General Question about Fantasy Grounds Party Size (for players and DMs alike)

[SmackDaddy]

So,

I am about to run a full campaign (for the first time using a VTT platform) using Fantasy Grounds Unity. Got me the ultimate license, D&D Essentials, UA and DIA campaign. I've DM'd quite a bit before (played 1st ed back in the day, DM'd and played 3.5 back in the day, and in 2012, got back into D&D w/5e), so it's not a new thing for me, only the VTT aspect of a full campaign is. I am a FG convert from Roll20, where I had ran a few sessions for four people and had a good time with it. I'm becoming more and more familiar with FG in general but know I still have quite a bit to learn. Heck, I've read in a few places, people using FG for years, are still learning new things from time to time, so.....with that out of the way.....Just an opinion question for people.

I plan to run DIA (with some custom content/additions of my own including individual player backstory hooks). I currently have six (6) players ready to go - characters all rolled up, Session Zero out of the way....I have another person really interested and is familiar with D&D and FG. This person also really enjoys getting "into character" when role-playing, which to me, is a major plus. I've DM'ed up to seven people in person before and while it can be a handful at times, I do notice people being distracted by their phones when combat happens until it's their turn, but I kept things running as smoothly as possible. I know where groups like "Critical Role" are concerned, they make it work quite well. (please let's not get into whether CR is good or bad, or whatever, LOL, just is something I like and using as a frame of reference). ;)

My question for DMs is this: with FG, do you find there is any major difference between 6 and 7 players in a party when it comes to role-play and combat? Do you want to share your opinions or thoughts? Do most of you prefer to keep it in the "sweet spot" range of 4 maybe 5 instead? Any other input/thoughts?

My question for players is this: Do you prefer less people to play with online? Or do you find much of a difference between 6 and 7 players? Would you feel the more players there are, the less likely you will be paying attention when it's not your turn in combat? Any other input/thoughts?

Your input is appreciated. I don't want this to devolve into an argument as I'm aware all of this is opinion based and I am not asking anyone to make my mind up for me, LOL. I just thought where FG is concerned, I'd like to hear what others have to say on a subject like this. I did a quick search on the forums to try and find something specific like this but came up short. Thank you all for your time, whether you read and move on or take the time to reply!

[Ryuson]

My question for DMs is this: with FG, do you find there is any major difference between 6 and 7 players in a party when it comes to role-play and combat? Do you want to share your opinions or thoughts? Do most of you prefer to keep it in the "sweet spot" range of 4 maybe 5 instead? Any other input/thoughts?

My question for players is this: Do you prefer less people to play with online? Or do you find much of a difference between 6 and 7 players? Would you feel the more players there are, the less likely you will be paying attention when it's not your turn in combat? Any other input/thoughts?

I'm going to answer this together b/c my experiences as a player informed my choice as (an upcoming) GM: As a player, I'm fine with 6-7 players but it depends on the players. In combat, I haven't experienced much loss of focus, though it has happened, and probably worse for some groups. I do notice that in such a large group, things take longer, like combats and even "off combat" b/c there are simply more people involved. Sometimes, it takes longer (everyone has something to say) but sometimes people just don't say anything just so things move along (I've been guilty of that myself).

That's why, as a GM, I'm pretty set with only having 4 - not more than 5 - players. 3 is a bit too small but doable. 6+, in my mind, wouldn't allow the type of 50/50 combat/RP experience I prefer. Personally, I say 5 just in case someone doesn't make it; 4 is ideal IMHO.

Oh, this is for D&D. For something like superheroes - 2-3 maybe? 4 tops? This a personal thing for me so YMMV.

EDIT: Corrected typos. Also, in your instance, you're ok with 6. If this 7th player seems like he/she would fit in, I'd say go for it. There isn't that big of a difference b/c the group is already large (IMHO). You need to treasure those types of players!

[LordEntrails]

As both a player and GM I will say, it depends.

