Ideal RPG party size?

[Bonerstorm]

That's only true if you assume the roster is stagnant. In which case it is correct to build a party that can muddle through anything without clear areas of focus.

If the roster can be adjusted with some information about what will be found in a particular dungeon, then you can do something like throw an obscene number of undead at the player to really give divine characters a chance to shine. This requires an element of craft that isn't present in procedural generation.

Maybe I just see most 6 char and 4 char games as a little stagnant. In MM4-5 (or earlier) they put work into NPCs in the tavern to take the place of chars... that nobody ever used. Same for Dragon Wars, and lots of other games. You fill your roster at game start and neglect they other parts and focus on the party you have. This is all play style, but it just seems odd that games create other chars but most people ignore that. MM6-8 you add NPCs for benefits and thats well done, but isn't related to party size per se.

Even in parties with 4 chars (Wasteland or others) and 6 chars, I won't add another NPC because it divides the XPs that much more. So, the party I start with is the party I (generally) finish with.

[NEG]

As to what's fun for me personally: depends on level. Higher numbers of party members can be fun at low levels, but at higher levels, it's overkill.

And I think that XP needs to be split between party members to discourage large party sizes. Want to drag a small army along with you? Fine. But you'll level up at a snail's pace because of it.

[ERYFKRAD]

I regret to inform you guys that everyone besides me chose the incorrect choice

Well I can't leave a bro out there alone

[Serus]

Depends on the game.

Turn Based? AP? RTWP? FPS?

If its turn based I'd prefer ~4ish
(waiting for 200 goblins to take their turn in BG3 is a bit much..)

For RTWP - 6 is good.

If it's a FPS / Third person.. I usually don't want any ******* following me around breaking stealth or randomly shooting **** - @Lhynn answer is the correct one.

We had this conversation on the "other forum" many times. The "200 goblins" taking turns forever is not the problem of turn based but of the developers putting fights with 200 of anything in their game. You need to take the mechanics you choose to use in your game into consideration and design encounters accordingly. Not that taking massive amount of cannon fodder is a good way to design an encounter - be it TB, RTwP or else. And if you really have to have massive battles in your game then maybe a pure CRPG is not the game you want? Just try some sort of a hybrid.
TLDR: Throwing tons of cannon fodder at the player is the problem, not TB.

****, i voted as Rusty. Is it me getting old, Rusty getting massively less trollish and inclined on his own forum, or just a coincidence? I'm not sure.
Tying the number of followers to leadership skill (or charisma or some combination of stat and skill) makes perfect sense in a CRPG. However there are reasons why, i think, people don't usually do it. Starting from possibly minor interface issues. Going to slightly bigger issues of creating content that people won't see (say additional join-able NPC). Ending with the really big one, one that matters - issue of balance. How to balance a game for a party of, say, 3 and 6, when the only things going for the "3" are a few more skill/statpoints on one (main) character? Scaling all encounters? Sure, can do that. Scaling game content to the party, be it by the level or by numbers is less than perfect and causes tons of problems on its own.
Still, it is the most prestigious choice. And the most ambitious and the most within RPG spirit.

[Shillitron]

If its turn based I'd prefer ~4ish
(waiting for 200 goblins to take their turn in BG3 is a bit much..)

We had this conversation on the "other forum" many times. The "200 goblins" taking turns forever is not the problem of turn based but of the developers putting fights with 200 of anything in their game. You need to take the mechanics you choose to use in your game into consideration and design encounters accordingly. Not that taking massive amount of cannon fodder is a good way to design an encounter - be it TB, RTwP or else. And if you really have to have massive battles in your game then maybe a pure CRPG is not the game you want? Just try some sort of a hybrid.
TLDR: Throwing tons of cannon fodder at the player is the problem, not TB.

Hey thanks for repeating the exact argument I was making. Great contribution.

