So, you're saying that 5e's party size is 4? This is kind of funny then, especially if posters that are insisting that we need more than 4 are also advocating for more 5e? That's some delicious irony, isn't it?
Inb4 "but that's only a suggestion": all of the "rules" are suggestions. There are no penalties to a table that chooses to ignore a rule "because they think it's mean", an argument I've actually seen on this very forum, or for having a table with 6 players + a GM, or any other number, for that matter. So, I guess it's not "Trust in 5e", but "Trust in 5e, but only the stuff that I like"?
Man, this would be an incredibly salacious GOTHCA...
If the whole "the default party for the tabletop" thing wasn't already been argued to death and back, PRECISELY to stress how and why a tabletop experience involving multiple players and a big CRPG spawning even hundreds of hours are NOT the same type of experience.
We even discussed WHY the default party suggested for a tabletop is of four, among other things. And it has little to do with "balance", for the record.
It comes from the difficulty to gather a larger number of people physically around a table to play a game for hours at regular intervals, from the tendency of tabletop players to go off topic, take pauses, slow each other continuously, etc, etc.
Try to take a guess on why the manual can't tell people "you won't have the optimal experience unless you have at least X amount of people", for its own good.
Conversely a computer game lives on the size and variety of its cast, on the possibilities it offers to the player to mix and match things at will and try different combinations and so on.
Basically, you aren't revealing anything. You are just late to catch up with things we already said two years ago.
P.S. Fun fact: "Critical Role" may very well be the most popular "live tabletop campaign of D&D" ever played and it involved six players and a GM. Guess someone needs to tell them they got it wrong.
