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

[Unoriginal]

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.

If enemies are ignoring a living, attacking enemy who is literally capable of throwing lighting at them nearly every round just because of a small damage difference in their weapon attack which they have little ways to know about, then they don't have agency.

Dealing a lot of damage does not encourage most enemies to fight you in melee. Reckless Attack is here to encourage enemies to fight you in melee because you're making yourself an easier target, even if you're also hitting good. Throwing lightning bolts at enemies' faces like a sea shanty version of Thor is here to encourage enemies to want to deal with you, too.


Honestly your character sounds awesome and I'd have loved seeing him in action.

[Greywander]

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

No, you're just looking in the wrong places. D&D has always had a heavy optimization focus, which lead to some especially egregious atrocities in the likes of 3.x. D&D isn't really built particularly well for roleplay; you'd be better off looking for a narrative-focused system like Fate for that. But that doesn't mean people don't RP in D&D. It's there, it's just that you're hanging around places where people talk more about optimization. If anything, 5e is much, much more RP-friendly than prior editions, due mostly to how streamlined it is. It's very easy to refluff something as something else, giving you a lot of creative freedom while remaining inside the mechanics as given (instead of having to come up with new mechanics to suit your fluff). It's also very hard to build an actually useless character.

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?

Again, you're just hanging out in the wrong places. Go check other forums, maybe start a few RP-focused threads here. Honestly, I feel like there's more to talk about optimization-wise on a forum than RP-wise; the RP happens at the table, while the optimization and theorycrafting happens away from the table.

Take a character I played not-too-recently [...]

The trick is to find ways to at least partially optimize while still conforming to your character concept. If you just build a character with no regard for the mechanics, then yes, you're going to end up with something a little subpar. But 5e is surprisingly forgiving here; as long as everyone else has a similar level of optimization, you should be fine. The real problem is when one player min/maxes while another player doesn't optimize at all, but even then the disparity is still much less than in something like 3.x. 5e's ease with which you can refluff things goes a long way toward enabling roleplay concepts without sacrificing optimization.

First of all, I would consider using a longsword instead of a shortsword (I'd think a cutlass would do slashing damage anyway), which not only bumps up your damage die, but you can bump it up further if you use both hands (or, in other words, have your other hand empty). You could also consider grabbing the Dueling fighting style, which can now be obtained via a feat (though this option may not have been available at the time). The DM also has some power to intervene here by granting you magic items that pick up the slack.

Second, you might consider making some changes to your playstyle. Barbarians have excellent strength, and Raging gives them advantage on STR checks. For this reason, barbarians are one of the classes that comes up often when considering grappler builds. Grapplers are also excellent tanks, even with low damage, as they can completely shut an enemy down. Not only that, but a grappler build would synergize well with your use of one-handed weapons, as your other hand is free to grapple with. Grab an enemy, shove them prone, and they're pretty much helpless. You and your allies can whale on them (with advantage) while they are unable to move or stand up, and make their attacks with disadvantage. Or you can hold them away from your friends, so that they have no choice but to try and shake you off.

Lastly, you might consider if a different build would work better for your concept. Something like a Champion fighter is rather bland, mechanically, but surprisingly flexible at filling a concept. Or a Kensei monk, if you want a real swashbuckling pirate type. You have options, and there might be something entirely different that will work better for you. The DM might also be amenable to homebrew or at least making a few tweaks.

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?

Honestly, I'm not much of a roleplayer, so that aspect of the game isn't something I get into that much. However, I have had similar experiences in the sense that I just don't like D&D; I remember making a list of the things I didn't like about 5e, and pretty much the entire list was things that were specific to D&D and generally not found in other systems. Why am I still here? Maybe it's because I'm familiar with the system. Maybe it's because D&D has something I didn't know I wanted. Honestly, I should probably move on to something else; I think Fudge is more my style, for example.

As for whether you should leave D&D behind, I'm going to say yes, but also no. Do branch out and explore other systems. At the same time, you probably know people who only play D&D, so it's worth keeping one foot in the door so you can jump into a D&D game with your friends. D&D is designed for specific things (and roleplay isn't really one of them, IMO), but any system can be bent to the will of the players at the table if they so wish. I've heard Fate is good, so maybe check that out. Also, any of the World of Darkness games (e.g. Vampire: the Masquerade).

