Optimal Size of a RPG party
 

I really cannot decide how many characters to allow max in the party and which is optimal for the gameplay.

4 is too few ( because there are several story characters so too few for your own ones + it is too few to really use all the tactical possibilities in the game )

Acctually I want to allow 8 characters but I am a bit worried that's too many.

that could leave me at the magic number of 6… but I still really want 8.

What do you guys think is the ultimate party size? and is 8 characters too big for an RPG, I only know of a few RPG's which allow such a big party……..

help out with lots of advice please!

Of course I am aware it also depends on the game, but people here probably read up quite a bit on the game already……

Why don't you allow 2-8, and let the player decide? I prefer a smaller party or solo actually, while many prefer a large party. This way IMO you will cater to a larger group of players. Again only my opinion.

I will allow fewer if the player wants to use fewer, but it is going to be darned hard in that case…….. but I still have to decide on a max… should it be 4, 6 , 8 or 10.. or unlimited :S

the reason to have a max is mostly technical + you have to consider the amount of characters when you create certain encounters etc.

Since it is a tactical RPG, having one Uber-char is not really going to make it that tactical…… on the other hand just like in wizardry 8 if you want to try… it should be possible. That said at certain points in the game, for example when you escort a character etc, you'll have to have them in your party.

Are there actually games with 8 characters/party members out there ?

I just don't remember any …

Wich means you have 2 choices :

- stick to the traditional numbers of party members

- try something new (if there really isn't any game wth 8 out there, I really don't know)

There are several which allow 8 or more, but I don't know of any western style RPG's which does. Disagaea ( japanese T-RPG for consoles ) for example…..

This game is a bit of a merge between japanese style T-RPG ( ussually strong on story ) with western style ( usually strong on freedom at least in the past… )

Wizards and Warriors is the only western RPG I can think of with 8 characters in the party. Perhaps that explains why it was such a bugfest. ;)

Traditionally, parties run between 4 and 6, as you know. Aside from control and balance issues, I think you have to look at skill coverage to lead you to an answer for your question. Think about Wiz8. It was impossible, without a practically useless party, to cover all the skills in the game, but a party of 6 could cover most of them. That meant that you could, with just a little attention, build a party that could be successful, but it would take a replay to "see it all in action". That's the balance you have to hit: enough characters so the player can cover all the important skills (healing, spells, locks-n-traps, melee, ranged, search-n-spot, conversational, etc) with a taste of some "flavor" skills, but not enough characters to cover every skill and "flavor" in the game.

As long as there are 6 or more party-members I'm ok - with a smaller Party the tactical elements in the Games suffer IMO. Unlimited Party-Size sounds interesting, and splitted XP could balance it out somewhat; Equiqment and Provisions could help also. As long as it is possible to use fewer characters every one should be happy :)

Western RPGs with 8 Party-Members are i.e. Might and Magic III and the Gold Box Games form SSI (6 characters to create and two joinable characters). Bard's Tale and Realms of Arcania had 7 (BT 1 and ROA had 6 to create and one joinable).

Edit: Is there a way to get 8 Charas in Wizards & Warriors ? I only remember 6.

I brought up a few screenies and it looks like my memory is crap. Coulda swore the game ran 8 chars, but it appears I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion.

Ultima IV-VII.2 was 8 so I always thought it was 8. I was annoyed with Baldur's Gate only having six when I first played. However, when I played U5:Laz, I found that eight was a bit combersome in modern games. Now playing the IE games again, I really do think 6 is the ideal number. In U6P, I have six right now and may stay there.

That brings me to a quiestion : How does it compare with modern playing styles ?

There is currently a playing style imho far too common that consists of

- tanks
- healers/supporters

In the official forums of Drakensang, I even found a few people playing even Drakensang 2 that way (Drakensang put much more role-play into it than Drakensang 1, which was more combat-oriented).

and that although everyone (at least in German) knows or should know that TDE is a rather role-playing orinted environment; not so much combat-oriented as I see (A)D&D.

