Thoughts on RPGs with lots and lots of characters?

[TheGamedawg]

Some of my favorite RPGs are ones where they give you a ton of characters to choose from from a big roster, then let you mix and match your team with them in order to create a team you like.  Some examples of games that do this would be Chrono Cross, Pokemon, Lisa the Painful, and Ni No Kuni.


I'm a huge fan of these sorts of games, but I want to know what you guys think of them.  What are games that do it right?  What makes these sorts of systems the most interesting, how many characters is "too much," and how much unique story/personality/abilities do you like these characters to have?

 

[lolshtar]

Conquest strategy games like Sengoku Rance and Big Bang Age are probably the only genre of games that benefit from having a huge set of characters.


Making a "normal" RPG maker game with a huge set of characters(and 5+ actor battles) would just be a headache for the developer and the player.

 

[IAmJakeSauvage]

Conquest strategy games like Sengoku Rance and Big Bang Age are probably the only genre of games that benefit from having a huge set of characters.


Making a "normal" RPG maker game with a huge set of characters(and 5+ actor battles) would just be a headache for the developer and the player.

I agree - I personally hate when an RPG game has too many characters, skills etc. It's best to take a minimalistic approach - especially if you're just one person working on your game. The only games I can think off that pull of a large cast of characters well are the Suikoden series of games.

 

[Andar]

It depends on how it is done.


The actors need to be different - that is what places a maximum number on the "too much". If the difference between warrior 82 and warrior 123 is a single +1 to ATK, then you have too many actors for the player to care about them.


If you have a dozen actors, each of them triggering different quests and can't change between them at will (for example if a story is told from the viewpoints of different actors at different parts), then that allows for a lot more characters than the basic 4 of RPGs, but creating a game that way is also a lot more work.

 

[Phonantiphon]

For me, I think DA had the absolute maximum that I would want, and even then I never used every character. I think I prefer either 1 or really about about 3, in terms of "in your party". That many allow you to get much more "into" the characters.


It's difficult to connect, I think, if you have a sea of faces...


As for NPCs - feel free to throw in as many as my RAM and processors can cope with!!

 

[Manofdusk]

 I like games with a large roster of characters. Final fantasy 6 did it well with a large roster (and, of course 7).


 12 is plenty for most games but I do have one where you pick from 21...


 ... and I will say that 21 is probably too many for anyone to care about (it only works if you're picking your favorites and not using the rest)


-----------


 My suggestion is to use however many characters are called for, rather than trying to force a needlessly large roster (unless your game is something like: you're in a tavern full of mercenaries, pick 4)

 

[Phonantiphon]

My suggestion is to use however many characters are called for, rather than trying to force a needlessly large roster (unless your game is something like: you're in a tavern full of mercenaries, pick 4)

As with so much else, it pretty much boils down to this!!

 

[Nirwanda]

Let me jump into the dislike bandwagon, I feel huge casts make each character feel hollow and pointless, I much prefer a smaller more developed party. Thirding the "however you may need" line of thought, though.

 

[AwesomeCool]

I always like to think of it like this:


Every character you add to the game takes screen time from another (if you give a character very little screen time, then there purpose for existing gets put into question).  You could lengthen the game more to compensate, but that is alot more work and can hurt the games pacing as a result.


Personally, I would rather have 2 characters that have a ton of screen time and lots of character development, then 16 characters that have very little screen time and very little character development (or quick jumps in character changes that are pretty sudden and not explained well).


I am speaking of standard RPG games and not SRPG games (SRPG games have bigger parties and thus need more character by default).

 

[stupid enough to like FF13]

My rule of thumb is never more than double the number of character you can take into battle. (Double minus one is good if you can't/usually can't drop the main character.) Having too many characters not only makes it hard to develop them but also hard to ensure each of them is viable in battle.

