RPGHQ

Do you rotate companions into your party throughout a campaign, or do you pick the ones you like best and stick with them the entire game?
I find it's rare that I don't just keep first "main" ones who are introduced. The rest sit in purgatory and I pray that I never need to level them all up.

If it's too big of a hassle to switch (which is in most if not all cases), no

i think i havent played an rpg with switchable companions in 3 years (whenever epic released tyranny for free). i kept the chick, the chatterbox and the chink in the armor. but there wasn't much temptation to trade for the ugly lesbian, the feral monster, or kills-in-shadows.

Stick with them the entire game. I never really liked having a party that must confine itself to a choice of followers, though. The replay value is increased, but only if you actually get to replay the game. Also means you might end up missing out on some of the best banter if you leave out the wrong person.

I also grow accustomed to the characters that have been with me throughout the journey, and I can't bring myself to drop them in favour of somebody that I recruited half way through the game.

Nah I hate rotating. I either unlock the companion limit like I did for Baldur's Gate, or I just keep one companion the entire playthrough.

It really depends on how the game is built. In Dragon Age: Origins I always ran Morrigan, Wynn and Alistair - since I respecced them with mods to be Healer, Healer, Fighter (and myself also a Fighter).

But for things like M&B Warband, where you can run all of them, they all become front line soldiers, though I always make women into archers, why? I don't know. Bunduk in Warband is the ONLY exception to this. Viking Conquest has pretty good inter-character autism, and I do like how well they portray manlets as snivelling rats who betray you because it is convenient for them.

For BG3, I only run those who are white, or are not complete crybabies (even a white Wyll is still a bedwetter). Though, after hearing about how Shart interacts with a certain Elf, I'm inclined to leave her to die on the Nautiloid.

I don't even switch characters if it's an option.

It depends on the game and if there's any other incentive to do so. Most games some characters will at least get their 15 minutes of fame so I can do a personal quest or some encounter exclusive to having them in your party but if not they sit on the bench forever while companions I actually like get to come along. KOTOR II kind of mitigates this (albeit in a very annoying way) by having sections where you only have so many party members available or having party members that can become Jedi and leveling them early messes up their potential. This does have the downside of making you pretty much forced to use Kreia and a useless Atton until you get Visas/make him a Jedi while everyone else waits on the ship unless you need to gain influence with them from an encounter.
I appreciate that BG3 lets me just ignore or fucking kill retards I never intend to use and hate. I wish I could throw GO-TO out the fucking airlock in KOTOR II.

In older games, where the games were much more difficult, I don't remember this being as common (ie rotation, pre-set party size was the norm with later additions), though I think in those cases where they did exist and the game was challenging I tended to build my alternates like a tool set and use them when a need for them arose.

Modern day RPGs tend to be fairly easy (outside of ironman conditions), so I tend to lone wolf most of them to increase difficulty. BG3 I played only a single character.

I liked the dungeons in Final Fantasy VI where you have to split your 12(?) companions into three parties and they have different tasks to accomplish to get the entire group through.
Finales where every single companion joins the party are great too. NWN 2 did it for the last dungeon/boss, and I think DA:O had it when you lead your army against the main enemy force.

What about for Mass Effect? I never did a single mission without Wrex and/or Garrus when possible.

Same, albeit with Leliana instead of Morrigan sometimes. It was on medium difficulty, or whatever it is called in DAO, so the game was beatable with one healer. Oghren was also fun to have around.

As for OP's question. It depends on the game and the writing of the companions. Is it tactically clever to use a companion's kit of abilities, spells and skills in the given situation ? Is it worthwhile to have them around based on the interactions between them and my own character or other NPCs ? Do they fit into the world-building of the game and its overarching story ? At times, the game asked for an NPC to have in the party to excel with a mission or quest. Think ME2 Suicide Mission. Still, there were usually some favorites of mine after playing for a while.
To give some further examples: Isabela (DA2), Varric (DA2/DA:I), Cassandra (DA:I), Blackwall (DA:I). Lohse, Sebille, Beast, Ifan (All DOS2).

depends on the game.

Also sometimes i save it for the 2nd playthrough, do things with a different party composition.

I generally find a party I like and keep it. I might swap just a character on another playthrough.

I do rotate though if there's something to be "gained" from doing so, such as where the characters are VASTLY different and you don't want them underlevelled as you NEED those skills at various points in the game.
I also like to allow them to be able to equip new weapons etc. instead of missing out. I'll also rotate them in if there's any story or quests or whatever "development" for them. But I'll drop them as soon as it's done.

Mass Effect basically only had one real selectable companion because it was always without a fail Garrus and then whoever I was currently doing the loyalty quest for

Tali and Wrex for me, as I handled a lot of the long-range stuff.
Garrus was pretty cool tho and swapped him in now and then.

Depends on the game, but usually yes.

How topical I just got to the part in KOTOR II where the game forces you to use Bao-Dur instead of the multiple other stronger companions I would rather use in that moment.

I usually have a main party that I like to keep. (that's why I was extremely biased and almost never had Jacob in ME)
But if I'm going into companion quests territory, I will rotate accordingly.
It's just always a drag moving items between characters or doing respecs.

I generally pick the ones I like, though I might bring another character if they are relevant to the story segment coming up. Unless I hate the character.

Unquestionably based. You have my respect, my good sir.

I usually keep the companion I'm gonna romance all the time, and otherwise switch companions when there is something important for them in the story (e.g. Shadowheart in Sharran temple).

Exactly this. I stick with the first NPCs I find. I made a rare exception for Edwin and Alora.

I use the companions I like the most, unless I've played the game before then I try to use the companions I didn't use before but end up using the same companions as last time.

I can hardly think of a game with enough good companions to even switch out with. Otherwise I do based on what I think fits our narrative

Like most of the thread, I usually stick with the first companions I like. However, in tactical RPGs like Fire Emblem, I'm constantly rotating my companions to make sure everyone keeps level parity. I know it's not strictly necessary since the games give you an overabundance of companions, but being efficient with XP makes me feel good and it adds extra challenge, so I do it anyway.

Ok, level parity while factoring in base classes vs promoted classes. Happy?

All party-based games I play will have perma-benched companions until I can get rid of them later on or even avoid recruiting them in the first place, and almost always have mainstays who never get rotated out.

How do we feel about games that let you freely rotate out your companions on the fly? Should you have to return to your camp/base/ship or should every companion have the magical ability to teleport to you?
I think KOTOR II has a decent way of dealing with this by having you able to quickly swap people out as long as you are in the same "zone" that the ship is in but if you venture beyond that you can't just swap people out on the fly.
Extra question: What is the ideal party size in your mind?
To me BG3 style letting you take 3 companions is the best. Typical bioware style only 2 companions is too limiting as you're probably always going to want to take one companion you really like/are romancing (if you're weird) which leaves little room for other companions to get a chance to really stand out.

RPGHQ

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?

Do you rotate companions?