Solo vs. Party-Based

[Mr. Magniloquent]

A party of Player Characters, as the hobby was intended.

This is one reason why NWN is lauded by those who played it properly. Going on adventures with other PCs in a virtual world curated by a real DM was outstanding.

 

[ds]

Really, the number of player-characters should correspond to other aspects of the game, e.g. a game focused on tactical turn-based combat should have a full party, whereas an Action RPG should have a single player-character.

This is the answer. In first-person game or third-person game where you control one character at a time a party is usually just an annoyance - either you need to awkwardly switch between them or all but one of them are artificial stupidity controlled and you're playing a very long escort mission. It's a bit better when you have an overhead view and can at least see how the retards are trying to get you/themselves killed at all times and have a chance to react. But when you have full control over the party at the same time or everyone takes turns then having more options from all the different party members' abilities makes things more interesting.

Solo character allows the game to have multiple ways of doing things based on that particular build of that character. That's something you don't really have with party based CRPGs because you expect a party to have all the bases covered. You don't really need to make a thief/sneaky way of doing something, and a combat way of doing something, and a diplomatic way of doing something, and so on. That's not to say that a party based CRPG can't include those things, but there's very little need to include multiple avenues for completing tasks when you have a party.

Typically when you have a party based CRPG, you primarily throw in traps and hidden doors and things like that just to make sure the player creates a balanced party. With a solo character CRPG, you toss in those things specifically for those characters who are built that way typically have an optional way of doing something. I think nearly all developers will acknowledge that the majority of players out there will go the combat route and nearly everything in all CRPGs can be resolved that way. So, if the focus of your game is combat and you don't really care about adding different ways of completing things because that's not the focus of the game, it doesn't really matter if it's solo or party. In fact, party based might actually add something to the flavor of the game by allowing different tactical options for the player.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of developers don't really want to add all those methods of completing quests these days in either single player or party based games. How many branching design quests do Bethesda games have? They're solo character, but pretty much every single quest is resolved the same way each time because they don't really bother allowing multiple ways of doing things. In Skyrim, you can be a fighter build and be a high ranking member of the Mage Guild because Bethesda doesn't bother to design things any other way other than just beating the shit out of whatever bad guys the game throws at you.

This is just the general reactivity problem - having significant differences in how the game plays out costs a lot more for the same game length and many players don't actually like it and will bitch if they can't do everything with their character. So the differences are mostly fake like being able to pick a lock or just bash the door where the outcome is the same.

 

[octavius]

Frodo was stupid. Imagine how much faster he would've leveled up if he left all those goons in Rivendell.

Those goons stunted his growth.

 

[0sacred]

Party based.

In single character games, I will always try to use summons, henchmen, animal companions etc. to make it feel more like a party based game.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

There needs to be more party based RPGs that have creatable characters who come with personalities. Real personalities not just voice sets described as "stern" or "boisterous". Add in an attached personal quest for good measure

Solasta and Wildermyth both had personality traits for customizable characters, with Solasta placing cutscene dialogue according to these personality traits and having one personal quest determined by background (not personality traits, though), while Wildermyth had a more complex set of character traits, with related personal quests occurring for the character with a high value in the appropriate trait.

Not sure if any later games have taken inspiration from these 2021 CRPGs, though.

 

[JarlFrank]

If it's an isometric/top-down RPG played primarily with the mouse, I want a fully controllable party.

If it's a first or third person action RPG with direct control, I want to play solo.

Simple as.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

If Turn-based, then Party-based (with controllable characters, obviously).

If Real-time, then Solo is the way.

 

[Impressive Organ]

I do enjoy the simplicity of just having one character take on the whole world, but party based games create more funny personal story moments when a party member does something awesome and looks like a Chad or completely fucks something up and looks like a retard.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Wildermyth

Any similar games to that that you'd recommend? Preferably with a less goofy art style.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Wildermyth

Any similar games to that that you'd recommend? Preferably with a less goofy art style.

Wildermyth attempted to employ procedural storytelling with pre-fabricated vignettes, within a framework of an overarching campaign plot and accompanied by tactical turn-based combat. I don't know of any games that imitated that attempt at innovating storytelling, or any games that imitated the personality trait implementation of Solasta or Wildermyth, but relating to the former you might try the Games with impressive procedurally generated content thread.

