Four to six is optimal to me. Less than 4 makes it too simplistic for a party-based game. More than 6 and it starts to feel less like an RPG and more like a strategy game.
IMO it depends alot how much micromangement is possible or necessary. Lets take a look at a standard-character in many Games, the Fighter:
In the Goldbox Games they could attack with their Melee-Weapon, shoot with their ranged Weapon, move around, use an Item and most importantly block the way to the weaker party-members, if the terrain allowed it (i.e. small corridors) and you positioned them that way. In this Expample I call them Guards, they probably wear heavy Armor, big Shields and Poleweapons.
A Fighter in a modern Game has usually different options like Bullrush, Power-Attack, Berserkermode, Taunting, Hadoken-Spiritual-Attack, and whatnot. This are interesting features - lets call this guy Champion; he would probably use a twohanded Sword, a Katana - probably with a Wakizashi at the same time - or some exotic two-bladed thingie and wear light to medium Armor. He also probably needs a Bandoleer full of Healing-Potions…
The Job of the Guards would be to protect the non-combatents of the party, the Champion would have to do some hero-stuff amidst the enemy ranks. You put the Guards to strategic Positions and are done with them but you need to micromanage the Champion.
A Caster might be a universal Caster that can cast anything from healing, to crowd-control to damage-spells like the Dragonage Mages, or highly specialized like in this eastern games - a Thaumaturge could only cast some Fireballs and Lightning, a druid might use a rain-spell to turn an area to mud or summon some animals, a Psion might use only charmspells or confusion-type spells and a healer could only heal… you would use this guys only when necessary and would try to keep them out of danger the rest of the time.
If you add some commando-style Archer/Sneak-Attacker/Traps-Guy to the Champion and the universal Caster, then you have all traditional Bases covered with only three guys… heck - if you combine Champion and Commando you get Conan the Barbarian, if you combine all three "modern Archetypes" you get the Witcher, both still interesting Characters.
It all depends what story you want to tell - something like a superhero-story or a story with lots of different protagonists. And in the later Case, to keep the Gameplay interesting, you have to distribute the abilities… i.e. to Frontline-Fighters, Skirmishers, Assassins, Archers, Traps and Locks-Guys, Diplomancers, white, grey and black mages, some Wilderness-Experts or whatever.
I have never understood the 'takes too much time/effort to create and manage' argument. We ARE talking about Role Playing Games right? Not arcade games and ideally we should not even be dragging ANY real time games into the discussion about RPGs so thinking, planning and managing character development is kind of a requisite.
The line between 4 and 6 is definitely a tough one. I think it actually comes down to game design more than player expectation. With 4 toons, your players are going to settle into the traditional fighter/thief/healer/caster structure. If you've built your game with lots of neat/unique classes, it will be wasted effort if there's only 4 slots. Consider the Wiz8 gadgeteer- you'd have never run one in a 4 toon party (Wiz8 junkies and short-manning masochists aside) so all that coding, balancing, gearing and such would be wasted. At the other end of the scale, if you've got your game built for fairly simple classes (even if they've got lots of customization within the class) then having 6 slots just means multiples of the same archetype.
I think we're largely saying the same thing, but with a different spin. You're basically agreeing that the "average player" isn't going to take the class outside the traditional fighter/thief/healer/caster core. Something like that will be done on a replay, again excepting a small handful of masochists. Given that very few games actually get replays from the vast majority of gamers these days, there's not much return on the investment of developer resources. Particularly here, with a game being designed from the ground up as opposed to one structured on a well-known ruleset, folks aren't going to get too tricky on their first run. If there are 4 slots, those will go to the traditional core functions. It's an unwritten contract- the developer will make a game that utilizes those 4 roles and the player will supply those 4 roles or suffer for their obstinance.I disagree (though I might fall in the "Wiz8 junkie" category). Wiz8 is a prime example of what I said about auxiliary characters; you'll think long and hard before taking a Gadgeteer or a Bard in a 4 person party, but it's not a wasted slot at any rate.
I think we're largely saying the same thing, but with a different spin. You're basically agreeing that the "average player" isn't going to take the class outside the traditional fighter/thief/healer/caster core. Something like that will be done on a replay, again excepting a small handful of masochists. Given that very few games actually get replays from the vast majority of gamers these days, there's not much return on the investment of developer resources. Particularly here, with a game being designed from the ground up as opposed to one structured on a well-known ruleset, folks aren't going to get too tricky on their first run. If there are 4 slots, those will go to the traditional core functions. It's an unwritten contract- the developer will make a game that utilizes those 4 roles and the player will supply those 4 roles or suffer for their obstinance.
If there are 6 slots, then you've got 2 slots available for hybrids and/or specials.
Well, it depends on what kind of game it is, in a game like Ogre Tactics, it is fine to have more party members where each combat is one big thing, but if there is a lot of smaller combat against rats and such, then 8 is way too big, because if each small combat takes a long time it is going to get old fast.
While CRPGs have another focus than pen and paper RPGs the focus is normally not on combat, tactics and stats. The more characters you have, the less you get invested into each of them individually.
And while lots of people would maybe enjoy having more characters to manage, I am quite sure that the majority would prefer less or would use these "auto level up"-option in these games because they are mainly playing it for the story.
Not sure about how many of which type of gamer prefers which number of characters to control and I try to avoid the argumentum ad populum and 'arguments from anonymous authority' myself so…
but I and most other (C)RPG fans have no difficulty being just as interested in each of our 6-8 characters as tio each other character.
For me, five is the minimum needed to make group tactics start to matter. Four characters in the DA series just feels like a semi-random roving skirmish. The five character party in ToEE gave me a front line with a reserve and ranged attack.
Didn't you just do that?
A good point. Others brought up Wizardry 8 above but failed to take note of Wiz 8's tactical formations! One of the most important features of the game and one that would not matter much in a game designed for 4 person parties. Notice that games like Might and Magic 6+ don't bother with any kind of tactics because the 4 person party game is not capable of taking into account positioning, terrain etc.