What do you guys recommend using as the size of a fellowship for the game? I'm starting one on RPOL.net and don't want to accept too many players to handle since I'm new to how the system works.

I think it depends greatly on the players. My group has six players, and it can be a nightmare on times trying to get them back on track. But then, we're all easily distracted and they're all still slightly in the D&D mindset of 'hacky hacky'. That said, I don't think I'd want to go much larger than that even with a group of people completely at home in roleplaying all the time, simply because of the time and effort it would take during combat, and coming to a decision that everyone agrees on.

Agreed. I think the optimal range for most RPGs is between 3-6 players. If you're particularly comfortable with the system and/or have attentive and focused players you can go slightly above or below those numbers with a bit of extra effort. Beyond that things just become awkward.

I would rather choose 3 players

Bigasd, just out of curiosity, why only three?

My guess: Tie-breaker. Odd-numbered groups are more likely to reach a quorum on any decision as opposed to even-numbered groups.

Of course, he could just know 3 really good roleplayers... and if they would stop bringing their girl-/boy-friends and younger siblings, they might actually have time to play!

4 players allows all the traveling roles to be filled.

Five players allows all the Callings to be represented.

For FTF (face-to-face) gaming the social factors are such that I think 3-4 on-form players is probably ideal.

Self-indulgent example
But in our group of fortysomethings we need to have more than that, to allow for maybe 1 to be unavailable on the night -- working too far away to make the session or whatever -- and/or maybe 1-2 being sub-optimal owing to tiredness.

There are 7 of us, so full strength is 6 players.
When we're all there and all on top form this is a bit too many, as there are so many voices it's sometimes hard to get a word in, and in combats etc. it takes too long for each person's next turn to come round.
But we're usually not full strength. And ironically it's the sessions where there are only 4 players that the game flows best.


For PBF (play-by-forum), MU* or PbIM (play-by-instant-message, if I might coin a phrase) gaming, the dynamic is probably very different... I suspect a lot more depends on how verbose -- or keyboard-frenzied -- the individuals are. But 'dead air' is always the mood-killer.
Can anyone with more direct experience of this elaborate further...? Valarian, Kneverwinterknight, Gee4orce or others?

Cheers,
--Os.

Normally, I'd say between 4 to 6 players makes for a good online game - though I've run games with 2 players and this has been fine. This is one game where I'd accept up to 8 players. The game runs well with larger groups, I feel. At the moment, for the new campaign, I have 6 players and things run pretty well. Mind you, I've got a lot of experience using the Virtual Tabletop software I'm using and I'd probably recommend a smaller group for a novice GM.

A few shadow points handed out for misdeeds (like slaying innocents and stealing stuff) should hopefully sort them out.

I find for a con game 5 is a good number.

That made me laugh, though I think I wasn't clear. I merely meant their roleplaying skills are somewhat more lax and they feel combat is slightly more important. That said, one of them did, during the first session, announce 'I share out the food in my bag'. Upon my questioning of where he got it, he explained he stole it from the Gathering of Five Armies. Needless to say I 'awarded' him some shadow points