a discussion of party size cap

[MellowTigger]

There has been considerable discussion about party size in BG3, but I've seen little exploration of why particular sizes benefit the player.

Obviously, a party size of 1 will benefit the developers, allowing them to customize everything from story dialog to camera views to focus entirely on a single perspective. Anything more than 1, however, begs the question of what party size is optimal?

BG3 provides 4 at the moment, and I already feel a strange sense of constriction. Even with so few character classes currently available (from the gamut that eventually will be offered), I feel constricted to choose specific party composition... but why? For myself, it has more to do with curiosity than tactics. I want "my team" to offer as many skills and options as possible. True, the party composition can be altered at any time with the available companions at camp, but such micromanagement tends to distract me from the feel of the game. I lose continuity when I... well, when I break continuity within my party by exchanging characters as if they were expendable parts. It breaks the "rp" (roleplay) of the rpg. I want the variety already there in my team.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (classics of rpg computer games) have about 13 main classes[baldursgate.fandom.com] and a party cap of 6.
Pathfinder Kingmaker (a new addition to the genre) has 15 main classes[pathfinderkingmaker.gamepedia.com] and a party cap of 6.
Wizardry 8 (another old classic) has 15 main professions[www.jeffludwig.com] and a party cap of 8.

The trick with Wizardry 8 (and I suspect they chose the optimal path here) is that only 6 characters could be player-created. The remaining 2 empty slots on the team optionally could be filled by NPC companions who might refuse to enter certain areas or otherwise object to party activity. I think that solution worked well because it provided both player-centric control over main team composition while also allowing developers to throw their own storycrafted characters into the mix.

I suspect that a larger variety of class types or skillsets available will lead to a stronger desire for larger parties, allowing players (rather than developers) control over their team's story and behavior. At least, that's how I feel during gaming. So... I guess the key question here is, how many classes does BG3 intend to have? What party size allows a fair breadth of class experiences per single playthrough?

[Lagamemnon]

If this game is truly meant to be a multiplayer game which Larian surely seems intent upon, I'd relaly like the party size to scale. It seems there's this 4 player constraint in a LOT of multiplayer games (Borderlands 2&3, Fallout76, Elite Dangerous, Torchlight, Diablo, etc.) all seem to have settled on 4 as the maximum or only size and fill out extra spaces with NPCs. I have a family size of 3, all of whom might play plus a couple of "couples" that I'd also like to be able to have join in, so a scalable player count from 1-8 would be ideal for me.

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Lagamemnon Menelatency:

If this game is truly meant to be a multiplayer game which Larian surely seems intent upon, I'd relaly like the party size to scale. It seems there's this 4 player constraint in a LOT of multiplayer games (Borderlands 2&3, Fallout76, Elite Dangerous, Torchlight, Diablo, etc.) all seem to have settled on 4 as the maximum or only size and fill out extra spaces with NPCs. I have a family size of 3, all of whom might play plus a couple of "couples" that I'd also like to be able to have join in, so a scalable player count from 1-8 would be ideal for me.

Scalability tends to be bad for gameplay depth (just look at Skyrim and Fallout with their half-naked bandits that can survive a nuke to the face). Sure, you can buff an enemy's stats, or make more of them to "deal" with an increased number of players, but encounter difficulty doesn't scale linearly with the number of enemies or their tankiness, especially with the DnD system.

People who play with 8 players are going to end up with a watered down experience that they think is dev-intended. As this poor experience would be "developer condoned," people will write reviews that the game is garbage.

It's the devs' duty to curate a well-refined experience, and things that alter that experience should be left to mods, both so that players know the consequences of their actions, and so the devs are not blamed for being unable to finely curate 8 different experiences.

[Angelous Wang]

The game is using the divinity 2 engine, which has a 4 party limit set already.

They didn't change because it would be more work, simple as that.

That said modders got divinity 2 up to 6 party limit. so expect the same for this.