[jaappleton]

Im sorry but I am so sick and tired of the fallacy that optimization equates to a lack of RP.

Google the Stormwind Fallacy, please. It should be mandatory reading. It should come printed in the PHB.

[Rfkannen]

I would say flat out no. I like to post on optimization forums, because optimization is fun, but I don't really think optimization has much impact on 5e. Most 5e players are influenced by either adventure zone or critical role, both of which are very not combat focused. from what I have seen, most players don't really want their games to be mostly combat. I would actually say that the current zeitgeist of dnd is the least optimization focused it has ever been.

You did make a not that great mechanically character, which is possible in 5e. However the difference between the strongest and weakest character in 5e is WAY less than in 4e or 3.5. In those games it was basically impossible to play with different optimization levels in the same party. Vs I played a gloomstalker with sharpshooter (one of the more optimized characters in the game) alongside a strength based whisper bard (one of the least) and we were mostly fine!

Any game with character customization is going to have bad options, not intentionally, but it is always going to happen. I like to play really old school dnd (b/x) and even there it is perfectly possible to make a character who just flat out is worse than other characters.

so yeah, I am really sorry that your character wasn't able to keep up with the rest of the party, i've been there and it sucks, but I think stuff like that is going to happen in any combat focused rpg.


(also side point, I also feel that barbarians lag behind other characters withought gwm and it really annoys me to! I feel like they are the only class pigeon holed into a single weapon style, let alone a single feat! I do think that was just a mistake on the designers part.)

[stoutstien]

I've found 5e to be much more game before crunch than 3.x, pathfinder, or 4e. Optimization in 5e provides less of a leg up and has sharper diminishing returns and the baseline ability for each given player is much higher. In short, 5e has a high floor/low ceiling.

After players realize this they tend to relax on trying to optimize and focus more on the game.

[RifleAvenger]

Going to concur with prior posters that forumite focus on mechanics and optimization is an inherent aspect of crunchy games in the internet age. It does not mean that people are not engaging in roleplay. I like having characters who are competent, ergo I optimize to an extent, but I still write backstories for them, explore their feelings in play, etc.

Dumpshock and the official Shadowrun forums are full of optimization questions/advice. The Lancer discord has pretty active subchannels for mech-builds. World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness are pretty crunch heavy for games that try to bill themselves as 'narrative focused' (a product of when they were made). D&D is in the mid to high crunch range, and 3e really seeded the current forum optimization culture, so a focus on crunch is endemic to discussions about it online.

When a system requires players to attain goals and build stories within a complex framework, discussing how best to go about doing that is going to take up a lot of people's attention. For some people the goal is "be as powerful as possible at achieving task X" and for others it's going to be "how do I make idea Y operate with enough success that it meets its conceptual goals?"

General ideas on building non-mechanical character concepts, worldbuilding, scenario design, and narratives are more-often found in general "Roleplaying Games" subforums. That is because those ideas are common to all RPGs. Questions about a specific system, and that aren't about a given setting, are often of the form of "how do I run X in Y?" and therefore veer into the mechanical.
----------------
As for solutions, the two biggies have been given already.

* 1. Try other systems.

--1a. If you don't want to wrangle with mechanics and the optimization that follows, games like Wushu or Fudge/FATE have you covered. Super simple rules, and you can make pretty much any concept work out such that it's balanced against any other. The downside here is that the "user interface" lacks the variety provided by crunchier games. Character X will be as strong mechanically as character Y because they mostly play exactly the same way. There's a lot more responsibility as a player to make up for the "softness" of these systems with strong characterization, narration, and social dynamic between the players.

--1b. There are crunchier systems that attempt to, at least in some areas, encourage and rewards narrative, emotion-oriented, or internal-challenge-based play over external-challenge goal-oriented play. D&D is very much set up as a goal-oriented game where the player faces external threats. You CAN do other things with it, but you're fighting the system or going without it all the way. World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness are ur-examples of crunchy games with a bent towards narrativism, while still being much closer to D&D than true storytelling games, but there are many more like them.

* 2. Keep playing D&D and only focus on optimization to the point the game remains fun.

--2a. Get a baseline level of competence in the things you want your character to do, and then expand your abilities vertically or horizontally to taste, best you can. Refluffing can help.