And now, with this layout of party members, how would a party consisting of 8 be ? 4 tanks, 4 healers/supporters ?

Not that I'd like to play it this way, but this is simply a playing style that has been developed within the recent years.

Therefore, a thing like variety would be nice. There could be a variety of skills like there could be a variety of classes (like the traditional setup of rogues, magies, warriors, thieves etc.), perhaps even with things that for example only a thief would be able to solve, no mage, no warrior could do that.
On the other hand this could lead into frustration, too. Because not everyone would perhaps have a thief in the own party. Except when one is automatically joined by the system.

Therefore I'm pro to dte's suggestion. There could be "favour skills", but I think it would be nice if they did have an effect within the game, too. Like cooking, for example. Would be cheaper than having to buy everything.

It is going to have a bigger variety than a normal western RPG, since as I said it is a bit of a mix with J-rpgs…. that's one of the things I love about final fantasy tactics and ogre tactics too. It takes some things to new levels, it has a lot of awesome classes which requires specilisation. Esepcially stuff like the geomancer and negotiator ( you can get people to join you in the middle of a fight ). I am acctually kind of bored of thief, warrior, monk , soccecerer, healer, all the classic stuffs, which so many RPG's have.. where is the innovation ?

It is going to lean more towards that, of course that will make it a bit boring for players who want to play only a few characters… but being a turn-based T-RPG it is not going to be optimized for that playing style.

If the focus is on the tactical gameplay, then 8 is not too much, I think. Especially if there is really room for tactical variability. One thing to worry about then is to keep the amount of micromanagement to a reasonable degree. Inventory management for 8 characters could be a true horror - so either you limit the options there, or come up with some automation or a REALLY slick inventory management interface.
I hope the tactical focus also means that the game focuses more on thoroughly designed battles that really require tactics to "solve" them instead of a lot of random encounters where the odds are 90% in favor of the party? If there is a lot of filler combat I'd prefer a smaller party, to keep the encounters short enough to maintain interest. If we are talking larger, scripted tactical battles, I'd prefer a large party with lots of interesting options, which also gives some leeway for loosing characters - i.e. winning a battle with 6 out of 8 characters may be more feasible then with 2 out of 4.

I think the biggest challange is with the outside of combat abilities…. how do you find many enough so that the 8 characters togheter cannot master all of them? Basically what I think I am going to do is for example hunting…. you have one character with hunting… ok so when the party rest you get some meat.. you have two.. well that's more meat…. you have a herbalist and an alchimist ok that's one potion… you have 2 herbalist and 2 alchimist… that's 2 potions.

You have an expert herbalist and an expert alchimist… well that's one powerful potion…..

I hate random encounters especially with 90% favor of the party… not going to happen.

About inventory acctually there are going to be:

The party group with characters….. and the backup group with the packmule, basically characters will not be able to carry so much, but they can pass things to the backup party with the packmule. This way if a character die in the main party you can also replace him with a character from the backup group. Of course there is nothing to guarantee that the evil enemies will not attemp to attack your backup group and steal your supplies :D

One thing to consider is that the environment must support the largest party size. For example, even with Drakensang's small party, my characters were getting hung up in the environment because of the smallish places they would get stuck in when a game was loaded, not to mention the awkwardness of combat in close quarters.

The use of Factions could create replayability; i.e. if you ally yourself with the Dark Elves to get Necromancers you won't get Forest Elf Druids or something like that.

Yeah, I've been giving this a lot of thought…. but imagine you walk in a small corridor… you're going to have to think differently and your archer is not going to be much use….. I don't see it as much of a problem, at least not in a turn-based game….. where characters won't go nuts and run into and hit each other like crazy :D

Yes, exactly…… acctually you'll not be able to create characters of all races in the beginning…. there are some races which are more powerful than others.. but you have to ally with them to get access to that kind of characters.

Actually, I kind of hate factions, if they limit the character's choices too much, but … well, I'm not the developer. ;)

Factions … that is to me like "you must play this role, after you've made your choice, and we kind of artificially limit your exploring and choice possibilities by this."

