To me a good game with replayibility allows to approach the same content from a different perspective, but it doesn't prohibit players from experiencinf most of the content in each playtrhough. Fallout: New Vegas is the golden example for me - an order of doing stuff, whom we ally with and whom we destroy can change in each play through, plus each play through wil have different flavour based on the build we run. I prefer linear-ish, but complex and flexible game, over multiple exclusive, but rigid paths.
As long as I can replaying the game and do enough of the things differently, I will be happy. To me reactivity is there to create ilusion of choices, not to force players to do multiple play throughs. I don't think the player should feel like they are missing something major, if they don't do multiple playtheoughs.
If Fallout New Vegas is your golden example (and it's a fantastic one), then I'd say the closest CRPG to that would be PoE 2: Deadfire. Have you played it?
It uses a very similar structure in terms of generating branches and reactivity via its faction system. You still ultimately do most of the same quests, but the context of how you approach the quest may change. I think it's slightly weaker narratively in that the faction quests and main plot feels a bit more disjointed compared to F:NV, but the gameplay/combat is some of the best. Really, it's a shame the game didn't have more financial success.
