Is the roleplay aspect of D&D gone, replaced by optimization?

[Schwann145]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

[Lord Raziere]

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Yes.

find other games, try new things. you might be surprised what other systems have done, what is possible. don't listen to the people who will just go "oh thats because you haven't optimized well enough, you can just do this optimized build then refluff it" when you can expand your horizons and see what you can achieve with a system that doesn't force you to jump through various hoops like this. like sure the refluffing of optimized build is an option- but why do that, when you can try something new? When you can go to a different restaurant and try new foods? Why eat the same food, when you can try out new ones to see what they're like? You'll never know unless you try after all!

[Gignere]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

It doesn’t take much to beat encounters at least from the published adventures. Had some pretty unoptimized builds in one party and still did fine.

Problem is when one or two players optimize to the nines while the rest doesn’t optimize.

If other players are not optimized you should be doing acceptable damage as a barbarian.

[fbelanger]

Stop follow DnD forums, the last optimizer are entrenched there. Elsewhere role play is trending.

[OvisCaedo]

For a lot of players/characters, the two are likely separate issues. A character can have whatever personality the creator wants regardless of what their class or combat style are. And discussions especially reflect this; roleplaying is an extremely open concept/field that doesn't really need to be directly tied to mechanics. How mechanical options perform in fights are a lot more straightforward and universal.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

In your example, I think you were on point with the build but not the weapons - have him swing around rowboat oar or a boat anchor on a chain, either of which would likely use the stats of a maul. You don't need to go off-theme to make something work mechanically. Or if you wanted to keep those same weapons, use Drunken Master instead of Barbarian. Or mix Barbarian and Swashbuckler for a Dexbarian, especially since damage resistance and uncanny dodge stack.

There are plenty of ways to build a mechanically viable representation of what you want to role-play. I think what you've discovered is called the Stormwind Fallacy.

[D+1]

Not every game is like that, but in reading forums it sure seems like it. And that shift started with 3E. I liked 3E, but they put the chickens in charge of the henhouse, the inmates running the asylum. It's great that players have so much more in the way of options but conversation ABOUT the game has come to be dominated by questions of optimization. But when you talk to people INDIVIDUALLY (IME) they focus a hell of a lot less on optimizing and you can tell that they understand there is more to the game than (ugh...) "character builds".

JMO

[Unoriginal]

Re: the title: Is the roleplay aspect of D&D gone, replaced by optimization?


No, not at all. It's just what is talked about the most on the internet.

Roleplaying happens a ton around the table/in online sessions/etc.

Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

The game isn't the issue. Just the internet forum/video mindset.

If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.

A Storm Herald 1hand-weapon isn't weak, even if they're not the best they're still a force to be reckoned with, and there is nothing stopping them from pulling their weight.

Unless you look at the weight they're pulling and arbitrarily declare it's not enough, I suppose. Like most min/maxers and munchkins do.

The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

100% untrue.

Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

D&D 5e does not cater to min/maxing. People do.

There is nothing wrong with not having a stat at 16 at lvl 1, mechanically speaking, no matter what anyone says. An Hill Dwarf Rogue or an High Elf Barbarian are just fine.

Or if you want a concrete example, since you mentioned playing in Wildemount: Yasha from Critical Role season 2 is not an optimized character at all, and it doesn't change the fact she's still contributing her share and is a beloved character. Or take a look at Vex from season 1, who was a Beast Master Ranger for the most part, the subclass that's been consistently voted as the weakest in the game since publication, and she still kicked butts and took names and looked good while doing so like it was nobody's business. Or Grog, who was a *Berserker Barbarian*. On the other end of the "optimization" spectrum, I've seen Hexblade Warlocks roleplayed wonderfully.

5e Roleplay isn't dead, optimization does not mean bad roleplay, and you have to work hard to make an actually bad character in 5e.

That being said, if you don't enjoy 5e you should indeed stop playing it. But the issue you're presenting here isn't a 5e issue. The same happens with any RPG, in any place where the focus is on mechanical discussions.

[Lord Raziere]

In your example, I think you were on point with the build but not the weapons - have him swing around rowboat oar or a boat anchor on a chain, either of which would likely use the stats of a maul. You don't need to go off-theme to make something work mechanically. Or if you wanted to keep those same weapons, use Drunken Master instead of Barbarian. Or mix Barbarian and Swashbuckler for a Dexbarian, especially since damage resistance and uncanny dodge stack.

