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

Lets not get ahead

Yes, female Tav who took the Evil Route meets male Tav who took the Good route. The difference? Good relationship with parents.

😄 There is only one problem: I tend to play female Tavs who take the Good route.

But back to the topic: I think a party of five would be nice, and not to large. Though I would still have an entire army of companions waiting at camp, if possible 😅

Depending on my characters class and (head cannon) backstory i find it extremely difficult to have only 3 options to choose between. It feels constricted.

Party of 6 all the way. (altho we know we aint getting it. Both the party size and chain-link has been an issue since day one... it feels like we've been yelling into the void)

Late reply, but I too would prefer a party of 5 or 6 people

There is a poll currently running here https://strawpoll.com/polls/QrgebPVDjZp if anyone hasnt seen it through the BG3 subreddit , you might as well cast your vote too.

I am obviously on the up to 6 characters party boat.

Voted, but man, even if the 6-slots party option is winning, seeing their overall reaction to an attempt to discuss the topic is a daily reminder of how much the subreddit stinks.

Agreed, but discussion aside i was at least able to get more votes in and see what even more people think about it.
Yes the level of arguments when its something they dont like is weirdly defensive for absolutely no reason (like they own part of larian or something lmfao).
But since the subreddit is a bigger community i guess its a better reflection of whats going on (discussion wise) on a greater scale than our lil community here.

I think it's more than fair that we have the possibility to play with as many players as possible.

I've been playing tabletop for many years, and I believe that the more people at the table, the more fun the game will be.

The same applies to BG3.

A party of 5 or 6 players would be excellent!

As someone who regularly partake in 6+ players tabletop sessions, it isn't the case. Parties that large remove personal initiative in favor of the group, and it adds tons of dead air as soon as an action that is involving only part of the group is happening. I am pretty sure this is why BG3 has a party of 4, for a seamless and enjoyable multiplayer experience (and no, 4+2 companions ain't it).

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this. I can see how playing with a larger party could result in some challenges, such as removing personal initiative and causing dead air when only part of the group is involved in an action.

However, I respectfully disagree that a party size of 4 is the only option for a seamless and enjoyable multiplayer experience. While it's true that BG3 has a party size of 4, this doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only way to have fun with friends.

There are many players who enjoy playing with larger parties, and some even find it to be more dynamic and engaging. Ultimately, the ideal party size will depend on the preferences and playstyle of the players involved.

So while I understand your perspective, I don't think it's fair to say that a larger party size can't be enjoyable for some players.

And yet, most likely impossible ...
Since Larian wants to do split-screen for multiplayer.

Great news for console players only...

I have a large group of PC gamers, and we usually form groups of at least 6-8 players in almost every game.

Having the option to play with the maximum number of people, in my case, is always better.

But it's like they say... if they implement it, I rejoice, if not, I'll manage fine playing with just 3 friends.

Let's hope for the best...

Yes, exactly. Great for MP; utterly crappy for SP. Larian should just admit the truth that BG3 has been made for MP and is not recommended for SP.

I'm understanding this game as something rich and innovative, regardless of the possibilities or limitations in development.

The format they're bringing provides incredible freedom, meaning there won't necessarily be a 'right' way to play.

Whether alone or with a group (whether it's 2 or 6 players), the possibilities are countless.

Finally, I'm not sure if it's so complicated to add an option for those who want to play with more friends.

Is having a party larger than 4 players really so costly in terms of game development and final performance?

If not, there would certainly be mod for that ...
We allready have mod that allows us expand our party up to 8!

There are technical problems with that tho ... and personaly i believe that no matter how great Larian is, and no matter how deeply they care ... there is one argument that apply even to them:
By applying mods, you take responsibility for your game integrity.

If they offer official support for 6 party members ... *they* have to make it work.
If they offer official support for 6 player members ... *they* have to make it work.
If there is 6 party mod and you use it ... its not their concern, since they have nothing to do with it ... *you* have to make it work.

I love your lucidity!

This has virtually nothing to do with allowing a larger party.
Four or six characters as cap, split screen can still be played at most by two players concurrently (and the other ones can still join the game, as long as it's from another PC).

Well, Aurimas said "players" ...
That changes things.

I have a feeling you are party size locked until your "infected" group is picked and then you can get non-infected to join (Minsc and Jaheira) and the party size increases. Look at 1:20 in the game awards trailer. There is Jaheira, I *think* 4 Tavs, a bunch of flaming fist soldiers (2 archers in back by the door, 4 knights up front), and a few others in front I can't explain. It's possible Jaheira isn't in the party, kinda like the fight with Halsin, but I like to hope.