Huge parties or a one arm bandit?

[Gulshog]

I love creating lots of characters in games...and it seems these days you have to go solo to play a new, whiz-bang, bells and whistles blazing CRPG. It's fine and all, but I like parties of 6-8 characters! What do you think...do you even care?

[Neo]

In my opinion, creating one charachter, and focussing on making that one characther the "Ultimate" is the best. That is why I only have 1 character in WoW, and I focus everything on him. When making several chars, I always have the feeling that I give more attention to only one of them.

[Whip-0]

Uh, I like both? Having trusty companions as Iolo, Shamino and Dupre at times, at others being the nameless hero...

..."I don't care" doesn't work for me, as I DO care. But I rather like pre-generated characters to join my character. ToEE and the old EoB games were great party romps, but not stellar rpgs.

[xSamhainx]

Huge parties. I like the game to be more of a tactical combat experience with a group of highly specialized warriors that Ive raised fom simple noobs

[Gorath]

Solo or small parties like KotOR.

[r3dshift]

Solo or small parties like KotOR.

Exactly. A 4-strong party is the most, in my opinion. Above that, their personalities seem to dissolve for me. Or they are not unique individuals any more.

[Sir Markus]

I like 4 character parties, ala Might and Magic or Ultima, especially if the skills balance themselves out. I never really enjoyed having more than that. However I do enjoy single character games, ala Gothic and The Elder Scrolls.

[Corwin]

Depends on the style of the game. With TB type combat, I want a self created party (think Wiz 8), while with RT, I want solo only; I hate NPC's who rush into the middle of my just cast fireball and get themselves killed!! :)

[ShadowMoses]

I hate NPC's who rush into the middle of my just cast fireball and get themselves killed!! :)

Or worse: they don't get killed and then turn around and attack you! ;)

[Moriendor]

Definitely prefer solo. Even if you have a lot of control over your party, I sometimes hate it to depend on AI (artificial idiocy :D ). Especially in games like KotOR where you need to pay rather close attention to what the party members are doing so they don't get themselves or everyone in the party into trouble. If I wanted to play a babysitting simulator, then I'm sure that EA has a fitting Sims expansion pack for me if I really cared but I don't need that crap in an RPG :D .

[nameless hero]

By myself, or with one companion, like the quests in G1 were u faught along side Gorn, Lester and Diego.

[Jaz]

Another Lone Ranger here. Even Tonto would be one too many. I'm busy enough taking care of myself in games.

[Sei Daneic]

I like it when the game offers you a choice. Being possible to finish the game both when going solo , or as a group. When it comes to DnD based games, I like having large groups (4-8), as that is what DnD is balanced for. NWN never really cut it for me, and having an idiotic henchman you couldnt control was one of the reasons, thats why I can't wait for NWN2. I have heard rumors on the official site that you can in your own modules, open up for controlling as many party members as you could possibly want at the same time.

Ehm, well, gotta stop myself before I go too far off-topic. :)

[Corwin]

NWN really comes into its own when you play online with others, preferably in a DM'd campaign!! If you combine that with Skype for voice while playing, as some of us here do, then it's a fantastic, fun experience. We're waiting with great anticipation to do that with NWN2 as well!!

[Arma]

I like large party. Like in the Fire Emblem games on the GBA. There is nothing like having a team of 20+ characters so you could shift them around.

[txa1265]

It all depends on the game - things like Fire Emblem work for a reason ... same is true with Icewind Dale with 6 or KotOR / NWN with 2 or 3. I got into the habit of solo-ing NWN, but then they started having non-useless henchmen ;)

[titus]

I love playing solo like in Gothic or Divine divinity,
although the Kotor was team combat, that was the only team battle I ever liked.
Rather give me a good sword or axe, or even 2. or combined with a good shield and let me become an uberwarrior who just likes to go between a group of enemeies and try to slaughter them all at once

[Korplem]

I find that no matter what role I feel like playing (be it stealth, caster, melee or whatever) I never use npcs. If I can control them, sure, I'll bring em along. But mostly I prefer to do things on my own since the computer, in every single game known to man, thinks that getting in my way or rushing large groups of enemies is helpful.

[bjon045]

I prefer 4-8 characters. I don't mind the odd single character RPG ala Gothic, but in those games I kind of find you are really just playing a representation of yourself (or who would like to be)- like when I am playing Gothic, I like to think of myself as being the nameless hero...

[Monolith]

Party or no party system, if the RPG part is well done I don't care all that much. There are moments when I'd prefer a single character - but a party has it's advantages just as well.

However, what I'd like to see in a RPG is the actual possibility to realistically choose between a party or a single character. I've yet to see a game where that's part of the game play decisions - like choosing combat over diplomacy or stealth over magic. For instance, certain quests could be solved by a party only - fighting multiple strong enemies or having to be at different places at the same time. Other quests wouldn't be available for a party at all - e. g. stealth missions where are party can be more a burden than help.

