What party size do you prefer ?

[Erebus]

How many characters you can have in your party is a pretty important technical element in a CRPG, especially as far as combat is concerned, so I'm rather curious to know what people prefer to have.

In some CRPG, such as The Witcher, Diablo, Battlespire and Fable, you can only have a single character. (Of course, some of these CRPG are actually pretty close to being action games with stats and experience.)

Being allowed a party size of only two isn't common. The only example that comes to my mind is NWN 1.

Betrayal at Krondor, Betrayal in Antara and some jRPG have a party size of three.

Four seems to be the most common party size these days. It's always been common with jRPG, it's been used by the more recent Might and Magic games, Neverwinter Nights 2 and, as far as I can tell, Dragon Age.

Five isn't common. You could have five characters in the second half of NWN 2, but I can't think of another example.

Six used to be a very common party size : the Gold Box games, the early M&M games, Baldur's Gate, IWD, Torment... It seems to have fallen out of favor these days, however.

Party size greater than six aren't common. There were some Gold Box games where 1 or 2 NPCs would join your party of six for a limited amount of time. I think you could recruit 2 NPCs in M&M 3 but I'm not sure.

There are also games in which the party size isn't a specific number. In Arcanum, for instance, your number of followers would depend on your Charisma.

I'm fond of large parties and I wish recent games still allowed you to have six characters (yeah, I know you could have a party of six in SoZ ; wasn't enough to make me like the game). The tactical aspect of combat is much more interesting when you have a high number of characters, each with his strengths and weaknesses. Also, having a high number of characters gives you much more freedom with regards to the composition of the party. In D&D-like games, chances are you'll need a Fighter, a Mage, a Priest and a Thief, or their equivalents. If you're limited to four characters, your choices are fairly restricted.

Of course, you don't need such a large party when the character types you have access to aren't so diverse. BaK and BiA only had two : fighter and spellcaster. jRPG characters tend to be much less specialized, so having a large party wouldn't be such a plus.

 

[KalosKagathos]

I prefer 4. Less is too boring, more is too awkward, especially in RTwP games.

 

[Liberal]

I don't like parties, everyone ends up piss drunk and telling bad jokes about getting piss drunk in the past all the time.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

When there is subterfuge 2-4 otherwise 6-16 (spliting two 8s) and I dont care a damn about the combat. An 8 person party game could be organized well in an Action game.

 

[Wulfstand]

6. I'd love to see more 6-party-member cRPGs these days.
But then again I'd love to see more actually good crpgs these days.

 

[Korgan]

Six if the focus is on unrealistic fantasy combat, Dragon Age/Wizardry/MMO style. Four if each companion is tactically unique and needs a lot of management.
Interaction-wise, it's not that straightforward, as the balance between the total amount of NPCs, how fleshed out they are, and how many you can get to know/influence/romance at a time is always uncertain. BG2 goes for massive replayability, PsT gives you the same (great) party every damn time.

 

[PorkaMorka]

One of the bigger flaws of games like Avernum and KOTC is the 4 man party.

Six is really a bare minimum, with only four the tactics can become extremely simplistic, especially as you're likely to have four very specialized guys. Like in Avernum (early on anyway) I typically have two guys who can only fight, one guy who can only cast priest spells, and one guy who can only cast mage spells.

So my tactics are almost invariably going to be... two guys up front fighting, priest spams healing and maybe some buffs, mage either buffs or shoots off damage spells. Repeat.

A six to eight man party (or 6 plus two controllable NPCs) with a lot of mixed role units is really a lot more interesting, assuming that the enemy groups are similarly scaled up in power.

That's for classic RPGs... for SRPGs which operate on a series of large scenarios, I like a lot more units, 16-20, is nice. Hopefully some of these will be semi -disposable and hopefully the enemy armies will be powerful and numerous enough to threaten your large PC force.

 

[JarlFrank]

6 to 8.
See Wizardries, Might and Magic before 6, Infinity Engine.

 

[sportforredneck]

I feel like everything, what you think of games is influenced by your youth, so 6 seems good to me. Especially with a more varied class system than "warrior" "mage" "thief." Since if you only have mages for spellcasters in Wizardry, you'd be p. fucked, since they can't cast heal wounds.

 

[Korgan]

A 4-man party worked great in Darklands because the fantasy combat bullshit was mostly cut out. You could have a virtuous knight who could count on divine favour and be diplomatic, a barbarian type with the heaviest gear possible, a fighting bishop and a smart alchemist, and that party covered all utility roles nicely while being able to kick serious ass.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I prefer to have no party members. Especially if I can't control said party members.