[Tweed]

Big parties give me a big pp. I like being able to face hordes of enemies with a horde of my own, especially if there's a lot of different classes or buildfagging to do. Obviously 7+ groups are best suited to tactical rpgs, but it worked well in Grimoire. I also like the whole party size tied to skills bit so long as it still means I can have a big party if I invest in it, it makes having a large party another extension of buildfagging.

[Serus]

If its turn based I'd prefer ~4ish
(waiting for 200 goblins to take their turn in BG3 is a bit much..)

We had this conversation on the "other forum" many times. The "200 goblins" taking turns forever is not the problem of turn based but of the developers putting fights with 200 of anything in their game. You need to take the mechanics you choose to use in your game into consideration and design encounters accordingly. Not that taking massive amount of cannon fodder is a good way to design an encounter - be it TB, RTwP or else. And if you really have to have massive battles in your game then maybe a pure CRPG is not the game you want? Just try some sort of a hybrid.
TLDR: Throwing tons of cannon fodder at the player is the problem, not TB.

Hey thanks for repeating the exact argument I was making. Great contribution.

Hey, thanks for not being capable of actually making the argument you tried to make then. Or understanding one. Great... whatever.

For the record, your position was that TB is better for different games than RTwP because "200 goblins" is a bigger problem in TB. I, otoh, said that trash mobs aren't a valid reason for anything because a game with too many trash mobs is not worth playing at all, regardless of TB or RTwP, s**t game is s**t. That is, more or less, the opposite of what you claimed.

Of curse this thread is also about fee-fees so if you like to play games where those "200 goblins" await you behind every rock then sure, go ahead. It will only take you a bazillion hours of boredom in RTwP, instead of a gazillion in TB. Great difference.

[rusty_shackleford]

The issue with too many enemies is one created by developers, all turns inbetween a player's action can (and should be) compressed to a single simultaneous turn.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I prefer to have at least 6 characters on the field. First, it is just fun to have a lot of cool characters you like, and the safety and camraderie you get from being in a large group of brothers. Mechanically, six characters means you can have specialization, like a character who just buffs the party or debuffs the enemies (much harder to have in a group of five or even just four people, 3 is impossible).

However, with six people you start running into some issues.

Gameplay wise, most JRPG fights more often than not are about beating on one or two mob at a time. The game designer wants the mob to live for at least 30 seconds. If each character is attacking every 3 seconds, then each character is hitting the mob for 1.6% of its HP bar per hit. So it can start feeling bad. Ofcourse, the answer is to have lots of lower HP enemy targets for your party to split up and engage separately, but that is uncommon outside of SRPGs or CRPGs.

The other issue is that story wise, once you start getting a lot of people, they seem to start losing their individuality and everyone starts becoming agreeable and nodding their head in unison at everything. There can also be some wonky scenarios where the protagonist and his army walk into a guy's house. I don't mean doorway traffic jams, I mean the absurdity of it. The game devs might have to put in a little bit more effort to have some people wait outside when appropriate.




I do like how in FF7 Rebirth, the inactive party members walk behind you way further back, probably chatting amongst themselves.

[Vergil]

No less than four people in a party. Mass Effect and KOTOR suffered heavily from the limited amount of party members you can have with you.

[Valter]

As many as possible, especially in games where the party members are canonically travelling with you. Like ****, is everyone else really chilling at camp while 4 of us defend a small hovel from a necromancer army? C'mon.
Not to mention missing flagged events because you didn't bring party member Y with you to meet a crackhead that would recognize your party member and trigger his personal quest

That said, I'm not a fan of there being too many party members in a game, but the ones that truly are there should, you know, be there

[maidenhaver]

It should be up to things like player level, skill, and allignment if archetypes, or ambitions if characters.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Eight people

[maidenhaver]

Party size should be determined by how large your nipples are.

[Norfleet]

I do like how in FF7 Rebirth, the inactive party members walk behind you way further back, probably chatting amongst themselves.

The notion of "inactive party members" is itself a sign of a problem. Why are these people just "inactive" and not doing anything? At least give them actual jobs other than just following you around uselessly! The ideal party size is, obviously, whatever gives purpose to all of the people who join you.