As a PLAYER, how many fellow players would be ideal in a shared game?

[ham]

@Yam You’re just acknowledging that if a game has more than 30 but fewer than 45 players, it’s automatically doomed. I think that tracks.

[KDraygo]

On a perfect game, an unlimited number of players. Think of BG3 but every NPC is a PC that is working together seamlessly on crafting the overall story, their individual story, and your story. Every encounter is not scripted depending on the actions you take but their interaction with you depends on when you interact with them, how much of their own story has been built, what the world is like at the time of that interaction, etc.

[Testament]

Isn’t the actual answer supposed to be 0 players?

@KDraygo Realistically, BG3 is the perfect mush. Which is why it’s the only mush I play.

[Yam]

@ham rofl no!!!

[hellfrog]

@Testament said in As a PLAYER, how many fellow players would be ideal in a shared game?:

Isn’t the actual answer supposed to be 0 players?

no, the question “as a PLAYER” presupposes this is a game we, ourselves, the answerer, are playing. Thus it cannot be a game that has attained 0 player perfection.

[Testament]

@hellfrog

[hellfrog]

Later. Let’s play Global Thermonuclear War.

[Evilgrayson]

@hellfrog Have you got change for ten million people?

[TNP]

As many as possible. That way, there’s bound to be a few people I like to play with and can ignore the idiots.

[Third Eye]

I may be the only person who voted for the same number they voted for in the ‘how many players do you want as staff’ poll? IDK. My answer is always ‘around 25-30 actual player bodies with sane alt limits’. Upwards of 50 or downwards of 15 are manageable for me but that’s the ideal.

[junipersky]

I need enough people to have variety, and to also have nice soft buffers from people I don’t mesh with. (Not necessarily bad actors, but people who just don’t like me or I don’t like them.)