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

[Morty]

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'.

I happen to have a penchant for role playing myself, as evidenced by playing role playing games. It doesn't contradict my statement. Besides, whether or not someone is fine with accepting being suboptimal for their concept doesn't change the fact that it's necessary to begin with. And it doesn't need to be.

[ZRN]

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.

I think you have some tough expectations here.

Let's take your character concept: as I understand it, they key things about him from a roleplaying perspective are that he's a tough sailor who's good at fighting. In particular, he uses pistols and shortswords and doesn't wear a lot of armor.

If your actual goal is to take this character concept and RP it, while building the most effective character possible, this is just a rogue and/or dex fighter with a good Constitution, right? If you had a friend new to D&D who said, "I want to play Mr. Gibbs," that's what you'd build for them, and that character could easily be pretty effective!

But because you actually DO care about min-maxing and fiddling with complex mechanics, you tried to make a more unique build (storm barbarian) and were disappointed when it didn't match the effectiveness of some other min-maxed builds.

So you're left with a few options:
1. Compromise on the detail/uniqueness of your character concept and RP the hell out of a more standardized build (in this example, play your character as maybe a swashbuckler).
2. Compromise on combat effectiveness by playing the exact unique build that seems most interesting to you (in this example, this is what you chose to do).
3. Try to build a character that's unique but still effective. This is, I think, the challenge that makes optimizing a fun exercise for a lot of people, but it can take a lot of work and you still probably won't end up with something BETTER than just a standard optimized build, much less a cheesy power build (sorclock or whatever). But in your example, maybe a barbarian/rogue multiclass would've worked?

[patchyman]

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.

Honestly, I think this may be the issue. I looked at your description of the character and all I could think is : why is this character a barbarian? I think a Swashbuckler Rogue (with Toughness feat) or simply a Fighter with Sentinel would realize the concept better (in both cases, without GWF of similar feats).

Swashbuckler Rogue: Rogues really only need dexterity, so you can have as high a Con as you wish. How sticky are you? Except for situations where it’s two (or more) enemies against you alone, an enemy leaving your space is eating Sneak Attack damage.

Sentinels have their own way to ensure enemies stay put.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, I think this may be the issue. I looked at your description of the character and all I could think is : why is this character a barbarian? I think a Swashbuckler Rogue (with Toughness feat) or simply a Fighter with Sentinel would realize the concept better (in both cases, without GWF of similar feats).

Swashbuckler Rogue: Rogues really only need dexterity, so you can have as high a Con as you wish. How sticky are you? Except for situations where it’s two (or more) enemies against you alone, an enemy leaving your space is eating Sneak Attack damage.

Sentinels have their own way to ensure enemies stay put.

I mean if you want to tank as a Barbarian, Ancestral is the way.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

I have.

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

Only among a small set of the D&D community who remain fascinated with optimization - which includes some of us posting here - even though 3.x is not the version we are playing, nor 4e.

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 can thank video games and CRPGs for that. There is a lot of cross talk in terms of community overlap. (For example, optimization in Diablo II is something I was interested in for a while, but I then fell in with a variant community that was interested in 'how gimped of a character can I make and still finish the game in Hell Dificulty - which was way more fun, and it allowed us to inject role play into our Diablo II - and we also used the Roger Wilco voice app ... )

Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring? Do you need a stat of 20 by level 8? No. My warlock has a Charisma of 18 at level 8 and she does just fine.

Not sure why it would - you don't need to listen to any of that. The group I currently DM for doesn't do that. They just pick stuff and we play.

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Easy: play what interests you.

The group was playing in Wildemount

I can't help you there.

My only caution to any player, who is playing a full spell caster, is to make sure their spell casting trait starts out as their highest stat. Saving throws play such a big part in the interaction in and out of combat.

[diplomancer]

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.

Solution is as simple as: get Res (Wis), and as this character does NOT have GWM, not only he can easily afford it, it also fits the character of a crusty pirate; he's not wise per se, but you are not controlling him that easily either. Once you get to really high levels, Heroes' Feast is also a great help, but even the humble Heroism already helps some. If you are the tank, it's part of your teammates responsibility to make sure you CAN tank, and are not being taken out of the fight that easily.

True, doesn't solve the Int and Cha saves, but those should be pretty rare (and if the DM starts regularly targeting THOSE saves once you get Res:Wis, again, metagaming)

[Xervous]

From what I’ve seen forums tend to filter topics based on how much they can be delved into and discussed.

Basic lookup queries “how long do elves live?”, “what level should I hand out full plate at?” sink quickly as a final answer is swiftly dispatched.

