My point was more to say that the overall popularity and longevity of a game comes from (in part) requiring a bit of effort and experimentation with new and unfamiliar approaches, the reward you get for learning a new way to be victorious is tenfold in comparison with having all the solutions presented to you.
In the context of BG3, people are saying that with 4 characters they will be restricted to running certain classes, and therefore will be unable to experiment with party makeup. My answer is that they *are* able to experiment, they just might have to work a little harder to find the solution. For me, an encounter feels a lot more satisfying if I have to "solve" it rather than just blast my way through on the way to the next.
I'm sorry but....did you just say that the popularity and longevity of the game is better with a lower party size?
You do know that the only reason this game is being made, at all, is because Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 are probably the most popular (and highest reviewed) cRPGs of all time, despite being made in the 1990s/early 2000s? And both those games had party sizes of 6? That is proof alone that your argument is wrong. In terms of party composition, bigger party = easier to take risks/try new things. There's a reason BG 1&2 had *so much* replayability, to the point where they still have healthy communities 2 *decades* later.
Again, for the dozen+ time, the most people are made the most happy with a party of 6. If developers could balance encounters 20 years ago with a party of 6 (and *significantly stronger* player abilities in the old edition rules) I trust they can figure it out now in the simplified world of 5e. That's the only argument against 6 players that doesn't fall flat, because if you don't want a party of 6, just make yours smaller. We who want bigger parties don't have that option when you limit the size to 4.