I hate it when I'm not allow to talk & trade with others once I'm forced to stick with one faction. And that I'm forced to play out the same hatred the faction traditionally has against another faction - against my own will.

It isn't easy to explain what I mean, and I must say that this is also mostly an emotional thing to me.

And also - it is a different thing if I play "myself", so to say, as the role, which means I'm more or less following my own beliefs and ethics, or if I play a role, which might not comply to what I *personally* believe in.

I don't know if anyone understands my gibberish …

I think that the idea of replayability has many, very different meanings. For some people, it's going to be the thrill of the tactics (can I do better fighting a particular battle), for others, it's the opportunity to see new content in a familiar game (good path vs evil path as an example), or for some, it's just wanting to experience the same thing again.

I've played through the BG games 5 or 6 times in total. Each time, I set out to play a little different (even tried evil one time but it didn't work out), yet I end up making the same choices because I've emotionally invested myself in those choices the first time. In the end, I find that I don't want to experience something different, I want to experience the same thing again.

Acctually I kind of agree… I didn't say you couldn't or that it was final…. but you are certainly not going to be able to please everyone…… I don't really like final choices. Like do you pledge to forever join this faction and immidielty take all their rules to your heart never to part again….. however if you burn down the wood elves forest in the name of another faction… I don't think you're going to get any wood elves in your party anytime soon :P

I know this game will be hell to program :P But I am not afraid of challanges! we already got quite some ways with some things!

Haha, I am the same myself….. I keep saying to myself I will choose something new… but when I get the chance.. I choose the same again. Of course that might be the problem with the choices you get being too easy especially in BG it is ussually easy to tell which path is "evil" for example.

Yep, makes perfect sense to me. Also, faction based railroading forces a replay if you want to experience all content. Bad for the busy completist… :)

Yes.
I agree.
:D

That's true, but I even find myself playing the same type of character (Paladin, occasionally mage) and asking the same NPC's to join me! Arie isn't the best character in the game by far, but I end up adding her to my party and romancing her everytime!

Everyone loves Aerie. :P

The absolutely ancient Wizard's Crown, IIRC had 8 or 10 to a party, all player-created (can't remember, this has been many years since I've played that). But, the tradition generally runs 4 or 6 characters, sometimes with slots for NPCs to join later.

In a game like you've been describing yours to be, a few dedicated slots for such NPCs may be a must. Also, consider if your mages/casters have access to permanent summoning spells (like in Bard's Tale).

Interesting question, one I haven't considered much since I knew I'd go with tradition on this one. Still, you can't go wrong with offering 10 slots total; a few to account for NPCs that are required to join at various times (probably 2 will be fine, but whatever may be needed) and the rest player-made. Of course, if the entire party is NPCs, like in BG, save the main character, then 6 or 8 may be fine there. Though, if you have a lot of options for character classes, then offering room to employ more of them at once may be good.

It's kind of a hard question, as we don't know exactly how in depth the battles might become. Only you, and a few others, can really answer that. A huge party may be necessary if you have battles in the scope of Age of Wonders, which would have upwards of 56 units in a single battle. If it's more like many of the fights in say, Treasures of the Savage Frontier or Ultima 6, then smaller parties should work fine.

I just imagine 8 party members standing around a HUGE boss to fight … Like insects standing around a human … ;)
Only, that in my imagination that boss isn't fast enough to be everywhere … ;)

To me it's simple… 8 is too much :)
Several reasons:
- Long battles: 8 characters means enough monsters to have 8 characters challenged, or big opponents go against 8, but then it's like, too many hands in the cake.
- Micromanagement hell: I like controlling each character, but with 8, might be easily cumbersome to handle equipment, skills, spells, etc.
- Replayability: One of the main factors for replayability (for me) is try different party compositions. 8 seems to me that I'll probably have pretty much 1 of everything, leaving few things out to try (that are not really a variation of something I already saw).
- Characters: Just like students in a classroom of 40 get each less attention than those in a classroom of 30, my attention to each character will 'dilute'.