--2b. Play with a group that fits your desired level of optimization. This doesn't have to mean leaving the one you're in, so long as the present group is open to compromising with you. For future games, discuss whether the arrayed party is playing in the same league in session 0.

--2c. If you're really feeling the rules are unkind to a concept you want to play, ask for houserules (so long as it's not organized play). It's worth a try, and I've found most GMs are willing to bend some rules for the sake of player enjoyment.

[Jerrykhor]

I'd say it depends on DM really. Some DMs you have to optimise because their combats are challenging, they throw high CR creatures at you and they run their monsters tactically. Some DMs however, throw 3 orcs at you and call it a day.

But in the end, never forget that its a game and the crunch will always be there, whether you like it or not. Not everything is equal, some will be better than others.

My concern is not typically with numbers, but concept. I had a character that primarily uses TWF but had too many uses for Bonus Action, so much that i hardly get the chance to use the off hand attack. But, having a DM who is willing to listen helps. We houseruled the damn thing and move on.

Like I said, as with most things in 5e, depends on your DM.

[Sol0botmate]

No. Not at all. But people you play with ARE THE BIGGEST FACTOR of how much fun you have in RPG.

So maybe your players are more of min-maxers and their DM know it and like to test them in combat and they all have fun? Then it's just not group for you. It's not the system. It's just people.

For example most of our "group" (we are like 20 casual people including 3 DMs who play various systems with me occasionally also DMing from time to time) are roleplayers and few of us (like 3?) are power-builders.

And we play together without problem becasue we all roleplay. I just finished long campaign where I was the only optimizer with min-maxed character and other 4 players had very interesting characters like Lizardfolk Ranger using Javelins and great club, Oath of Crown Paladin Half-Orc, Shep Druid Water Genasi who did nothing in combat but summon Giant Octopuses :D and Cleric/Wizard guy who was was afraid of fire and didn't take any fire spell because he was "Ent" (a custom race DM made with him because he wanted to be tree-like race, using stats of Wood Elf I think) and he didn't like fire.

We had a blast. And yes I was outshining them in combat by a mile but they didn't mind because their main fun was roleplaying, not optimizing for maximum damage. So they weren't salty or jealous because for them combat was like secondary thing in 5e.

Ask yourself this question - was it you who was dissapointed in mechanical aspect of your character or you felt like rest of the party was dissapointed in your character? Because if it's first - then it's you that felt insecure and thought that you need to have "damage" in 5e: maybe pure roleplay wasn't enough for you then? If it's the second - find group that suits you better because obviously this one likes to min-max :)

[Rusvul]

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?

...

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.

As far as I can tell, what's going here is
1) Not all character options are equally powerful or well-supported, and
2) when playing a character that is less powerful than they could be, you (and I, and probably many others) feel like the character is sub-par compared to a hypothetical, higher-op version of themselves.

I don't think this is a flaw inherent in the system; in fact, I think this will happen any time a player with system mastery (and probably a certain kind of wiring) deliberately builds a lower-op character in a sufficiently complex game system. As far as I can tell, the only ways to stop this from happening (aside from just not developing system mastery) are to write a system where all character options are equally powerful, or where all character concepts are equally well-supported. I don't think either of these is a realistic or desirable goal, so I think the "choose a weaker option -> feel underpowered for having done so" chain of events is unavoidable, regardless of system--at least, for those of us who are bothered by that kind of thing.

Personally, my solution is to try to finagle the rules to let me play my intended character concept as faithfully and powerfully as possible--like the aforementioned monk/barbarian multiclass. I know people who've just let go of the idea that character power is important, though, and that seems to work just as well.

The exceptions, of course, are systems in which the concepts of optimization and system mastery don't really apply, like rules-light PbtA games, or where a "powerful" character is difficult to define, like the Burning Wheel.

I think disliking how the game handles specific character options and archetypes is a separate issue? I'm with you on wishing classes like Barbarian and Paladin got more options as to what weapons and playstyles they choose--but "I wish barbarians with one-handed weapons weren't sub-par" or "I wish the system didn't incentivize hyperspecialization in one specific weapon type as much as it does" are very different gripes from "I wish the system didn't prioritize optimization over roleplay."

[Alcore]

... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

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?

yep, you bet.

