It makes no difference how much time you, me, or anyone else has.
The game is what it is, and what it is not, is a drop in - drop out multiplayer game. Trying to treat it that way is up there with adding guns to Skyrim. It's just not what the game is supposed to be.
They didn't just forget to add the function, they chose not to, on purpose.
The kind of multiplayer this game offers, is the "full multi - player character / protagonist group story" kind. If you feel you don't have time for that kind of multiplayer, then you don't play that kind of multiplayer, and treat the game as single player.
You cannot equate leaving npc Shadowheart in camp to leaving a friend's character in camp.
Shadow is just a companion. A secondary character that joined the party you're the leader of.
The friend's character is a primary character. They are not a companion. They are party leader, equal to you. They are stuck in party for the same reason your character is.
To say they are limited to giving ratings in dialogue is entirely untrue. They can do the entire dialogue without you.
The person who does the conversation decides what they say. Frankly, that's narratively the only option for handling dialogue that makes sense.
Though I wouldn't object to some little disagreement system, like how the original Divinity had that rock paper scissors nonsense. [Not to mention the times where you can put the party on different sides and make them fight each other to see who's choice wins in some rpgs.]
But it's also unnecessary, because you players can directly address your disagreement with each other before you click a dialogue choice. It would be rather pointless to put it in the dialogue when you can handle it yourselves. Especially since you can consider the conversation between you players to also be the cannon conversation between your characters, minus the npc awkwardly standing their waiting for you.
-------
When it comes to party size and leaving people in camp, the real thing is:
You shouldn't have to leave anyone in camp in the first place.
Having people wait around camp instead of actually helping, joining the party, is narratively profoundly stupid.
Balancing the game around a team of 4 might make sense from a mechanical perspective, but is too narratively ridiculous to be a justified design decision.
The only version of handling the party that makes any sense is the entire party being present at all times. THAT's what the game should have been balanced for.
And of course the hirelings can fill slots that would have gone to companions a player doesn't have in a given run of the game.
So in a game that doesn't have a locked party, that allows for you to constantly swap out party members and recruit them as part of the stories narrative... should you make the unfortunate mistake of having actual friends to play with... all of this design is broken? wait wait wait, even further, you're not bound to the party members at the start of the campaign, as they can be switched out freely as aforementioned, but... you're not even bound to stay the same class! the only thing you can't change in BG3 is your name, most of your selected appearance, your background... and multiplayer party members lol you're not even stuck to your dice rolls lmao, you can roll two dice, get guidance, and bonuses to influence the roll, the aforementioned NPC that respects the vast majority of any party member to any other class as well as ability points... lets you recruit NPC from outside the story to join your party... that wait for it, wait for it.... can be dissmissed lol
