Overselling Your Seat at the FG VTT (just like the airlines)

[Minty23185Fresh]

I find myself looking for group again... (I'm not soliciting here so please read on...)

While perusing the calendars and the LFG threads I came across a DM that "oversells" the spots at his/her table. He/she accepts more players to the group than there are spots at the table, then on game day, it's first come first served to the table. (In case that's not clear, the DM accepts say 8 players into the group, but on game only the first five that connect get to play.)

From the DM's perspective I found this an interesting way to almost ensure a full table, session to session, and as a sorting process for player attendance. Those who are eager to play will try to be the first to the table.

From the player's perspective, this methodology might incite motivation to get to the table on time, it might also invite resentment, if you're particularly eager to play but never are one of the five.

I suspect after two or three "not seated" attempts the extras will drop from the reserves list and the DM's original intent might be moot. But then again everything might be sorted out by then; a stable group of players that always show up.

I'm pretty sure that after two or three, "sorry you're a little too late..." attempts, I'd go looking for something else.

What's your opinion of this methodology?

[Gwydion]

I don't think I will subscribe to that methodology personally. What I find myself doing (and I principally dm one-shots due to my schedule), is to invite 6 players with the hope that if 6 commit, the game will run just fine if 1-2 people no-show and drop out. So, I'm just prepared to run a game with 4-6 people period. That's just me.

[celestian]

I kinda do the same thing but I don't tell the last 2 folks that show up they can't play. Real life always steps on game time at some point so I tend to go for 6-7 people in a game and almost always end up with 5 players at game time. If we end up with more... that's fine but this keeps people from stressing out if they have to miss a game for some event.

That said most of the people I play with I've played with for many years. I don't know what the general public would do with this same setup.

[jasonthelamb]

When I start a campaign, I almost always try to get Six... because I want four to five. If all six stayed, that would be amazing - but I always expect at least one person to not mesh, or have something come up and they can't play in that slot. The cool thing about VTT's is that the method mentioned in the OP can work. I don't know if I'd want to do it in my own campaign, just because of the possibly constant change of party makeup... but if it fits the group, then good for them!

[LordEntrails]

I typically take an approach similar to what others have said.

But, to address the OP more directly. If it is clearly stated in the game posting and initial emails etc, then I'm fine with it morally. The GM lays out the rules and expectations, and as long as they are clear and they are followed consistently then that's great.

I would (but haven't) use this methodology for a one-shot without a concern. But I would not use this for an ongoing campaign. I would worry that it would set an attitude or expectation that might carry over into other aspects of the game that I would not like.

[rob2e]

I've run MANY long campaigns both IRL and using FG. I don't think there has been even one that ends with the same starting players. In the case of PotA, the entire party was new players by the end. I try to do what Gwydion does, I try to start with 6. Sometimes people are sick or have family issues, or whatever it is. You can play with between 3 and 6 players and have the game be fine (imo), but I wouldn't play a game with less than 3 players (unless it was specifically designed for it) and I DEFINTELY NEVER, EVER, EVER would play in or DM a game that has 7 or more players. In 37 years of D&D, having 7+ players has never been a good experience.

[damned]

Do what works for you and your table.
Ive seen other GMs do this successfully.
I will always try to keep my group at 6 players and will run so long as I have 2.
I wont run the main story arc with only 2 - I might not even run the scheduled game with 2 - but I will always ensure that the 2 that show up get some game.
For one shots I will allow an oversell to occur sometimes but I will always give them all a seat if they show up - I prefer not to oversell because the game is not as fun with too many players but sometimes someone pulls out and then becomes available again at the last minute etc...

[shadelon]

My method is slightly different, but pretty similar to Celestian's.

Basically what I do, is I do try to go for a maximum number, in my case 8. My minimum number that I'll run with is generally between 2 to 4. Then I rank players in terms of how often they plan on showing up/do show up. Sometimes I'll get a player who, because of other things, can only show up once in a while. That's fine. I list such players as Recurrent. Players that show up all the time or generally all the time are Regulars, so kinda like a TV show, regular characters and recurring characters. I also run my games in seasons but that's another matter. I'm setting up for a game I plan on running on FG starting in the summer for instance, and I have one guy on the roster who's also in my live game, and he's always generally been a bit of a flake in the live game, so I'm really not expecting much to change online. So I have him listed as Recurrent. I've seen GM's who, after they realise someone is a flake, they'll ax them. But I don't like to do that, hence my method. If everyone shows up, perfect.

My maximum number that I will run with, because I have done it a number of times and it's always turned out fine, is 8. I think I've even done 9 at one point or another.