Does it have to be fought like a monster? It kinda sucks if you are the only non op person in a group but what about the reverse? Why are the two mutually exclusive?

Seen it in 3.5 and i say; i don't care.

Yeah... leaving system helped some. Some will min max no matter what though.

[Meichrob7]

Literally look at Xanathars and the Heroic chronicle articles, there’s tons of push for more involvement in backstory, character arcs, and interesting personality.

Optimization is only an issue if the other players heavily optimize AND your group mostly focused on combat. 5e is designed to have three pillars of play and failing to engage in 2/3 of them means you’re kinda playing the unintended way so of course issues would come up.

[kingcheesepants]

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.

It sounds like your problem is that you want your character to be a good tank but that the character you built (taking what you thought were the most thematic but not really optimized options) isn't that good of a tank. If the main problem is that you think you should be able to be a good tank no matter what options you pick then yeah maybe D&D isn't for you. The game does have different options that do different things and not every option is going to fit every playstyle. If you don't want to think about what would make your idea come to life in an effective way and you just want to take the coolest option and have it work, well there are more narrative focused games where you don't have to worry so much about how to build a character and what options to take.

But if you actually want to build your character on theme and effectively, I think there are almost certainly ways to do that. It would probably start with rethinking what makes an effective tank, because tanks don't have to do lots of damage to attract enemy attention and in fact I'd say that if your tank is a primary damage dealer than maybe he isn't even a tank at all but a DPS character who happens to have good defense. There are different ways to make enemies want to hit you and not the other characters and they include things like abilities that literally force them to target you, abilities that give them disadvantage when they attack someone else, abilities that make it so they can't leave your area of control, making fun of their mother so they want to kill you especially, dousing yourself in a nice smelling sauce so they'll try to eat you. Basically there are lots of things you can do both in terms of feats and abilities and in terms of RP in order to make yourself a preferred target and lots of them would absolutely fit your theme (or can be made to fit your theme with some light refluffing). So in reply to the question of is D&D too focused on optimization I'd say no not really. It's actually gotten a lot less so in recent years but it still exists and if you really hate crunchy systems and having to work to build an on theme character concept that isn't covered in the class list then yeah maybe try something else.

[Lunali]

D&D is designed for tactical combat. The tactical combat is the only thing with full rules support. This is not a new thing.

The roleplay aspect of D&D is as supported as it ever was and hasn't really diminished in normal play. However, there are forums now where we can actually discuss optimization but find it much more difficult to discuss roleplay as that's far more unique to a specific person and character. There's also AL, where characters pop into and out of the story at the drop of a hat, making any significant roleplay less valuable.

If you aren't satisfied with the level of roleplay in your games, you should probably either get a new group or look into games that actually support roleplay with rules.

[Rynjin]

5e is a game that begins to break down further and further when you try to make a mechanical build out of the "normal" that the developers envisioned when they made the game. There's a lot you can do with RP and refluffing, but at the end of the day, RPGs are a game, first and foremost.

Trying to make esoteric, interesting concepts in 5e has never worked out IME and ironically it's because of the simplicity of the game that was supposed to encourage more freeform roleplaying to a historically crunchy game.

Definitely try new games. 5e is not a terrible game, exactly, and does standard D&D fantasy quite well...but it falls on its face outside of that. It is an extremely limited system by design. Try Savage Worlds, or Pathfinder 1e, or Godbound, or Final Fantasy d6, or something along those lines. You'll probably have a lot more fun just because the number of powerful, different feeling character archetype sis wider in all of them.

[Pex]

I optimize and don't apologize for it. I roleplay and don't apologize for it. The two go together. The game does not discourage roleplaying. Game mechanics can even inspire roleplaying if a player is inclined. Let the player play a paladin/hexblade, but he calls himself neither Paladin nor Warlock. He's a Holy Lancer or Crusader or Holy Terror or Bob. If the players you're with aren't into the roleplaying aspects as you'd like, encourage them to try it, accept it and enjoy the game anyway, or bow out and find a group that is more to your preferred style. You don't need to optimize, but you can't blame the game if you don't make any effort at all to be game mechanically competent to do what your character is supposed to do. You're not playing the game wrong nor committing any sin to roleplaying if, for example, you have an 18 in your prime score by level 8. It's not the game's fault if, hypothetically, as a 12th level barbarian your strength is 14 and intelligence is 20 and you wonder why you aren't pulling your weight in combat despite the great joy you have roleplaying a scholar.

