How many party members is too many?

[LuLingqi1]

As the Title says, how many do you think is too many?


Currently, my main cast consists of three characters, with an optional fourth. However, with how the story is being written, there is a lot of room to make other faces that appear/are set to appear, party members.


Currently, there's a lot of depth to each character. I use Yanfly's Class Change Core, and Subclass plugin. With how I've rigged everything, each party member has their own Primary Class, which through leveling and stuff, branches into about 5-6 total Primary Classes, and about 8-12 Subclasses. Which then leaks into about 30-ish skills for each character. (The skills are still undecided, as I haven't figured out if I can lock them in to only being used when that class is the class in use or not)


Right now, I do wish to have more than just four party members. I think if I add more, I'm gonna have to cut down on all the possible classes and stuff. Maybe. I think that adds a lot of depth to the characters, as it even gives little bits of insight into who they are as characters.


On a side note, is it possible to up how many people can be in the battle party?

 

[Topaz Light]

I'd say how many party members is too many kinda depends on a number of factors.


It's pretty important that every party member feels like they have a reason to be there; either a plot reason or a gameplay reason, but preferably both. You generally want each party member to feel distinct in terms of what they can do; having multiple party members who are too redundant with each other is generally something you want to avoid unless you're specifically going somewhere with it. (And make sure you have a good idea of where to go!) So it may not be a good idea to keep cramming in more party members once you run out of distinct and purposeful "classes" to allot to them.


Different games also sorta handle party members differently, mechanically. For example, a traditional RPG is a lot smaller in party scale than, say, a big strategy RPG like Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem's battles take place on a pretty large scale, with generally around ten to thirteen characters to an active party depending on the map, and even more enemies, so having a huge amount of party members by traditional RPG standards is just fine, and it'd feel very limiting to give the player less; of course, we can contrast that to a more traditional RPG, like Final Fantasy VI, wherein the combat takes place on a comparatively much smaller scale in terms of the number of combatants involved. You can only field up to four party members in one encounter, and enemies don't generally get many more (they often get less!), which means that every individual party member plays a pretty significant role in the battle. In this style of RPG, it's especially important to make sure each party member is really distinct in what they do, to give each one purpose and identity.


To be clear, I'm not talking about gimmicky mechanics or anything weird like that, although if you have a good and fun idea for a bizarre gimmicky character, absolutely go for it... What I'm talking about is what functions the character performs. Are they primarily a physical damage-dealer? A magical damage-dealer? A supporter? A healer? Are they a durable character who you can generally rely on surviving? Are they fragile and in need of the attention of a white mage with an itchy staff finger to keep them up and kicking?


Generally-speaking, it's alright to have two characters with redundant basic roles (i.e. two physical damage dealers, two healers, etc.) as long as you differentiate them in some meaningful way that's significant enough to alter how the player would use them.


For example, in a more active sort of battle system, you could have a healing mage who can heal your whole party at once, but who needs a bit of prep time to do it, and then contrast them with a doctor who can heal individual allies immediately with no prep time necessary, but who has no multi-target healing abilities whatsoever.


Or maybe you could have a straightforward warrior-type who has high base attack power, and then contrast them with a character who specializes in targeting enemy weak points, whose base damage output is lower than the warrior's, but their weakness-targeting abilities are stronger than the warrior's normal physical attacks when applied properly.


These are only two pretty basic ideas, and what specifically will work for your game depends on the mechanics and framework you've set up. Know your framework, and use that knowledge to play around with it to create interesting party member and "class" concepts!


With this in mind, I'd say that there isn't really a single hard numerical boundary after which your party member count becomes excessive, but rather, the boundary lies where you stop being able to differentiate the party members in significant, meaningful ways, which of course depends upon the gameplay framework they exist in, as well as your own creativity and ingenuity as a developer.

 

[Blindga]

To keep my opinion short, the amount of customization and character-based gameplay features there are, the fewer party members you want to have. Generally, I don't like party member switching so I prefer smaller parties of six or fewer, as having seven or more party members in a single fight is really tricky to work with.

If you are going to have a lot of character management mechanics and detailed classes, pick a smaller party. If your things are simpler on the individual level, then you can use more characters.

I think you have the right idea that you should simplify the class system a bit if you increase the party size.

 

[LuLingqi1]

Right now, when it comes to my four already crafter party characters.


Kyler is a healer and a buffer. He does little to no damage, but he does have a unique skill that allows him to stun one enemy and deal some damage. He has singular healing, as well as full team healing, however he has a high cooldown on that, as well as needing TP. Think of it as an ultimate. It is also the same for his full party buff ability.


With Carlina, she's a Spellcaster who deals mostly single target damage, but can mix it up with some AoE + DoT, however her spell casting costs a lot of mana and she has to intermix it with basic attacks that are infused with fire.


Ayra doesn't really have a class one would understand but she uses high mana high reward. She has a self heal ability that is more potent than any ally heals in the game, as well as a low tier ally heal that she shares with Kyler. She has an ultimate skill that basically destroys any foe in the battlefield, but it also requires 100 TP and 145 MP and has a high cooldown. She also has good single target attacks with wind, but again, high mana usage. The one thing she has over Kyler is her ability to revive an ally to full health and give them a defense buff for five turns.