You already know that though :) I don't think it matters if you have 6 or 7 players, unless that one additional player is going to change things up. And it doesn't matter as much as if you have 4 players or 7 players. It depends who those players (and GM) are and how they play.

If you can keep everyone involved, and where when it is someone turn they are ready with their action (and probably already have the targets targeted, etc) then they can usually complete their turn in 15-30 seconds with GM adjudication as needed. Then everyone is getting a turn ever few minutes and there is always something for them to think about and stay engaged with.

BUT, when one player of the GM worries about rules, and looks things up, and their is debate, or it becomes their turn and they don't know what they want to do. When a player has to look at their character sheet and consider, "ok, this is the situation, what do I want to do now? What does this spell do? Well, what if I did this instead..." Then you are in trouble. Because that single player's turn could take 5 minutes, meaning it could easily be a half hour between turns. And I don't expect anyone to stay engaged when they have so much time between their turns.

SO, regardless if you take on the 7th player or not (I think you should, but that matter little), talk to everyone. Layout those basics of timing, let them know they should try really hard to be ready with their action as soon as it is there turn. That it's more fun for everyone if things keep flowing. And that if a ruling is ever gotten wrong you can all worry about it later. If a modifier is off, it doesn't really matter, just try to get it right the next time. The goal is to keep things moving and to have fun!

[JohnD]

I personally as a DM like having a large group. Usually I cap a group at eight players, but sometimes go as high as 10 if there is demand for it. This usually works because in most collections of people online not everyone can make it to every game, so if you get six, there's still enough turnout to go ahead with the game. Occasionally all eight will show up and at that point it depends on the ruleset as well as the attention of the individual players and the capabilities of your DM to keep things interesting and moving along.

As a player, I don't mind larger groups, for similar reasons outlined above.

A lot depends, in online play, in the GM's ability and aptitude with FG, but also whether the ruleset you are using makes it easy to run a large group or not.

[Marquis_de_Taigeis]

in general with both virtual and face to face games i think 5 +or- 1 is a good table size, at 4 the party is less likely to split making party cohesion easy, at 6 the party might split which creates interesting situations. I have in the past dm'd for groups of 10+ in person, but in those games it was mostly just one shots being run in gaming cafes when the normal adventurers league dm's didnt show so i would step up and make something up on the spot, so probably not a great comparison. I find with the roleplay it depends more on the player composition instead of numbers, some players really get into character and enjoy more roleplay whilst some players are more combat orientated and really enjoy the strategy element,

when being a player, i definitely prefer being in a smaller group, it makes it easier to pick up on queue of when someone else might be about to speak and also allows for more encouragement of quieter players. when playing online if using voice only there is a lot of physical queues which are lost and even more so can be lost for quieter player in large groups.

let that be said, i do enjoy the use of discord which allows for individual volume levels for each person involved, but two people talking at the same time can still happen quite a lot.

[Granamere]

If you are going to start DMing I would recommend you take the https://fantasygroundscollege.net/ DM101,DM102 and DM103. Huge amount of info will be gain in the free classes.

Groups size as already stated it depends. If everyone is only making 1 character then 4-6 really is the sweet spot. IMO. The larger the group goes the higher the probability that you end up with inter personal conflict. Also make sure you cover what is the expectation with no shows for a week up front. The larger the group the more likely someone can not make it.

If player want to run more than one character then 4 is the max size. With Tasha's cauldron of everything coming which is adding sidekicks in I can see a bunch of people wanting to use them and that will increase turn time.

[kmalsom]

I've been running Adventure League campaigns and have had from 5-8. Sweet spot is 5-6. More than that and combat starts really bogging down especially at higher tiers. Also it is much harder to balance an encounter with a larger group. That said, we had an epic encounter with 8 PCs, 6 summoned creatures and about 2 dozen monsters. But each round took about 20 minutes.

[GavinRuneblade]

So,

My question for DMs is this: with FG, do you find there is any major difference between 6 and 7 players in a party when it comes to role-play and combat? Do you want to share your opinions or thoughts? Do most of you prefer to keep it in the "sweet spot" range of 4 maybe 5 instead? Any other input/thoughts?

