Ideal party size?

[Ellef]

Any less than four and you're rarely going to have interesting combat in my experience. I have a soft spot for 4 because of pen and paper days, but you're usually a bit tied up in 'necessary classes' so something like 6 is my favourite.

'It depends' is a logical but boring answer, so no cheating.

 

[Sacred82]

4 any time of the day.

With 6 you either have one of each class in the game, making for samey playthroughs, or at least you have all bases covered even with a change in minutiae (exchange a rogue for a bard or a fighter for a barbarian). With 4 characters your strategy can change tremendously even by only exchanging one party member (i.e. 2 fighters but no wizard). Also, with only 4 characters, there's a chance each class/ character will be more fleshed out and not a one-trick pony. I definitely prefer a char who can tank/ heal/ negotiate over just a healbot.

 

[Beastro]

No 80+ for Classic Everquest?

 

[Baron Dupek]

Funny to say but group of 3 is my ideal. No lad more, no man less. Even though I prefer working alone - group of 3 is ideal. I tried do games with duo (D:OS EE, IwD 1/2, 7,62 HC) but quickly abandoned them.

Another issue is that in 99% games you need to share XP among group. Sure some sperg come here and hurrdurr me why it's good concept.
Only games (that I've played) where there is no shared XP is Planet Alcatraz and Apeiron games (7,62 HC and Man of Prey Marauder).

 

[MicoSelva]

Anything between three and eight is fine IMO, depending on the game and its combat style.

Two is not a party, just a partnership.

Classic six is the sweet spot for a typical party-based D&D-style adventuring.

More than eight and you start losing personal connection to characters, and they become soldiers under your command.

 

[V_K]

But it really depends.
Exploration-heavy games with multiple paths and solutions (QfG, UW, DX) work better with a single character. For blobbers I'd say 4 is optimal for RT (because more would tax your reflexes too much), 6 for TB (so that combat won't last forever, while not being too simplistic). Isometric TRPGs could easily work with 8+.
Picked 4 as the middle ground - enough to have some tactical options, not too much to be an inconvenience.

 

[Carrion]

Four almost always feels too little and restrictive, especially if the game doesn't allow multiclassing or otherwise has a rigid character system where you can't, say, use a mage to fulfill the role of the thief with a proper set of spells. In the end, all parties tend to have almost the same composition, as you'll generally want to have someone that can pick locks, someone that can heal people, someone with offensive spells and someone who can protect your spellcasters in a swordfight if a need arises, at least until you know the game and its content very well.

Six is probably the sweet spot where each role in the party still matters but which allows for some wildly different compositions and experiments without outright going for something extreme like an all-fighter/all-mage party.

One is cool too (certainly the best choice for certain kinds of games), but if you're going for a party, I'd rather have a sizeable one.

 

[J_C]

I always played with a party of 5 in the IE games, so I have more choice when I choose classes. When it is less than 5, you usually choose the main classes (rogue, healer, mage, damage dealer) and don't have room for any extra.

 

[Delbaeth]

40 raids from WoW? Huge? Meh.

Relic battles 200 vs 200 vs 200 in DAoC, that was the thing.

 

[Tito Anic]

 

[Xathrodox86]

I like the 3-4 guys in my party. Not too much, but enough when shit hits the fan.

 

[Lilura]

Yojimbo, ftw.

And Jagged Alliance 2.

 

[Scroo]

6 characters, all self created.

 

[abnaxus]

 

[Akratus]

I want whole armies with total war control system and sack nations.

 

[Declinator]

There is no one size fits all.

Level design is especially important. You have 8+ guys in something like Dragonfall and there just isn't enough space for it to mean anything. On the other hand 8+ fits X-Com and Xenonauts etc. perfectly.

Another consideration is how complicated the classes are. A wizard in something like KotC needs much more management than a simple shotgun dude in Xenonauts so a party of 8+ of the more complicated classes might be somewhat exhausting.

That said, my ideal is 8.