[Kane0]

I just had this conversation with my father the other day actually.

No. From what I see it’s a function of the forums (at least here). If you want to talk about worldbuilding, there is the worldbuilding section. If you want to talk about roleplay, there is the generic RP section. If you want to post a campaign log, there is a tag for just that. If you want to talk about a particular edition each one has its own section.

And when you do talk about an edition, you generally want to talk with a common ground, which happens to be the rules which are the same everywhere (except for homebrew, which indeed also has its own section). There is a limit on what productive discourse can be gained from table-specific style and rulings, so it falls into the minority of discussion compared to rules and more general topics which are shared across more tables.

So over time these rules discussions evolve. As a function of time and number of voices rules discussions are... shall we say refined. Numbers are crunched, options examined. The most effective solutions are determined and reinforced.

But as soon as you leave the online boards this changes. No longer is common ground needed with thousands of other groups, only the current players at the table you share. Experiences may be drawn from these discussions but individual personalities and preferences also become factors. Some people just dont like doing math, others very much enjoy every opportunity to employ funny voices. This colors your individual table beyond what the forums’ consensus of ‘best practice’ when it comes to mechanic X or option Y

Edit: what i would suggest is perhaps some actual game podcasts? No meta commentary like so many youtube channels, just a raw recording of a group playing the game.

[Morty]

Im sorry but I am so sick and tired of the fallacy that optimization equates to a lack of RP.

Google the Stormwind Fallacy, please. It should be mandatory reading. It should come printed in the PHB.

The thrust of this thread isn't that optimization leads to a lack of RP, but that 5E makes it difficult to RP many concepts, because they're just mechanically very lacking. Frequently (usually, really) without a good reason.

[Greywander]

IMO, this is both a strength and a weakness of the class system. If there's a class for it, you can support a concept really well, but if there isn't, then you're basically out of luck. Systems like GURPS are better at the whole "create literally any character you can think of" type thing.

[Morty]

IMO, this is both a strength and a weakness of the class system. If there's a class for it, you can support a concept really well, but if there isn't, then you're basically out of luck. Systems like GURPS are better at the whole "create literally any character you can think of" type thing.

There's a considerable middle ground between D&D and GURPS. There's also many different ways to do classes and considerable leeway within even D&D's fossilized list. The concept OP mentions fits decently well as a barbarian or fighter, but is unoptimal due to the system's other shortcomings. It's likewise not due to classes that running a spear/shield warrior - AKA one of the most popular ways to fight in human history - is pointless unless you ignore the actual statblock for a spear and just pretend a longsword or rapier is one.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Claiming that universally using a D6 weapon versus a D8 weapon renders a character concept "pointless" is a bit too broad of a statement, for my taste.

I completely understand if for your own personal sensibilities, this might invalidate a concept. Many players with a penchant for role playing don't mind taking actions that are thematically appropriate, even if those actions might be slightly 'sub-optimal'.

It has been decades since I last played GURPs, but the system often appealed to Power gamers precisely because you could easily port over the most powerful classes from one game to another.

For D&D:
Roll low Stats= time to role play!
Roll high Stats= time to roll play, baby!
🃏 (facetious response, the joke may appear more humorous in my head)

[Witty Username]

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Well, I have my answer as a player and my answer as a dm. As a player I focus on making my character closest to the concept I envision. With pulling my weight taking a back set to having something to do. I don't really worry about not contributing much or being overshadowed. I will optimize to a particular thing if I want that thing to be a bit defining for the character. My last character was mostly an optimized build (hexblade/swords bard) but the build was to bring to life a somewhat famous charismatic, actor, stage fighter member of a demon cult. My character before that was a wizard with no damage spells because they were an apprentice in charge of a bargain bin at an item shop and spent 3 ish sessions researching new spells so that they could participate in combat but disliked violence so he would use illusions and such to diffuse combat, or confuse opponents long enough for the rest of the party to deal with it.
As a DM, I have done some homebrew stuff, and implemented an XP for gold system to encourage non-combat solutions to problems. Usually the problem with concept being swallowed by the need to optimize is a matter of encounter balance or the existing options for the concept being weaker than player expectation.
Lets take up your case:

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.