Ruto is a bursty assassin type with a life steal mechanic that allows to sustain on her own, but she's probably the easiest to kill, so she does rely on the buffing and healing she can get from Kyler. Ruto is also an optional party member, as in, if you miss her recruit scene, she wont be in the story at all.


This is currently the extent of my party, but I had another character who relied on debuffing and the occasional powerful attacks.

 

[Blindga]

The only thing I suggest, which is just my personal opinion, with these classic class style party is there can easily be a lack of forward firepower if there aren't enough fighting moves distributed.

So if you include only the three main characters you have to have, you have a healer, a spellcaster, and something else you can't describe. All of them are slow and only two of them can deal damage by spending a lot of ammo. It sounds like the party will be really slow to attack and won't really have any means of quickly dealing with foes. That's fine if you want a more indirect style of combat.

Normally, I like to try to give every class some means of dealing good damage since it's a little easier to balance, because I can just assume that enemies are always going to get some damage every round and I can more easily measure how much firepower the player is going to have at any one time.

Though maybe that's just me.

 

[LuLingqi1]

Oh no, I totally agree. Early on, Carlina's basic spells are really tough to use since they use so much mana, but to make up for that, she has an AoE ignite ability that damages each enemy that damages them continuously for about three-four turns. She also has a poison ability that blinds and slows the agility of one enemy while damaging them continuously for two-three turns. I also infused her basic attacks with fire, which doesn't make them much stronger, but against some enemies it will deal serious damage. Carlina also has an attack mechanic that allows you to pick a second attack, and allows her to attack a second time, but it has a sort of low occurrence rate. I might change that.


While Ayra uses lots of resources, she also has a high pool of resources to begin with, but she can't essentially spam anything.


Kyler starts out with no real way of dealing damage, but his subclasses give him some nice damage abilities.


Ruto is probably the prime example of a damage dealer. She has a mechanic that allows her to attack three times in a row with a high occurrence rate unless she uses an ability within it.


So far I don't have any major mob battles, it's all currently 2-4ish enemies or one strong boss enemy. I personally enjoy how resources have to be managed. It seems like rather good balancing. It just makes the game a bit harder early on, I think. I don't know. However your advice is well noted. I might need to play test a bit more.

 

[Caitlin]

My answer is a question, "Are the characters quality of merely there?"  The game, "Chrono Trigger" had seven characters with their own charms, fighting styles and no one of the characters felt like they were added just for a number. However, Chrono Cross did the exact opposite of what made Chrono Trigger a great game and had many optional characters (Way too many as a matter of fact).  These characters didn't add anything to the story, make it deeper in any way, but merely gave the player someone else to add to their party.  If this game was like Fire Emblem, where more people actual helped your cause I would change my mind.  I think the number of characters, if story driven should be two people in the minimum and as many quality characters as you feel you need.


I will not discuss my views and thoughts of Chrono Cross, but it does serve to bring out a good point about party numbers.  Depending on the type of game, the more doesn't always equal more the merrier and the number does depend on what sort of game you're making.  I always like to think quality over quantity, because you could have ten shallow characters or five great characters that a person discovers one character, at least, to find reasons to like and identify with. 

 

[LuLingqi1]

My answer is a question, "Are the characters quality of merely there?"  The game, "Chrono Trigger" had seven characters with their own charms, fighting styles and no one of the characters felt like they were added just for a number. However, Chrono Cross did the exact opposite of what made Chrono Trigger a great game and had many optional characters (Way too many as a matter of fact).  These characters didn't add anything to the story, make it deeper in any way, but merely gave the player someone else to add to their party.  If this game was like Fire Emblem, where more people actual helped your cause I would change my mind.  I think the number of characters, if story driven should be two people in the minimum and as many quality characters as you feel you need.


I will not discuss my views and thoughts of Chrono Cross, but it does serve to bring out a good point about party numbers.  Depending on the type of game, the more doesn't always equal more the merrier and the number does depend on what sort of game you're making.  I always like to think quality over quantity, because you could have ten shallow characters or five great characters that a person discovers one character, at least, to find reasons to like and identify with. 

Right now, with reVITAlyze, the draw is character depth. Each character feels unique outside of battle, and inside of battle. There are lot's of interesting combos with just the current four I have. If anything, I don't want to have over 10 characters. Right now, I'm not making random people and just throwing them in. They are all already in-universe and have dialogue and story points, they just aren't part of the party, but I had concepts of what they could do, and I would like to add them.


So would you say a max of ten characters, minimum of five as long as each character has an impact? -- Even the optional character Ruto brings charm to the story, as well as unique quests and what not)

 

[Caitlin]

Right now, with reVITAlyze, the draw is character depth. Each character feels unique outside of battle, and inside of battle. There are lot's of interesting combos with just the current four I have. If anything, I don't want to have over 10 characters. Right now, I'm not making random people and just throwing them in. They are all already in-universe and have dialogue and story points, they just aren't part of the party, but I had concepts of what they could do, and I would like to add them.


