Decline Why 4 party members?

[DraQ]

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?

Personally my favourite among party based RPGs in regards to party size would be Wizardry 8 - core party of 6 with additional 2 slots for recruitable characters bringing total party size up to 8.

Also PS:T had party of 6, not 5.

 

[Lilura]

Fallout [...] you have a total of 4 permanent companions, giving you a party of 5).
Disclaimer: all parties include the main character as part of their party.

Or party of six if we don't return Tandi:

It's funny to see which ones can survive the longest.

 

[Lilura]

Storm of Zehir supports 4 player-created + 1 recruitable (or 2 if one player-created takes Leadership feat), bringing total to six.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

EoB has up to 6 party members, even though the game is a RT blobber.

 

[Lilura]

Warband also supports large companion-based parties, in addition to standard army:

They have personalities, cultures, histories, social standing, loredumps, likes/dislikes etc. That is my Brytenwalda party.

 

[Harthwain]

Also PS:T had party of 6, not 5.

Indeed. I forgot to add the main character. My bad.

Personally my favourite among party based RPGs in regards to party size would be Wizardry 8 - core party of 6 with additional 2 slots for recruitable characters bringing total party size up to 8.

For me it depends on a game. Something like Fallout felt way better solo, because the NPCs' AI was just horrible (or maybe I was just bad at managing it). For more tactics-oriented RPGs the bigger party is generally better.

 

[JarlFrank]

Planescape: Torment - a party of 5.

What?

You have 6 character slots you dolt. It's just that the last one is only recruited later in the game.

 

[Harthwain]

What?

You have 6 character slots you dolt. It's just that the last one is only recruited later in the game.

Spoiler

 

[laclongquan]

Fallout 2:

Traditionally 5 characters: Sulik, Vic, Cassidy, Myron (or Lenny), Marcus, or Dogmeat to replace one of them.
Miria because the wedding force her onto party without checking size.
Evil Skynet because it force itself on party without checking for size. If you run like the devil out of the courtyard the script would not be activate (it is able to kill your companion) and follow afterward. That script only active in SAD courtyard
K9 because it force itself on party after activating it.

So you can have 8 other companions.

 

[laclongquan]

On the 4

One strong reason I think of this reduce is the complexity of class and powers. Compare to old games nowaday we have a much more larger variety of powers and class, so the combination can create some very overpowering combination.

Thus the often complaint of too OP this and need NERF that. BG2 show this, and later on NWN2.

To balance all possibility they would need to reduce the combination. Thus combo of 4 is a 33% reduce from combo of 6.

Another reason is the advancement of graphic demand. If they need to provide graphic for 6 active main bodies on screen it's too taxing compare to 4. You can feel this in Storm of Zehyrs when it's party of 6 instead of party of 4.

These days and ages everybody and his dog play with, not only body replacer mods, but top resolution on flat screen.

That's two reasons.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Hmmmm shouldn't that pic be like?

I recall a mod for Arcanum where you'd run into like 30-90 orcs and if you killed that they exploded into 99 yetis. Ah, what a fucked up mod. Had so much fun messing with sounds, graphics, and crap in that. YETI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Viata]

where you'd run into like 30-90 orcs and if you killed that they exploded into 99 yetis

 

[Luckmann]

Planescape: Torment - a party of 5.

What?

You have 6 character slots you dolt. It's just that the last one is only recruited later in the game.

I wouldn't even say that late in the game unless you're saving yourself for Vhailor or something. Both Fall-From-Grace and/or Nordom can be had as soon as you reach the Clerk's Ward, which could be called either the 1/3rd or 1/2-way point of the game, I think, depending on foreknowledge, but even getting Ignus or Dakkon could conceivably be rather late unless you know to go to the bar. I don't think gameflow-based circumstances is really a reasonable technical limiter here.

PS:T has a party of 6, end of.

 

[Lilura]

JRPGs

JRPGs suck.

 

[Durandal]

6 is ideal for blobbers or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry/MM where having to reposition each individual party member in the world isn't really a thing. Having to constantly reposition six party members with grid/hex-based positioning tends to result in a lot of turns where you do nothing but try to get characters from A to B, which just introduces a lot of filler to combat (something that's less of a problem with RTwP). This problem gets more exacerbated when the combat has more of a focus on close-range melee instead of ranged combat. Reducing party size the reduces said filler.

 

[JarlFrank]

6 is ideal for blobbers or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry/MM where having to reposition each individual party member in the world isn't really a thing. Having to constantly reposition six party members with grid/hex-based positioning tends to result in a lot of turns where you do nothing but try to get characters from A to B, which just introduces a lot of filler to combat (something that's less of a problem with RTwP). This problem gets more exacerbated when the combat has more of a focus on close-range melee instead of ranged combat. Reducing party size the reduces said filler.

what the fuck

How do more party members lead to more filler? The fuck am I reading? One of the RPGs with the most filler ever is Dragon Age, which, have a guess, has a party of only 4.

