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"?
Number of players/characters does not make the game more or less 5e. It is not a rule in any sense. It is about how encounters are balanced as default and a good DM can re-balance them for any number of players.
There are actually benefits of restricting the number of players in tabletop because everyone plays one character. You get your own round less often. This is not a problem for CRPGs where you play each character. Also scheduling problems, again not a problem in single player CRPG.
Actually, it was an issue for my 4 people multiplayer group. Some encouters were very long and I found myself alt tabbing because I was waiting for my turn for so long. Also our schedules were often a problem so we could only play once every week.
