I'm not sure that I equate roleplaying with there needing to be every possible choice available. You will be able to do what is in context with the story, of course. It's not about running around the world and doing whatever comes to mind -- there are specific goals at hand.

As far as individual quests, there will generally be options as to how to complete them but there's never going to be every option. I remember in the beginning of Hordes there was an encounter with some kobolds holed up in a bar that had something like six different methods of completion -- and while it was an interesting experiment, that one tiny encounter required so much work it was almost mind-boggling and almost got cut because the complexity introduced too many bugs. So the idea, I think, is to strike a line somewhere in the middle.
...
Ah, yes, it was in SoU. I always mix those up. And there were only two consequences, if I remember right -- either you saved the kobolds or you didn't. There were just many ways of saving them or not saving them, probably more then were really necessary. In terms of the roleplaying it offered, it was very much in the neat-but-over-the-top category.
...
No, we have no rule that says there must be X options for every quest. We include whatever seems appropriate.
...
I'm no more interested in forcing such options if none seem necessary than I am in forcing a good and evil "path" onto every quest just to have it. Some quests are very simple and they only have one manner of completion, others have more -- others have a lot more. If you want to write a game where there is a design rule of 3 options minimum no matter what -- be my guest.
...
The main character does indeed do all the talking in DA, being the protaganist of the story. We've gone through this discussion on this forum before, and this has not changed -- the party is not a group of interchangeable main characters.​