Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - The 10 Companions

Originally Posted by Nereida
Have full freedom of choice of who is in my party at all times, including having nobody if I don't want to.

What is depicted is not choice, it is the absence of choice. It is a demand for not having to choose.

Choice happens when people are compelled to select between multiple options, wishing for the benefits attached to options all at once and having to restrict to one or several options.

All options are desirable yet only a few can be accessed. When opting for one, it closes down the others.

A choice is a crisis in decision. Committment.

Nothing new by the way, there is big cause behind this to explain that when players state they want choices, they actually desire for no choice.

Nice picture. The sword looks kind of Hollywood, probably has a similar function in the party to Valerie.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
What is depicted is not choice, it is the absence of choice. It is a demand for not having to choose.

Choice happens when people are compelled to select between multiple options, wishing for the benefits attached to options all at once and having to restrict to one or several options.

All options are desirable yet only a few can be accessed. When opting for one, it closes down the others.

A choice is a crisis in decision. Committment.

Nothing new by the way, there is big cause behind this to explain that when players state they want choices, they actually desire for no choice.

Choice is a choice, there is nothing wrong with the basic concept of choice, even on philosophical level. Its up to the author to make it meaningful. Choice doesnt have to be just a way to gate content. Different outcomes of choices can contradict themself. For example to kill NPC or not kill NPC - hardly can have both, right? So there is nothing fundamentaly wrong to have choices, its just matter of execution. Which is often lacking, unfortunately.