Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

What party size do you prefer ?

Morkar Left

Guest
6 - 8 depending on the number of classes / skills avaivable. I like to have various builds to try at the same time.
 

Dnny

Educated
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
470
Ebonsword said:
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.

Actually BG2 nerfed the ability compared to BG1 where you could summon an ARMY with wands of summoning. That was pretty much the only way I could think of to kill the annoying Drizzt, surrounding him with summoned monsters and a team attacking with their bows.
 

winterraptor

Cipher
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
408
Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera
Volourn said:
"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

Yes, stereotypical. Not a term to strive for, really. Is 'sufficient' best? Usually not. Theoretically, a game with a plethora of character can be ideal with 4 - there could be elements that detract from having more. Hell, I tried all sorts of combinations in BG2, in some ways it was a blessing to not have so many targets running around. Particularly the weak asses with shitty CON.

If the theoretical game has ample multi-class capabilities, that might be sufficient for variety. But probably not. The thing is, you need each of those roles, so your slots are probably filled first with those four, having a few extra spots allows for more colorful strategic combinations. I'd say it increases replay value just from that alone.

The question is: what is the game balanced for? Is there strategic appeal to going with the four staples on one play through? Sure, then, give it a whirl. But what about the next play-through? The option should be there. Imagine that, allowing the gamer to make the decision!

But then the game should be balanced for 6 (or more). If its balanced for 4, 6 is too many and too easy. Unless of course the difficulty can be increased and scaled correctly (manually! in both cases...yeah right, eh?)...
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
Dnny said:
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.
Yeah, it's so asstarded that 30 years of RPGs are bullshit, and only the post-1998 shoulder-to-cry-on story assistants party members are the valid way of doing anything. :arrow:
 

Dnny

Educated
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
470
Wyrmlord said:
Dnny said:
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.
Yeah, it's so asstarded that 30 years of RPGs are bullshit, and only the post-1998 shoulder-to-cry-on story assistants party members are the valid way of doing anything. :arrow:

Thirty years of RPG with asstarded party creation ? think not. The first cRPGs (rogue likes) were all solo, not party based anyway so thirty years is gross exaggeration. Those party based games with fully player generated NPCs were just a dumb trend that finally died out, not the core of RPG gaming. The Ultima series doesn't let you create a party of useless NPC and it's older than 98. If your NPC are lifeless I don't see why you should be playing a party based game.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
191
Dnny said:
Thirty years of RPG with asstarded party creation ? think not. The first cRPGs (rogue likes) were all solo, not party based anyway so thirty years is gross exaggeration. Those party based games with fully player generated NPCs were just a dumb trend that finally died out, not the core of RPG gaming. The Ultima series doesn't let you create a party of useless NPC and it's older than 98. If your NPC are lifeless I don't see why you should be playing a party based game.

You god damn retard
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
I wonder how real people would react to amount of bloodshed that an usual adventuring party has to take part in.
Do people who create cNPCs ask themselves such a question?
 

hoochimama

Liturgist
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
665
Either solo or a party of three with a possible extra slot for a dog/non talking npc.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Didn't we just have this exact same discussion?

I like 6 but would prefer 8, but really, the game should not have any hardcoded limit to the party size. If I have the charisma, leadership and/or money to field my own private army, so be it, which is one reason I find myself returning to Mount & Blade every now and then. The game works well both solo, in a small group or as the lord of an army.

4 is pretty strict limit and both Square and Bioware have made it even worse by putting the player into a situation where he has to choose who goes into battle and who stays behind, without any logical reason.
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
In fact, there is no need to limit party size at all.

Simply have a system of less rewards for a larger party and more rewards for a smaller one, and that will automatically limit it.

Larger party will require more food, will get less experience, will have more costs in outfitting with equipment,.etc. I don't see why it can't work. If a player manages to have enough money, food, and equipment, he definitely deserves the reward of being able to have one more guy.

