I don’t get these low numbers. pathfinder’s default assumes four but back in the day 6 was kinda the ideal party. If we did not have enough players sometimes someone would control two characters.
Have to agree about six. The classic D&D videogames didn’t choose a party size of 6 by accident in their designs.
That being said, the push towards four instead definitely started in 3.0’s playtesting, on the assumption that parties would have one of each basic archetype (warrior, rogue, arcane caster, divine caster) for some reason. It probably also had a lot to do with how scheduling a dedicated table becomes exponentially more difficult with each added player.
I don’t get these low numbers. pathfinder’s default assumes four but back in the day 6 was kinda the ideal party. If we did not have enough players sometimes someone would control two characters.
I just watched a SciShow episode about this. Good watch. https://youtu.be/0pc9Uf3vFDU
I like that channel so will give it a look when I get a chance.
Have to agree about six. The classic D&D videogames didn’t choose a party size of 6 by accident in their designs.
That being said, the push towards four instead definitely started in 3.0’s playtesting, on the assumption that parties would have one of each basic archetype (warrior, rogue, arcane caster, divine caster) for some reason. It probably also had a lot to do with how scheduling a dedicated table becomes exponentially more difficult with each added player.
we often did not have six but it was not uncommon to have 3 players playing two characters and a gamemaster.