Ideal RPG party size?

[rusty_shackleford]

How many people do you like to have in your party in RPGs? Does it differ in games with full party creation vs actual characters?

[revenant]

No 8 character option (Ultima 7/Grimoire case), shit poll

[rusty_shackleford]

No 8 character option (Ultima 7/Grimoire case), shit poll

It's there

[WhiteShark]

Where's the 'whatever is appropriate to the game' option? I'm fine with any party size provided that the mechanics are suited to it. For example, I don't think blobber/JRPG combat is appropriate for fewer than five characters, but I think roguelikes are perfectly fine for one character.

[revenant]

Implicitly falling under "you're not a fan of RPG's". Voted 3 because of Anachronox

[rusty_shackleford]

Implicitly falling under "you're not a fan of RPG's". Voted 3 because of Anachronox

Ah fine I changed it.


This thread is a thinly veiled feature test for improved polls

[Atlantico]

I thought about this for a while, but I enjoy games like Fallout 2 where party size is limited to CHA divided by 2, so it can be from a party size of 1 to 5

Dungeon Master had a party limit of 1-4 also good

point is, all these games are good even if you play them with a party of 1 or more, it's not the party size that matters so much, it's that they're good games

[J1M]

The number of party slots should be at least N+1 and not a multiple of N where N is the number of class roles.

A great deal of the fun of building a party is lost when one feels like there is no room for variation. The ability to swap party members can allow for variation as well, but it's not a substitute for a flex spot on the roster unless the player has prior knowledge of the game.

[rusty_shackleford]

The number of party slots should be at least N+1 and not a multiple of N where N is the number of class roles.

A great deal of the fun of building a party is lost when one feels like there is no room for variation. The ability to swap party members can allow for variation as well, but it's not a substitute for a flex spot on the roster unless the player has prior knowledge of the game.

What about N-1?

[GhostCow]

The number of party slots should be at least N+1 and not a multiple of N where N is the number of class roles.

A great deal of the fun of building a party is lost when one feels like there is no room for variation. The ability to swap party members can allow for variation as well, but it's not a substitute for a flex spot on the roster unless the player has prior knowledge of the game.

This but with two flex spots. 6 is correct for D&D games because you're always going to want a tank, rogue, healer, and mage. Two flex spots allows for a lot more fun. I like to use them for an archer and second mage usually.

[J1M]

The number of party slots should be at least N+1 and not a multiple of N where N is the number of class roles.

A great deal of the fun of building a party is lost when one feels like there is no room for variation. The ability to swap party members can allow for variation as well, but it's not a substitute for a flex spot on the roster unless the player has prior knowledge of the game.

What about N-1?

My ideal game structure would be similar to XCOM, but with missions that have varied character requirements to increase the design space for encounters. For example, missions that require a certain character class in the party or a different party size.

In a game where the party is set it and forget it, I think N-1 is the same case as N. One of the roles will be perceived as subpar/non-mandatory.

[rusty_shackleford]

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

[BlueMemphis]

6 feels a nice cozy size to me.

Usually in party based games there are 1-2 characters I find it difficult not to always bring along for whatever reason so in a 3-4 man party that's at least half the slots taken already and assuming I don't want a lopsided party missing an important archetype this tends to make me feel like I don't have much choice in how I build my party without dropping one of my main bros.

Once that party limit gets raised though you start having some nice flexibility for your party comps, having the room to not only bring your favorite party members along constantly but also have all the basic roles covered usually leaving you with a few flex slots to do whatever you want.

Higher then 6 is doable aswell and i do like the idea of having huge fuckoff parties if the game is designed to handle them but alas ain't played many examples of those (wizardry 8 if we count rpcs and arcanum with high charisma builds+robots are the main examples that come to mind) that don't become full on tactical squad management games.

[Lhynn]

The ideal party size is just you and maybe a dog companion you have no control over.

[GhostCow]

The ideal party size is just you and maybe a dog companion you have no control over.

This is the correct answer for action RPGs

[Klerik]

I like the fact that in Fallout, I was mostly just working out the math for my character instead of doing this for 8 different assholes that have nerfed stats to begin with.

[Landers78]

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

How does your choice work in games where you create the entire party?

[Trithne]

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

I mean, I'd vote for both if I could, in the sense that if it's a game like Fallout or Colony Ship where you start with a single character and acquire followers, then it should definitely be based on the primary character's stats, but with a limit of 4 at most, like how CS does it.

If it's a game where you make your entire party from scratch, then the ideal size is 4.

So ultimately I felt voting for 4 was more appropriate.

[Tweed]

Big parties, big prizes.

[agentorange]

Tied to a skill/stat level like Dungeon Rats. It's a sensible way to allow lone-wolf or party based play since anyone choosing to go lone-wolf can simply dump the unused stat/skill points into whatever they choose, but if you choose to go all in the skill/stat that gives you party members then it means you are that much more reliant on said party, their presence feeling more vital, because you will be lacking points in other areas.

[Dead]

For blobbers, I like six party members. Enough room for essential chracters and variable combinations of specialized characters without too much redundancy.

[Crispy]

The more bazongas in the party, the better. Yeah I really do love to party I guess.

But as soon as I turn the console off, it's back to my boring single life

[The_Mask]

6. The only exception I've ever made for was for Kenshi, which can be pretty much anything, but ideally 7.

[Bonerstorm]

There was a time I would have said six, but ... I don't know - things have changed. As much as people hate NWN1 (yeah, boooo NWN1 sucks, I get it, get it out of your system!) the idea of a main char and adding a single secondary character based on the mission/quest/whatever seemed pretty solid.

I really liked the concept of adding one char to compliment your char, kind of making up for your weakness. If you had a caster, you'd add a fighter, if you had a fighter, you'd add a cleric or such. A six char party has no real weakness, so they don't add on NPCs unless they are forced on the party. I like a game that has some variation over time but have a party of a paladin, ranger, fighter/thief, cleric, wizard, +1 option can use everything that's dropped, pass any test, and pretty much does not require innovation in party makeup.

[Ranselknulf]

One.

An RPG only needs the chosen one.

Bunch of Ironman-cels in this thread.

[rusty_shackleford]

The RPG way is to base it on how many characters your character can personally manage & lead.

[aeternalis]

One.

An RPG only needs the chosen one.

Bunch of Ironman-cels in this thread.

Ah, but the chosen one needs companions just as much as the world needs him.

[J1M]

There was a time I would have said six, but ... I don't know - things have changed. As much as people hate NWN1 (yeah, boooo NWN1 sucks, I get it, get it out of your system!) the idea of a main char and adding a single secondary character based on the mission/quest/whatever seemed pretty solid.

I really liked the concept of adding one char to compliment your char, kind of making up for your weakness. If you had a caster, you'd add a fighter, if you had a fighter, you'd add a cleric or such. A six char party has no real weakness, so they don't add on NPCs unless they are forced on the party. I like a game that has some variation over time but have a party of a paladin, ranger, fighter/thief, cleric, wizard, +1 option can use everything that's dropped, pass any test, and pretty much does not require innovation in party makeup.

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.

[GothGirlSupremacy]

Anything over 4 and my brain overheats/malfunctions.

[Shillitron]

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 retards following me around breaking stealth or randomly shooting shit - @Lhynn answer is the correct one.