On another end of a spectrum, if I have someone who basically drops out, doesn't show up after more than a year, I'll write their character out, but in such a way that they CAN return if they decide they want to return at some point. I generally try to be open to everyone. I have one guy who played a character for about a season or 2 who was basically a bit dimwitted, and liked to talk to rocks, and his subplot was he was searching for something called the Stone of Justice. That guy stopped showing up after a while and we finally got some kind of a word that basically said the session days no longer worked for him. So I wrote out his character by saying he heard of this land where the greatest enemy in the world lived, and he actually went there thinking the Stone of Justice was there and he got himself captured. So basically something he would do. lol And it's in such a way he COULD be rescued and brought back in should things change for him in the future. He could also come into the FG campaign if he'd like, I will try and get in contact with him and present that to him as an option.

[Targas]

At the beginning of my game based on experience I have a couple of house rules.
My ideal gaming group is a party of 5 players. I make sure to have consistency and will always run my game sessions at the same time and (at least) bi-weekly, with the exception of a short holiday break during X-mas and summer time. With bi-weekly games gamers have a chance to organize their lives around this gaming schedule more easily, it gives me as a GM more time to prepare a game as well.

I tell players, when they do no show up for 3 consecutive times without reason, the rest of the party and myself will decide on how to proceed, with the possibility to replace the player not showing up with someone new.

I aways run a game with more than 2 players. With 3 we might decide to do some different gaming like online board games as well, play a different system/adventure or just continue with a side quest adventure, with 4 (lacking one) we just continue. If the party is 6, lacking 2 would result in running a side quest adventure as well. I never run the mai adventure path with 2 or more players missing, because it‘s destroying the group experience. They cannot immerse together in an epic tale, and would sooner loose interest.

Of course preparing side quest adventures takes time. This favors the bi-weekly cycle to have sufficient time to prep in advance.

[mac40k]

My sweet spot for group size is 5, so I will normally advertise for 4-6. In plenty of games I've played in, the rule seems to be that players that miss a session have to be okay with someone else running their character so the GM doesn't have to, nor account for the PC suddenly going "poof", but I'm not a big fan of that approach personally. While as GM, we are expected to control/RP multiple personalities, having to control an absent player's PC gets people in the mindset of using PCs as game pieces, whereas I want to encouraged players to "be" their character. I'd actually rather run a campaign for 2 or 3 dedicated regulars than a group of 6 where I was never sure who was going to show up for any given session, but real life always spoils the best of intentions, so I'm trying to adapt my GM style to being more episodic in nature.

My biggest problem is that I haven't done well in the past with creating sessions that I can guarantee will be a complete mini-story in one session. One of the advantages of FG is that if time runs out in the middle of a combat, you can easily pick right back up where you left off. If the player mix is different however, that throws a big monkey wrench into the works. The only time I've felt comfortable with a revolving player base was when I ran War of the Dead because the PCs are accompanied by a large cast of NPCs and due to the nature of the setting, it seemed easier to have each "episode" feature whichever characters had players show up on a given week, and easy to rationalize why another PC was otherwise occupied and not involved in that week's featured material. I'm trying to design my latest campaign to have a similar format, but it remains to be seen how successful I'll be.

[damned]

My sweet spot for group size is 5, so I will normally advertise for 4-6. In plenty of games I've played in, the rule seems to be that players that miss a session have to be okay with someone else running their character so the GM doesn't have to, nor account for the PC suddenly going "poof", but I'm not a big fan of that approach personally. While as GM, we are expected to control/RP multiple personalities, having to control an absent player's PC gets people in the mindset of using PCs as game pieces, whereas I want to encouraged players to "be" their character. I'd actually rather run a campaign for 2 or 3 dedicated regulars than a group of 6 where I was never sure who was going to show up for any given session, but real life always spoils the best of intentions, so I'm trying to adapt my GM style to being more episodic in nature.

My biggest problem is that I haven't done well in the past with creating sessions that I can guarantee will be a complete mini-story in one session. One of the advantages of FG is that if time runs out in the middle of a combat, you can easily pick right back up where you left off. If the player mix is different however, that throws a big monkey wrench into the works. The only time I've felt comfortable with a revolving player base was when I ran War of the Dead because the PCs are accompanied by a large cast of NPCs and due to the nature of the setting, it seemed easier to have each "episode" feature whichever characters had players show up on a given week, and easy to rationalize why another PC was otherwise occupied and not involved in that week's featured material. I'm trying to design my latest campaign to have a similar format, but it remains to be seen how successful I'll be.

Have the **extra** player arrive just as the battle concludes - "nice timing dunderhead" mutters the badly wounded dwarf.