There are plenty of ways to build a mechanically viable representation of what you want to role-play. I think what you've discovered is called the Stormwind Fallacy.

Behold as predicted, the "optimize and refluff" advice I was talking about. and while its technically valid advice and even correct about Stormwind Fallacy, there is the unspoken wrong assumption that the minimalist least explorative option is the best one: namely that of sticking to the system and trying to use it better is the way to go. when that itself is not inherently correct. people should not have to jump through hoops they don't want to, to have their fun. optimizing while not bad, isn't inherently good either. if someone doesn't want to optimize to enjoy roleplaying or doesn't want to play a system anymore, those are both valid desires to have and it is valid for them to leave if they want to.

sure your advice is valid- but it shouldn't be the only advice in response to this. Schwann has the right to know of other options than just sticking to it and hoping they'll have fun with it someday.

[WaroftheCrans]

There really is no reason that you shouldn't be able to play a thematic build without sacrificing totally on the optimization front. And 5e is really low on the optimization ceiling and floor, the barbarian you described sounds like it should be able to do its job just fine with competent playing and a good group. Sure, you won't be hitting for 25 per attack at 3 attacks per turn at lvl 5, but there's no reason to need to do that, unless your group is playing far above the typical optimization level.

In that case, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't build suboptimal thematic characters and expect to beat out optimized (and likely still thematic) characters.

Edit: About Mr. Gibbs. He doesn't really jump out to me as a barbarian. And considering that if the fluff for every character you wanted to make was perfectly in the rules, would the character really be all that original? Refluffing classes to fit concepts seems like a given to me, I think the only character I didn't refluff at least somewhat was a knight who was a cavalier.

[Morty]

D&D has always had a major problem with some options being far more optimal than others and players feeling bad because their preferred aesthetic or roleplay option just doesn't work very well in play. It's not new and 5E isn't even particularly bad about it. 3E was full of trap options and older editions just didn't really concern themselves with anything beyond very narrow character types. 4E was well-balanced but restrictive. The only real way to escape it is to play another system.

[Unoriginal]

Behold as predicted, the "optimize and refluff" advice I was talking about. and while its technically valid advice and even correct about Stormwind Fallacy, there is the unspoken wrong assumption that the minimalist least explorative option is the best one: namely that of sticking to the system and trying to use it better is the way to go. when that itself is not inherently correct. people should not have to jump through hoops they don't want to, to have their fun. optimizing while not bad, isn't inherently good either. if someone doesn't want to optimize to enjoy roleplaying or doesn't want to play a system anymore, those are both valid desires to have and it is valid for them to leave if they want to.

sure your advice is valid- but it shouldn't be the only advice in response to this. Schwann has the right to know of other options than just sticking to it and hoping they'll have fun with it someday.

"Don't want to optimize more" and "don't want to play the system anymore" are two separate issues that OP is conflating.

You don't need to optimize more to play 5e. You don't need to play 5e either, if it doesn't make you happy to do it.

And of course, you don't need to stop playing 5e to check out other systems.

[Lord Raziere]

"Don't want to optimize more" and "don't want to play the system anymore" are two separate issues that OP is conflating.

You don't need to optimize more to play 5e. You don't need to play 5e either, if it doesn't make you happy to do it.

And of course, you don't need to stop playing 5e to check out other systems.

So what?

If I didn't point out these other options, no one else would.

all your doing is focusing on is debunking him instead helping him. Typical.

its not my place to tell him his subjective experience is wrong, if he is feeling bad about it, he has the right to explore other options rather than listen to everyone tell him the same rehashed advice of optimize and refluff over and over again.

[meandean]

Well, look... it's very unlikely that your partymates are spending their spare time sitting around saying to each other "Man, Schwann's character is unoptimized and it makes him no fun to play with." You're, in all probability, the only one at the table who is actually bothered that your character isn't as good in a fight as he could be.

If you didn't care about the other characters being more powerful -- or if you didn't even realize that there were mechanically better strategies that you could have pursued -- then there'd be no problem to speak of. And I've played with many people, as I'm sure we all have, who are like that. They either are primarily in it for the roleplay, or they just enjoy the feeling of "being in combat", without sweating the details.

Now, it's perfectly, 100% fine that part of what you enjoy is having a character who kicks ass. That's how I am, myself. But clearly, it's not the case that other people care about optimization, whereas you don't. You care about it too; that's the entire issue.

[Jon talks a lot]

"Don't want to optimize more" and "don't want to play the system anymore" are two separate issues that OP is conflating.

