Solo vs. Party-Based

[Saldrone]

Self-explanatory poll. I was interested about the topic of playing as a "lone wolf" character vs traveling with NPCs and how it affects gameplay dynamics

 

[Butter]

Playing Underrail, I never miss having companions. The game feels right with just the one character. Part of that is it would be way too easy to cover all skills with even one other party member.

On the other hand, most of my favorite RPGs are the ones where you create a party of 4 or (preferably) more characters. That's not the same as the Fallout/Baldur's Gate/Torment style of recruiting pre-written characters, which is my least favorite of all.

I don't want to LARP being friends with Khalid and Jaheira, or pretend that Falls-From-Grace is my waifu. I want to behead goblins with a giant axe.

 

[Eisen]

Solo, but i don't think there are many solo RPGs compared to party-based

 

[Dorateen]

A party of Player Characters, as the hobby was intended.

 

[Devastator]

I genuinely enjoy both.

But since I have to choose (racist poll ), I voted party-based. It allows for new possibilities in combat. Additionally, banter can be a great extension to the overall story (if done right).

 

[Tyranicon]

Depends how shitty the companions are.

BG3 is a decent game if you don't recruit anybody, spam the skip key, ignore all of the plot and just play it 100% murderhobo.

 

[octavius]

If I have to choose only one of the options: party.

 

[lvl 2 Blue Slime]

If an RPG has many builds/classes, then I think party-based is almost mandatory, as who wants to immediately replay an entire game just to experience another class?

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Party BASED the party being me and 5 of my favorite cosplay thots as NPCs.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

I've explained this before.
Sci-fi and post-apoc thematically are often about alienation or loneliness, hence solo.
Fantasy is about jolly adventuring and camaraderie, hence party.
/thread

 

[Average Manatee]

Solo play is simplistic and often degenerate. Things like abusing LoS/AP economy, abusing summons (which basically makes it into party based play except all that matters is how much HP sponge everything is), or other AI exploits are what counts for "skilled" play in every non-action solo RPG I can think of.

Party based RPGs have more tactics, more interesting strengths and weaknesses for characters (because they are designed to complement each other), and more potential interesting encounter design as a result.

 

[processdaemon]

My favourite is party based with a main player character and companions who have personalities but aren't competing to be the protagonist, second is single player, and my least liked is controlling a whole customisable party. There are still some games I really like that fall into the final category but generally having a group of lead characters instead of a defined protagonist and supporting cast really doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Habichtswalder]

Both can be good.
I prefer a party for isometric games, but without a party 1st person camera is my favorite. So real depends on the game.
But if I have to choose: solo.

 

[Naraya]

Small (2-3 members) party is the best for me.

 

[Skinwalker]

Han Party-Based.

 

[430am]

Depends on the game. If it's a turn-based tactical, you need a team, of course. But most of my favorite RPGs and fond memories I make of games all have solo play. I just like growing and exploring on my own. I enjoy growing from absolutely nothing to very powerful through my own efforts. Having a whole team with me that's necessary for progressing without which my character would be dead meat, detracts from the efforts and power of my character, I feel.

 

[octavius]

If an RPG has many builds/classes, then I think party-based is almost mandatory, as who wants to immediately replay an entire game just to experience another class?

Depends on the game. The less story focused and more Rogue/Diablo-like it becomes, the more replayability.

 

[quaesta]

I like parties because I hate turned based games where I'm waiting for 8 people to move before it's mine turn. Although what I really prefer is a team of player characters, that I control and play with.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Single player-controlled character with AI-controlled party members, as in Codex GotY 2016 Dragon's Dogma.

Spoiler

Really, the number of player-characters should correspond to other aspects of the game, e.g. a game focused on tactical turn-based combat should have a full party, whereas an Action RPG should have a single player-character.

 

[destinae vomitus]

Party-based for me, as long as it doesn't involve or at least allows me to largely ignore any and all reprehensible parasocial friendship/romance bullshit.

 

[Funposter]

Solo but I will openly admit to having brain-rot from playing too much Morrowind, a game where your character can eventually do everything. I don't need some pointy-eared dickhead to pick locks for me, thanks.

 

[S.torch]

Solo games can be fun (like Dark Souls). But ultimately I greatly enjoy bringing bros (or sisters) with me. There's little adventures that aren't enhanced with good banter, fun, and companionship. When you remember a game you usually think about the characters you liked the most.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Solo of course.

Keep in mind, RPG parties are an archaic holdover from PnP days. In a PnP setting, playing with a group of friends, parties make natural sense, but for a single player game, they make no sense whatsoever. Yeah, they can add a little tactical depth, but generally don't, because most so called tactical RPGs (especially the more recent ones) don't use any kind of positioning. Mostly, they just add turn based overhead, long ass battle turns, annoying whiny companions with boring quests and romances, and other shit like that.

Solo character is clearly superior and more natural. If you want some bonds in a game, just create interesting relationships with NPCs, Witcher games gave a master class on those.

 

[Harthwain]

Depends.

Open-world games, anything with first person perspective and with much focus on action is better suited for solo. Party is better for isometric and more tactical games (although there are exceptions to that rule, such as Tales of Maj'Eyal or NEO Scavenger).

If I were to vote, then I think solo is better, because party too often turns into tactical game with RPG elements, whereas in solo RPGs the emphasis on the RPG aspect is much more pronounced (even if it is not best executed).

 

[Glop_dweller]

Party based; ideally with skill checks and conversions that use the statistics of the selected PC.