So, to me, 6 is the magic number. Enough to make tactical battles interesting, not too many as to have my brain treat each character as just a class instead of a character.

So many interesting opinions, I love the feedback so far!

Well, wolfing you can have fewer characters if you want….. acctually I felt in FF-tactics that I always had too few characters… it is one of the reason I am considering 8.

Another reason is like someone mentioned there'll be some NPC characters and some player created characters…. if there is 6…. let us say there are two or three NPC characters…. that only allows 3 of your own characters which is a bit too few IMHO.

I kind of agree about the micromanagement but that also depends on how much micromanagement there is? wouldn't you say?

Let us say each character have 8 equipment slots and you don't get newer better equipment that often….. I don't think that creates so much overhead…… + healings etc could be automagic, I will acctually offer a choice… automagic or player controlled for several things that way people who like micromanagement can go wild.

Same for skills, when the party rest the best skills of a character will be automagicly used unless the character selects another one….. or do nothing….

If you set micromanegement settings / values for once, these ould be carried out throughout the game automatically, until the player decides to change them.

6 PCs really is a magic number I think. Think of all the classics: Wizardry 8, JA2, Gold Box, etc, etc.

I'd say I prefer party based games with 4-6 PCs. 3 is too few, 8 could work depending on the game play, variety of classes & skills and very importantly, the interface. Really the more the merrier if the game stays interesting and easy to manage. Though too many characters and they tend to blur together and lose their uniqueness. Like wolfing said, it dilutes my attention to each character.

I find I hate NPCs, even if they're 100% the character I would have created anyway, I don't like taking them along. Something about the feeling they're stealing my XP and might just leave at any time so I'm always hesitant to give them any decent equipment. Games like KotOR or Drakensang where it's you + NPCs, I never feel the same attachment to the characters.

First of all, I'd like to point out a that temple of elemental evil had a possible party of up to 8 characters.

Second, I think that hardcoded number of party members should be unlimited, I don't see any logic why would someone not join your party if you already have x members. Perhaps there could be penalties for too large parties. Also depending on choices you make, some npc probably won't wish to join you.

Also as for party members, just thinking of classic mediaval roles in battles makes several possible roles for npc-s.

A infantry could probably be considered as a tank and there's nothing wrong with having two defensive tanks in a party. Light cavalry was primary used for flanking and chasing stragglers, something like a thief in most western rpg-s. Heavy cavalry were shock troopers and d&d barbarian class fits that type nicely. There were ofcourse skirmishers and ranged troops who's tasks were to soften up enemy. I often felt western rpg-s never made archers that effective, particularly at high levels. It would be nice to play a longbow sniper. Anyway those would be primary combat oriented characters/roles without even going into the spelcasters domain.

Go with 8. Hell I would not mind 10 or more (Jagged Alliance 2 allowed for 18! Split into 3 or more squads of 6 each but still…) but 8 is best. One of the things that makes Natuk and Helherron so fun is being able to create a full party and not have to make every party member a 'jack of all trades' the way most 4 person party games do. I do not like it when my mage must also be my thief and a decent fighter because there are not enough members to go around with specialized roles.

Not necessarily true but some of us LIKE long battles full of tactics and such.


I cannot for the life of me understand this contention. I have never, in all the 8+ party member RPGs I have played run into such a problem. Wizardry 8, Helherron, Natuk/P.O.W.S./ Nahlakh, Wizard's Crown, etc. Never had a problem with handling equipment, spells etc. In fact I would argue that an 8 person party makes it EASIER to manage since there are more people to carry stuff and more options for item use. In a 4 or even 6 person part you run into the "Wow…this hand axe is awesome! Would really help in that fight against the Snozzwoggler. Too bad I don't have anyone who can use axes…" scenario, which leads to having to lug around valuable gear until you find a shop that will buy the items you cannot use.