RP questions often flounder due to a frequent lack of persistent focus and the relative difficulty of teaching a skill compared to teaching a nugget of knowledge. Feedback and results tend to be delayed as the OP may take a week or more to report back. RP preferences within the realm of civility are wholly opinion, so there’s only so far you can go in discussion before name calling or hijacking the thread for genre warring to uphold one position or another.

Mechanical optimization questions invite comparisons. Where the given details end, assumptions are needed to pave the way and boy do posters like tearing down assumptions they perceive as faulty.

Questions on established worlds, or world building, or even hypotheticals of technology and magic pull in a lot of voices. Quite often there are more sources worth citing than an individual can supply, questions beget more questions, assumptions are refuted or upheld, and solving one detail may just lead the thread into some tangentially related facet.

In short? True RP threads generally do not have good life expectancies as they do not lend themselves easily to an additive discussion, nor provide conflict that draws in more dissenting voices, nor have the consistency that would keep interaction flowing or the post on the top of the front page.

[Tanarii]

My experience is very few players in any version of D&D pay attention to online optimization. And those that do tend to play in official play, where anything goes for builds. If you get them before that, or after they've played in official play and rejected it for that, even if you run a fairly combat heavy game, they'll still focus more on playing the game than becoming a build master.

I never even encountered the idea of online levels of extreme optimization as a good thing until 3e Wizards forums, and didn't see it at an actual table until 4e official play, when I finally started meeting a people that self-labeled as optimizers. Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me.

Eventually I realized there was enough revulsion to the official play optimization experience that it'd be possible to leverage it to run a no-feat no-Multiclassing open table campaign spanning multiple FLGS.

[KorvinStarmast]

Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me.

I first ran into them in CRPGs; before 3.x D&D, optimizing in my experience was spell choice, weapon choice (darts in 2e, anyone?) and class choice based on your rolled stats.

[Kurt Kurageous]

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.

This.

And I blame the DM if every one is not having their kind of fun.

And it's really hard to talk about your table, your players, and what they like and what is their preferred fun. Because who wants to read that?

[Tanarii]

I first ran into them in CRPGs; before 3.x D&D, optimizing in my experience was spell choice, weapon choice (darts in 2e, anyone?) and class choice based on your rolled stats.

I played Palladium Robotech. Everyone was a Boxer, Wrestler and Gymnast. So I guess I encountered it, just more outside D&D.

[Naanomi]

I never even encountered the idea of online levels of extreme optimization as a good thing until 3e Wizards forums, and didn't see it at an actual table until 4e official play, when I finally started meeting a people that self-labeled as optimizers. Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me..

Until skills and powers era ‘2.5e’; DnD didn’t really have enough options to warrant meaningful optimization... some kits were stronger than others, but it was pretty apparent without much need to discuss it... and outside of a few niche things (cestus punchers; very strong dart fighters, beast riders on specific mounts, ‘custom classes’ to power quick exp tables to high level spells) there just wasn’t much to explore that wasn’t obvious or trivial

[tchntm43]

This topic kind of mirrors a frequent similar topic in the other big Wizards of the Coast game, Magic. People try to create fun and interesting decks that they haven't seen before, and then one day they decide to go play at the local store or perhaps a large tournament instead of their limited group of friends who play, and they find out that that deck they put so much into gets absolutely crushed by the well-tested top decks of the format. I've been at both ends of that game (casual at-home play friends, and also a few attempts at serious competitive play).

So my answer to this topic is kind of the same as my answer to the similar Magic problem. There are really two different games being played. Some players are absolutely narrowed in on creating the most perfect character builds possible and when they play D&D they thrive on the intricacies of combat more than anything else. Other players are more focused on the story, development of character, etc. I think it's just a matter of finding the game group that plays the game you want to play. My current game I DM for is very story-based. It's partly by necessity, as the players in the group are all newbies to the game and don't even have their own Player's Handbooks. In our game, the characters are intricately woven into the plot. The entire crux of an adventure might revolve around a specific character's family (or in the case of one adventure, an unexpected conflict between two characters' families).

[diplomancer]

This topic kind of mirrors a frequent similar topic in the other big Wizards of the Coast game, Magic. People try to create fun and interesting decks that they haven't seen before, and then one day they decide to go play at the local store or perhaps a large tournament instead of their limited group of friends who play, and they find out that that deck they put so much into gets absolutely crushed by the well-tested top decks of the format. I've been at both ends of that game (casual at-home play friends, and also a few attempts at serious competitive play).

