What party size do you prefer ?

[winterraptor]

Being allowed a party size of only two isn't common. The only example that comes to my mind is NWN 1.

Don't remind me.

As to the subject question...whatever fits the game best. This is quite commonly screwed up - it should be considered carefully by the game developers. In a game modeled after DnD, yes, 4 is too few. 6 would probably be ideal.

 

[Fat Dragon]

I prefer to play solo, but if the game demands you use a party, then I prefer a small one with 3-4 members.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

Large, preferably with hats.

 

[ricolikesrice]

i prefer games where i am either solo or have full party creation (RoA, Wizardries etc.) - and i d really love to see one of the 2nd kind again, unfortunately there has only been SoZ in the last years and that one started being really shit as soon as you had your party created ..

all the time and money wasted on writing, voicing, animating and implementing NPC companions is totally lost on me. i dont give a rats ass about banter or romance or those NPCs at all - i d rather have interesting game worlds with gameplay outside of boring trash combat and tons of dialogue. guess baldurs gate 2 s success is to blame for every party based cRPG playing exactly the same since then.... too bad since i d much rather play RoA and Wizardry-likes than BG2-likes....

 

[CrimsonAngel]

4-6 that is what i want.

IN masseffect i hated it was a 3 man group.
Even Left 4 dead have found 4 to be the magic number.

 

[SkeleTony]

I can play and even enjoy RPGs with at least 4 man parties. I can only enjoy single character RPGs that are roguelikes.

I prefer at least 6 PC parties because otherwise you are invariably forced into very narrow/specific compositions(Fighter, Thief, Mage and Cleric is the typical fantasy example) that bore the shit out of me!
I like to have the core basics covered with 4 or 5 and still have an extra 1-3 members to implement my own strategy/tactics.

Jagged Alliance 2 allowed for 3 squads of 6 each and this was AWESOME! Wizard's Crown, Nahlakh, Natuk allowed for 8 created PCs and this was also very damned good.
Wizardry 8 allowed for 6 created and 2 recruit-able PCs and worked very well.

The 6 PC parties that used to be the most common worked well enough that I did not feel almost like I was being given a pre-generated party, the way many 4 PC parties often do.
4 person parties tend to feel more like being on 'rails'. You need someone who canm use those kick ass weapons you find to kill monsters/enemies so you have to take a warrior. You need someone who can open locks, disarm traps so you have to take a thief/rogue. You need someone who can cast mage spells sop you take a mage. And going without a cleric is suicide or for people who enjoy re-doing the same fucking battles over and over until they finally manage to luck out and win.

EDIT: The Ravenloft goldbox games had two man parties(and were complete crap).

 

[sheek]

I think 5 is optimal.

4 is too restrictive, more than about six becomes too much micromanagement for an RPG, and you may as well be playing X-Com.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I only played one game with 8 man parties, but playing with a party 8 strong was one of the most fun experiences EVER.

You're like a bulldozer meets a human wall, that's how it feels.

 

[Good Ol' Drog]

I only played one game with 8 man parties, but playing with a party 8 strong was one of the most fun experiences EVER.

You're like a bulldozer meets a human wall, that's how it feels.

Try a strategy game.

IMO RPGs should be all about character development, not squad based combat.

 

[Wyrmlord]

You are entitled to your opinion.

It's pretty common to have a format of a few custom generated characters and a few recruited characters - in quite a few games, it is 4 + 3 or 4 + 2.

MM3 had a pretty cool 6 + 2 format. I think it worked for the game because while you are an adventuring party, some areas require special skills of people that you'd rather hire temporarily in exchange for certain amount of money being paid out for their services per day.

I don't think there is necessarilly a strategy game bent to it; it's better that you hire a few people temporarily for money than have them jump onto your wagon and eat all your food, while you discuss your hopes and dreams together all the way till fighting the villain at the end. It's not like we are raising an army here, just hiring services for as long as needed.

EDIT: Come to think of it, since Heroes of Might and Magic games are my most played and my new favourite games, I guess I am a strategy game person at this rate. This series is roleplaying strategy heaven. :D

 

[Volourn]

"In a game modeled after DnD, yes, 4 is too few."

Bullshit. The stereotypical D&D party is 4 characters FFS. Warrior/rogue/wizard/priest is the legendary set up. FFS

 

[mondblut]

Traditional 6+2 setup is optimal. However, it depends much on the game and its dimensions. Take GB series or Nahlakh/Natuk, their corridors are 4-men wide, so a party of 8 is ideal, 4 front rank tanks block the way, the rest are working ranged from behind. On the other hand, take Eye of the beholder, the virtual "corridor width" is 2 men, so having 6 men in 3 rows, 2 of them being NPCs who might have limited to none ranged abilities, makes little sense. The rule of thumb is to have enough front rank men to fully block a standart 1-cell corridor and just as many ranged/support role back rank men, and little need for more.

