Optimal number of players online?

[Tropico]

Disclaimer: The following applies to text-only, roleplay-heavy type games.

So, this is just a random thought, but it ocurred to me that the most 'immersive' and just plain enjoyable FG2 experiences I've had so far are the ones where a couple players don't show up and we decide to go ahead with who we have anyway. Which is to say, games with 2 or at most 3 players.

I find that when you hit 4 players there starts to be a 'tuna-can' effect where people start to talk over each other, repeat the same actions, to splinter off into interactions between some of the PCs that leave someone else out of the loop for that amount of time, or to become impatient to get going while the others are still sorting something out. The more players over 3 there are, the more pronounced all this is. This is in addition to the obvious 'waiting longer for your turn in combat' and whatnot.

On the other hand, when it's been 2 or 3 players and a GM, there's a much stronger tendency to cooperate, to wait for other people, to talk stuff out, to let each PC shine and to participate in everything. There's a lot less 'fighting for the spotlight' so to speak, and a lot more working together and complementing each other, and those sessions tend to stick out in my mind a lot more afterwards.

It's weird because we all know the 'optimal' number for adventuring is 4 to 6 people, and d20 is totally geared to that so we just accept it as a given. But I submit to you, purely on experience and 'feeling' alone, that for online, text-based roleplaying two or three PCs at a time is the best. Thoughts?

(Edit -> just to be clear, this is in no way implying that I haven't enjoyed those sessions I've had with a lot of people, quite the contrary!! :) Just that I like the 'feel' of fewer players a little more, from an 'immersion' point of view.)

[devinnight]

I would agree with you, while I usually won't play with less than 3 having more than 5 is somewhat tedious.
My campaign ran with 3-7 players. Seven was too many and you did have long drawn out times when I am sure the players were bored. The games with just 3 seemed to have a bit more energy and the players felt more open to discuss things and participate.

I also think that the longer the game runs the more likely people will start dozing off.. not in length of weekly games but continous hours. I have 2 hour sessions by neccesity as much as noticing that after the 3rd hour players get tired. This may be due to the sitting in one place staring at text associated with online play.

So yes, I concur.

-D

[Waldo Pepper]

After many, many years of GMing I've come to conclude that the optimal group size for most games is 4 or less, even for face-to-face games. I too used to think that parties needed to be 6+, largely because I mainly played AD&D & D20 and those systems encourage and almost demand larger # of players to create a balanced party. For some reason many RPGers naturally feel that big parties (think the Fellowship or Dragonlance) are also optimal but if you look at most good literary examples you'll find that groups are typically quite small or made up of only 1-2 heroes. I've thus concluded, based on a lot of empirical experience, that play quality (especially player spotlight time) goes down rapidly once you get beyond the 4th player - the story drags out, characters tend to become less connected, and it's easier for the game to get side tracked or even derailed. Bookkeeping, etc. also are much more tedious with more players.

I think this is doubly true for online games where you also run the increasing risk of no-shows, conflicts, or wonky players as you increase party size. I've had numerous games killed by erratic player participation because we couldn't maintain any continuity or momentum. Nowadays I'd rather have a really high quality interaction with just a few players than have a huge group of people, most of whom sit on their hands half the night while I'm trying to process each of their turns or more their story arcs forward.

[Griogre]

The problem is you also want a big enough group that enough show up so you can play. I find five to be about opitimal. More than six is too much and depending on your campaign less than three too few.

[NymTevlyn]

Three players is just about right, provided they're reliable for showing up.

[VenomousFiligree]

I had some very good RP sessions with myself and two others, admittedly they are RL friends and we had a good chin wag (via skype) at the same time.

I also had a good hack and slash style dungeon (still with good RP) with 4/5 players from the FG boards.

And possibly being with Tropico when he had one of his good small party sessions ( ;) ), I would say, yes, small groups can make for good sessions. And I've never played with more than 5! (with FG) :)

[Tropico]

The problem is you also want a big enough group that enough show up so you can play.

Yup, that's a really good point, when I get to GMing I know that if I aim for 3 players, I'll probably end up with just one for the session :confused: (although I gotta say, the few recent games I've been in have had excellent player follow-through, with just one guy stepping out who let us know the day before).

And having 5 really has not been a problem in any game.. I guess my message with this thread is, if you do find you only have 3 players show up - or even just two! - ..try playing it out anyways.. you just might be pleasantly surprised ;)

[Tropico]

And possibly being with Tropico when he had one of his good small party sessions ( ;) ), I would say, yes, small groups can make for good sessions.

Haha.. come on MB.. do you really think we could have pulled off the ol' confuse-the-old-guy-while-the-runt-slips-in-and-finds-crap-then-runs-back-
-out-so-you-can-bring-the-gentleman-to-order-people-around-and-get-
-jumped-on-by-OMGBBQ-a-big-frickin-monster trick if we had 5 people strolling
around that flophouse? I think not!


...I did miss Miranda though :(

[VenomousFiligree]

Haha.. come on MB.. do you really think we could have pulled off the ol' confuse-the-old-guy-while-the-runt-slips-in-and-finds-crap-then-runs-back-
-out-so-you-can-bring-the-gentleman-to-order-people-around-and-get-
-jumped-on-by-OMGBBQ-a-big-frickin-monster trick if we had 5 people strolling
around that flophouse? I think not!


...I did miss Miranda though :(
Hmmmmmmm :D

[scytale2]

Optimal would definitely be four imho, but smaller and larger groups focus on different things:
Smaller - a bit more time to roleplay around situations and consider strategy, but group can be easily wiped out:)
Larger - a bit more flexibility to tackle those slightly tougher encounters, but discipline required not to make the combats too complex or delay the rest of the group when it is your turn. Roleplay needs to be speedy too.
GM needs to be properly prepared and fingers crossed there won't be too many delays, even with 7 or 8.
I would also recommend that new players start in a smaller group first time they play, because when the numbers go up, the pressure is on much more to be swift.
Personal view would be to avoid large combats in FG, as they are hard to finish and these are much more game-breaking than higher numbers of players. Having said that, when handled speedily, large combats can be a lot of fun, notably the lengthy kobold combat in "Where the Dark Things Roam".
If there is no combat in a session, then player numbers are less concerning.

[Sigurd]

Personally I think 3 players that are involved is the optimal number. For that reason I think that 4 players is the best FG number. One person inevitably is late/missing or has their head in the clouds.

If you can keep it to 4 then you will have a little wiggle room for getting people if you lose one.


Sigurd