What I would personally do with this system is that I'd keep a party member or two just for carrying all the luggage, and keeping the rest unencumbered. :D
 

sheek

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,659
Location
Cydonia
I don't agree. You should be able to get a few 'hirelings' for support but they should never be as good/have the potential of the 'core party' which you create. A 'core party' shouldn't be more than 6 in a CRPG.

Realms of Arkania 1-2 was pretty much ideal in party size. 6 creatable PCs, and the option of adding 2 NPCs who never had the same status and left of their own accord later in the game.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
The limitation on number of members based on your charisma (or leader's charisma) is one good thing. The shared party experiences make bigger groups level up slower is another. The scarcity of good equipments is yet another.

Whether the members are NPC or player-generated is purely optional. It's not as if I ever download or run those npc mods out there.
 

winterraptor

Cipher
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
408
Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera
Wyrmlord said:
What I would personally do with this system is that I'd keep a party member or two just for carrying all the luggage, and keeping the rest unencumbered. :D

Might as well include /donkeys/draft horses/carts/wagons/floating luggage disks/bags of holding/etcetera if we're talking theory and wishes here, to carry the crap.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,326
Location
Flowery Land
GarfunkeL said:
Didn't we just have this exact same discussion?
.

I was wondering where my post went.

Again, I like taking as many as you can afford to/is practical with the cost that higher numbers are harder to use effectively, more costly to maintain and equip and there are controls on the amount of XP (Jagged Alliance, Fire Emblem 4) .
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,971
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
I can deal with 4 guys. 5, max. Any more and I stop paying attention to combat (due to overconfidence on my personal army). I also can't really relate to a crowd, so I'll be more inclined to treat them as generic grunts instead of people I want to keep alive at all costs.

Sorta related, and certainly contrary to you all; I like having the option to have the party members act on AI and/or take orders, not direct commands, even if they sometimes act stupid. I don't like dealing with a hivemind with no personality, might as well play as one guy. If I don't feel any attachment to the characters, I'll just use them as fodder.
 

Berekän

A life wasted
Patron
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
3,097
For balancing/gameplay purposes, I think 6 is the magic number, 4 is just a too low number and makes it "Fill the 4 spaces with wizards/jedis for insta-win". I would like to see more RPG's with 8 members though, and, why not, I would like to play a Hobbit-like party with 14 members. :D
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
A small club if there is enough alcohol, loose women and good music. Otherwise an even smaller houseparty. Larger parties like the Loveparade just overload my sensory capabilities.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Carceri said:
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).
Clockwork Knight said:
Sorta related, and certainly contrary to you all; I like having the option to have the party members act on AI and/or take orders, not direct commands, even if they sometimes act stupid. I don't like dealing with a hivemind with no personality, might as well play as one guy. If I don't feel any attachment to the characters, I'll just use them as fodder.

For reasons detailed above I prefer solo, with followers if they offer interesting character interaction and at least semi-non-retarded combat behaviour (depending on frequency, difficulty and importance of combat, obviously). Also, as CK mentioned, god's eye view and interface doesn't feel right in a character-centric game. RPG is not an RTS/TBS, pointing map spots and objects from above with your divine finger to make your mindless thralls interesting and personable party members do your bidding doesn't exactly fit the vibe here - you shouldn't be dispassionately moving your pawns across the tiles here, you should be in the heat of the battle, with your (dis)trusted comrades fighting around you. RTS/TBS approach also requires ungodly amounts of micromanagement which also mires the combat, and even if you think it's good to have control over many aspects of the battle and character behaviour, having to exercise this absolute control to be able to do anything makes combat a chore.

Two games that solved the problem in different (flawed) ways were Fallout 1&2 and Wizardry 8.

In Fallout you simply don't control your followers - you may "configure" them outside of combat, but in combat they have a mind of their own. This is pretty good, although ability to give them some orders (not direct commands bypassing their AI, but orders processed by this AI and added to the list of goals with priority depending on circumstances) would benefit the combat greatly as a coordinated squad is more than sum of it's members, which doesn't exactly apply to a bunch of dudes running around like headless chickens.

