The original non fanfiction project I'm writing now only has like, 8 or so characters. Out of them, only a few of them are actually focused on as named characters. The minor characters (I'm not counting like 'security guard A' as characters) that have names aren't focused on much, but do have a role in the story. The plot for the two lead characters is dreadfully simple, opposites attract, that's literally it. The second part of the story is a simple one too, it's about finding balance between what others expect of you and what you wish to do. (I suppose it's a coming of age story too kinda, considering the MC of the second half is 21) I'm wondering about the pros and cons of having a small cast VS a bigger cast.
The standard advice is to have as few characters as possible. If you can combine two characters into one, that’s should be done. there’s always exceptions but I think the standard advice is solid here. I know as a reader I don’t want to track too many characters.
Yeah, I think that's part of my commitment phobia that I have, many of my ideas have a 'big' cast with lots of characters to keep track of. Although if the story requires a larger cast (I can't see a JRPG esque story being as interesting without at least a handfull of named characters) I may need to expand the cast. How do you feel about smaller characters who appear a couple of times but don't bear much in the story? As in, they have a name, and possibly likable, but they're there for as long as they're needed and don't return.
I'd say you have only as many characters as the narrative can support. Too many can create drag if it needs to fabricate things beyond the story to justify the cast's existence. Too few can make the story appear less meaningful than it should be because only a few characters appear to be effected. It's a tough call.
I think it's similar to the worldbuilding dilemma. If your cast is too small, it can be uninteresting, and if it's too large, then it can distract readers with too much stuff that's irrelevant to your story, so the general advice is to aim for a sweet spot in the middle. Usually, that's a good idea, but the extremes offer their own advantages, and using them well can really let your creativity shine. For instance, figuring out how to tell a good story with a small cast can be a great puzzle, kind of like limiting your setting to one room. Say your characters are two servants at a giant mansion going through their day. If you pull it off, you can really put the spotlight on those characters and their place in a larger story. But if you don't, you get a boring slog that's probably overly talky as your characters discuss things that might be better shown to the reader. Meanwhile, a large cast can be interesting in its own right, if you write them well enough. Readers may simply enjoy your creations for their own sake, much as many people love all the legends and lore in LOTR that don't directly affect the novel's plot. They bring the world to life. Tom Bombadil certainly wasn't necessary for the main LOTR plot, but if you try to tell me that he didn't make it a better story, then you and I simply can't be friends.
Would you consider a cast of 8-10 characters small though? When I think 'big' casts I tend to think characters in an entire series, like how star wars has hundreds of characters. I do tend to try to use the number of characters that fits the story, but what piqued the question was the differences between a small and a large cast. It's really difficult to make a character 'stand out' in a large cast of 30 or so characters, especially if they only have a minor role.
I'd say 8-1o characters is a pretty normal amount, but I don't know anything about "JRPG-esque" stories, so the audience expectation may be different. To me, "small" means a cast of maybe 3 or fewer characters. Yes it is, and that's where the author's skill comes in. To continue my LOTR example, Bombadil has a small part, but he's fascinating because he's so completely different from anyone else in the story. Even Gandalf, who at that early stage is clearly the most powerful character we've met, is afraid of the Ring, but Bombadil treats it like a toy. He's mysterious and detached from everything else in the story and hints at a larger world beyond what we're seeing. You might want to study him and other minor characters that you find interesting to see how the author makes them stand out despite their minor role.
Small casts in an RPG would probably be around 8-15 characters if we aren't counting NPC's that aren't plot relevant. In most Role Playing Games (Video games, not DND) your main party will range from between 2 - 9 main characters, plus loads of smaller side characters with varying levels of plot relevance. Most of the time they're NPC's (Non playable characters) who play some important role in a non generic quest. I think for the story I'm going to write next, there's 4 main party members, and five main antagonists (though you could argue that one of them isn't really much of a villain, he's more of a chaotic good than an out and out villain.) with several named characters playing smaller roles with varying levels of plot relevance. So it's about an average cast for that kind of story. When a game brags about a 'large' cast they typically mean 20 + active characters.
