Sorry to resurrect this old thread: I''ve been away from the Game Design forum for a few months and am now catching up.

Personally I''ve always preferred the party-based RPGs. I don''t really have an objective answer why. But I think they work better when you start with one character and acquire the rest through the story, as in Final Fantasy 6 (the only one I can comment on in depth), Ultima 7, Baldur''s Gate, etc. That way, you get to know them on a more individual level. In games like Might and Magic where you roll up a few at the start, they are more like resources that you keep around for certain skills or abilities. I think it also helps if you have quests that relate to your party members too. And if you can talk to them as you would with NPCs.

It seems like a lot of the cited reasons for preferring single-character RPGs are because party-based ones are unwieldly. eg. Quotes like "I prefer a single character to control, as it gives more control and less micro-management.", "many party based games degenerate from an rpg into database management system", and "[in multiple character RPGS] combat happens way too fast, to make meaningful/satisfying descisions for your characters." But to me, the most important quote above is this one; "Multiple characters COULD be fantastic, if the interface is streamlined enough, and the pacing of the game meshes well with the descisions you are faced with."

I believe the ''problems'' with party-based RPGs are almost entirely down to the interface. For example, once I set up Baldur''s Gate to use the auto-pauses, I found the game much more playable. I could get dying characters out of harm''s way, I could quaff potions in time, I could send the fighters in to guard the mages, etc. And there''s the "database management system" aspect. Why have separate inventory screens for each character? And why isn''t there a quick search where you can start typing an item name or type and it shows you a list of all carried items that match it? (ie. The way that most browser address bars work when you start typing a URL.) It may still be a database, but searching it is a hell of a lot easier.

I believe that sometimes we risk spending too much time complaining about clichés in the storylines and not enough time looking at the clichés in the interfaces.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

It can go either way and still be a compelling, IMO.

Multi-character games are great for the tactical aspect (if it''s executed correctly) and make for fantastic turn based games, especially if there is some effort made for the player to connect with the characters.

Single-character games allow the player to exert absolute control: he IS the hero. Also, it allows the player''s character to feel more heroic (It always bothers me how it takes 4, 5, or even 6 "Destined Heroes of Light" to take down one boss). I think that instead of making one single character ''uber'' the designer has a responsibility to accomodate different play styles...If I want to be a thief and never fight, that should be in my realm. If I want to never cast a single spell...so be it, etc.

Moo.

Party! Easy choice. You get multiple characters if you die.

Scott

For me, it all boils down to how streamlined the interface is. The better I can control my team, the more will I''ll have to want to take on more of them.

The initial creation process is also a factor in this. In general, one does not know when starting an RPG which skills are going to be needed most during the game, so even in a single-character game like Morrowind I started over several times as I figured out the skill/level system and read online guides showing how there is actually a lot of strategy in what skills you pick. This problem was quite exaggerated in earlier RPGs on the computer, where you might have 20 characters total to build and dozens of different skills and languages(Twilight 2k) to choose from.

I think an example of a really good large-party game would be Jagged Alliance 2, though it is admittedly also heavy on strategy, and the process of turning every character you have into a super-warrior is made less feasable(though not impossible) by the slow pace of advancement and limited equipment. The inventory management was done very well, with more than one way of viewing and moving items.

There was a items-in-hand-only view showing everyone on a team, an individual-character view showing all stats and items on both the strategic map and the local one, and an in-sector inventory accessable from the strategic map that showed everything you had discovered in the sector and let you move items instantly, saving countless headaches. I can only think of two views that could add to this: Full views for multiple characters(a scrolling list) and an "all items carried" view that would show the character held by and sector in addition to the usual info when mouseover''ed.

On the other hand, I(and probably others here) can think of a few games where inventory management was brutal and contributed to making the party a resource.

I don''t think the amount of action is the cause of too-many-people/lack-of-control problems, but is actually a symptom of it. If it''s taking miserably long to direct your characters in the first place, you''re wasting time that could be spent in a more way(like watching the battle play out after you''ve gotten your directions done, or moving on to the next location or plot point after you''ve managed your inventory)

I believe it was Illusion Of Giya that had a good party based setting, along with the option of a second and/or third player to jump in and take control of another party member.

Anyways, here''s a quick idea that came to my head while reading this thread - Has anyone ever thought about integrating a ''missile command'' -like interface to a party-based, realtime RPG? It might be a good way to go about it!

Of course, you could always try limiting what a player can do based on their character''s race/class/etc. in a single character, single player RPG as well! Kinda like the whole Sonic an Knuckles game gave both different characters different routes throughout the game.

At any rate, single character role-playing is, IMHO, the better way to go (unless you happen to have a good multiple personality disorder

- Chris

My box of two copper pieces (some are already stated by others):

In single player RPG''s, I prefer party-based.
- Mostly because of the variety, and access to a larger pool of resources. In Icewind Dale, my mage was the bait who drew most firepower, while my thief/mage hasted all the grunts to pummel the demon at the end!
- The variety extends beyond combat and problem solving. I am allowed to build a party consisting of different characters, eg. pikeman, knight, barbarian etc. - without having to play through that same story again!
- Don''t like building up one super character who can brawl, pick lock, cast fireball, resurrect-self etc. in order to complete the game.
- Don''t want to ditch that magical halberd because my solo character specialised in the typical great-sword.
- Don''t mind starting with all members in the party, but acquiring them on the way is definitely a great way to do it.
- Resent Boiware for not putting party functionalities in NWN in single player mode.
- Single character is not the only key to my interpretation of immersion: Torment was party-based, but the story of the protagonist was so captivating. On the other hand, I loved System Shock and Daggerfall.

In MMORPG, single character is my preference because I play to mingle with others. In addition, there is a larger pool of specialists, eg. you have a large number of different clerics to choose from to join your team. In single player RPG, you often get just the one of each class.

Jellyfish