In Wizardry 8 you can directly command the party, but apart from spellcasting, using special abilities/items, they can fight perfectly well on their own - much less babysitting factor. You also view the situation from much more natural POV and the game generally acts as if you were a leader of a small formation - the con being that blob combat removes much tactical flexibility, like moving your ranger to an elevated vantage point from which he can pelt the enemy with arrows, or ordering your ninja to hide in the shadows right there then silently backstab enemy casters.

Ideally, an RPG should have you seeing the action from FPP/close TPP, with followers moving on their own, and an ability to give those followers orders of varying precision, like forming up with you, rushing to the nearest cover/hiding spot, or going to precisely designated location and performing precise action there.
Squad AI in good tactical FPS games, or for example TN, would make a good starting point.

The basic combat mechanics would be RT, possibly with quasi-TB intelligent pause. If the combat was TB, it should be phase based with simultaneous moves in action phase, removing TB's critical weakness in form of turn length (in real- not game-time) being directly proportional to the number of participants.

Morale mechanics in IE games was poor surrogate of NPC independence, and pathfinding (I swear, it seemed worse than what you could see in Morrowind, except you rarely had any followers in this game, much less 6 ADHD dudes/dudettes al the time, as your PC also counts in IE games) and general AI killed any enjoyment forcing you to babysit every single party member all the time. At least in PST there was much less emphasis on combat.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
DraQ said:
Ideally, an RPG should have you seeing the action from FPP/close TPP,
Personally, I have never liked these perspectives in cRPGs. I find the topdown/isometric perspective much more immersive.

I love LARPing in RT tactical wargames, though - absolute control over units, magical communication, magical awareness and addition of pause them takes away a lot of realism from some of them.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Awor Szurkrarz said:
DraQ said:
Ideally, an RPG should have you seeing the action from FPP/close TPP,
Personally, I have never liked these perspectives in cRPGs. I find the topdown/isometric perspective much more immersive.

I love LARPing in RT tactical wargames, though - absolute control over units, magical communication, magical awareness and addition of pause them takes away a lot of realism from some of them.

The reason I like FPP is that it puts you in the shoes of your character (atmosphere!), as well as implicitly integrating detailed line of sight mechanics, it also works the best for exploration, and doesn't impose absolutely any limitations on the environments your character may find himself in.

Iso and other similar views have only two actual advantages - they can be easily implemented in 2D and they allow for a good tactical view when guiding multiple units.
Everything else, from view distance (try firing sniper rifle in Fallout, see how much scrolling does it require, then check how badly reduced range it has in game), to finding objects behind obstacles, to portrayal of highly complex 3D environments is handled poorly or not at all. Line of sight can be implemented, but it requires additional visual cues (fog of war) and isn't nearly as detailed as in FPP where it doesn't require additional mechanics either.

Then there is freely orbiting camera which works wonderfully in space and similar environments, slightly worse on the ground, but is completely non-viable in cramped environments and doesn't confer 2D implementation bonus.

TPP - mostly as vanity mode, though might be useful for some in melee or when navigating certain environments requiring a lot of climbing and other acrobatic feats.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
DraQ said:
For reasons detailed above I prefer solo, with followers if they offer interesting character interaction and at least semi-non-retarded combat behaviour (depending on frequency, difficulty and importance of combat, obviously). Also, as CK mentioned, god's eye view and interface doesn't feel right in a character-centric game. RPG is not an RTS/TBS, pointing map spots and objects from above with your divine finger to make your mindless thralls interesting and personable party members do your bidding doesn't exactly fit the vibe here - you shouldn't be dispassionately moving your pawns across the tiles here, you should be in the heat of the battle, with your (dis)trusted comrades fighting around you. RTS/TBS approach also requires ungodly amounts of micromanagement which also mires the combat, and even if you think it's good to have control over many aspects of the battle and character behaviour, having to exercise this absolute control to be able to do anything makes combat a chore.

You must obsessively worship Fallout 3 and Mass Effect, do you not?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom