps the players as well to see just how different things may get during the Anarchy...

[SirUkpyr]

I've been running Pendragon for the past 10 years. I've run it with 2 players, and I've run it with 7 players.

Morien's comments about more players meaning less screen time is correct, and combat certainly does become longer. Having said that, having only 2 players mean you MUST include an NPC knight or two, because otherwise you risk very easily doing a TPK. One giant can wipe out a party, when the party is only 2 PKs large.

At the same time, you can run a very intimate detailed campaign when there are only 2 PKs.

Talk to your players, and to yourself (grin), about what sort of game you want to run.

And - NEVER EVER forget Rule Number One - HAVE FUN!!

[creativehum]

Thank you for all the replies!

I'm lucky that I have a wonderful gaming group, with many players. Too many! 

I'll be running a game better suited for a few number of players for the time being. I'm sure one day we'll have a stretch where lots of folks are not available. And when that day comes, we'll journey to mythic Britain...

[Sir Alexios]

I would say five is a pretty good number of people. it gives you a lance for when battle happens so you can give the position of unit commander to one of the player knights. This also lets different people have different roles in the group maybe one or two end up the courtly knights while the others are turned into combat monsters or a brilliant commander. If you have female players and are running 4th edition you can bring in magic if that's your thing, and add that whole other side of the Arthurian legends come into play.

[Hzark10]

I think it depends on what you and your players want and the story you want to weave.  The more players there are, the longer the scenarios take, the more in-depth stories can be told, and more angles with the family can come to attention.  It getting through the GPC in its entirety is your goal, then a smaller number (4-6) would be best.  And 6 is pushing it.  If an more detailed arc of the GPC is your goal, then you have the freedom to include multiple characters by each player, court scenes can be expanded, and following up on any winter court events can be done.

But this will slow time.