 

[HappyDaddyWow!]

If I have to pick, probably party based - but imo Kenshi has the best system. It's totally viable to play through the game with 1 character, or 15+, or somewhere in-between, and every option comes with its own pros and cons.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I have to say one more thing on the subject: If you're making a party based game, for the love of god, make the combat animations quick or skippable. I've played games with 3 party members that make battles a slog because everything has to have some multiple second animation to be all cinematic or whatever the fuck, and games where you have a party of 8 fighting 40+ enemies that go by quick enough to trigger that 'just one more' feeling. Be the second type of game.

 

[Average Manatee]

I have to say one more thing on the subject: If you're making a party based game, for the love of god, make the combat animations quick or skippable. I've played games with 3 party members that make battles a slog because everything has to have some multiple second animation to be all cinematic or whatever the fuck, and games where you have a party of 8 fighting 40+ enemies that go by quick enough to trigger that 'just one more' feeling. Be the second type of game.

Cheat engine exists for a reason. Don't know how I would play the hundreds of battles in King's Bounty games without it.

 

[0sacred]

ADHD players need to git gud

 

[Kabas]

Honestly don't care much as long as the character creation process is quick and simple.

Something like this^ is perfect.

Something like this^ is also acceptable.

Edit: If you're not numb to the pronouns yet here is better example of what i mean.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Party -based for tactical combat and solo for action.
Both formulas can be executed well or awfully, as it's often the case.

 

[Kruyurk]

Solasta and Wildermyth both had personality traits for customizable characters, with Solasta placing cutscene dialogue according to these personality traits and having one personal quest determined by background (not personality traits, though)

Solasta characters better have some nice personality traits, since they cannot rely too much on their faces.

 

[Caim]

If the world is more important than the story, single player with maybe one optional companion.

When there's an actual story and the main cast has more reason to engage with it than "there's loot to gain", a decently-sized group can work. But if your party becomes too large the cast members can't really engage with everything and gain enough screen time to make them interesting. But if too many charactes are sitting on the bench then you've got a lot of wasted potential (aka Mass Effect 2's problem with its teammates). How many you can field at once also affects this number: having two but have them be deeply interwoven with the plot is great, but six of which you can only field three at a time and have no mechanical need to field more then you're wasting resources.

When it's a blobber or close to one, then go hog wild. Make your entire party dwarven warriors, a bunch of muderous halflings or make the moeblobs of your dreams. This can also work with MMOs: have your roster of player characters be able to team up with the one you're playing as a dungeon party, fight your way through the overworld and keep all the loot to yourself since all these characters are yours. This also lets you get away with having each character know only one crafting profession, since omniglots are not very likely. Out of game this system also incentivizes players to have a bunch of alts at the ready and keep them geared. This system might be less effective at doing the high level raids, but anything below the sweatlord stuff you can do just fine by yourself. Maybe join in someone else's party of hereos for an impromptu instance, or share them with friends to make the most out of them.

 

[Laz Sundays]

Unless it's a Desu Ex* type of thing where you're supposed to be a one man army or whatever, I'd always welcome atleast one companion to compliment my style by being different.

*..yeah I'm aware that some people have trouble calling Deus an rpg, for whatever reason.

 

[JarlFrank]

*..yeah I'm aware that some people have trouble calling Deus an rpg, for whatever reason.

Their problem is being retarded.

 

[SmoothPimp]

Modern RPGs are gay shit.

 

[Laz Sundays]

Something like this^ is also acceptable.

 

[Kabas]

I thought RPG Codex was inclusive site judging by the amount of gay stuff that's going on here.

 

[Laz Sundays]

I thought RPG Codex was inclusive site judging by the amount of gay stuff that's going on here.

You posted a game that has pronouns as a highlighted option and a description bio of a character fancying himself a "Horserer". You haven't only chose to post that unironically, you posted it as an example of acceptable. I do not know how to communicate with you, honestly.

 

[Kabas]

It's acceptable to me in the sense that the whole party creation process takes place mostly on a single screen.
Can't give a honest shit about pronoun thingie. The game itself is good.