 

[laclongquan]

Of course it depend. But in a classic example, combat and RP, a party of six is ideal, because it can have a little bit spare to experiment.

Generally, you will have at least one melee combat specialist, and one ranged specialist. If magic allowed, one combat mage. And a scout, who solely dedicated to scope out terrain and enemy's placement (not assassin, which is combined from melee and scout). That's 4.
One is a support specialist, either a priest type or a medic. This one also can provide additional buffs and services.
That mean one spare. you can build that as support mage, or ranged fighter. Whatever. The meaning is one spare to experiment. Incidentally, this one generally is your MC. It's maximally positioned for experimental custom character if your game allow for it.

 

[Sacred82]

Generally, you will have at least one melee combat specialist, and one ranged specialist. If magic allowed, one combat mage. And a scout, who solely dedicated to scope out terrain and enemy's placement (not assassin, which is combined from melee and scout). That's 4.
One is a support specialist, either a priest type or a medic. This one also can provide additional buffs and services.
That mean one spare. you can build that as support mage, or ranged fighter. Whatever. The meaning is one spare to experiment. Incidentally, this one generally is your MC. It's maximally positioned for experimental custom character if your game allow for it.

Having only one alternating character in a party of six usually does nothing to change your tactics though. A party with two heavy fighters won't become ranged-centric just because you make the 6th char a ranged DPS. Nor will it behave differently if you make him a buffer.

 

[laclongquan]

What part of experimental custom character do you have trouble with? That free agent can be configured as heavy fighter if you like infantry, or ranged if you want a distance, magic if you like boom. A party with two mage is different from a party with two heavy infantry.

 

[J1M]

Six or eight. All custom. (In a game like Pillars or Wasteland 2 I will just ignore the NPC options and build a custom party.)

Four is too limiting, especially in a mainstream title like Dragon Age. There is intense pressure on the player to build a standard party "just in case" there is an encounter that is only feasible/accessible with a character in heavy armor or lockpicking. I would have enjoyed Dragon Age even more than I did if I could have built a party of 3 mage/1 warrior or 2 mage/2 warrior because I think rogues as DPS is a stupid concept. Sadly, I had no faith that a proper 'disarm trap' spell would exist or that the archer build for the warrior would be viable.

It is a real shame when players feel forced into building a party around the holy trinity and interesting classes like bard are regulated to (at-best) a second play-through.

I also find that games that don't allow you to change party members or class builds often have weaker combat systems. I prefer a model of permanent death + easy swap/replacement after returning to town combined with challenges that require you to explore different synergies.

 

[Mustawd]

Four almost always feels too little and restrictive, especially if the game doesn't allow multiclassing or otherwise has a rigid character system where you can't, say, use a mage to fulfill the role of the thief with a proper set of spells. In the end, all parties tend to have almost the same composition, as you'll generally want to have someone that can pick locks, someone that can heal people, someone with offensive spells and someone who can protect your spellcasters in a swordfight if a need arises, at least until you know the game and its content very well.

The Avernum games definitely have this issue.

 

[Lilura]

Four isn't restrictive in a title with strong multi-classing/build potential; for example, Icewind Dale 2 and Storm of Zehir.

 

[Excidium II]

The more the merrier. I like high lethality so need the cannon fodder. The problem with small parties is that everyone is precious. You lose one of your two mages and it's reload city.

 

[pippin]

The fighter cleric mage thief quartet is sacred. Any decent party based game MUST have those. So, at least 4.
However, the game should leave some room to experiment with builds and crazy parties (no mages, no fighters, etc). 6 is the golden number in this sense.
More than that, it's just overkill.

 

[CryptRat]

Full party creation and even more full control over the party (no AI-based system) are more important things than a particular number of characters in my bag.
With these premises, at least 2 or 3 is generally a good thing both for the story and the system (no chosen one plot and not a FPS/TPS), but, like already said, some systems can justify only 1.
My favourite number is somewhere around 5.