Sure, we can play through Baldur's Gate 2 as a single character, or through NWN, but that's obviously not intended. The only exception I can think of is Fallout and Fallout 2, but all in all it doesn't make much of a difference there as it only influences how hard combat can be.

[txa1265]

However, what I'd like to see in a RPG is the actual possibility to realistically choose between a party or a single character.

That *sounds* great (and would *be* great) but imagine the scope of the project - you'd need separate branching quests for *everything* to take into account party size and capabilities

[Monolith]

That *sounds* great (and would *be* great) but imagine the scope of the project - you'd need separate branching quests for *everything* to take into account party size and capabilities
Not necessarily. It all depends on how far you want to go. My attempt would allow the player to generate one character. The game would center on that character only. Throughout the game NPCs could be taken along (could depend on vignettes - a character of noble birth could take along a groom for instance, a mage an apprentice and so on). This NPC would be AI controlled and would have an own personality. So whenever a NPC is taken along the player will face consequences like the NPC rebelling against the character's actions or him wanting to have his part of plunder. It wouldn't be hard to implement *that* and could make soloing more interesting.

Now applying quests and a game world to that would be harder, but not harder than allowing diplomatic attempts for instance. One quest could be the assassination of some sort of leader. This could be done in a stealthy way by one character, through diplomacy (talking somebody into doing the dirty work), by combat if the character absolutely centers on combat abilities and neglects all other skills and attributes (thus being in terms of combat inhumanly strong) - or simply by taking a NPC along and therefore having a chance to take out him and his minions (what would be impossible for a single ordinary fighter).

That's a very simple example but the point should be clear.

[Maylander]

I voted "I don't care", as I love both in fact, because they're very different. Old RPGs like Baldur's Gate are excellent, with great character development and fun, tactical combat. On the other hand I also like 3D games like Gothic where it's easier to feel that you are "inside" the world playing the main character, and the combat is fast paced.

[dteowner]

I find that it's more challenging to balance skills among a party (4-6 chars) than running a solo planet-smasher. Although, if the game mechanics allow the party characters to gain/master every skill it sort of defeats the purpose. Think of the difference between MM6 and MM7--in 6, all 4 chars could have the same exact same skills and abilities if you played long enough, meaning no real difference between a fighter, a mage, or a thief. MM7 forced you to consider what skills you wanted and which ones you were willing to do without.

Makes for better replayability when you can build a different party and have a different experience.

[Monolith]

Makes for better replayability when you can build a different party and have a different experience.
Same goes for a single character. Makes for better replayability when you can build a different character and have a different experience.

When well done, the replayability is even stronger with just one character. With "well done" I mean not being able to effectively be a master of all skills. If trying to rais every skill the player should feel the drawbacks. When having a party it's different. Balancing a party means balancing the skills - in the end you have masters of all skills. Where is the replayability in that? In one playthrough you can choose the best solution to quests - playing a specialized character your choice will depend on his abilities.

[dteowner]

When having a party it's different. Balancing a party means balancing the skills - in the end you have masters of all skills. Where is the replayability in that?You need to spend some quality time with Wiz8. If you don't take a bard, you will never ever be able to experience the instruments in the game. Without a gadgeteer, no gadgets. Without someone with alchemy, no potion-mixing-for-profit. Without a ranger, no autosearch. No faerie ninja, no cane of corpus. With 6 characters, you simply cannot cover every available skill.

MM7 was similar. No thief, no grandmaster disarm. No evil monk, and you couldn't even get master disarm. No sorceror, no Lloyd's Beacon, and that was a pain in the rump. The whole light/dark decision gave you mutually exclusive experiences.

[Fenris]

I prefer the Baldur's Gate Approach... one (or more) created Characters at the Start of the Game and lots of joinable Characters with their own Agendas and Personalities to meet during the Game.

There should be at least 6 Characters in the Party - better 8 - because only then gain Battles strategical Depth and Variety. Turnbased Fights would be nice too... I miss the old Realms of Arcania Games... or the Goldbox-Games :(

[Gulshog]

Turnbased Fights would be nice too... I miss the old Realms of Arcania Games... or the Goldbox-Games :(

Weren't the Realms of Arcania games based on the Dark Eye RPG? I heard that they are making a new PC Game, but are ditching the Realms of Arcania name due to legal issues. It is simply called Drakensang (http://www.drakensang.com).

[Corwin]

You guys are going to LOVE Grimoire!! :D

[Fenris]

Weren't the Realms of Arcania games based on the Dark Eye RPG? I heard that they are making a new PC Game, but are ditching the Realms of Arcania name due to legal issues. It is simply called Drakensang (http://www.drakensang.com).

Drakensang will be "streamlined". As far as I know, it will be a Baldur's Gate-Clone with 3D-Graphics... (and only a Party of 4)... it still may become a good Game, but no Realms of Arcania ;).