[masterdelvin1]

Six would be the ideal and I would agree, once the game is finished the modders will be able to adjust party size. The game itself may not have many options for 6 players as far as RP goes. Multiplayer with 6 would run into the same problem though a little easier to bypass some of the RP in the game what little there is so far for RP between players. Have to post about this whole DoS2 and BG3 thing. It is kinda driving me batty and I am concerned Larian won't break the mold.

Have fun Gaming!

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Angelous Wang:

The game is using the divinity 2 engine, which has a 4 party limit set already.

They didn't change because it would be more work, simple as that.

That said modders got divinity 2 up to 6 party limit. so expect the same for this.

It takes about two seconds to change this in the Divinity Engine, so it definitely wasn't out of laziness. Official 5E DnD modules are generally meant for 4 PCs and 1 DM, so if you're adapting 5E into a game, it makes sense to stick with 4 PCs.

5E is simply designed for smaller parties than previous editions. It doesn't mean you can't have more than 4 players, but 4 players tends to be where the balance is at, from enemy stat blocks, to spell effects, to the action economy, and everything in between.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

I find that I have the most fun playing solo or with only one additional character (faster turns, fewer characters to move, etc.)

With initiative system the speed of turns is a relative value. It means something only for player playing one character in a party, otherwise play 8 characters isn't slower than play one character 8 times.

The only slowness from the 8 characters is it's a more complex context, but that's depth.

In fact even with a non initiative system this is also relative but the relativity is less obvious.

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Scalability tends to be bad for gameplay depth (just look at Skyrim and Fallout with their half-naked bandits that can survive a nuke to the face).

Baldur's Gate 2 uses enemy scaling, but for sure in a more complex way than in Betehsda games.

It's clear that a smart scalability isn't an easy task, I remind a DAO designer wrote an in deep post/blog article on that, and it was listing well the problems and possible solutions. But it's doable and it can improve a lot games very open.

Scalability with turn based, it's probably harder, I remind Final Fantasy Tactics had that for random encounters. But I wonder if there's many examples well done.

Originally posted by Razorblade:

It takes about two seconds to change this (party size) in the Divinity Engine, so it definitely wasn't out of laziness.

And that's two seconds to break all difficulty tuning.

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Official 5E DnD modules are generally meant for 4 PCs and 1 DM, so if you're adapting 5E into a game, it makes sense to stick with 4 PCs.

5E is simply designed for smaller parties than previous editions. It doesn't mean you can't have more than 4 players, but 4 players tends to be where the balance is at, from enemy stat blocks, to spell effects, to the action economy, and everything in between.

That's PnP, not video game, face it when everything is managed by dices, DM and players it's a lot slower that with video games.

Moreover I think this 4 limit is more to suit new generations preferences, many are in constant rush.

But larger party size is a totally different context and combats design need be adapted. For example, larger party size would allow a design with characters incapacitated more often. Another example is it involves a lot more terrain control possibilities when with party of 4 it's hard to highlight such aspect.

[Locklave]

There are mechanics for adjusting enemy scaling for party size. 4 is default.

If they do it here, no clue.

[dolfanar]

How about just letting modders be able to set this and not force us to edit our save games?

[MellowTigger]

Originally posted by Angelous Wang:

They didn't change because it would be more work, simple as that. That said modders got divinity 2 up to 6 party limit. so expect the same for this.

Aren't these two statements contradictory? Was it a terribly difficult task, or not? Maybe I'm not understanding the implications of one (or both) of these assertions.

As customers, we are paying developers to do the hard work of creating games. I'm unclear why more "more PC slots" is an unreasonable feature for a game, since clearly other games have long accomplished it, with great commercial success and acclaim.

Originally posted by Dorok:

Originally posted by Razorblade:

It takes about two seconds to change this (party size) in the Divinity Engine, so it definitely wasn't out of laziness.

And that's two seconds to break all difficulty tuning.

I frequently see the "tuning" argument, and it's intriguing because it seems so reasonable at first... until you consider the reverse argument. If we can't allow parties larger than [n] characters because it would break tuning, then we also can't allow smaller parties for the same reason. Right? Nobody can be allowed to play with a party of 3 or 2 or (heaven forbid) 1, because it would break all difficulty tuning.

