Decline Why 4 party members?

[Mysterious Stranger]

Amazing, how many of you guys can still stomache this fantasy stuff. True leaders yearn for squad-based tactics in a contemporary setting with firearms, portable mortars, tanks, paratroopers, Anti-Tank weaponry and all that good shit that goes boom and kills efficiently. I believe here a squad size of 8-15 would be a sweet spot for me. Alas it might always remian a dream, though one can hope. I would definitely pay up to 80-100 shekels for that, if done somewhat ambitiously.

 

[Johannes]

Having a limit that forces you to make some choices on whether you want this or that, is often more fun than getting every cool build possible into your party. But it also depends on the game, often I roll with smaller party size than I could since it makes the combat more fun, more challenging, more easy, or less of a hassle.

 

[Viata]

One would think 3 would make a good fit, but generally people are weirded out by any series or combination of odd numbers. That's why they call them ODD.

Yeah, but you gotta be odd to be the number one in anything.

 

[Pocgels]

There were always 4.

In Baldurs Gate you'd always have at least one guy like Korgan who only used one ability and maybe a couple of potions or something per fight, and most of your decisions are with what your 4 casters are doing. Likewise in a lot of other old RPGs - there's usually a couple guys who are just hitting stuff 90% of fights.

Nowadays every character needs 20 different active abilities, warriors all have battle stomps and rallying cries and shield throws because otherwise they would be boring.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I have noticed this trend in most new RPGs, even RPGs that are spiritual successors to old titles(like BG3) that they are abandoning the traditional party size of 6 in favor 4. I wonder what could be the reason for that? Will we witness RPGs with 3 or even 2 party members limit in the future?

PnP tradition is about 4. And larger numbers can feel like a crowd.

From Men & Magic (OD&D vol. 1, 1974), p. 5 under 'Scope':

Number of Players: At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be
handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about
1:20 or thereabouts.

 

[Lilura]

RPGs are about adventuring with friends.

Adventuring in parties, bands or squads, not necessarily friends. Party composition can include minions, slaves, mercs, enemies etc.

Ideally, parties/squads would assemble in taverns or an equivalent with minimal fuss. The common goal would be to assault/infiltrate a megadungeon (ToEE, Undermountain) or fortress (Alma, Meduna); motives can vary.

Several parties would die in the attempt; either deep companion pools or party arbitration coming into play. Built-in Hardcore /Ironman mode is preferable so that dead means dead.

In general, the chances of winning with an intimate party of friends would be slim. Everyone is expendable, "They're all dead" should be a common announcement. Newly formed parties step over the bodies of fallen ones, and so on.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

RPGs are about adventuring with friends.

Adventuring in parties, bands or squads, not necessarily friends. Party composition can include minions, slaves, mercs, enemies etc.

Ideally, parties/squads would assemble in taverns or an equivalent with minimal fuss. The common goal would be to assault/infiltrate a megadungeon (ToEE, Undermountain) or fortress (Alma, Meduna); motives can vary.

Several parties would die in the attempt; either deep companion pools or party arbitration coming into play. Built-in Hardcore /Ironman mode is preferable so that dead means dead.

In general, the chances of winning with an intimate party of friends would be slim. Everyone is expendable, "They're all dead" should be a common announcement. Newly formed parties step over the bodies of fallen ones, and so on.

So, what makes these RPGs and not tactical games?
Because you're basically describing a fantasy xcom.

 

[JarlFrank]

So, what makes these RPGs and not tactical games?

The fact that this is literally what playing D&D in the 70s was like.

 

[groke]

Our Lord and Saviour, the Final Fantasy, decreed that four shall be the number of thine party, and the number of thine party shall be four. Five shalt thou not roll, neither roll thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out.

 

[Viata]

Our Lord and Saviour, the Final Fantasy, decreed that four shall be the number of thine party, and the number of thine party shall be four. Five shalt thou not roll, neither roll thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out.

Final Fantasy 4 has 5 party members. 7, 8, 12 and 13 has 3 party members.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Really depends on the type of game. Take EOB/DM games; unless you have an all-attack / all-missile fire (missile like mm3/xeen) then clicking and shit can get tedious in that real-time like combat. If its turn-based then eh... more the merrier for your difficulty. I'd like to see such an EOB (or is there one I have?)

Bardtale like/early MM1-2 why the fuck not?

ultima type nix that tic before turn ends and make it full TB. How many? Dun care and this essentially proceeds up to TOEE/Arcanum etc. types.

REAL-Time? Ugh! Maybe i don't play enough of these but say its like DS 1 where you can put formations, which weap to use, auto drink heal/mana then eh fill er up.


I enjoyed Arcanum with a high Char or w/e stat it was. I picked up so many goons who were glad to kill shit.

Some older shit games. Dark Queen of Krynn with a decent Paladin and Knight was cool. I had a lot of gnome shock troops to control at various points. Awesome. Liked that shit in Treasures of Savage Frontiers too.

Fucking broken Disciples of Steel. Broke game but at the end, depending on your alliances you could control armies and that was pretty rocking.

Mass combat isn't for everyone and noob or lazy mistakes happen a lot in my play but thats half the fun imho.

 

[OSK]

I enjoyed Arcanum with a high Char or w/e stat it was. I picked up so many goons who were glad to kill shit.

I did that. It was fun to flip the game into real-time mode and just watch your army swarm and beat down on a couple wolves.

