Originally Posted by kanisatha
1. Options are always good (and inclusive, if that sincerely matters to people).
No. Sometimes it is good to have limited options and make the best of that. When done right, it can make for more interesting gameplay. It is the task of the game designer to make the player suffer before ultimate victory is achieved.

Originally Posted by kanisatha
2. The perceived added costs of options are hugely exaggerated by opponents.
3. In the specific case of allowing people the OPTION of playing BG3 with a party of 6, the added costs are very small.
That is difficult to prove. I can imagine there is quite a bit of balancing involved in the capabilities of individual characters. With a party of four, each individual party member will probably need to have extra quality to compensate for the lack of quantity. Also, it is imaginable that set pieces of the story depend on the number of characters (e.g. being thrown in jail and having to break out one by one).