I'd say if you can handle all those games well - both now and in the months to come! - I see no reason why not.

But let me explain by "handling them well". In my book, that'd mean that every single game gets as much investment from you than what you'd be putting into merely one, if you were playing that exclusively. In other words, four games would require four times the effort.

I happen to believe players ought to keep up a regular correspondence with each and every other power on a board. If not, one's not putting an optimum effort into a game. One would be leaving considerable potential untapped. Now, in my experience (especially in my capacity as a GM) by no means all players meet that standard. But those who do, do much better than those who do not!

So I'd recommend asking yourself whether you meet the following criteria in your existing games:

Am I writing everyone regularly?
Do I answer mails promptly and substantively? (Caveat: Unless I do not WANT to, for tactical reasons).
Am I building a rapport with everyone involved?
Am I sufficiently studying the map? Not just my "little corner", but examining matters much farther afield?
Am I trying to shape the dynamics of regions on the board other than my own? Am I playing "the whole board", so to speak? (I believe this is critical to good play).
In short, am I giving my best?

In addition:

Will I be able to meet the standard I expect of myself now and in the many weeks and months to come?

If you pass that test (or whatever other reasonable criteria you happen to have), what's to stop you from joining an additional game?

Perhaps it'd also be useful considering at what stage one's present game(s) is/are at. Opening and mid-game stages require more negotiations than your typical endgame with few powers left. I'd say, if playing in multiple games, it'd be a good idea if they were at different stages.

Now, I suppose most veteran dippers have overcommitted at some point during their hobby involvement (myself very much included!). Having learnt that lesson, they tend to be more careful about how many games they play. Many limit themselves to one or two.

Quality over quantity.

As for myself, I've found that I cannot competently (following my above criteria) in more than 1-2 games. (Currently I'm playing in zero games. But I mean to join one in the coming weeks.)

As for GMing, I'm currently running a 1648 variant game. I hope I'm doing a decent job, but especially having been on holiday for an extended period (with spotty internet access) was a challenge.

In any case, I feel I have quite enough on my plate with one single game! (Unless adjucating etc were automated as on the judges). I however have a strong preference for the non-judge format. I had been away from the hobby for 4 years before recruiting here for my present 1648 game. It appears that not such mammoth sites such as playdiplomacy totally dwarf such communities as ours here. These are now a special niche. More so than in the past.

My sense is this special niche promises a more enjoyable game experience. I like the human touch. The longer deadlines. Indeed, I abhore the playdiplomacy practice of deadlines being unalterable simply because the system does away with GMs. I feel games NEED GMs.

BTW, I read on the playdiplomacy forums a former newbie relating how he joined 20-30 games at the same time. He was overwhelmed and then NMR-abandoned all of them. Crazy. I take too many newbies join too many games in an initial burst of enthusiasm and naivety only to then discover that they've sorely overcommitted.

IIRC, newbies on this site are by default barred from playing in more than one game. The restriction may be waved (say for certified veterans who are new to the community). But it strikes me as a sound basic policy.

Thoughts?

Charles