Looking at this, I looks like you were going for a bit of a brawler pirate type, unarmored and strong, with pirate theme weapons. Along with some brain to feed into the brawn. First, I would probably recommend multiclassing early into battle master fighter, since that may fit your theme better than barbarian, that way you get the bit of barbarian that you want unarmored defense but can still focus on your weapon preferences(two-weapon fighting/dueling). Lets assume that you disagree and are set on barbarian, and you are coming to me later worried that you aren't pulling your weight. Depending on table mood I may try to use an in-game solution with magic items, ability increases, boons, or tweaking encounters to be slightly more in your favor or a more abstract solution, buffing your class, subclass, or writing you a new subclass tailored to you concept. For this I may allow you to benefit from rage and reckless attack while benefiting from dex for weapon attacks, that way you can have your concept of being tough as nails without having to sack your damage as bad.

I do struggle a bit with the premise of the question though. In that it sounds like you are making decisions to improve your roleplaying at the cost of being less optimized, and then being frustrated that your concept doesn't play as well as an optimized build. I think that is more that the options that best fit your concept don't work as intended or marketed than optimization being bad for the game.

[Tawmis]

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

Play however you want.

For example, in one game of out of the Abyss - I am playing a Dwarf Fighter. He recently got one Perm. Madness where he hears a voice in his head. Further complicated by a specific weapon that also talks to him (won't spoil it for anyone who has not done the module). I am the only melee in the group (with me is a Druid, Sorcerer and a Cleric) - and there's something about where we are that ... weird things happen potentially if you cast spells. (Won't spoil it beyond that). So, I constantly have my guy shouting to stop casting spells (the players know this is the character not me as a player - I think it's been pretty amusing). So I started thinking (because I have been RPing this other voice) - what if this other voice was a presence released when "something" came to the fish city (won't spoil it, lol) - and sort of has a hold on my guy. So I brought up my idea to the DM - at 6th level - I am going to dip 1 level Warlock - just to have Eldritch Blast. Now, the fun part will be - when my character casts that - he blacks out - he won't remember doing it because it's the "presence" taking over. When I speak as my Dwarf, I give him that weird Irish accent that Dwarves seem to have for whatever reason. :D

Taking that dip into Warlock is just for sheer RP. It's going to weaken me as a fighter (due to the 1 dip into the Warlock), but it's going to increase my fun with RP.

In another OotA campaign - I am playing a Kobold, who found has been surviving in the Underdark (my other character was recaptured, while the others had escaped) - and along the way found a gems in the stone - and he tried to break it off (to use to trade for food, weapons, etc) - but there was a white burst of light. When he came to - the gem had been successfully broken off - and he was still alive - so he believes the gem is all powerful and protects him. Further evidenced by when he tried to use it to trade with some deep gnomes, they ran from him when he pulled out the gem. The red gem became more significant when he met someone in the Duergar city (won't spoil it). And for my Kobold, when I speak as him, I change my voice and give myself a higher pitch voice and after talk in the third person.

[Waazraath]

I think most things has been mentioned already, but my 2 cents:

1) to the question in the title: "nope".
2) optimization is discussed a lot on fora, that doesn't mean it is an important part of games, let alone that it replaces other parts of the game.
3) 5e is pretty balanced, and even an unoptimized character can do go 'good enough'.
4) I can imagine though that issues can emerge in a party where there is a lot of disparity between how optimized characters are. A PAM/GWM battlemaster who invests his maneuvers into precision attack will do a LOT more damage than a barbarian using a single handed weapon and shield, for example, while more or less having the same role (frontline melee).
5) in some part this is a DM thing. Even disregarding that a DM can drop items to compensate any disparities, it is weird if enemies ignore a raging barbarian who is in their face, just eat an attack of opportunity and move on to a squishy. To be honest, that's very gamist and in my opinion just bad DM'ing.
6) even when you don't feel like optimizing, it is nice to have a 'niche' in a party, be it social skills, trap disarment, healing, whatever - it doesn't have to be in combat. That requirers making a party together in a session 0 or something, and some understanding of the game mechanics - though I know some people dislike the term 'game mastery', it does help if you can assess if your character can really be good in something or not, also compared to other classes.
7) all in all, imo the best way to go about it is to have a session 0 and discuss together beforehand if you want to optimize, and if so, how far. If everybody is on the same level, there is no problem at all. And 5e is so flexible and has so many options that most concepts can be build in several ways, using different classes, subclasses, feats and backgrounds.

