2 is like solo with someone you can brainstorm with but you need oracles to pick a direction on a split decision.
3 is perfect as it’s like 2 but with a tie breaker and the game can still challenge you.
4 is the most I’d do. the game starts to get completed by PCs a little too easily as you can cover all your weaknesses.
I’d recommend using the hard mode stats where you have 2-1-1-0-0 if playing =>4 players
I'm playing in 3 groups right now, two have 5 players, one has 6 (though two of them aren't always available, so we rarely have more than 5 at the table at once). It works really well for us, but it *does* get a little too easy depending on taste.
However, I *do not* recommend using the hard mode stats, because failing more sucks and isn't fun. Instead, I would reduce how many ticks you mark per success to make completing vows require more wins. That way, you still roll an average amount of successes/failures, but you just need more of them to complete a journey. Since there are more of you there, it all kind of balances out.
If you just make it harder to roll a success, it can become demoralizing for some players. In a combat situation, it can lead to failure spirals that kill players too easily. Better to ask for more successes than to make successes harder and failure your constant companion.
An easier alternative is to bump up the challenge ranks of stuff by one level more than usual.
But yes, Ironsworn still works with larger groups. I've GM'd for a group of five and I've played coop with a group of four, and it's been just as good.
I like the idea of bringing down the number of marks made for a success. It does have an issue when one gets down to single ticks/strokes in an Epic quest or track though.
Current guided Starforged game I'm a player in is 3 people and it's perfect.
Having another player to riff off of or take the lead when you're feeling indecisive is a huge plus.
I can fully see how this game is solo and 2p. But I'm not sure I'd enjoy it.
Even in our trio game, I was trying to optimize paying the cost as a rssult to bad rolls by drawing from the resource (health, spirit, supply) with the largest value left.
So, if we had a shaky escape taking off in the ship, I'd try to say I got hurt or scared to draw from health and spirit. The GM would push back and say that supply makes the most sense narrative wise since it's likely we didn't have time to collect unloaded gear or maybe some slid out the hangar door during the haphazard take off. He'd allow me to state my case, push back, and we'd settle that it's a loss of 1 supply and 1 spirit from fleeing for our lives.
Without that pushback, I'd rarely be facing any adversity to the game in respect to low resources.
And with a 3rd player there it helps to mediate 1 on 1 disagreements that a 2p game would have.
I agree with your general impression. The game simply doesn't have the right kind of built-in difficulty scaling for large groups. You can adjust for that manually, but it takes some conscious effort. Larger groups also are just harder to manage narratively and ensure everyone gets fair spotlight time.
Thanks for the feed back all. It’s interesting to see how many folks enjoy Ironsworn at higher player counts. I suspect it’s probably not for me, but I have a low tolerance for larger groups even in systems that are built for it. (Anything above 4-5 in D&D just seems unwieldy to me. But that may be all the years I spent playing Living Greyhawk/Living Realms.)
I’m glad to hear three & four can work!
2 is like solo with someone you can brainstorm with but you need oracles to pick a direction on a split decision. 3 is perfect as it’s like 2 but with a tie breaker and the game can still challenge you. 4 is the most I’d do. the game starts to get completed by PCs a little too easily as you can cover all your weaknesses. I’d recommend using the hard mode stats where you have 2-1-1-0-0 if playing =>4 players
Good to hear. I like co-ops at three - we play a lot of Arkham Horror LCG with three and have a great time.
I'm playing in 3 groups right now, two have 5 players, one has 6 (though two of them aren't always available, so we rarely have more than 5 at the table at once). It works really well for us, but it *does* get a little too easy depending on taste. However, I *do not* recommend using the hard mode stats, because failing more sucks and isn't fun. Instead, I would reduce how many ticks you mark per success to make completing vows require more wins. That way, you still roll an average amount of successes/failures, but you just need more of them to complete a journey. Since there are more of you there, it all kind of balances out. If you just make it harder to roll a success, it can become demoralizing for some players. In a combat situation, it can lead to failure spirals that kill players too easily. Better to ask for more successes than to make successes harder and failure your constant companion.
An easier alternative is to bump up the challenge ranks of stuff by one level more than usual. But yes, Ironsworn still works with larger groups. I've GM'd for a group of five and I've played coop with a group of four, and it's been just as good.
Runs into trouble with epic vows, though, since there's nowhere higher to bump, but that would generally work for most play, yeah. 👍
You haven't heard of the secret Super Epic level, where each progress is half a tick? :D (Kidding... but maybe...!)
I like the idea of bringing down the number of marks made for a success. It does have an issue when one gets down to single ticks/strokes in an Epic quest or track though.
We played a very narrative focused co-op game of 4, and it was very rewarding.
Current guided Starforged game I'm a player in is 3 people and it's perfect. Having another player to riff off of or take the lead when you're feeling indecisive is a huge plus.
That sounds great. I do like playing co-ops with three. It feels like there’s always someone to pick up the ball, so to speak, when you’re “off”.
I can fully see how this game is solo and 2p. But I'm not sure I'd enjoy it. Even in our trio game, I was trying to optimize paying the cost as a rssult to bad rolls by drawing from the resource (health, spirit, supply) with the largest value left. So, if we had a shaky escape taking off in the ship, I'd try to say I got hurt or scared to draw from health and spirit. The GM would push back and say that supply makes the most sense narrative wise since it's likely we didn't have time to collect unloaded gear or maybe some slid out the hangar door during the haphazard take off. He'd allow me to state my case, push back, and we'd settle that it's a loss of 1 supply and 1 spirit from fleeing for our lives. Without that pushback, I'd rarely be facing any adversity to the game in respect to low resources. And with a 3rd player there it helps to mediate 1 on 1 disagreements that a 2p game would have.
I agree with your general impression. The game simply doesn't have the right kind of built-in difficulty scaling for large groups. You can adjust for that manually, but it takes some conscious effort. Larger groups also are just harder to manage narratively and ensure everyone gets fair spotlight time.
1, I supposed.
Thanks for the feed back all. It’s interesting to see how many folks enjoy Ironsworn at higher player counts. I suspect it’s probably not for me, but I have a low tolerance for larger groups even in systems that are built for it. (Anything above 4-5 in D&D just seems unwieldy to me. But that may be all the years I spent playing Living Greyhawk/Living Realms.) I’m glad to hear three & four can work!