While I can understand your reasoning here in my experience this is never really the case. True in Natuk or Helherron for example I usually play 'one of each' character type but I have replayed those games literally dozens of times and it never gets boring because there is more to replayability than party composition. And besides, the way to 'fix' this would be to design the game so that no one party can cover all the possibilities. In Natuk there are only 3 races and 5 classes so there are only 8 possible builds (half-trolls can only be warriors, ogres can only be shamans and warriors) but if Tom had added one or two more races and/or classes (not that this was needed) then the 'problem' would have been solved.


I cannot understand this contention at all. Maybe it's because I do not get too emotionally invested in computer game characters but really…how much attention do you have to give to these characters?! spending level-up/exp. points/raising skills and sometimes selecting new spells? The classroom analogy is a false analogy because the point of a CRPG is not to teach a class room full of easily distracted, attention deficit children and managing a CRPG party is nothing at all like teaching a class full of children.

To each his own.

Wizardry 8 had 8 party members (two RPCs and 6 PCs…all of them controlled by the player). JA2 had 18 party members, split into 'squads' of no more than 6 (one of the weaknesses of the game IMO. Would have been a lot better to not limit squad size at all).

A problem in vanilla Wizardry 8 (and Baldur's Gate) I will grant you but this is easily fixable using Mad God's Cosmic Forge editor and removing the RPC's refusal to go to certain areas. In most CRPGs the RPCs are fully PCs and will not do anything you do not want them to do.

Well, the problem is if you have 18 as the max limit, you can have fights that lasts forever. Imagine spending several hours in each fight? that's why I am against having too many party members which you can use at the same time.

In my All-Time-Favourite Game "Fate - Gates of Dawn" you could recruit up to 28 Characters, but you had to split them in parties up to 7. Each Character needed food and water and skills had to be bought on level-up, so each member was a noticable burden for the income - at least until I found a mana-fountain and had a Alchemist who had the Gold-Rain-Spell :)

A Explorer-Party, that would run around in the wilderness during the day and a Dungeoncrawler-Group, that worked at night was a good solution; especially since time moved on and your Group - and your fixed main-hero - aged (well, there was a fountain of youth somewhere^^). I never finished it though - I blame the strange copy-protection, that never told you if you insert something wrong, but simply removed plot-relevant things - and the game had really epic proportions…

It was only released on Amiga and Atari ST

Edit:

And the english version was censored; my german Discs got corrupted after a few years and I only could get an english version; I also couldn't get a workable german version for WinUAE :(

At the Moment I think 8 is a good solution - particulary if Tank-Characters are easy to manage. This is something that irks me with Projekt Eternity from Obsidian; they want to balance the classes; while I can understand that balanced classes are important in PnP I don't see the need to balance classes in a single-player CRPG - on the contrary, i.e. to protect a healer and to know when to use a healing-spell is often a important decision in a computer-game, while it is certainly boring in PnP if you can only decide to try to hit a enemy or not or to heal someone or not.

Bucking the trend I like 4. Rather enjoyed how it was done in DAO. Managing more than that gets to be a bit much. I grew up with the traditional 6 party and that is fine as well, but my own personal preference is 4.

6 , closing in on micromanagement hassle.
In those games I seldom use more than 5.

So for tactical and more turnbased rpg as in the IE games I prefer 4-5.

In more "movie like" games with more action and immersion Im fine with 3.
I rather have fewer but more fleshed out companions.

On that note, the followers in Skyrim takes the price, You can have one and they are completely without personality or story. Fodder!

C

Yep wolf, 4 is ideal.

4 ? only in popamole bioware games where you have to romance everyone.

Depends on a lot of things as far as the length of battles go but to me that is relatively irrelevant. For starters it was rare that you would have all 3 squads (18 PCs) in the same battle and secondly good turn-based combat is never too long (unless the length is caused by animation speeds or some such crap rather than detailed combat mechanics.).

But back to my point: 8 is the best in traditional single party RPGs (as opposed to having multiple parties of 6-8). It allows for a wide variety of play styles (even playing with 1-4 PCs if that is your thing), strategies and tactics.