So would you say a max of ten characters, minimum of five as long as each character has an impact? -- Even the optional character Ruto brings charm to the story, as well as unique quests and what not)

I think so, even a game like Final Fantasy VII that had, two optional characters, but one of those characters was one of the most strongest characters in the game with his own spin off game.  So, yeah, I feel as long as the characters has an impact, ten characters with a minimium of five could work.  (I tend to look towards the failures and successes of commercial games, to learn from their mistakes, so I avoid making similar ones myself or see what they did right.)

 

[Kes]

One question to ask yourself is: how many does my story need?

 

[Faytless]

I generally go with one or two party members.   One of the issues I had when I was much much younger was trying to give each character their own personality.  Of coarse I always used my self as one of them (in a sense,  what would I do if I was presented with the same situation), and base off other personalities off people that I know.  Personally, I blame inexp in story telling,  but they all seem root back to being the same character to the core.  So If you can manage it in your writing,  as many as you need really.

 

[Valryia]

Ask Suikoden when it is "to much" Huehuehue


Seriously though, it depends on the player. I always prefered the three PC party from Atelier Iris 3. It probably helps that any problems with diverse attacks was circumvented with an job system.


Also, the story can dictate how many should travel in a party. A two sided relationship (lovers, etc.) can be better focused on when they are the only two in the party.

 

[HeathRiley]

If I'm playing a triple A single player rpg, I probably would not want, or expect more than 9. Unless its a game where


you hire tons of people (FE, FFT). By that point I might not be able to easily remember what makes a character


unique, or what their motivation was. FF6 walked a fine line with so many characters. Many I only touched a few


times.

 

[Raths Rants]

I have been leaning towards 3 with a 4th optional character that can be swapped out. The 3 main heroes always remain. The 4th character only joins the party for a short time to complete their individual side quest or part of the main story line. Once completed they go back to their normal life.


In my current project the very first optional character you meet can become a villain later in the story line. If he joins the party he helps the player up to a specific point. Then betrays the player and becomes one of the villains. If he didn't join the party his side quest is completed he doesn't become a villain in story line.


As for the too many. It really depends on how you handle each character. Back in my table top days as a DM I would often get people that wanted to play multiple characters during a session. Most of the time the additional characters just slowed things down. The extra character would get lost in the shuffle and never really add to the experience. In my opinion, if the character doesn't add some distinctive value don't add them as a playable character. 

 

[Myst88]

I say it depends on the game. More story driven games should have less. Since there will be more room for character development. Games that are more strategic should have more characters, as it gives the player more customization.

 

[BigToastie]

Depends on your game.


If your story telling is through your characters you play, each character needs purpose so as long as they have purpose, have as many as you want.


If your characters die forever, if they die in combat, you need tons.


In terms of in combat at once, I prefer 2-4, with each characters play style being indepth apposed to having 5-8 with few attacks.


I personally have 1 main playable character, with a lot of companions with specific roles set, strengths and weaknesses.

 

[kien]

In my opinion, 2x of your battle members


will be just fine. Yes I'm a big fan of Golden Sun series : )

 

[EmperorZelos]

As long as they are distinct I think any number works.

 

[Crimson Dragon Inc.]

i'm gonna use a couple exsamples on high character counts suikoden series and saga series


suikoden had 108 total recruitble characters plus 2-3 that were situational (not permamant recruits)


and they usually started to become redundant, but there was enough depth that you could pick a party of your favorites


you had a good mix of warriors, archers, mages, and jacks of all trades but most games generally had those 1-3 characters that were so op they were in every final party.....a good exsample being suikoden 1 and 2's pesmerga, a end game recruit frontliner who boasted high hp (highest in 1 and tied for 4th in 2), the highest attack power, top 5 def, top 10 in magic, number 1 magic defense, top 5 in tech/skill (determines accuracy, evasion, critical rate, and counter rate) top 5 in luck (determines evasion and critical rate), but the lowest speed stat (which was negliable due to the rune system, if you add a special rune called the spark rune to the fastest character in the party all members of your party would go before the enemy)


the saga series had several characters but also had a multible story/main character system (generally 7-8 differant main heroes to choose from) and you could recruit other heroes to fight along side them, but by end game could all end up the same type of character just differant sprites and personalities


both games implemented multible party members well, in suikoden you got recruits as a reward for completeing side quests, and in saga series they were used to add your own personal touch to the party


i personally believe if you use a system that has multible characters its better to go with personality over function  in my own game i plan on 4 main characters that are always in the party but having 12-13 characters that come and go in the party as the player progresses the story along with 42 hidden characters (found through side quests (12 characters from one single side quest), solving riddles, and for 7 of them having a password entered at the beginning of a new game/new game + (passwords would be hidden in the game))  with a 8 person battle party  each character will have something unique to them in battle that would allow players to pick and choose their party to fit their play style