8 character parties

[Zuikov]

Ahh, the size of the party. I actually like having fewer party members because I hate excessive micro-management. I especially noticed this with Infinity games where I first played all the games with the normal 6 party member set up and later I have tried them again with only 4 party members and found the combat change into much better. It makes it more difficult in the right way. You can use all the characters fully without having to micro-manage them constantly(I haven't had much good experiences with the party AI in these games). I usually reload when someone dies in my party(especially if there's a romance going on!) so having only 4 characters makes each of them less vulnerable and a plus for me.

PST is an exception because it doesn't have that much combat and it has more interaction with the party members. Sure there is the negative side of having less freedom with party planning but I haven't found including special classes in your party making IE games too hard.

Does everyone in the Codex hate this on going trend of smaller party sizes or does someone have similar experiences with me?

 

[GarfunkeL]

I'm pretty conflicted about the whole issue.

On one hand, I love JA2 and customizing and "managing" my 18 mercs. It's great fun to hear their voices and reactions to different events. It's also great fun to think your tactics through and then execute them in turn-based goodness.

On the other hand, more players mean more frantic real-time combat where I often loose control of half of my party (NWN2, SoZ especially) and sometimes the chars don't come to life for me. Like in Natuk (where you have 8), my four melee guys are kinda just clones in my mind but the archer, xboworc, healer and mage have come to life - prolly because of their specialized role.

 

[BethesdaLove]

5 is ideal.

 

[mondblut]

On the other hand, more players mean more frantic real-time combat where I often loose control of half of my party (NWN2, SoZ especially)

Eh, why would it have to be realtime in the first place?

and sometimes the chars don't come to life for me. Like in Natuk (where you have 8), my four melee guys are kinda just clones in my mind but the archer, xboworc, healer and mage have come to life - prolly because of their specialized role.

Well, you can specialize the melee guys too. I had all my fighters specializing each in a different weaponskill, so an axeman was different from 2handedswordsman. Although after battling and looting dwarves I was seriously sorry I didn't specialize all in axes, hah.

 

[Luzur]

i never used any hirelings in the earlier M&M games, i just stripped them of their gear and took the dungoen keys they have in their packs and dump them in the Inn.

only time i took in hirelings was in M&M 8, when you started solo.

 

[Andrej]

I spy... Crag Hack in the second slot, yes?

 

[Luzur]

I spy... Crag Hack in the second slot, yes?

from left to right:

Sir Caneghem

CragHack

Maximus

Dark Shade

Resurectra

Kastore

Wartow-san

.....Gaylord? dammit cant remember the last guys name.

 

[Serus]

In a typical RPG 8 is way too many. More is not always better. Quantity is not always a quality on its own.
In a tactical game like JA2 - yes, in rpg - no thanks.

I like big parties, actually. It reminds me of the early days of D&D, where you would have four players, each with two characters (because at least one of them was almost certainly going to croak during the course of the adventure)

This is so... stupid. Im speechless. Where is the challenge ?

 

[santino27]

I like 8 for turn-based. 4-6 for real-time with pause. 1 for pure real time.

 

[Erzherzog]

AHA! So THATS why Volourn liked NWN, ebcause it had only 1 PC and i companion. To volly it means that it had more roleplaying.

I like your logic volly. You should join Bethesda, their game sonly have one pc!!! Can't get more roleplaying than that.

King of stupid comments right here.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I like 8 for turn-based. 4-6 for real-time with pause. 1 for pure real time.

Exactly my sentiments, though I didn't manage to convey them as efficiently.

 

[Haba]

8 is too much, at least if you want to have real character development for them.

It could work in JA-ish RPG where you only control the characters equipment and they don't "level up" (instead improve the skills as they use them).

But still, it'd be more of a warband than a party, so it'd be hard to get attached to your characters. Not necessarily a bad thing, just different.

 

[lordfrikk]

I like to play for myself, so only 1 character, I guess I'm probably all alone here on Codex, but what the hell.

My first playthroughs in F1 etc were with party but after a while I always felt like they were slowing me down, so I just dumped them near my item stash

 

[sheek]

Though 5 is usually all you _need_, I think 7 is ideal.

Starting with five you can usually cover every possible role (which four can't) but then you have no backup, if one character gets injured, separated or dies. Characters six and seven can cover two or three roles and add flavor (more unusual races, specializations, sub-classes - like a Hobbit or an Archer or something).

Anything past ten would start to be too much to manage with a typical moderately complex ruleset.

 

[RK47]

I don't know that any CRPG really exploited the possibilities that having large parties provides, though. For example, it would be cool to be able to split the party up and leave some members to guard the horses, or a strategic point in the dungeon while the rest of the party ventures onward.

RoA had splittable parties.

Actually, RoA is one of those games I really liked having lots of party member. You really need their skills in many situations. The Hunter is needed to hunt for food, the wizard to apply herbs on the sick, the warrior to help others swim across, the rogue to pick lock etc. It's not just combat options, but the application of their specialties. Heck, you can even send your jester to a tavern to play music for coin or the rogue can mingle in the crowd and steal coins.