You don't need to optimize more to play 5e. You don't need to play 5e either, if it doesn't make you happy to do it.

And of course, you don't need to stop playing 5e to check out other systems.

I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck i'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.

[Anonymouswizard]

Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Eh. Most systems cater to minmaxing to some extent*. IME it generally helps to optimise your system to the campaign concept. I'd never play pirates, or samurai, or modern day investigators with D&D (and will rarely use D&D for heroic fantasy these days if I can, but that's less 'D&D is bad' and more 'Anonymouswizard likes The Fantasy Trip and Burning Wheel, depending on mood').

Your concept is great, but it's one of a great many that D&D isn't built to support, there are other systems out there where a lighter weapon plus a free hand is a very viable combat style but D&D has sadly never gone for it. D&D, especially 5e, is built to a relatively small number of archetypes, and sasdly the same lack of content that limits munchkineery also limits the potential for a truly wide range of options.

D&D is also bad at communicating a lot of it's assumptions, but that's not exactly rare. Burning Wheel and a number of other highly narrative games are good at it, and not very much else is.

My suggestion is that you and your group sit down, talk about what you want for your next campaign, and find a system that satisfies the majority of those requirements. Leaning into what the group wants will do a lot better than looking at merely minmax potential, although every game will have some character build that just doesn't work as well.

* If you think D&D 5e does let me introduce you to GURPS. My group only enjoyed GURPS so much because we'd all work our points as hard as we could.

[LudicSavant]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative.

You're just looking at the wrong videos and forums (or sections of forums). There's tons about roleplaying on both fronts.

As much as I've posted about optimization, I've posted a lot more about narrative stuff.

[LordShade]

I don't think this is an issue at all. I don't think Youtube or forums are representative at all of how the game is being actually played at tables.

Furthermore, people bring oddball concepts to optimization forums all the time. You could have brought your gun-wielding pirate to this forum, and people would have told you to play the same exact character roleplaying-wise, but would have had you multiclass a couple levels of sea herald barb into a primarily rogue build. The character would have been perfectly fine in an optimized party then, and not weak at all.

[Naanomi]

5e caters to min/maxing? *looks back at 3E*...

[J-H]

I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck i'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.

For even more pirate theme, get two cutlasses/scimitars/oars/clubs/maces, and take the Dual Wielder feat. +1 AC, and you can use that TWF bonus action attack with non-light weapons, meaning you get the rage bonus to the attacks also. Now, at level 5 with str 16, you're doing 1d8+3str+2 rage damage with 3 attacks per round. If all of them hit, 3d8+15 damage is very respectable, while completely staying on-theme with a pirate.

No comment on the guns because I'm not familiar with those rules.

There are lots of ways to optimize for almost any given character concept, without interfering with RP.

[Unoriginal]

If I didn't point out these other options, no one else would.

Except I did.

all your doing is focusing on is debunking him instead helping him. Typical.

I'm helping at least as much as you are.

its not my place to tell him his subjective experience is wrong,

It's not a question of the subjective experience itself, it's a question of the conclusions resulting from it.

if he is feeling bad about it, he has the right to explore other options rather than listen to everyone tell him the same rehashed advice of optimize and refluff over and over again.

Yes, as I said several time now, if playing 5e doesn't make OP happy they shouldn't play 5e. But identifying the issue is the first step to solve the issue, and nothing in what OP said indicates that the problem they're encountering is specifically due to playing 5e, or that it would be solved by switching system (like Anonymouswizard said, most other systems have the same issue to a level or another).

Switching system can absolutely be a solution, and trying out other systems is rarely a waste of time. But I don't think it's the solution for OP's situation, given how they presented it.

Well, look... it's very unlikely that your partymates are spending their spare time sitting around saying to each other "Man, Schwann's character is unoptimized and it makes him no fun to play with." You're, in all probability, the only one at the table who is actually bothered that your character isn't as good in a fight as he could be.

If you didn't care about the other characters being more powerful -- or if you didn't even realize that there were mechanically better strategies that you could have pursued -- then there'd be no problem to speak of. And I've played with many people, as I'm sure we all have, who are like that. They either are primarily in it for the roleplay, or they just enjoy the feeling of "being in combat", without sweating the details.

Now, it's perfectly, 100% fine that part of what you enjoy is having a character who kicks ass. That's how I am, myself. But clearly, it's not the case that other people care about optimization, whereas you don't. You care about it too; that's the entire issue.

