It’s obvious to me who is the one who’s not “clear” here.
No, you’re not against a party size of 6; that’s obvious enough. You can hope for whatever you want, I simply don’t care. That’s not the point.
Imagine they implement a party size of 4, then explain to players the reason for that is because of any one of the things you “explained”. That would be beyond dumb to me, but I suppose there are also players like you who would readily accept that kind of explanation.
What I’m saying is, if they would make this kind of change to a core element such as this, fans of the original games, including me, would expect a much better reason than anything you have come up with so far.
“Because the DMG is geared...” - when Larian has free reign to create a game scope and to balance the game in a way such that a party of 6 should not be a problem? When the two 20-year-old original games already established a party size of 6?
“Most games played on the internet” - what games? The Starter Set and the Essential Kit? You must be joking. And what do they have to do with BG3?
No, you’re not arguing that the party size should be 4. You’re just citing the most ridiculous reasons why you would accept it if Larian gives you that. But I suppose you have the right to have low expectations.