So my answer to this topic is kind of the same as my answer to the similar Magic problem. There are really two different games being played. Some players are absolutely narrowed in on creating the most perfect character builds possible and when they play D&D they thrive on the intricacies of combat more than anything else. Other players are more focused on the story, development of character, etc. I think it's just a matter of finding the game group that plays the game you want to play. My current game I DM for is very story-based. It's partly by necessity, as the players in the group are all newbies to the game and don't even have their own Player's Handbooks. In our game, the characters are intricately woven into the plot. The entire crux of an adventure might revolve around a specific character's family (or in the case of one adventure, an unexpected conflict between two characters' families).

Ultimately, isn't this in a way true of every single game, being the difference between the "casual" and the "serious" player?

Of course, Role Playing adds an extra layer, but even in that pillar there are different skill levels (though the fact that not only the roleplaying rules in the DMG are very simple, but also that so few DMs actually use them makes it harder for the player to "optimize roleplaying", and it becomes a lot more free form, and knowing your DM well becomes paramount).

[Morty]

Honestly, I think this may be the issue. I looked at your description of the character and all I could think is : why is this character a barbarian? I think a Swashbuckler Rogue (with Toughness feat) or simply a Fighter with Sentinel would realize the concept better (in both cases, without GWF of similar feats).

Swashbuckler Rogue: Rogues really only need dexterity, so you can have as high a Con as you wish. How sticky are you? Except for situations where it’s two (or more) enemies against you alone, an enemy leaving your space is eating Sneak Attack damage.

Sentinels have their own way to ensure enemies stay put.

It's certainly true that barbarians are a very one-trick pony class that doesn't suit many concepts people feel it should. But it's also very symptomatic that concept after concept has to be relegated to a fighter or rogue because those classes cover 3/4 of all concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. And are among the least interesting classes in the game, to boot.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's certainly true that barbarians are a very one-trick pony class that doesn't suit many concepts people feel it should. But it's also very symptomatic that concept after concept has to be relegated to a fighter or rogue because those classes cover 3/4 of all concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. And are among the least interesting classes in the game, to boot.

Which takes us back to 'why isn't Barbarian a sub class of Fighter" as it was in UA (1985) to AD&D 1e and IIRC AD&D 2e.

That might be the better idea, but WoTC would need to start from scratch.

[stoutstien]

This topic kind of mirrors a frequent similar topic in the other big Wizards of the Coast game, Magic. People try to create fun and interesting decks that they haven't seen before, and then one day they decide to go play at the local store or perhaps a large tournament instead of their limited group of friends who play, and they find out that that deck they put so much into gets absolutely crushed by the well-tested top decks of the format. I've been at both ends of that game (casual at-home play friends, and also a few attempts at serious competitive play).

So my answer to this topic is kind of the same as my answer to the similar Magic problem. There are really two different games being played. Some players are absolutely narrowed in on creating the most perfect character builds possible and when they play D&D they thrive on the intricacies of combat more than anything else. Other players are more focused on the story, development of character, etc. I think it's just a matter of finding the game group that plays the game you want to play. My current game I DM for is very story-based. It's partly by necessity, as the players in the group are all newbies to the game and don't even have their own Player's Handbooks. In our game, the characters are intricately woven into the plot. The entire crux of an adventure might revolve around a specific character's family (or in the case of one adventure, an unexpected conflict between two characters' families).

The difference is MtG is purely a mechanical driven game. One could play with zero knowledge of the overall theme and be okay where TTRPGS souls are based on the non mechanical portions. One could memorize every rule of 5e but they wouldn't have a clue how to play without understanding the open ended style of action resolution platforms.

MtG is a glorified boardgame you have to buy in pieces. Not hating on it just what it is.

[patchyman]

It's certainly true that barbarians are a very one-trick pony class that doesn't suit many concepts people feel it should. But it's also very symptomatic that concept after concept has to be relegated to a fighter or rogue because those classes cover 3/4 of all concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. And are among the least interesting classes in the game, to boot.

In general, I wouldn’t disagree with you, but in this case, I do. Go back and look at the OP’s description of the character. Until he writes the words “Storm Herald Barbarian”, there is nothing in the description that made me think Barbarian.

On the other hand, the description: tough, crusty old pirate fits a fighter or rogue a lot more than a barbarian.

[Sception]

the rules are the main thing shared between different D&D tables, and the rules of D&D, regardless of edition, are mostly about combat. So online content about D&D - whether forum discussion threads or videos - are mostly going to be about that shared mechanical aspect. The rules. The crunch. Combat. What options are more or less effective. Optimization.