That's also a good point, and part of why I think switching systems wouldn't change the issue.

I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck i'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.

For even more pirate theme, get two cutlasses/scimitars/oars/clubs/maces, and take the Dual Wielder feat. +1 AC, and you can use that TWF bonus action attack with non-light weapons, meaning you get the rage bonus to the attacks also. Now, at level 5 with str 16, you're doing 1d8+3str+2 rage damage with 3 attacks per round. If all of them hit, 3d8+15 damage is very respectable, while completely staying on-theme with a pirate.

No comment on the guns because I'm not familiar with those rules.

There are lots of ways to optimize for almost any given character concept, without interfering with RP.

The point is that even without doing any of that, OP's character was likely not mechanically bad, and that OP doesn't have to optimize if they don't want to.

[Sigreid]

All games attract some amount of people who think the real game is seeing how far they can push the rules. And that's fine. If you aren't into that, find another group that wants to play the same style you do.

[MrStabby]

I think you have somewhat of a point... you might need a new group, or a smaller group though.

My perspective is that power does matter for fun, but more important is a niche for your character. This needn't be a mechanical niche; in a game focussed on RP then it could be being the drunkard or the flirt or whatever. However it is a niche that must come up and be meaningful for the type of game you are playing.

I, and I suspect many others, would rather play a weaker character that was nevertheless able to contribute differently to other characters than to play a stronger character that was just slightly worse than another character at that table at everything they tried to do.

Optimisation does tend to mean that more character concepts will be overshadowed.

The problem is that optimisation is a bit of a Prisoner's Dilema. If no one exceeds the "normal" power level for a given table, you dont really lose out by making a character just a little bit more powerful. If anyone else creeps up the power level then you will lose out if you don't. It doesnt even need to be intentional creep - but if you aim for a power level some will undershoot and some will overshoot. Simply put, it's easier to avoid this if there are fewer people to coordinate.

There are other options. DM for a bit. It's fun and unlimited power helps you feel like you can live without it when you go back. You can play more RP focussed games where you only roll for initiative every 5 sessions or so - builds and optimisation tend to matter a bit less there.

If your table has good judgement then I would suggest homebrew. Each person builds their desired class. There is a tendency to push up against constraints, to build something efficient. Without constraints people are forced to use judgement to determine what is reasonable.

But yeah, do what you need to do to have fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm very thankful my parties have not really worried about optimization per se. A couple who have been a bit above the curve and one, in particular, who fell way below the curve[1]. But mostly just

1) What's my class?
2) Oh, that looks like it would work and is cool.
3) Done.

Less even about trying to make unique "concepts" and more just leaning into the fiction. At most I get large racial variance--I encourage people to pick a race first, then look at classes. I think that this is one reason I've not really had the problems with, for instance, resting, etc that many people have--my parties tend to be pretty near the norm.

Heck, I think I've had 2 people take any of the "combat" feats. And multiclassing is pretty rare, especially the "meta" builds.

I get a lot of really good roleplayers who have characters that are deeply embedded into the world and who approach things from that angle dominantly. They don't anti optimize, but mechanics is certainly lower down on their priority list.

[1] A halfling cleric/barbarian without tons of strength, wielding a polearm. Yah. He was more effective with his sling when stuck at range than anything else. And I couldn't talk him into something more sane, despite my policy of free rebuilds until level 5.

[ezekielraiden]

No, it's not gone. It's never been gone. Pearl-clutching fear of optimization has been part of D&D since at least 1st Edition, if not earlier.

If you're having problems with a group or groups that aren't as interested in roleplaying, you should ask around. I guarantee you there are many groups out there that don't care about optimization, just as there are groups that don't care about roleplaying. This has always been the case for D&D and always will be.

Discussion online works pretty much exactly the same way as discussion did when it was confined to bulletin boards (electronic or physical) and letters to the editor. You can't really "discuss" how to roleplay better, how to write better story. By definition, formulaic writing and formulaic acting are bad. Editorial and internet discussion cannot improve them. But such discussion can elucidate how to achieve certain ends within the rules themselves, because character building (which is not identical to optimization!) is not easily solved. Different approaches may reach very similar or even identical ends, but with different costs or implications.

If you want more roleplay, look for more roleplay. Don't hop on forums, where discussing roleplay inevitably boils down to telling your story and passing the baton so someone else can tell theirs. You won't find what you're looking for in this subforum.