[diplomancer]

I agree with the posters who referenced Stormwind Fallacy, but I'd like to add one thing that can be done NOW, to help OP tank better.

Reckless attack is THE tanking ability, unless the DM metagames. You have that mad (raging) guy with no armor, going all in on offense, with his defense wide open, and opponents are NOT swarming to attack him and bring him down is the sort of thing that might make sense in the metagame, but makes NO sense in the narrative, unless you are talking an OotS self-aware type game where everyone knows "well, that's a recklessly attacking raging Barbarian, of course I'll ignore him, specially since the noob is not wielding a Heavy weapon with GWM, hardy har har". Enemies are not supposed to know "mad people who attack wildly are raging barbarians with tons of HPs with damage resistance on top".¹

I'd suggest talking with the DM about it.

¹ of course, that depends on the monster, but I say it does apply to most monsters. Hobgoblins would see the apparent tactical advantage and swarm. Goblins might think "I don't care about tactical advantage, I'm not getting anywhere near the big crazy guy". They might be ordered to do it by the bigger hobgoblins, though. Furthermore, goblins WOULD be more than willing to make safe, ranged attacks against you even without orders.

[stoutstien]

I agree with the posters who referenced Stormwind Fallacy, but I'd like to add one thing that can be done NOW, to help OP tank better.

Reckless attack is THE tanking ability, unless the DM metagames. You have that mad (raging) guy with no armor, going all in on offense, with his defense wide open, and opponents are NOT swarming to attack him and bring him down is the sort of thing that might make sense in the metagame, but makes NO sense in the narrative, unless you are talking an OotS self-aware type game where everyone knows "well, that's a recklessly attacking raging Barbarian, of course I'll ignore him, specially since the noob is not wielding a Heavy weapon with GWM, hardy har har". Enemies are not supposed to know "mad people who attack wildly are raging barbarians with tons of HPs with damage resistance on top".¹

I'd suggest talking with the DM about it.

¹ of course, that depends on the monster, but I say it does apply to most monsters. Hobgoblins would see the apparent tactical advantage and swarm. Goblins might think "I don't care about tactical advantage, I'm not getting anywhere near the big crazy guy". They might be ordered to do it by the bigger hobgoblins, though. Furthermore, goblins WOULD be more than willing to make safe, ranged attacks against you even without orders.

This logic tends to backfire once non-direct effect become regular. Reckless barbarians might be a beacon for attacks but they are also going to draw CC and other nasty effects. Then it becomes a game of does the DM break form to not shutdown the barbarian with crappy mental saves for the sake of the game.

[Unoriginal]

This logic tends to backfire once non-direct effect become regular. Reckless barbarians might be a beacon for attacks but they are also going to draw CC and other nasty effects. Then it becomes a game of does the DM break form to not shutdown the barbarian with crappy mental saves for the sake of the game.

What do you mean by "break form"?

[stoutstien]

What do you mean by "break form"?

If the player/character is trying to be the center of focus for the opposition but the standard MO of those NPCs involve strategies that can completely shut down the barbarian and cost them a long rest resource with rage, does the DM let it proceed as normal or hold their punches?

[Unoriginal]

If the player/character is trying to be the center of focus for the opposition but the standard MO of those NPCs involve strategies that can completely shut down the barbarian and cost them a long rest resource with rage, does the DM let it proceed as normal or hold their punches?

The DM let it proceed as normal. If the Barbarian is trying to be the focus of the opposition, then getting hit by crowd control rather than their teammates being hit is still a win.

[stoutstien]

The DM let it proceed as normal. If the Barbarian is trying to be the focus of the opposition, then getting hit by crowd control rather than their teammates being hit is still a win.

Could be or if could be a fast track to lots of death saving throws. Depends on the party/situation.

In regards to the OPs issue, it's about that breaking points where concept and mechanics are meeting and how much deviation is tolerable. His character is perfectly valid but he struggled with the idea of leaving damage on the table by not taking GWM and selecting the storm herald. Any damage he chooses not gain at any opportunity is internalized as a bad choice when in all reality those choices could have result in zero actual benefits.