 

[Durandal]

6 is ideal for blobbers or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry/MM where having to reposition each individual party member in the world isn't really a thing. Having to constantly reposition six party members with grid/hex-based positioning tends to result in a lot of turns where you do nothing but try to get characters from A to B, which just introduces a lot of filler to combat (something that's less of a problem with RTwP). This problem gets more exacerbated when the combat has more of a focus on close-range melee instead of ranged combat. Reducing party size the reduces said filler.

what the fuck

How do more party members lead to more filler? The fuck am I reading? One of the RPGs with the most filler ever is Dragon Age, which, have a guess, has a party of only 4.

I was mostly referring to situations where you're stuck in turn-based mode for an extended period of time and find yourself just moving your entire party turn-by-turn into the next room where the remaining enemies are, instead of doing any meaningful combat-related actions.
Though on second thought I am exaggerating here, situations like these are probably rarer than I've originally thought.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

6 is ideal for blobbers or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry/MM where having to reposition each individual party member in the world isn't really a thing. Having to constantly reposition six party members with grid/hex-based positioning tends to result in a lot of turns where you do nothing but try to get characters from A to B, which just introduces a lot of filler to combat (something that's less of a problem with RTwP). This problem gets more exacerbated when the combat has more of a focus on close-range melee instead of ranged combat. Reducing party size the reduces said filler.

what the fuck

How do more party members lead to more filler? The fuck am I reading? One of the RPGs with the most filler ever is Dragon Age, which, have a guess, has a party of only 4.

Skyrim has even more filler and it's not even got a party.

 

[NJClaw]

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?

That's irrelevant, we all know that the only real CRPG is Baldur's Gate. This means that party size is 6 in 100% of the CRPGs in the world.

 

[JarlFrank]

6 is ideal for blobbers or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry/MM where having to reposition each individual party member in the world isn't really a thing. Having to constantly reposition six party members with grid/hex-based positioning tends to result in a lot of turns where you do nothing but try to get characters from A to B, which just introduces a lot of filler to combat (something that's less of a problem with RTwP). This problem gets more exacerbated when the combat has more of a focus on close-range melee instead of ranged combat. Reducing party size the reduces said filler.

what the fuck

How do more party members lead to more filler? The fuck am I reading? One of the RPGs with the most filler ever is Dragon Age, which, have a guess, has a party of only 4.

I was mostly referring to situations where you're stuck in turn-based mode for an extended period of time and find yourself just moving your entire party turn-by-turn into the next room where the remaining enemies are, instead of doing any meaningful combat-related actions.
Though on second thought I am exaggerating here, situations like these are probably rarer than I've originally thought.

Most turn based RPGs these days end turn based mode as soon as all current enemies are dead, so you can then enter the next room in real time. If enemies in the next room are already alerted, they'll come charging in so it's not like you'll have to spend time just maneuvering.

I guess in some games with visibility depending on your line of sight you get situations where you don't know where the last enemy is while combat is still going on, and that can get annoying. Jagged Alliance, XCom, Silent Storm etc. But that only happens towards the end of the encounter, so eh, not that big an issue.

 

[CryptRat]

6 is ideal for blobbers or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry/MM where having to reposition each individual party member in the world isn't really a thing. Having to constantly reposition six party members with grid/hex-based positioning tends to result in a lot of turns where you do nothing but try to get characters from A to B, which just introduces a lot of filler to combat (something that's less of a problem with RTwP). This problem gets more exacerbated when the combat has more of a focus on close-range melee instead of ranged combat. Reducing party size the reduces said filler.

what the fuck

How do more party members lead to more filler? The fuck am I reading? One of the RPGs with the most filler ever is Dragon Age, which, have a guess, has a party of only 4.

I was mostly referring to situations where you're stuck in turn-based mode for an extended period of time and find yourself just moving your entire party turn-by-turn into the next room where the remaining enemies are, instead of doing any meaningful combat-related actions.
Though on second thought I am exaggerating here, situations like these are probably rarer than I've originally thought.

Yes, this is a thing of fully turn-based wargames with big maps with several waiting groups of enemies, very few RPGs work this way, either enemies are coming or you're currently in real-time mode.

Also, sparse "remaining enemies" should surrender, too many games lack this feature.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

should surrender

I doubt that players are merciful as a general rule.

 

[Raghar]

Or they could switch you into mode where you will not move each character in sequence, and then let stuff happen until either you find the enemy, or enemy shots sniper shot at you.

 

[Durandal]

should surrender

I doubt that players are merciful as a general rule.

Being given the option for having all surrendering enemies give me their equipment, gold and items in exchange for letting them live and being able to earn Good Boy Karma at the local clergy would please my inner murderhobo.

 

[anvi]

I don't think it matters how many characters you have, what matters is the depth of the combat. If tanks have bash and kick and casters have Firebolt and Frostbolt then yeah I am gonna need at least 6. But just one character would be fine if it had a lot of abilities/spells.