>>3801270
That'd be awesome actually. My post assumes the endings will be untouched, which means the metagame perspective of why which ending is "better" still holds true, but you don't need the metagame perspective to see the flaw with Daniel's plan anyways. With what you just said, it'd basically turn Honest Hearts into an IQ bellcurve where morons (Ricky) and badasses (Joshua Graham) will side with NO, WE FIGHT while Daniel's plan is cemented as a path that is flawed yet admittedly what normal people would likely take. If a player thinks everyone should stay because of the caravan, that argument will hit different if the surviving caravaneers really wish they could leave right now. Ricky would be the (unfortunately realistic) equivalent of mouthbreathers who make it look bad, leaving only other mouthbreathers or people confident in the movement to stay while everyone else stays away. Hell, such a thing would add some cool character to Ricky too! There's a lot more examples of what having the other caravaneers alive could potentially add to the DLC's dilemma to be a bit more interesting as to why to side with Daniel, and basically, you'd be able to roleplay a lot more confidently as to why your courier character would take Daniel's path without it feeling very weird most of the time. Of course, we all know this wouldn't be possible even if we were Idea Guys in Obsidian during development due to the limitations placed on FNV's DLC, but it's still a really cool idea that you wrote and could honestly make for a cool experience.