He wants to feel like a threat and a noticable presence in combat and he is under the impression that damage is the primary factor. Which to be fair, for some tables it is, but for most games is a single contributing factor. This isn't an in game issue as much as something that is addressed with the table about player expectations.

[Cheesegear]

Happens all the time.

Everyone Should Optimise, Or No-One Should
This is the major one. If one or two players have a different idea on how they want to play the game than the rest of the group, the encounters are already busted. The DM can either not react to the power-gamers, which means that encounters are basically a walk, if the power-gamers win the initiative - and they will, they're power-gamers. Or, the DM has to boost all their encounters to be more difficult because the Bard has stupidly high DC on their Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and the Paladin doing auto-crits with Smites because everyone has to hold back, because every time someone deals damage, the creature gets a new saving throw, so everyone is forced to wait for the Paladin to deal their damage...But, if the DM boosts the encounters, the other players, are still ****. So if the hostiles win initiative, or if the DC to bluff the hostile is stupidly high, it just ends in a TPK anyway, because the party is only as strong as its weakest link. So the weak links will die first, and then the power-gamers will die anyway, because they have no support.

Published Adventures Say The DM Has Freedom...
In my experience - including my own - a lot of DMs run published adventures because they don't have the time and/or imagination and/or mental flexibility to come up with something on their own. That means if your 'thing' isn't taken into account by the adventure module, it's pretty rare that a DM will alter anything to insert your 'thing' into the published module. After all, why come up with new encounters and situations that cater to you - and only you - when stuff has already been written that the rest of the party is fine with?

D&D Isn't That Hard, And Even Then You Can Still Get It Wrong
"I have a concept. Part of the concept is that my character has an '8' in CON." Uhhh... Please don't.
Sometimes, there are just bad ideas. The concept in your head just doesn't work with the rules. And that's okay. But what's not okay, is ignoring that your concept is bad, doing it anyway, and then being surprised when it doesn't work out.

You know what's great about optimisation threads?
IMO, it's not that someone can tell you what the best race, class and feat combinations are. It's that someone can also tell you "This option sucks. Don't do it. You will regret it." and that's actually really helpful.

I remember someone on this forum once asking to make an INT-based Battle Master.
Why? There are literally no benefits to that because the Save DC on your maneuvers is still based off of STR anyway. Even the Know Your Enemy ability doesn't even require a Knowledge roll, it just happens. At best, 'Rally' is based off of your CHA. But that's all you're getting.
Where's the incentive to play an INT-based Fighter? There isn't one. Don't do it. I get the concept. But it's bad.

Your Character Doesn't Work in the Party
I played a Gloom Stalker Ranger. He was so cool.
My party included Variant Humans (of course it did), which means that they couldn't see in the dark, which means that our party near-always had the Light spell up, which means that creatures weren't using Darkvision to see me, which means I'm not Invisible. I ditch the Ranger/Rogue idea, and pivot to Ranger/Fighter, because what choice do I have?
My character no longer works because I'm being cucked by the rest of the party.

Is it my fault for playing a Gloom Stalker? Or is the party's fault for having two Humans in it? There's no right answer.
But the problem persists, my character doesn't work with the party. Someone's gonna have to re-roll, or I just have to change my concept - which I did. Gloom Stalker is still good, even if you're not invisible. It's just not as good as it should be. Like I said, Ranger/Fighter.

It's not that your concept doesn't work with the rules.
It's that your concept doesn't work with the group. Except there's no-one really to blame, because everyone is having fun in their own way. They're just not having fun your way, and that sucks.

A Lot of the Game's Rules are Focused Around Combat
There's very few - if any - options related to 'role-playing'. There's no 'rule' on what you should or shouldn't say to a local Lord (I mean, technically there are rules, but none that you'll find in a D&D Book). No-one can tell you how to roleplay. You just...Do it. Or you don't. Even the rules in Xanathar's and Tasha's are 'optional' and also still flimsy anyway. There are no 'victories' to roleplaying. That is, there is no in-game incentive to roleplay, if the player doesn't want to - "Put an '8' in CHA and let someone else do the talking."

The incentive to roleplay, purely comes from the IRL group. The DM can't make people roleplay. They have to want to, and if they don't...What? The game is over?