It might be worth reading the Dragonlance Chronicles to see how they handled it. Used to be my favorite as a boy but I grew out of it, Tom Clancy, WWE, etc. I haven’t read them since I was a teen, and I imagine they’re probably not very good, but may be worth seeing how they did the RPG setting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonlance_Chronicles
Obviously there isn't any 'rule' about how many characters you can use. But keep in mind two things: a) the length of your story b) how many characters you expect the reader to become invested in. A long story can obviously take more characters, as there is more story time to develop each one. That's why sagas and lengthy serials (like Song of Ice and Fire, or the Expanse series written by James SA Corey) have lots and lots of primary (POV) characters in them. Short novels or stories that are overloaded with characters rarely work. There isn't enough story space to make them stand out, so they're just names. And because they are just names, you're actually very likely to forget them as soon as you encounter more. Too many characters in a short space of story time makes for shallow storytelling, I believe. Even with long stories, it can become difficult to engage with lots of characters. I did not enjoy Song of Ice and Fire, mainly because I got very fed up getting interested in a new character, only to see them get killed off shortly afterwards. It wasn't that I hated the thought of them dying, it's that pretty soon I didn't care whether they lived or died at all. It happened too many times. When I reached that point of disengagement in the series, I quit reading. While I really did love the Expanse series, and have stuck with all the books thus far (one more to come,) I did find myself nearly dropping off the branch a few times. Every time a new main character got stirred into the mix, later on in the series, my heart sank a bit. Especially as many of them did not die (or didn't die right away) and the story became more and more scattered and complicated. Like 'life' I suppose, but it began to feel too much like work as well. Whenever familiar characters re-entered the scene, my interest rekindled ...and fortunately they always did. I managed to hang in there, but I AM relieved to know there is only one more book to follow that will finish the series.
A smaller cast means less inter-character relationships. Those in turn serve to drive the plot just as much as the narrative does and develops the characters. Because of this, I would be wary with including /too few/ characters.
The more characters you have the more spotlight gets removed from the best or favorite characters. You're liable to make more mistakes or make the actual important characters less interesting that way. Better to have a small cast you can build on than trying to have multiple world wars going on all at once.
My favorite stories are about two characters, a man and a woman, trapped together for a short period of time. It's a very simple story structure, but the possibilities for drama and/or comedy are endless.
For this story there's about ten characters, add about 5 more if you count 'minor' ones like two goons that work for one of the MC. The story is purposefully short/small cast so I can find the courage to stick with it and finish it. My new years resolution is to finish a dang project and this idea was short enough to possibly pull it off.
Actually, Tom Bombadil was very important; he gave Pippin the sword from the Barrows that wounded the Witch King of Angmar, allowing Éowyn to deliver the coup de grace.
Small cast - very easy to control and even if your story is simple you can give it depth by adding a theme and metaphors to layer it. Bigger cast - harder to control as you have to make those cuts, going to and from separate stories, work and you have to have a unifying subject tying them together. Neither one is better. It all comes down to what kind of flavor you want to give the story. I find the more characters and more subplots allows you to give different viewpoints on an event or subject whereas a smallcast narrows it allowing you to explore one or two viewpoints. Skill level comes into play as well. It's much more difficult to control a bigger cast. I've left threads hanging because I literally forgot about some of my characters - lol.
On the main forum, the heading for this thread stops at “Does having a small c...” I thought it was important I checked it out but I was on the wrong track entirely.
Regarding the topic: I tend to having a small cast since it becomes too easy to forget about other characters.
Back to the OP; As others have alluded to, having a small cast would help with keeping track of the characters and their actions.
I've never heard that you want as few characters as possible. Personally, I love a good populated story. I also think it would be quite difficult to combine two or more characters into one. And I don't really see the point or understand the goal of having as few characters as possible. I say invite as many people as you want to the party.
I'm not sure there are any straight forward benefits to having a large or small cast of characters. It really depends o the story and how you approach it. I know that's kind of a stupid and useless answer that it depends. I don't think having fewer characters automatically means that your characters will be stronger and more developed than if you had twice as many. I used to be a little nervous about working with a large cast, but I actually prefer to have a good amount of characters in my stories now. But, hey, some stories don't need many characters to turn out a good story. Trust your gut. I'm guessing you're a little unsure because you posted this. If you feel like someone is missing, I would add them in and see what happens. Good luck.
The story itself is purposefully short (it's only going to be 10-11 chapters when I usually shoot for 15-20) so it lends itself to having a smaller cast. It does have several 'minor' characters that aren't really characters (like they appear in a couple of scenes and never again) but the main focus is really only on like 5 characters, 8 if you count the bad guys of the story. In a longer project I go for more characters especially if it's inspired by video game series that also feature many characters. (the games that inspire me generally feature a main party of like 7) but for shorter projects I feel like a tighter cast is needed. The plot is also fairly simple since it's about two master thieves falling in love. I've kept the cast pretty small to allow them to grow within the confines of the simple story. There's plenty of room to add more characters later if it needs them.