Edit:
And, to be clear, I am not saying "never try other things." Absolutely try other things! You may be surprised, heck, you may find that what you thought you wanted wasn't what you actually wanted. (Before anyone challenges that: that's me literally describing my own experience, so no, I'm not casting aspersions or making things up.) But if you really are very sure that you're happy with 5e and don't want to try other things unless you have to...well, the good news is that you don't have to! But you absolutely can if you want to.

Thing is, it won't really matter what system you look to, unless it's one that doesn't have numbers to it (such as Fate). White Wolf games have plenty of talk about optimization. Shadowrun forums also have people bewailing the fall of serious roleplay to all these "optimizers" who just have to be the "best" and choke any of the joy out of the game. No matter where you look, no matter what game it is, as long as there are numbers to compare, there will be people debating the best numbers to achieve a stated goal. Hell, you even find this kind of debate in video game discussion forums. Discussion of Fire Emblem or Dragon Age or Divinity: Original Sin II? Yeah, most of it is optimization, and yet you ALSO see the occasional thread like this one where people lament how soul-crushing the optimization side is and why people can't just enjoy the story or discuss the game without any of this horrible math etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Optimization is part of any game where you have lots of choices that can be evaluated in some way. That you see it a lot simply says that optimization is more fruitful to discuss than other topics. In the case of roleplay, "discussing" it in general is...really really hard, other than to simply propose ideas, and enjoy reading others' ideas. You rarely if ever get much back-and-forth, much real debate, because there's no way to evaluate. Everything is equally valid, every approach is so contextual that you can never really say anything about it. That's the tricky thing with discourse. If there's a clear and straightforward right answer, the discourse ends immediately after that answer is provided. If there's no right answers at all, the discourse never goes anywhere, it's dead on arrival. The only place where discourse is meaningful is when it is possible to get a right answer (or at least "better" answers, in whatever sense), but getting to it is a non-trivial task, requiring refinement, iteration. You need some limits, some ability to disqualify certain answers, but not too much. Like how oxygen is vital for us to live, but poisonous in excessive concentration.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Maybe I'm missing something but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

The bar in 5E is exceptionally low for a well functioning character, as we discovered in a recent thread about trying to make a not obviously poorly functioning one... It wasn't easy.

It's entirely possible for the Half Elven Sharpshooter who rolled their stats at 18 in every score can be a well realized and detailed character as well as a clearly optimized combat force and for as much as that character will shine in combat, he's really not stomping all over the Dwarven Champion Fighter who took Dwarven Fortitude and Durable and spends all his time being a drunken nuisance.

The example you gave in the prompt isn't really an issue of optimization or roleplay, it's a fundamental problem that Barbarian (and much of the Melee system) has as far as I understand it.

I'll also second what Meandean said in his post, I don't know your group but I doubt they'd be the type to be going on about how awfully ineffective your character was and how much you carried down the game... if they had, I'm sure this discussion would be framed differently.

EDIT: Just to add a personal anecdote that more or less erased my qualms about "optimization", I had run a level 20 oneshot with 3 players. They included a Rock Gnome Berserker Barbarian who chugged potions of giant size to swing a greataxe without disadvantage, a Necromancer Wizard called the Neckwearmancer clad in no less than 12 scarves and a bag of holding full of chicken bones as well as a Dragonborn Champion Fighter with Savage Attacker and a 4d6 one handed axe that dealt cold damage.

The Fighter, who looked to be the most optimal character on paper, was sidelined for nearly the entire session while the Barbarian singlehandedly defeated an Ancient Red Dragon. The joke character become a legend among the group, immortalized as a slayer of the demigod Havel Stonefist, ironically also a character created by the same player.

His name was Brock. Brock the Rock Gnome.

[Schwann145]

RA Storm Herald 1hand-weapon isn't weak, even if they're not the best they're still a force to be reckoned with, and there is nothing stopping them from pulling their weight.

Unless you look at the weight they're pulling and arbitrarily declare it's not enough, I suppose. Like most min/maxers and munchkins do.

Well, look... it's very unlikely that your partymates are spending their spare time sitting around saying to each other "Man, Schwann's character is unoptimized and it makes him no fun to play with." You're, in all probability, the only one at the table who is actually bothered that your character isn't as good in a fight as he could be.

