Ideal party size?

[Wintermute]

Boycotting poll because 6 is not an answer on it's own and it is the only answer.

 

[Saber-Scorpion]

Voted 8+. I used a mod in Temple of Elemental Evil so I could have a full custom 8-person party instead of hiring stupid recruits, and I loved it. Same with NWN2: Storm of Zehir, although I loved that a little less thanks to the engine making things awkward. I still greatly enjoyed micro-managing my party's myriad prestige classes though. There were plenty of class/build options in both of those games to keep all 8 characters interesting. This wouldn't work with every RPG, obviously... but that's my ideal. I wish more games let you go BIG.

The important thing though, no matter the party size, is that I'm allowed to create my whole party myself if I so desire. Being forced to reserve party slots for pre-made NPC idiots is crap.

 

[TheEntitledOne]

Ideal party size:

My 120 Men-at-arms vs their 7 starved looters.

 

[V_K]

Ideal party size:

My 120 Men-at-arms vs their 7 starved looters.

If RPGs are any indication, the looters will win.

 

[mondblut]

Lots. I always play JA2 with 32 mercs (in 4 separate parties of 8 though). 6 is a bare minimum, 8 is acceptable.

 

[Morkar Left]

7-8 when you have some classes and skills to choose from is the perfect size. 5-6 is tolerable, with 4 or less I always feel something is missing. Except it's a purely 3d realtime without pause "rpg". In that case, it shouldn't be more than four.

 

[TigerKnee]

Ideal party size:

My 120 Men-at-arms vs their 7 starved looters.

Rance plz

 

[Lilura]

Warband: a max of sixteen companions if morale's through the roof, and you're charismatic.

 

[Shagnak]

6

 

[Sacred82]

Ideal party size:

My 7 armored knights vs their 120 crawling lepers.

ftfy

 

[T. Reich]

There's no "ideal" size, but the best limit is anywhere between 3 and 6, depending on the game system (size and length of an average encounter, depth of tactical options, overall damage-to-life balance, etc).
Less than 3 is not a party, more than 6 is usually a pain in the ass to properly manage.

 

[Serus]

5+. Four often feels to low a number, doesn't allow any freedom in party setup. There is a maximum number of curse but it depends on the mechanics of the game, ui and other factors.

 

[Jason Liang]

I think between 3-5. 6 is overkill; there's really no challenge in games with 6 party size. Losing a member in battle hardly makes a difference; it's pretty difficult to get the whole party wiped out.

3 is good for a challenge, as it makes having a defensive character like a cleric/ medic a more painful choice. It also makes losing a member dangerous. However, if it's the same 3 characters the whole game it gets to be kind of boring.

3 party RPGs:
Shadowrun (Genesis)
Dragon Warrior 2
Final Fantasy VIII

4 party RPGs:
Shadowrun Returns/ Dragonfall/ Hong Kong
Darklands
Darkest Dungeon
Invisible Inc.
Dragon Warrior 3

5 party RPGs:
Pool of Radiance
Temple of Elemental Evil

6 party RPGs:
Wizardry 1, VII

That's off the top of my head. Anyway, I think the best mix of challenge and variety is 3 character party, with characters that have some versatility (for example, NWN/ 3rd Edition characters).

 

[Reinhardt]

it's pretty difficult to get the whole party wiped out.

Try Elminage Gothic.

 

[Declinator]

6 is overkill; there's really no challenge in games with 6 party size. Losing a member in battle hardly makes a difference; it's pretty difficult to get the whole party wiped out.

Play some JA2

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

Most iimportantly, the classes should be varied and interesting. Keep the boring tank/healer/dps shit in the mmos that spawned them.

 

[Damned Registrations]

To be fair, the mmos didn't spawn those, the players did. I recall playing EQ back in the day in a party of 5 mages (basically wizards with permanent elemental bodyguards) and we kicked ass- no need for healers or tanks. But shitty people like to follow formulas instead of experimenting.

 

[Abu Antar]

I have no preference. It all depends on the game and how the combat works. In general, I'd say 3-6, but that is just if I had to give an answer.

 

[Irenaeus III]

4 or 5, voted 4.

 

[Morality Games]

Any less than four and you're rarely going to have interesting combat in my experience. I have a soft spot for 4 because of pen and paper days, but you're usually a bit tied up in 'necessary classes' so something like 6 is my favourite.

'It depends' is a logical but boring answer, so no cheating.

Torment has 6.

So that many.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

500.

500 fully customizable people from classes to equipment to perks to looks to everything.

You can then assign them into sub units. Turn based combat between those sub units. Combat can take up to 2 hours.

But no one will make it.

 

[sser]

1.

My problem with large party RPG games is that... strategy games just do it better. And large parties indicate some amount of disposability, but that rarely comes into play with RPGs.

Here's my biggest problem with large-party RPG games: you might as fucking well be just one dude most of the time anyway. If every single battle's going to be in a square-shaped, 1-level room that you got to by walking through a corridor, then why the fuck even have a party? This is why blobbers work so well with parties, because the diversification and multiplication of members is basically just an increased "ability" toolset - their presence is the gameplay. That isometric party shit, though... yikes. Sometimes it's alright. Sometimes I can load up IWD and just play it like Diablo with extra dudes, but most of the time it's pretty fucking dumb.

The games I really keep returning to are the ones that are quasi-strategy/tactical. Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm, etc. Those games have party members with personalities and RPG-like leveling up. But what they also have is huge environments to fight in with lots of ways to approach situations (and they have the blatant superiority of being turn-based when handling large numbers of characters). Also, one of the bigger draws of a 'party' in the first place was often seeing the writers flex some character and personality. But the past few games I've played with parties it's actually more of just me being a Counselor and playing Mr/Mrs Therapist to a group dipshit fuckwits whose problems I could not care less about.

 

[Mastermind]

6
Enough to get a variety of classes and roles without becoming too unmanageable or forcing a dumbing down of the character system to make manageable.

 

[bloodlover]

This is a very general question given the number of games that it applies to but instead of quantity, I'd say quality is more important. You can faceroll a game by having one or six characters assuming you know what is ahead of you but as a first time player I feel that it's more about balance and composition than numbers. Think that the most difficult battles in BG2 are vs mages and depending on party composition they can be trivial or challenging.

I don't understand why people are against the "standard" party composition. Yeah you could melt faces with 6 mages in the party but you'd miss on seeing what goodies other classes can bring.

 

[oldmanpaco]

5-7 is best for a non-action rpg. You typically need the base 4 but the other spots are where the interesting decisions/strategies come in.

But it does depend on how many roles the players have available to them. If there are only a few available classes there is no point.