 

[Volourn]

Unlimited. It should be solely based on character personality dymanics, motivations for joining, etc., etc. 'Balance' be damned.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Unlimited. It should be solely based on character personality dymanics, motivations for joining, etc., etc. 'Balance' be damned.

Yes, if I do need party members or if I want them, this is how I want them.

I also demand that they come packaged with a voice actor. In Arcanum I refused to bring anyone along if they didn't have a snazzy voice. I only made an exception for Worthless Mutt.

 

[Good Ol' Drog]

3-4 is enough, micromanagement becomes annoying if you have more.

 

[Volourn]

Only if you are a moron who can't handle complexity.

 

[Good Ol' Drog]

Only if you are a moron who can't handle complexity.

I don't play RPGs for micromanagement. There can be a satisfying complexity in many aspects of an RPG, but micromanagement, more often than not, is just not fun.

 

[ElectricOtter]

4 at the least, but 6 is great:

2 fighters
1 thief
1 mage
1 cleric
1 slot to fool around with

EDIT:

Like in Avernum (early on anyway) I typically have two guys who can only fight, one guy who can only cast priest spells, and one guy who can only cast mage spells.

So my tactics are almost invariably going to be... two guys up front fighting, priest spams healing and maybe some buffs, mage either buffs or shoots off damage spells. Repeat.

I suggest you try Exile. Like Avernum, but with 6 people and no classes. You just distribute skill points as you wish.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

6-8 core party + additional units.

 

[Norfleet]

I don't care how many, as long as it's "all of them". I detest systems like DA's, where you can have a kajillion people, most of whom do not desire to actually PARTICIPATE in the thing that signed up for, since you can only bring 3 out of the approximately-dozen. What are the rest of them doing? Nothing! They are useless. What's the point of even having them if you cannot use them?

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

A 4-man party worked great in Darklands because the fantasy combat bullshit was mostly cut out. You could have a virtuous knight who could count on divine favour and be diplomatic, a barbarian type with the heaviest gear possible, a fighting bishop and a smart alchemist, and that party covered all utility roles nicely while being able to kick serious ass.

Darklands could have really used a battle hound.

 

[Azrael the cat]

6. I reallly really miss the days of six-man parties. 4 is worst for me: 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 area dps, 1 thief. With 6-8 you get the strategic options of what part of your party strengths you want to buff, what parts you want to leave weak. Do you have an uber front line so your squishies are never touched? Do you want mostly casters so no-one reaches you (but you're screwed if they do)? Do you go healing heavy? Do you go for multiple ranged power? The 'party-building' aspect of rpgs (which was my favourite part when growing up on them as a kid with the Wiz games and so on) died when they removed the 6-8 person party.

 

[laclongquan]

For rpg purpose, however many the game can allow at maximum.

For tactical purpose, it depend.

If maximum freedom, 2 team of 3. In a pinch, 2 teams of 4. But if allowed only a single team, 5 is optimum sized.

1 close quarter specialist.
1 CQC backup that can attack at range at need.
1 long range sniper. Either true sniper or a mage dedicated to sniping, or an archer concentrate on killing dangerous targets only.
1 specialist, generally of ninja/thief/stealth class who can recon. Assassination is fine but not needed.
1 commander. a true jack of all trade, he either can help the melee, or the sniper, or rescue the specialist.

CQC backup and commander are of lesser importance than the other 3. In a pinch, the specialist can be a commander, or backup too.

 

[dx__]

I've always been partial to 3-4. Any more than that, imho, as I'm not exactly fond of managing more than that at any time. I tend to feel overwhelmed.

[edit] : I usually play the subterfuge style, as I've never been one to go for a straight-up melee kill. I feel awkward when forced into hand-to-hand without chance of surprise, so yeah - 3-4 is superb for that, imho.

 

[bhlaab]

For solo w/ ai followers as many as I can get depending on whether I like them or not.

With party system stuff like baldur's gate... eh, I just fill out the usual "tank, mage, priest, thief" roles

 

[Phelot]

isometric BG style? As many as I can. Same goes with any form of turn based game.

But the newer 3D rotating camera style? I wanna go solo, or maybe one other character. It just gets to be too much for me having idiots running through each other all screaming shit when you tell them to attack. I can't stand it, it's part of what I hate about DA and NWN2.