Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

why not 5? one player and four companions?

Where is the numebr 6 coming from? also D&D is balanced for 5 people usually.

It's coming from the "Baldur's Gate" part of this game.

Tbf, there hasn't really been anything "baldur's gate" coming from this game.

Which is why I don't see the issue pushing for this type of stuff. Larian needs to make more of an effort to show this is a proper sequel. They already lost a lot of OG players by not including RTwP, and not having the plot being directly related to the Bhaalspawn. So far what we DO have is easter eggs and NPCs, and for a lot of people that doesn't justify the title of this game.

Define what constitutes Baldur's Gate please. Be specific.


Baldur's Gate Elements so far.
- The Main story takes place in and around Baldur's Gate
- The Plot revolves around the Dead Three , Bane, Bhall, Mykrul
- Its in the Forgotten realms
- People involved in the original crisis are involved in this story (Elminster, Minsc, Volo, Jaheira)

6 person parties has a lot of history, but there's some fluctuation

Gold Box games - 6 party members, possibly 2 NPC companions for some segments
Infinity engine games (Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale) - 6 party members
Eye of the Beholder - create up to 4 and supplement with companions up to a max of 6

Pillars of Eternity, not D&D but clearly inspired, also I believe has up to 6 party members active.

For other variations:

Demonstone had 3 party members (though it was an action game with set characters)

Neverwinter Nights 1 had 1 PC with 1 companion, possibly 1 summon for each companion depending on spells.
Neverwinter Nights 1: Hordes of the Underdark allowed up to 2 companions

Neverwinter Nights 2 had 3 NPCs in Act 1 and 4 NPCs in Acts 2-3 for a total of 5 party members

NWN 1 and NWN 2 are the only non-6 franchises that have similar level of fame and nostalgia going for them as the GBG, Infinity, and EotB games.

Sword Coast Legends limited you to a party of 4

Ravenloft games (Strahd's Possession and Stone Prophet) allowed you to create up to 2 and recruit up to 4

Menzoberranzan I'm uncertain of, but you make 4 characters

The recent Dark Alliance is 4 characters, but that's set characters again.

I'm uncertain of the party size limits in DDO and Neverwinter

Art from AD&D and 2nd ed implied party sizes from 4-6 and modules were written for parties of 4-6 members

Novels imply party sizes of about 3-5

Knights of the Dinner Table and similar community comics tend to show parties around 3-5 members in size, probably due to the added difficulty of scripting extra characters.

Critical Role generally runs around 7 players, but all of them are professional actors so their day-job dovetails with smooth gameplay

A lot of streams run 4 - 5 party members.

3rd edition seemed to also assume 4-6 party size.
4th ed seemed to assume 3-5 party size.

While there's no explicit party sizes in 5e adventures, the art seems to suggest 4-5 party members, again that may just be for reduced art complexity.

Design space for RPGs in general I've been seeing a lot more aiming at 4 players as average and even a lot of games geared toward sizes of 2 to 4. (If you play D&D with 2 players, I suggest the method my brother took of having a system of hiring companions and the players would control some of their friendly mercs in combat and do some light RP for said mercs to keep the burden a bit off the GM...)

I suspect think the general increase of the average age of the gaming hobby has come with an increased difficulty of scheduling 7 people to a unified schedule, hence the shift towards 2-5 group sizes. Some older games with heavily specialized roles like Shadowrun (Mage/Decker/Samurai/Face) and D&D (Mage/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue) have been balancing more towards 4 than 5 or 6.

This being a CRPG, a 6 person party isn't going to stress out and burnout a GM (it's a computer) which is a concern on TTRPG, but the trend of computer games is running toward four-player as well (Phasmophobia, Dark Alliance, Deep Rock Galactic, Borderlands) Though with this is certainly not universal.

I am personally a fan of 4-person max for personal health purposes when running a game but in a computer game I'd like to see a stretch to more characters.

They added a keybinding option (CRIMINALLY unbound by default) called |TOGGLE GROUP CONTROL| that allows the player to chain and unchain the entire party with a single button press.
I wouldn't say it solves ALL the problems with their shitty control scheme, because we aren't even close, but holy shit if doesn't make one hell of a difference when used properly.

I want it too! I prefer to have a larger party than less. In addition, in previous parts BG you could have a six-person party and even if the third part varies from the previous ones, it would be nice if such a common element appeared.

The first of those features is not true of Baldur's Gate 2 or Throne of Bhaal.

Let's keep this short and agree that we are not going to agree with each other. I can tell already that we feel differently about things, and I'm totally fine with that.

I think a party size of 5 would be good. 6 would be better but it would require a lot of work to rebalance the whole game.