 

[Mastermind]

I have noticed this trend in most new RPGs, even RPGs that are spiritual successors to old titles(like BG3) that they are abandoning the traditional party size of 6 in favor 4. I wonder what could be the reason for that? Will we witness RPGs with 3 or even 2 party members limit in the future?

Many party members in older games like BG did almost nothing other than autoattack. Many (but not all) of newer RPGs have more micromanagement for warriors and rogues so you end up spending about as much time managing them as you would have a 6 character party in IWD or BG.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Watching ACG and he plays a lot of these realistic assassin creed like games. So many but essentially all solo it looks. Atm, Ghost of Tsushima.

 

[azimovhaas8 (Moth)]

For me, it boils down to how much non-basic actions (for example, using weapons or items, interacting with enviornment, moving across a map - and basically anything anybody in team / party can use during normal setup) are avaliable to all party members in general - and ultimately - to time and abilities of developers to spend said time most efficiently.
For example, most rogues / warriors usually had well-defined roles in team [robber in Might and Magic 1-2 can disarm traps, warriors usually can use more equipment then mage can even dream of, etc] - and developers from previous years been trying to limit themselves in amount of content they can create and integrate into game [development cycle has limits and resources always are finite]. It also related to how much voiced lines are in game, how much special abilities (fancy special moves for different types of warrior builds, hehe) going to be for *everyone* in team / party. Basically, modern developers tend to specialize the less and have less defined work plan, from my point of view.

X-Com (Ufo Defense, Terror from th Deep) first two games and it's later installations difference in amount of squad members that are generally presented on map also can be example in non RPG genre*

 

[Raghar]

Actually FF X allowed to swap party members before they got an action, and theirs replacements got immediate action.

FF XII had guest members, thus it was basically 4 member party in some areas. If you could survive Vaan and his girlfriend, you could swap party members as needed. Or when someone from active main three croaked, you could select replacement if you still have some party members not unconscious.

However a lot of time it was one party member and his summon. Thus basically two member party.

 

[Viata]

FF X is still a 3 party member, even if you can swap characters, you can't have more than 3 characters attacking in the same turn. By your logic, CT is a 7 party member since you can swap your members before the battle. And Wizardry 1 is a N party members, where N is the number of characters you have created.

 

[Ismaul]

turns out ur mom is the best rpg cause she can throw a party with a lot of members

 

[Not.AI]

Why is everybody making games with 4 party members and not 6?

4 is a magic number.

19 is not a magic number. No, no, no.

In other words: It's arbitrary. Somebody who is first picks a number. They run with it. Later others make their own decisions based on (a) imitation (b) rationalization. It becomes a "good" number. They imagine that if that is what other people did, must be a good reason.

Most people find getting an ought from an is is pretty easy with a little imagination. That ought then becomes the next is. People tend to make the things they think they should make. Rather than something else.

 

[Ysaye]

Four is a number generally associated with death in asian cultures; take that as you will....

 

[Harthwain]

I have noticed this trend in most new RPGs, even RPGs that are spiritual successors to old titles(like BG3) that they are abandoning the traditional party size of 6 in favor 4. I wonder what could be the reason for that? Will we witness RPGs with 3 or even 2 party members limit in the future?

Let me gaze into my crystal ball to see what the future holds...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Solo RPGs are also going to be a thing...

Oh, wait, huh? I was holding the crystal ball upside down. Nevermind.

Spoiler

I actually do prefer larger parties in (TB) party based RPGs but headcount limit is always going to be arbitrary. Also, why no large-ish odd-numbered parties, just for the sheer novelty of it?

Touche. "The traditional party size of 6" can only be traditional if you only played games with 6 party members, but this is not the case for many games labeled as RPGs:

Neverwinter Nights 1 - a party of 2.
Neverwinter Nights 2 - a party of 5.
Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2 - a party of 3.
Planescape: Torment - a party of 5.
Dragon Age: Origins - a party of 4.
Mass Effect 1 & 2 - a party of 3.
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire - a party of 5.
Fallout - no "traditional limit" as such. You can have as many as you want (you have a total of 4 permanent companions, giving you a party of 5).
Arcanum - no "traditional limit" as such (you can a party of 8 going, if you know how. Maximizing charisma alone will get your party to 6).
Fallout 2 - no "traditional limit" as such (you can get a party of 6, if you max your charisma to 10).
Wasteland 2 = a party of 7.

Disclaimer: all parties include the main character as part of their party.

And there are many other games (including old games), which have party limit other than 6. Just look at Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession. The game from 1994 has a party limit of 4. So how is this in any way shocking that we're getting RPGs where party limit is 4, instead of 6?

 

[RK47]

Ravenloft had you create 2 only.
And the other 2 must be taken from the pool of recruitable NPCs.

 

[Harthwain]

Ravenloft had you create 2 only. And the other 2 must be taken from the pool of recruitable NPCs.

Yes. I meant the total party size. If anything, this is identical to Divinity: Original Sin 1 (you create two characters and then can accept two NPCs, bringing the overall number to 4).

So was Ravenloft the spearhead of the decline then?

 

[Butter]

It goes back further than the Ravenloft games. Pretty much ever RT blobber going back to Dungeon Master used 4-man parties. TB blobbers kept 6-8.

 

[Harthwain]

True. I was merely making a point that "old titles" did have party size different than 6. Ravenloft is just one such example. Hell, I even listed some RPGs that had party members upper limit as low as 2 or 3 (and these weren't some relatively unknown, niche games). So what is the OP even talking about?