Large Tables - The Unfun

I'm starting to really have a personal issue with large games.  I play in several different RPG's right now, and it really seems like the upper limit for enjoyable play is seven players. 

I generally think of three players (and one GM) as too small.  It just seems like an empty table.  This is especially true if there are six players (in the game) and only three show up.  It's almost impossible to advance the story line, because you don't really have a quorum to decide anything.  I always feel like I shouldn't make decisions on behalf of the rest of the players if they aren't there.  So it always seems to me we end up spinning our wheels when there are only three players.

Four players generally seems like a good number.  You can (hopefully) fulfill all of the traditional party roles (striker, defender, controller, leader) or (fighter, cleric, rogue, mage - not necessarily in likely in that same order).  And even if two people are filling the same role, you don't feel quite so fragile as a party. 

Five players is good too.  You can add support roles, and players can feel more free to play non-traditional characters, knowing that others can help pick up the slack.  (A bard starts to really shine at a five player table, where he might  be more of an anchor at a 3 player table.)  And I still feel like my character can get face time in when there are four other people competing for the GM's attention.

Which brings us to six.  I am in several games with six players.  Deadlands has worked well for our gaming group at six players for a long while now.  I'm still getting time to advance my character's storyline.  I'm still getting time to do my shtick in combat, and I don't think anyone at the table is getting left out.  The farthest anyone is from the DM is three seats away.  (DM at one end, three players on each side of the table.)

And at seven, things start to go to crap.  Now, someone is sitting four seats away from the GM.  I've been there.  It feels like the GM never hears you, and almost all of his attention is taken with the four players closest to him.  Combat is mostly time spent waiting or your turn.  And if you have a narrow corridor, you might as well go get something to eat until combat is over.  I've had whole combats where I just tell the GM to put me on delay, and I'll let him know if I want to do anything.

And higher numbers than seven only compound the issue.  I've heard people argue that animal companions make the problem worse, but as having played a character with an animal companion, having watched players with animal companions, and having DM'd people with companions, I think these players fall into two basic groups - people who have their shit together and don't waste time deciding what their animal is going to do, and people who generally tuck their animal out of the way until combat is over.

Maybe I've been lucky, but I can't remember any recent play experiences where other people's animal companions took any more time than "that guy" who was running a mage, but couldn't be bothered to have any idea what he wanted to do on his turn.  I know that I tend to tuck my player out of the way while my character's companion is in the midst of combat.  Or else my character will do something in a support role, and my animal will be up-front combat.

I know a lot of DM's believe that getting the most number of players at the table is a good thing.  But I think there's a point where the logistics of paying attention to a large group of players really starts to outweigh any increase in fun.