My question for players is this: Do you prefer less people to play with online? Or do you find much of a difference between 6 and 7 players? Would you feel the more players there are, the less likely you will be paying attention when it's not your turn in combat? Any other input/thoughts?
As a DM, yes each player above 4 noticeably makes the experience harder to keep exciting. Players spend more and more time waiting and less and less time with the spotlight on them. Between 6 and 7 is also where encounters almost double in size. 4-5 you can tweak stats and be ok. 5-6 you want to add one, maybe two extra enemies. 6-7 you're adding enemies, tweaking enemies, etc. Balancing is no longer small tweaks and is finicky depending on the specifics of the party.

As a player and as a DM both, the fewer of us the better. My absolute favorite is the duet style (just one player and the DM). Whether face-to-face or online the best experiences I've ever had with RPGs have involved the fewest players. I personally always pay attention as a player. The last couple times, I took detailed notes, screenshots, etc. the whole time. I'm always engaged and ready to go as a player. But, I feel it when others are disengaged and distant.

[SmackDaddy]

So far, thank you to all who have taken the time to respond, it's much appreciated!

[Ampersandrew]

I have limited experience running online. I got Fantasy Grounds to let me run the Pathfinder second edition playtest. I've been running some Original Deadlands and some Pathfinder 2e. I really, really hate seven player tables in PAthfinder Society (PFS). In fact, PFS just banned seven player tables, six is now their max. Good riddance.

For me the game seems to run more smoothly with four players. YMMV.

[HywelPhillips]

Short answer: 4-6. Aim for 5 on the grounds that one person is likely to drop out or not make it some weeks, because I think online games work best with four (plus the GM).

When I play in real life, five players plus GM seems to be the sweet spot.

For playing online, as a player, I MUCH prefer 4 players.

I find it more conducive to having discussions amongst ourselves. With five players it is just about bearable, with six it becomes unsustainable even with the GM trying to keep order and go around the table having everyone speak as if we were in initiative order. I've often found players "peel off" into separate conversations, often one set using voice and the other using text chat. It's OK, but I prefer it where everyone can speak.

I have played in successful games online with more players, but these were fast-and-furious, action-heavy one-offs using a light rules system. They were great fun, but only because the clock was ticking on the adventure and we had to push through. I don't think a large group would be sustainable for traditional ongoing campaign play. Talking and negotiation and just roleplaying around the campfire is an important element of that play style for me, and it works much better with a smaller group.

As a GM online, five plus the GM may be good to aim for at the start of a campaign. It's not quite a good a player experience as four plus the GM, but it provides a bit of insurance against the weeks where one or even two people can't make it and allows for one drop-out to take you down to the perfect four.

The pay-to-play games I am in all seem to aim for six, but I have definitely enjoyed the sessions with fewer players myself.

Most of my experience has been 5e thus far. Call of Cthulhu didn't run as smoothly with five and the one session with six we really had a problem with people unintentionally talking over each other. Again I would say four is the sweet spot for more conversation-heavy games like CoC where you really want people to be able to compare notes and discuss what to do- it's a far cry from SWADE superheroes steaming in to save the day!

I can't imagine what it would be like with a more rules-heavy system than 5e unless all your players are intimately familiar with the rules system, the VTT system AND the chat/voice system and are really well behaved at making sure everyone gets their chance to speak.

[SmackDaddy]

If you are going to start DMing I would recommend you take the https://fantasygroundscollege.net/ DM101,DM102 and DM103. Huge amount of info will be gain in the free classes.

I signed up for a DM101 class, but don't see any 102 or 103 classes in September....which is disappointing.

[LordEntrails]

I signed up for a DM101 class, but don't see any 102 or 103 classes in September....which is disappointing.
There is a link called Assistance Request.
https://fantasygroundscollege.net/assistance-request/

Feel free to request a DM 102 and 103 class, or anything else.

