PC Number Limits for Quests

[The Band Played On]

I know that this might be a balance issue depending on the quest, but a lot of them have a max number of 6 PCs. The way things stand, with PCs grouping together, this is creating issues where often PCs are left behind and left out, or long discussions are needing to be had on just who is going. I worry that this is becoming somewhat discouraging as players then wind up idling about instead of getting out to do things simply because they're the extra wheel.

[Garem]

Ditto this.

For what it's worth, I HATE taking groups bigger than 6, so I typically try to stay in the 4-5 range. Learning to say no to others is hard, but very useful.

Yet from time to time these days I find myself mechanically constrained - especially when you don't know the limit. Way back when, 8 was the magic number. It was rarely a problem to have 9 or more.

Please, make 8 the uniform maximum again!

[PlayaCharacter]

The problem here is that all the 6 max quests are balanced for a group of 6. I was going to make this same suggestion about a week ago, and in preparing for it, I realized that all the 6 max quests are absolutely perfect just as they are, so I didn't make the suggestion. They're really some of the best quests I've ever seen, balance-wise.

[Howlando]

If you take more than six the rewards will be off, the monsters will be off, the RP will be off (most likely), everything will be off.

I mean, if the playerbase really wants this change, I will make it, but I don't think it's a good idea.

[Jasede]

Please don't! I am a big fan of keeping parties smaller than 7 people. I can't concentrate on that many and I never had any great times with big parties, DM events aside - and even then I honestly don't enjoy 6+ DM events that much either; lag, lots of talking, text scrolls too quickly... I'd rather really appreciate a few people a lot than appreciate many a little.

Plus, imagine if you were a DM: it's gonna be much harder to appropriately spice and RP with big parties. Or I'd feel that way.

[Ordinath]

Ordinath likes Jasedes comment.

[Dillusionist]

I think it really depends on the geography of the quest area. Eight PCs probably wouldn't make sense in places with lots of narrow corridors; but if you're fighting in big open spaces (like the City of Mud)... why not? During automated quests people aren't exactly focusing on heavy role-play anyway so I don't think 8+ people is harmful provided rebalancing doesn't drive builders insane. Though you're going to run into the same problem with 9th wheels, too.

While its a little immersion breaking I don't see the harm in one large quest group dividing into two smaller groups. Its much better than leaving out the 7th wheel all together. I notice IC suggestions toward this are often met with heavy resistance.

[Lurker]

During automated quests people aren't exactly focusing on heavy role-play anyway

This may be another issue..but why not? RP doesn't stop when you click on the quest placeable, but I have seen quest groups just bang on without a word spoken or without any reaction to what people are doing or how they are contributing.

[PlayaCharacter]

A quest that requires parties to split into two groups would be fucking badass.

[Letsplayforfun]

Pits do that. Except when people jump in them to regroup, OOCly knowing they'll be able to open a prison door.

As for player count, don't hesitate to ask for a DM to up the cap, if you're getting a large party ready. Best up the cap on a case to case basis, than to up all quests.

[Merrick]

Maybe 7 should be the uniform number. I enjoy 6 max though for the reasons stated above. Uniformity is nice too. I don't really mind either way but have enjoyed 6 Max.

I am personally divided and really enjoy the smaller party of 6. I would be willing to forgo Uniformity for many 6 max quests. Maybe how it is now is best.

[Inquisitor]

I don't know why people want this. I get that it can suck ICly to gather a quarter of the server at a given time and go do a quest to find out you should've stuck with 1/5th of the server, but OOCly it really sucks to have a gaggle of random people all spamming random crap, minimal RP (Since most people are essentially trying to 'shout' over one another), and either it results in a cluster**** or finishing the quest in 10 minutes and getting 25 gold each and a charm's blow pop for a reward.

[Vlaid]

If you find yourself unable to bother to RP during a quest to any significant degree because for whatever reason it might be a good idea to quest less so it doesn't feel like such a chore. There isn't a wide variety of quests I have done yet, but if I don't feel like I can actually RP well and try and take each quest with the seriousness of the situation they are trying to present in a scripted QA, it's probably a better use of my time to go do something else. There's a lot more to do than just QA's. Some of the randoms out there to be found are surprisingly profitable, even compared to some of the quests that get spammed (like kobolds).

And for the record, I'm not in favor of increasing quest caps above 6. Always feels like much more than 4-5 and it just becomes a mob and not a party. But I suppose it's fine to have some quests that are for bigger or smaller groups. Different strokes for different folks.

[scrappayeti]

I dont think we need a uniform cap number on the quests. Some of for bigger groups, some are for smaller. There is a very common one with a six cap, a couple with ten cap, it makes no difference either way, in my opinion.  I would rather DMs spent time making cool new content and smiting PCs than tinkering with something they already balanced. If it aint broke, dont fix it.

[YouMakeMeQuiver]

I've always felt most quests are best done with six PCs or less.  The RP is better, the strategy and planning is infinitely better, and (arguably) best of all, the rewards are almost always better.

Some quests are great for large groups, sure.  Any attrition-style quest is good for large groups.  But if I'm winding through a cave, I'd rather not have seven other people cramping me in.