 

[RampartCratylus]

I think it depends on the kind of atmosphere the game cultivates. In Suikoden II with its overall theme of war and unity in the face of the odds, it made sense to have a large cast as it brought you into closer contact with the world, which was important for the way it developed overall. 

 

[cybrim]

As long as the characters exist within the world... you don't want a lot of characters that don't belong, Chrono Cross had the most amazing characters that fit within the "world" (yeah there were 2!). Each character filled a unique role with their element grids and speech methodology. Just don't copy every character from every game you have ever played and jam them together... 

 

[str8studios]

If you make them worthwhile bring it on. Forget a couple characters how boring is that? do multiple view points, branching storylines and possible party member loss consequences or missed recruitments (ala fire emblem) that is what I'm doing. I love games with tons of characters

 

[Henryetha]

I find this quite interesting as the variety of characters are a base element in my game.


However, I only use them as battlers for skill variety. You have access to them anytime but only battle with 4 Characters.


Included in the Main Story are only 4 while there's 1 Protagonist.


The others the player can hire so they will follow him (like an army). But as mentioned, only 4 are active in battles (let's call them the player's "most trusted Front-Team" or sth like that ;P ).

 

[Bicept]

I love games with large rosters like FFT, Ogre Battle, Suikoden etc. I'm in it for the micromanagement of skills and items and experimenting with party combinations.

 

[sartha]

I would suggest that if you make a game with large rosters, make most of those characters optional. Some people will never use most of those characters while other people might find uses for all of them. It comes down to Quantity vs Quality... both are equally viable strategies, but they don't usually go hand in hand (unless you do a lot of grinding)

 

[jdub87]

A few thoughts:


1) On games where you have a small party size, but a large roster, try to give everyone their due. FF...uh, 3? - the one for the SNES did this well, as did Chrono Trigger. 2/3 of those games had the player forced into teaming up with different members. Then, the last act lets the player customize their party and even use most of them in the final boss fight.


2) Uniqueness and familiarity don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can have overlapping systems/characteristics in place that make each character feel unique but not completely foreign. WoW does this fairly well - each character can be a race, class, and a role in a group. Combined, those systems generate individual characters that feel unique (to an extent), but retain familiarity should you choose another role, class, or race.


3) Piggy backing on #2, I like it when things that are different are fairly different and things that are the same are fairly the same. Should be obvious, right? Fire Emblem Fates is driving me up the wall with this. "Oh sword-person 1 is pretty much like spear-person 2". Diviner 1 (diviner = mage) is highly resistant to magic so Diviner 2 must be as well...and he's dead."

 

[Authumbla]

When making an RPG, ask yourself "Is this what Chrono Cross did?". If the answer is yes, don't do it.


It depends a lot on what you're doing - Pokemon got away with having hundreds of characters to choose from because they're completely interchangeable in terms of plot. Chrono Cross did not get away with having about fifty characters because the game tried to make them all unique and instead of doing this through strong characterization (which, to be fair, would be insanely difficult with that number of characters), they gave them all silly accents.

 

[Azurecyan]

A lot of variety comes to mind when you think about characters and different personalities. It's great, but some characters will be used more in battle than others. Some will have ugly stats while some will have pristine super stats. It'd be hard to balance it right. Radiata Stories balanced this in a way, although there were 177 playable characters(some were worse than others). There were two routes you could go in the game, non-human and human. Before the split you can recruit almost everyone on both sides. After the split, whatever you choose most of your friends/allies become your enemies(siding with humans causes your non-human allies to go against you; you can't use them in battle or talk to them anymore). The downside is that you end up using the strongest allies you've recruited since they had the most benefits.


It all depends how many characters you plan on having. If you can use everyone in your game, then suggest keeping tally of them all and their stats and personalities. To have a large roster you'll have to keep many things miniscule like weaponry, which Suikoden handled well. You only needed to upgrade their weapon than buying weaponry for your characters.

 

[jwideman]

I think large rosters only work when you have a reason to use all - or at least most - of them.