Build or recruit a party?

[Damned Registrations]

I like both methods. I largely play games because I enjoy achieving mastery over systems, so whether I do that through party creation or careful management of pre existing characters makes little difference in the end; having both types just means I get the novelty of a different kind of system to exploit.

I will say when it comes to premade characters, I tend to prefer the more jrpg approach, where the characters in question are unique in ways that break symmetry, both with enemies and between party members. You can give characters abilities or traits that would be wildly unbalanced in a customized setup, because the dev can give the character the right flaws to balance things out. For example, you could make a character with really powerful regeneration abilities that would be overpowered on a front line fighter, but balance it by making him someone unlikely to be injured anyways like an archer, or preventing him from wearing armour so he is on the front line but is vulnerable to burst damage rather than attrition.

 

[CryptRat]

Build a party of up to 6, throw in a pair of recruitables. Between GB, MM3 and Wiz8, nothing could go wrong.

This. The important thing is that I build a true party. Then a few recruitable, and in particular temporary ones (Gold Box), why not...
Legend of Faerghail and WL2 propose a strong recruitable character at the beginning, that's an option for an open-world game, during your first playthrough you'll probably recruit him, but not nessecessarily during the further ones.

I prefer to have both types of games available.

This, if you mean both types of options in one game.

I think that he means the different options in different games. We don't want to play the same game forever.

The only problem for creating all the characters for a party in a game I play for a first time is that I just do not have any guarantee that the skill, for example "soldering" or "snuff filming" will be used at all in the game, or if it has any meaningful use in the game. Buck Rogers fucked with you nicely in this context if you did not read the manual.

That's a part of the fun to create a party which finally sucks. Playing a party which by chance is bad makes also a good experiment.

 

[Scroo]

I love to build my own party. I basically give every member a personality myself and do not care about recruited members. Also there's always something wrong about recruited members since they are never 100 % built the way I would build them

Besides, building a party for hours is great fun imho

 

[Ulminati]

Depends on the game. If NPCs have somewhat interesting interactions with other NPCs in quests, I may bring them along. If they haven't, I'd rather roll them myself.

But it's usually not until the second playthrough I'll know if NPCs have special interactions

 

[mondblut]

Also there's always something wrong about recruited members since they are never 100 % built the way I would build them

Dumb biowareans cannot into powergaming within their very own game system

One of these day, sometime far in the future, I'll give another try to the BGs. This time with no fake MP, only recruitables - but first, I'll wipe their character sheets and remake them into whatever characters I would have created. 18x6 dualclass kensai-mage Minsc, anyone?

 

[PeachPlumage]

I like both, just depends on the game.

 

[kain30]

My choice is for the mix. I love creating a little party and then finding NPCs that want to join me.

 

[Carrion]

If the game is a Torment, recruitable companions are the way to go. If it's a ToEE, then full party creation is the only real option. Pre-made companions should always offer something more than just inane banter, which could be uncertainty of their loyalties ("DON'T TRUST THE SKULL") or moral dilemmas that arise when you're travelling with people that have their own agendas (like Good and Evil characters being at each other's throats in BG or leaving the party if you do something that they can't agree with). If the party exists just to kill stuff without worrying about it, then it's much more fun to create a full party from scratch.

Also, four sucks as a party size as it usually leads to all parties being pretty much the same. Six or more is much better.

 

[laclongquan]

Yeah, 4 is too tight so the roles is very detailed. With 6 you have some slacks to experiment with weird configuration of skill, race and class

 

[Reinhardt]

Build a party of up to 6, throw in a pair of recruitables.

This. And no less than 6 characters, yes.

 

[SirSingAlot]

spending 10hrs+ of rerolling and thinking about my ideal party composition is all i ask from a RPG

 

[Reinhardt]

And i like, when joinable characters offers something new to created party. Races, like dolls in Elminage or classes.

 

[octavius]

This, if you mean both types of options in one game.

The only problem for creating all the characters for a party in a game I play for a first time is that I just do not have any guarantee that the skill, for example "soldering" or "snuff filming" will be used at all in the game, or if it has any meaningful use in the game. Buck Rogers fucked with you nicely in this context if you did not read the manual.

I didn't mean both types of options in one game, but you have a good point.
In games where you need to have played the game to know which skills are useful, pregens are a time saver.

 

[Crichton]

I vastly prefer to build my own party; games with worthwhile traveling companions (Arcanum, Mask of the Betrayer, Planescape:Torment, Shadowrun Dragonfall) are quite rare so most of the time you get stuck with Jahira bitching about balance or Durance scratching his balls. However, I think the perfect balance (ha!) might be the Pillars of Eternity system where you can do one playthrough with a bunch of noisy NPCs to see how they interact with things and then replace them with cruel and efficient robots for subsequent playthroughs.

 

[Trojan_generic]

I think that he means the different options in different games. We don't want to play the same game forever.


That's a part of the fun to create a party which finally sucks. Playing a party which by chance is bad makes also a good experiment.

You are certainly not wrong, but the older I get the more I tend to avoid these "good experiments". Either I really have less time to play, or then the love for hardcore RPG's in me is leaking out somehow - probably a result of the worst years of decline when I did not expect much from games with RPG on the cover.

 

[pippin]

I like it when you can create your characters but still have a few slots for hiring npcs.

 

[Tripicus]

I like both, but prefer hireable NPCs as it's more like managing a team. You deal with the crap from an NPC, and then you get the satisfaction of canning them once you come across someone else you prefer.

Kind of like joy you get from replacing old equipment with the new you gain through the game, except it's a character.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I like finding new team members (IE games) since it permits you to interact with them and their story line. Of course D:OS had the chance to interact with the created members also, but the interaction was utter shit so it doesn't count. Created party can be useful to create a sense of ''I'm an adventurer'' much like single-PC game can do it. I like both but I prefer the richness of NPCs over PC-based party.

 

[octavius]

Well designed companions with a good reason for being in the party and providing lulz > a set of mumbers that go up > poorly designed/annoying companions made by designers with a social or political agenda, or to provide romance.

 

[Reinhardt]

10hrs+ of rerolling

Ninjas!

 

[laclongquan]

Zehyrs can be a stone bitch to start that way~

 

[Jedi Exile]

Building is for combatfags, recruiting is for storyfags.

 

[laclongquan]

Succintly put~

 

[Azrael the cat]

Really depends on how well the 'recruit a party' is done. For me, that can be the best option, so long as it actually feels like you're putting together a crew. There needs to be variation in capabilities, alignments and goals - not just personalities. The main problem, for example, with DA:O 'recruit a party' for me was that all the party members were interchangeable, and it really didn't matter what combination of characters or classes you had.

 

[Excidium II]

I voted build your own party, mainly because recruiting often ends up with limited character choices which can make more unorthodox parties impossible, specially if the companions have a lot of writing depth. That's p. much the only problem, since even with recruiting dudes nothing stops it from allowing you to set all their stats.

I don't really care much about numbers, people obsess with having 6+ parties because most games have banal, shit, boring combat mechanics. Of course if half your party is condemned to (A)ttack, (B)lock and (M)ove you better have plenty of dudes to have a semblance of tactics. That said, I think bigger parties tend to be better because they allow for more variety in roster and gives the developer more freedom to design encounters and add more lethal mechanics.

Small parties are specially a problem with D&D-like games, with 4 dudes for instance, you're condemned to having a fighter to frontline, a thief to deal with traps and locks, and mage for control and aoe, and a cleric for support. So you're basically left with a cookie-cutter party, it can perhaps be salvaged a bit with multiclassing if it's supported but it's still not ideal.