Oh absolutely, this was a "me in my head" issue, not an "at the table" issue.
But by "pull my weight" I mean, "perform the role that he exists in this party to fill well enough to justify his inclusion." Sure, it sounds a little gamey when put that way, but that's the "game" part of it, eh?
Anyway, my "job" was to primarily take the hits so others don't have to. And since ttrpgs give enemies agency I had to *be* a big enough threat to make things want to attack me and, lacking any Paladin spells or Battle Master maneuvers, that left damage as my only real route to do it.
Here's where the split exists, I think.
I could absolutely "slot-in" the right feat (PWM, GWM, etc) and a 2h weapon and do "the barbarian thing" that is, basically expected. But that felt wrong for the game. I took weapons that made sense for a character that lived on a ship - cheap, functional, easily stowable, easily replaceable, handy as a tool when necessary (need to cut a rope for instance), etc. Pistols set to "fire and forget" as necessary in case I couldn't close to melee easily (which was never going to be a winning strat - firearms in HP systems are always a let down, lol), but you get the idea.
(Using a boat oar or an anchor on a chain just didn't fit the game at all. Those are very "shonen" options and this was a much more "black sails" type of game, for those that were wondering or offered such advice.)

But one character with GWM, or a Fighting Style bonus, or both, (or almost any spellcaster) and suddenly I'm second tier damage - that's just how powerful some of these options are.

And again, this is just how I felt at the table. No one was pointing fingers and telling me I needed to up my game or anything. I just wasn't feeling comfortable in my role, despite feeling very comfortable with everything else about the character.
Maybe I just don't like 5e's take on Barbarian? Too pigeon-holed into "big weapon smash, reckless attack help make big weapon smash?" IDK.

[Sigreid]

Maybe I'm missing something but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

The bar in 5E is exceptionally low for a well functioning character, as we discovered in a recent thread about trying to make a not obviously poorly functioning one... It wasn't easy.

It's entirely possible for the Half Elven Sharpshooter who rolled their stats at 18 in every score can be a well realized and detailed character as well as a clearly optimized combat force and for as much as that character will shine in combat, he's really not stomping all over the Dwarven Champion Fighter who took Dwarven Fortitude and Durable and spends all his time being a drunken nuisance.

The example you gave in the prompt isn't really an issue of optimization or roleplay, it's a fundamental problem that Barbarian (and much of the Melee system) has as far as I understand it.

I'll also second what Meandean said in his post, I don't know your group but I doubt they'd be the type to be going on about how awfully ineffective your character was and how much you carried down the game... if they had, I'm sure this discussion would be framed differently.

EDIT: Just to add a personal anecdote that more or less erased my qualms about "optimization", I had run a level 20 oneshot with 3 players. They included a Rock Gnome Berserker Barbarian who chugged potions of giant size to swing a greataxe without disadvantage, a Necromancer Wizard called the Neckwearmancer clad in no less than 12 scarves and a bag of holding full of chicken bones as well as a Dragonborn Champion Fighter with Savage Attacker and a 4d6 one handed axe that dealt cold damage.

The Fighter, who looked to be the most optimal character on paper, was sidelined for nearly the entire session while the Barbarian singlehandedly defeated an Ancient Red Dragon. The joke character become a legend among the group, immortalized as a slayer of the demigod Havel Stonefist, ironically also a character created by the same player.

His name was Brock. Brock the Rock Gnome.

There's really only a problem with optimizers and role-players (discounting people who do both just for this point) at the same table if either A) the optimizers try to optimize the whole group, out compete the rest of the members, do whatever they can to eliminate roleplay or B) the RP'ers see the height of roleplay as being completely useless. If they're happy to let each other do their thing, there's no problem.

[Imbalance]

Doesn't it get tiring?

Yep, which is why I ignore most of that junk until I want to find clarity on a specific interaction.

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

You can't fight it, but you don't have to join it, and you most assuredly needn't abandon the game over it.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?

I just played my guy, and did what he would do, which is the best that he could. There was no call to rp inferiority or talk of weakness in comparison. I got my hits in, took my lumps, and had a story to tell at the end. I'd say it went well, and besides, dice proved to be the great equalizer. All the min/maxing in the world can't save you from bad rolls. They don't talk about that much on these forums and channels either, but a less-than-optimal character with hot dice will always be the bigger hero at the table than the net-decked analysis project that didn't beat the AC/DC rolls.

Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Only you can answer that, but as said, it's not like you're starved for choice or forced into something you don't enjoy. Explore. Or better yet, start collecting minis and all your optimization concerns will melt away.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Optimization is what people can most easily talk about on the internet.

That doesn't mean its required or particularly important to people at the table.