My counterpoint to these arguments is that less is more.
No, it's not unless the "more" is bad in quality and goes to affect the good parts in some ways. Which additional characters wouldn't do.
With 6 characters you can cover all bases, use all gear, easily optimize your tactics, see through most companions stories to completion, etc.
Oh no, the horror.
That aside, the claim is questionable on a good day, in a game where the number of basic classes and races would still double the number of party slots we are talking about.
Which means a lot of "bases not covered" and "things not seen" regardless.
Having only 4 makes choosing your party have much more tangible implications and makes many choices more meaningful.
Buzzwords. You aren't making any point, you are just saying things and pretending they are accepted as reasonable.
If you can't fill every conceivable party role or have every spell you might need, tactics matter a lot more than if you had the expansive breadth of options you get with 6 PCs worth of tools.
Ok, not even remotely true, but let's pretend you'd have a point here...
Who's stopping you from doing it, again? Why aren't you sticking to less characters, even with a larger number of party slots as a theoretical limit?