[Arhu]

Ah, with Realms of Arkania being my favorite trilogy of all time (probably only shadowed by the soon-to-be Gothic trilogy), I beg to differ. I have high hopes for Drakensang. What made those games really great was mostly the setting and unique, "realistically" dark medieval atmosphere in my opinion. Well, for me anyway. And the developers have repeatedly stated that they want to capture exactly that feature of the RoA universe.

[Moriendor]

Weren't the Realms of Arcania games based on the Dark Eye RPG? I heard that they are making a new PC Game, but are ditching the Realms of Arcania name due to legal issues. It is simply called Drakensang (http://www.drakensang.com).

The Realms of Arcania (or Arkania?) franchise was used in the US, I believe because they figured that 'The Dark Eye' was virtually unknown overseas back then.
So the North American publisher went for a catchy name and I think that some elements of gameplay were changed as well to "Dungeons&Dragon-ize" the games in order to make them more appealing for North American RPGers.
The original German games, however, were all named after The Dark Eye or Das Schwarze Auge (DSA). The original full titles over here were (translated to English): The Dark Eye - Blade of Destiny, The Dark Eye - Star Trail, and The Dark Eye - Shadows over Riva. So as you can see, Drakensang: The Dark Eye is not really a ditching of the name if you look at the original German titles.
And I doubt that it's legal reasons only (or at all) that they got rid of "RoA" because they (German licence holder Fanpro) have finally managed to establish a small 'The Dark Eye' fanbase in the US over the past few years (http://www.thedarkeyerpg.com/) so it only makes sense to use the real franchise name now instead of a made up fantasy name like RoA. They want to make The Dark Eye more popular in the US so I'm sure that they are more than happy to not use the old RoA name.

[Fenris]

You guys are going to LOVE Grimoire!! :D

I guess I will... Maybe it will be bundled with Duke Nuke'em forever :D

[magerette]

I think both approaches can work in the appropriate setting. I prefer being able to use all the skills and paths in a party, so I like at least four characters.

Like Sir Markus, I like the way the party (4)was handled in the earlier Might & Magic titles, and also Icewind Dale & TOEE, where you could roll or create (4-6)and then develop all your party members.

But of course, for that to be fun in terms of role-playing, the NPC has to be controllable--unlike, for instance, the "henchmen" in NWN1, who basically just did their own thing (when not getting lost). A lot of games are not very good at this.

A good, well-developed single character is better than a vague,generic & uncontrollable party.

[Gulshog]

What made those games really great was mostly the setting and unique, "realistically" dark medieval atmosphere in my opinion.

That's why I love Harnmaster...wish they would have made a PC game version of the pen and paper game. I heard about one a loooong time ago, I guess it died a long, slow death.

[Tauschitz]

Corwin,

I notice that the site has been down for a while re Grimoire. Have you heard anything on whether or not that is still under development. I know that he had some scripting problems, but the last I had read on his site what that the whole project was in "linbo". That would not seem to bode well.

As far as single vs party play, for me there is no comparison - its party all of the way. I have always been quite focused on three elements in RPGs 1) story and dialogue 2) ability to cause real change to the world (meaning that the game should have multiple endings and branches depending upon what I do and 3) has to have great combat.

Now, I'll admit that there is a bit of different people's tastes involved in what constitutes "great combat," but I just find single person RPG combat far to knee-jerk and one dimensional when it comes to combat. While it can be good, it just never seems to me to rise to the level of multi-party combat.

[Corwin]

I know nothing current about Grimoire or the site. Somewhere, I have Cleve's cell phone number, so if I can find it sometime, I'll give him a call.

[NFLed]

I don't have a preference, for me the enjoyment is about whether the game is well made and fits my other preferences. I have enjoyed solo games and party-based games.

[aboyd]

I need parties so much that I was unable to get into NWN until that module came out with 3 companions. Was it Arterra? Something like that. It had Percy as a NPC. Until that module, I couldn't stand NWN. Nowadays I can play as long as I have 2 companions. But just 1 other party member sucks. Playing a solo character is duller than dull.

I still have good memories of controlling tons of little guys in the Myth series. I never deployed them as units. I always split them up and set each one into action individually. Baldur's Gate? Yummy. Even Icewind Dale was OK -- the NPCs were all created by me, which meant no party banter, but the strategy of battles was nice.

[magerette]

Even Icewind Dale was OK -- the NPCs were all created by me, which meant no party banter, but the strategy of battles was nice.

Ah, fond memories of the hours rerolling the ultimate paladin! Who needs party banter when you have six perfectly- engineered-for-your-playing-style companions?
To me the pre-rolled NPC's always seemed nerfed in the Bio games--I guess to escape the odium of munchkinism--but still--where is the fun in taking on an NPC whose major contribution is to interject mostly idiotic comments just as you approach a battle?

[LordRac]

No preference here either, but it is always nice to have an option in party based RPGs to have a single character party.