IMO RPGs should be all about character development, not squad based combat.

Back to the school, kid. Not to mention, where else would character development show off and pay off than in squad based combat?

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Depends. On RPGs, four or six is best. On squad-based tactics, six is minimum and fifty is maximum.*

*Depending on the scale and power of the individual soldier. On a game like X-Com, on which the soldiers are nameless, faceless and infinite, and the usual good mission only has half the team dead, large teams are essential because you're playing with Team Cannon Fodder. On a game like Jagged Aliiance 2, where the soldiers are elite soldiers fighting a army of mooks, six is better.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

"In a game modeled after DnD, yes, 4 is too few."

Bullshit. The stereotypical D&D party is 4 characters FFS. Warrior/rogue/wizard/priest is the legendary set up. FFS

FFS

 

[Wyrmlord]

I think party size has a lot do with how the environment of the game's situations play out.

Half the people in front, and half the people at the back is the way you make the best use of it - with the people at the back range attacking with impunity, while the people in the front bear all the attacks while fighting back in meelee.

I remember Wizardry games had a system where the Ninja could jump behind enemy ranks, or rather sneak across them, so he could hit on their ranged attackers or spellcasters and put them in complete vulnerability.

Also, such a thing works wonderfully in HoMM combat, where you block the ranged attackers with meelee characters from all sides, and let them have it at the enemies trying to make their way through.

 

[sheek]

Tried playing ToEE (modded) with just two characters:

A human Fighter/Mage, + half-elf Ranger/Bard/(Druid?). XP should have been 3x normal the trouble is getting to the level for the pay-off to kick in.

 

[dx__]

But the newer 3D rotating camera style? I wanna go solo, or maybe one other character. It just gets to be too much for me having idiots running through each other all screaming shit when you tell them to attack. I can't stand it, it's part of what I hate about DA and NWN2.

It's funny because they make RPGs nowadays so that you can easily solo, whereas the BG games, it was exponentially more difficult (and even bordered on impossible, depending on what you choose to do)

 

[Carceri]

I prefer to play solo, but if the game demands you use a party, then I prefer a small one with 3-4 members.

Yeah, same here. I am replaying the Baldur's Gate series at the moment and let me tell you, babysitting a bunch of hyperactive autistic lemmings with a bent towards self-destruction it's killing me. The pathfinding also contributes to this though. My party currently has only 4 members (BG II).

 

[racofer]

I kill my party whenever I can. Horrible creatures.

 

[the villain of the story]

I've found that FMF is the best. You risk being left out with FFM or MFF, so you need to maintain control and be at the centre at all times.

 

[Liberal]

Tried playing ToEE (modded) with just two characters:

A human Fighter/Mage, + half-elf Ranger/Bard/(Druid?). XP should have been 3x normal the trouble is getting to the level for the pay-off to kick in.

A classic combination here: male paladin + female wizard. Have yet to run into major difficulties, although I do let NPC join me for specific quests.

 

[Erebus]

How well you can control your party members is an important factor. In turn-based games, managing 6 characters or more remains easy. In real time with pause, it can be more difficult. And of course, there are games (such as Arcanum) in which you have to rely on the AI to control all of your characters but one.

 

[Dnny]

Six is quite optimal, not too big as to become hard to manage, but enough to bring much fun. I also like to have more than just one warrior NPC and a party of 4 tends to lmit your choices a bit.

Also, games where you create your own party of mindless drone NPCs are asstarded. If I wanted that kind of gameplay I would play solo in sandbox games like Daggerfall and Morrowind.

 

[The Exar]

Five. Four is simply not enough. But BG2 was excellent with six.

 

[Ebonsword]

"In a game modeled after DnD, yes, 4 is too few."

Bullshit. The stereotypical D&D party is 4 characters FFS. Warrior/rogue/wizard/priest is the legendary set up. FFS

What are you basing this on? Go look at the old 1st Edition modules--most of them suggest 4-8 characters (Descent Into the Depths of the Earth suggests 7-9).

Personally, I prefer at least a six-man party, especially if the game is turn-based and offers a large variety of character classes.

What I really like, though, are games that let you really abuse the crap out of summoned allies. BG2 was pretty good for this--sure Mind Flayers could one-hit kill you, but that wasn't such a big deal if you sent in a wave of Fire Elementals to take the brunt of the assault.