But if it is okay for players to voluntarily increase the difficulty by circumventing the developer-intended experience, then why isn't okay for players to voluntarily decrease the difficulty with the same method of changing party size? The argument seems to break when it's flipped around.

It still seems like a good idea for a game to inform players that it's designed for [n] characters, and each of us can change the difficulty of a playthrough by choosing a different number of characters in the party.

[BW022]

It is well known in PnP D&D that when you increase the number of players beyond four, two key things happen.

1. The game becomes slower -- often painfully slow. In most six player games, DMs are pulling out all the stops in keeping the game moving -- skipping combat encounters, having enemies flee, keeping the combats much easier, etc.

2. The combats become unbalanced -- typically unpredictably so. If you have a party of four against 9 goblins in a cave... it is swings from easy to hard based on say the goblins getting surprise. With six against 12 goblins... the swing is now insane. If the PCs gain surprise... chances are massive the goblins will get multiple AoE spells before moving... if the goblins get surprise... the first PC will be dying before the party gets a chance to go.

I don't see any reason why these wouldn't be the case in BG3 also.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by mellowtigger:

Originally posted by Dorok:

And that's two seconds to break all difficulty tuning.

If we can't allow parties larger than [n] characters because it would break tuning, then we also can't allow smaller parties for the same reason. Right? Nobody can be allowed to play with a party of 3 or 2 or (heaven forbid) 1, because it would break all difficulty tuning.

It's a matter of dev desing, not just what's possible for different players types.

Difficulty tuning isn't a quick task, it is involved in tactical design of each combats which is also a complex task.

What the dev targeted should be break with party of 4 becoming party of 6. If XP are shared there's probably some auto adjustment, but it won'r auto adjust a tactical design.

Originally posted by BW022:

in PnP D&D when you increase the number of players beyond four, two key things happen.

1. The game becomes slower

2. The combats become unbalanced

I don't see any reason why these wouldn't be the case in BG3 also.

Point 1: a DM+Players are a lot slower to manage combats than a player and a computer.

Point 2: They become unbalanced because D&D 5e adventure books are balanced for party of 3-5, rough with 3, easy with 5, tuned for 4.

[Something completely different]

Originally posted by BW022:

It is well known in PnP D&D that when you increase the number of players beyond four, two key things happen.

1. The game becomes slower -- often painfully slow. In most six player games, DMs are pulling out all the stops in keeping the game moving -- skipping combat encounters, having enemies flee, keeping the combats much easier, etc.

2. The combats become unbalanced -- typically unpredictably so. If you have a party of four against 9 goblins in a cave... it is swings from easy to hard based on say the goblins getting surprise. With six against 12 goblins... the swing is now insane. If the PCs gain surprise... chances are massive the goblins will get multiple AoE spells before moving... if the goblins get surprise... the first PC will be dying before the party gets a chance to go.

I don't see any reason why these wouldn't be the case in BG3 also.

Correct. It'd utterly ruin balance and 5E is designed for four players.

If Larian adds 6 player parties they will get the flak when players find their game far too easy suddenly, if it's modded in it's not Larians problem.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Something completely different:

Correct. It'd utterly ruin balance and 5E is designed for four players.

If Larian adds 6 player parties they will get the flak when players find their game far too easy suddenly, if it's modded in it's not Larians problem.

It would break balances because Larian would have balance for party of 4 (and solo but for a different category of players).

But currently balance are approximate and a lot is to be done.

Change party to 6 and and continue balancing for 6 can work, but then party of 4 would be more challenging most probably.

[Dreadstone]

Maybe the devs don't have more than three friends?

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Dreadstone:

Maybe the devs don't have more than three friends?

Ha here it is, when you make RPG with party of four you can't expect more friends; it's a bit the egg and the hen, what's first.

And interestingly PnP have 33% more friends, woo.