D&D 4e: Play by Post & Party Size.

[Virulent Lover]

Lately I've been thinking about some of the issues with the nature of Play by Post style gaming and what of the big problems I've noticed in PbP games without set times for folks to be on and/or the use of voice chatting abilities to speed certain things up is party size. Too few and each member is all the more crucial. Too many and the group hits blocks of waiting on a single member for extended periods of time.

As far as you all go, what do you consider the ideal number of players, despite the fact 4e was balanced around party size of 5.

Personally speaking, I believe the magic number to be four PC's.

Two is rough on the PC's as is. Takes a bit more coordinating of builds, moreso if the game is to feature skill challenges on top of combat. Either/or tends to be perfectly acceptable. If either character has an absence the game is essentially unplayable without them. There's just no way around it, outside of someone else controlling the character.

On the flip side of things, 6 players and more gets to be rather unruly. Lots of coordination is required. Fights are slow. Actual role playing and character building is especially slow. The latter is fine, if the game is based around such things. Hell, slow fights are fine, if the game is role play heavy from the beginning. But, if not or if some of the members are not interested in such things their interests will fade and fast. Losing members is a mixed bag, depending on how vital they were but that's getting into a lot more than I'd like to get into.

Three and five member parties are workable. They're essential 2/6 member parties minus/plus a few calories.

But, with 4 players it's really easy to shore up any issues a party may have, regardless of what's lacking, just about. Some things are impossible to fix, such as natural one's, but that's a moot point.

A lot of this post got lost in my mind as it wandered faster than my fingers could keep up. Just cannot type like I used to. Age has not treated me kindly, that is for certain.  

[Lord of the Vine]

A 5-person party for PbP is manageable. It just requires a bit more bureaucracy than a 3-4 man party. For instance, most of my games include a 24-hr post for making a check, since I know people can be busy from time-to-time. I also shorten my typical encounters from what they should be on a tabletop.

Its all about how you manage the game. Number of players is irrelevant.  

[Virulent Lover]

Number of players is by no means irrelevant. Sure, most anything can be worked around, but to what end? If players are repeatedly being left out because of a time restraint the game isn't going to have near the same feel as if the characters took active rolls in the game. Tradition PbP format doesn't work well with major time restraints. Something gets lost in act. Usual the role play aspect of the game. Optimization isn't about what's manageable, or workable.  

[Lord of the Vine]

If players are being left out, players are more than likely too busy to be playing the game anyway, in which case its up to the DM to discuss with them what's going on and if its worth having their player keep going or not.  

[Virulent Lover]

Dion Necurat

If players are being left out, players are more than likely too busy to be playing the game anyway, in which case its up to the DM to discuss with them what's going on and if its worth having their player keep going or not.

Too busy to play, you say?

Let's look at a 24 hour time limit, shall we? Average person will have roughly seven hours of sleep, the majority of D&D players are adults so tack on 8 hour work days, usually with time devoted to getting ready every 'morning'(30mins to an hour), commute to and from work(on average an hour), meals, as well as social lives causing the player to not be around constantly. Taking this and factoring in differences in time schedules and waiting on others so they can take their actions, which has some merit in character building, but is even more necessary in combat 24 hours simply isn't that much time. Three days is more reasonable, for a completely active group of five and even then that could be pushing it.  

[Lord of the Vine]

Virulent Lover

Dion Necurat

If players are being left out, players are more than likely too busy to be playing the game anyway, in which case its up to the DM to discuss with them what's going on and if its worth having their player keep going or not.

Too busy to play, you say?

Let's look at a 24 hour time limit, shall we? Average person will have roughly seven hours of sleep, the majority of D&D players are adults so tack on 8 hour work days, usually with time devoted to getting ready every 'morning'(30mins to an hour), commute to and from work(on average an hour), meals, as well as social lives causing the player to not be around constantly. Taking this and factoring in differences in time schedules and waiting on others so they can take their actions, which has some merit in character building, but is even more necessary in combat 24 hours simply isn't that much time. Three days is more reasonable, for a completely active group of five and even then that could be pushing it.

72-hour time between checks is simply too much time for a party of five. 24 hours is the minimum I use, and I don't go more than 48 hours. This gives players plenty of time to make their posts. Its a rule I employ for each game I use, and I haven't had too many problems with players missing in that time.

Like I said, it isn't about player size, since ANY number of players can be a hindrance if they aren't active.  

[Anatarei Crimsonthrone]

Dion Necurat

72-hour time between checks is simply too much time for a party of five. 24 hours is the minimum I use, and I don't go more than 48 hours. This gives players plenty of time to make their posts. Its a rule I employ for each game I use, and I haven't had too many problems with players missing in that time.

Like I said, it isn't about player size, since ANY number of players can be a hindrance if they aren't active.

It should be noted that you don't exactly follow it while playing, from what
i've seen in Ending the War.

Personally, I don't have a problem, generally, with 3-5 players. If you have more PCs, when one inevitably falls off the face of the planet, you can make due easier.  

[Lord of the Vine]

Anatarei Crimsonthrone

Dion Necurat

72-hour time between checks is simply too much time for a party of five. 24 hours is the minimum I use, and I don't go more than 48 hours. This gives players plenty of time to make their posts. Its a rule I employ for each game I use, and I haven't had too many problems with players missing in that time.

Like I said, it isn't about player size, since ANY number of players can be a hindrance if they aren't active.

It should be noted that you don't exactly follow it while playing, from what
i've seen in Ending the War.

From one check where 3 or 4 people, and also when I had declared that I was asleep (therefore inable to make such a check).  

[Rain Yupa]

I find it's better in PBP to start with a larger group and expect to lose 1 or 2 players in the process, and adjust my encounters on the fly (a luxury of PBP games).

I should probably impose a harsher limit on posting frequency, but I understand people have busy lives, and mine has bouts of business as well. I refuse to enforce a restriction that I cannot turn around and abide by myself 100% of the time, because stuff happens.  

[Virulent Lover]

Rain Yupa

I find it's better in PBP to start with a larger group and expect to lose 1 or 2 players in the process, and adjust my encounters on the fly (a luxury of PBP games).

This is one of, if not the only decent argument I've heard for larger group sizes.  

[Arc Vembris]

Five is absolutely the sweet-spot, particularly since I use published adventures for the most part. I call for six players whenever recruiting for the very reason Rain lists: my parties usually wind up at four players after having recruited six.

I used to use the same rule Necurat describes for a 24hr post. Then I had a kid and now I'm lucky if I update my games once a week. I support this rule in spirit because it's up to a DM to maintain the pace in a pbp game, but go easy on your players. Never chew anyone out for missing a deadline, and cut a healthy monster from acting the same turn a player misses.