[mhossom]

I run a game for 6 players, 3 are in person (family) and 3 are online. It seems to work well and everyone gets a chance to speak. The only issue I have run into is that the online players sometimes have trouble hearing what my in person players are saying. I may have to add a better mic for the room.

[LordEntrails]

I run a game for 6 players, 3 are in person (family) and 3 are online. It seems to work well and everyone gets a chance to speak. The only issue I have run into is that the online players sometimes have trouble hearing what my in person players are saying. I may have to add a better mic for the room.
Consider a unidirectional blue tooth speaker with mic built in. But check the reviews, some are very poor.

[JonStormbringer]

I am currently running a game with 7 players. We're about 5 sessions into a home brew campaign. This is my first VTT attempt and it took us about 4 sessions to get settled in and for everyone to understand how FG works. A couple of my players had experience in FG and a couple didn't. Our first couple combats were pretty slow. However, we've learned and now, we can get through combats pretty quickly. As some others have mentioned, it is kind of hard guestimating how to prepare encounters because of the size of the group. The CR rating assumes 4 PC's. Last week we had, what we all agreed was our best combat encounter--one where we came close to our first PC fatality. I basically doubled the CR and it worked out pretty well.

I personally prefer larger groups. Most of my face to face, table top games had between 8-10 players. It makes things pretty interesting. In the VTT environment, I've found you may lose players a little easier than in a face to face game. I started out with 9 players for my VTT game. Before we even began, we lost 2 and then dropped another one after the 2nd session. Luckily, one of the players was able to recruit one of his friends and we're back to 7. To me, personally, this is almost idea size for this environment. There's enough variety is what the players are playing and you don't necessary come to a grinding halt because one person is missing.

As others have said, it really depends on you the DM and the demeanor of your players. I have a pretty laid back crew!

[ColinBuckler]

Running several 5E games online its hard to judge when people are about to speak so you can get over talk.

For me - it depends on the players - if they are really chatty then lower numbers. For 5E, 4 if they are chatty and cuts down on the overtalk. If they are a good group - 6 players.

My advice - start with 4 or 5 and go from there.

I also set a minimum number of players to run - so if I have 5/6 players, I would still aim to play with 2 no-shows. Though with 4 I would aim for 1 no-show.

Until you get a good group running (and you will eventually may take a few attempts), you may lose players. Set a rule and make it clear to players that their situation in real life may change and they may wish to drop out of the game - this is ok and they do not have to justify it - just ask them to let you know if they are dropping out. Otherwise you may be waiting for a few weeks wondering where they are and why they are not turning up.

[A Social Yeti]

5 is the the magic party size for me, as both player and GM.

Odd numbers help as GM, no party vote impasse, always get a majority vote on whatever.
Even numbers can more commonly stall out trying to the find the even vote compromise on whatever the party is split over.

And at 5 players, i can still jugle in a decently enough detailed set of NPCs in the world.
Too many players in the party and i tend to be too busy with them to have the energy and time to do better NPCs for their world interactions.

And as player, too many other players makes it a little too hard for all the players to have some spot light time if they want it.
Which is challenging as a player and a GM.
A session can run easily as one or two of the party being the front and center, and we can spread around what session is focused on what party members.
But if we have too many, the number of session to go by before someone's charter might be back round to some spot light can be too long.
And with enough in the party it is a lot harder to have a good ensemble story that does nicely include everyone.

5 I have found to be the number i work best with.

once enough players want in i find it works better for a west marches style spin, that won't matter which charters or how many of them are present at any given session.

Oh and last but not least to me, just the statistical probability of holding a consistent game day session.
The more people involved, the greater the odds are that any given session won't include everyone or not enough of everyone to even hold a session.

At 6 people total, 5 party and a GM, i find the miss rate seems to average about 25%, and just goes up significantly from there with each added person.
Missing too many session too consistently can put an end to a campaign as players and GM alike will "lose the thread" as i tend to call it.