But 4 is definitely too small and won't allow much creativity.
In a game with so many classes and subclasses, this number drasticaly reduce our possibilities and a lot of players will be frustrated not to have a bonus slots or two to try less "classic" classes.

IMHO
The debate about a bigger Party is important when thers a decision about having one implemented in future allready.
That seems not the case sfaik.

Try to change the deabte about the iteration/ Variationproblems which will come into gameplay, when you want more and more characters which all need background storys, behavior etc etc etc.
All those small details which hugley change the experience of the game. Every difference in a character needs another interaction and what not.

The more Characters you have to support with full backgroundstory and all it includes storywide until end of game is making the development of BG3 an endless story.

It takes a lot of writing time and then corrections etc. Its taking a lot, and i say alot of time to make it propper and not generical story stuff.

You want believable storys and interaction in this game between all characters, events, dialogs, encounters and so forth...
Then switch to this debate how to achieve it.

Because all else you can have allready in other games not so focused on Story, Dialog, believable interaction etc.
BG3 is more like a good Book in the way of trying to stay at a good compromise in storythreads by not having too many characters in the story.

More quality over quantity is key in BG3

I want to see the game beeing released at the and of 21 or mid 22 the least.
Bigger party pushes this Date much more into the future or it stays but then with cut content or less defined Backgrounds, reactions everything which is allready in game for the 4 people party and works great, wont be working the same for a 6 - character party. When you want it done in the same developement time.

I also think 5 would be good, for the same reasons Maximuuus mentioned, although 6 would be even better. I allows for so much more inter-party variety, interactions and conversations.
With the new camp supply system, you could even say that Larian could make it a player choice between having 4 party members for which it is easier to find enough food, or go for 6 people, for which you need more food. So each player could decide.

My understanding from the early discussions Larian had on this topic is that this is definitely one of the reasons why 4 is their current ORIGIN limit. It has been said that other NPC's might be able to join the party, you just won't have the level of interaction as you do with the core. So IF THAT IS THE CASE the discussion becomes about "Interaction & Dynamic" vs "Party composition". Do I value the interaction of 6 characters within a group higher than or equal to simple skillsets of the party, or am I more concerned of having a balanced party and the dynamic is secondary.

The argument will be BG1&2 had both, though of course the interaction elements of talking to your party were "limited" to text. The cinematic aspect of this iteration means that adding in 6 Origin characters worth of interaction from Acts 1 -> END is perhaps a hurdle Larian aren't willing to jump, but it is still a debate we can have in a discussion forum. What is it we would prefer (if given the choice), and to a large degree that is what has happened already here. And yes we are repeating ourselves to, but that is the nature of a large thread within a discussion forum.

So it boils back down to:

A - Party of 5/6 with full interaction and story across all members
B - Party of 5/6 with partial interaction with characters outside the core 4 (i.e. hire mercenaries to fill slots)
C - Party of 4 with full interaction (as currently)
D - Other (there's always room in discussions for "Other")

One can always take fewer characters into your party if you prefer, so saying "I don't want 6 because I like 4", shouldn't mean we shouldn't ask for more party members, for me it's understanding what do we want, where would we compromise (if at all), and then what does Larian think or plan? Me. i am happiest with Option A, fine with Option B. so be it on Option C.

Why are we rehashing this on a new thread? There's a megathread for this.

I don't use feelings as a basis for arguments or thinking. If your argument is based on personal feelings it's less of an argument and more of a bias.

Next thing you know you are in Qanon railing against vaccines.

How about instead we agree you are full of it and don't have an argument?

If "being entitled to one's opinion" = "being full of it" and "not wanting to get into a keyboard fight that's most likely going to be meaningless" = "not having an argument", then yes, we can agree - let's make a digital handshake on it. I mean, you can assume whatever you want about someone - it's easy. Whatever you assume about me is probably about as valid as what I assume about you. "Not using feelings" yet you seem to care a lot about what I said. So are we done? Or would you like to try again?

Sure, its not like you need the last word, right?

Just for future reference: An assertion is pre-text for a debate when not conditioned by "I think" or "In my opinion".

I love when someone can make a solid, well-thought out logical argument for an assertion. Disappointed but not surprised.

"Forgotten Realms" "Dead Three" "City" "People involved"... Lol.

This limited (and wrong) list really show a lack of knowledge about the old games.

You remind me of myself back when this game was just announced, way before you joined these forums. Jumping at every statement that "rubbed me the wrong way", itching for a "logical", "well thought out", "non-biased" discussion, all geared up for another 4, 5 pages worth of logical argument, confident with my sharp, logical thinking I could handle whatever the other person would throw at me. Went through a fair share of those "arguments", had fun, but alas, you always get burnt out. Judging by your initial argument listing "baldur's gate elements so far", I'm afraid you're not quite there yet, to get me to play with you.