If you look, you can still find other content - lore from this or that setting, how to best run this or that adventure, the occasional anecdote interesting or amusing enough to stick in the mind longer than it takes to read them like the dread gazebo or head of vecna, general advice on stuff like session zero or table etiquette. That stuff is all out there, but it doesn't get engaged with as much because it's more subjective and less widely applicable. There are fandoms for publically played games like critical role, but those communities engage on a media fandom level, not a discussion of the underlying game or how it might apply to your home game level.

Like, what do you imagine this non-optimization D&D forum's big threads to be about? A bunch of "here's my character's background, what do you think?" I honestly don't have a lot of interest in the character background of D&D characters in campaigns I'm not playing in. Such threads already exist, and sometimes I read through them, but even then my interest doesn't generally go much further than reading through a post and maybe clicking a thumbs up or replying 'neat'. I have a hard time imagining a world were there are dozens of hot threads debating whether it's cooler for this or that poster's next drizzt or conan or aragorn expy's childhood village to have been destroyed by orcs or whether it would be cooler to have been destroyed by a dragon or whether it would be a more usefully open-ended narrative hook to say Sir Hotbottom's village mysteriously disappeared and he doesn't know what happened to them or whether that's just making more work for the DM or whether Sir Hotbottom's too on the nose and you should disguise it with some fhant'astiic spelling creativity - and then, what, four pages of posts work shopping the best spelling of Sir Ought B'Autumn?


Anyway, yeah, it's partially a game thing because the bulk of the game rules revolve around combat and partially a function of the discussion forums and formats in question since those combat rules are the things shared between games and thus most interesting for people playing different games in different places to discuss.

[Hecuba]

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?

What your describing is the overlap of 2 elements:

1. Outside of real-play streams, online content tends to focus on the mechanics of tabletop RPGs instead of the experience of role-playing because they are easier to write about. Translating an improv session into something that is interesting to talk for someone who didn't see it or participate is fairly difficult. You can translate it into a story, but that requires that you're at least passable at creative writing. You can discuss the particulars of role playing methodology, but that's not something a lot of people are equipped to examine unless they are familiar with the techniques of improv beyond "yes and" or something similar.
2. Emergent play happens, for both role play and mechanics. But the fact that role play is hard to discuss in the unlimited forum of the internet means that emergent role play gets distributed less widely, and builds on itself less predictably, than does emergent play of mechanics. Emergent aspects of role play that you come up with impact your table, and the tables you and your fellow players play with. Unless you are publishing a story, either by a real-play podcast or by pushing out a book, it likely will not impact a table more than a couple degrees removed from you.

Taken together, this makes mechanical emergent play more noticeable than emergent role play and more distinct from the state of the game at initial publication.

But emergent role-play does exist. And it is starting to see greater crossover between distant tables than it used to, largely thanks to real-play content.
So, if you want to see emergent role-play: watch a real-play webcast.

---

Edit: There is also another, distinct aspect.
D&D has, for a very long time, been a gateway to Tabletop in general. It introduces people to the genera, but some portion then try out other things.
5E is a fairly good fantasy generalist system, but if a group is looking specifically for rules-lite and heavy-role playing there are solid competitors that are popular enough right now that there is a chance they will leave 5E as their primary system.
The Powered by the Apocalypse systems come to mind in particular.
This means that the player base who are attached to D&D in particular tends to show some drain over time to those other systems.

This can also happen on the other end, but the obvious competitors (ex: war-gaming) simply aren't as popular of late.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I happen to have a penchant for role playing myself, as evidenced by playing role playing games.

Morty, if I wanted to single you out in my post, I would have. 😃
I was using your post as a springboard, not as a means to insult you...
....which is how it appears you interpreted my words.
No insult was intended.

I stated "Many players with a penchant for Roleplaying don't mind thematic but slightly suboptimal actions" precisely because the sentence does not state, nor should it imply anything other than what is stated by the words themselves.

The word "Many" is not synonymous with the word "All".

Besides, whether or not someone is fine with accepting being suboptimal for their concept doesn't change the fact that it's necessary to begin with. And it doesn't need to be.

I disagree that it is necessary. Indeed, a salient fact of many persons that would be referred to as "characters"..as in they are interesting people is that they are flawed or eccentric.

Han Solo is a fairly optimized character in Star Wars terms. Han Solo is a good fighter, a great pilot, resourceful, and a natural leader.

Han Solo is also an inveterate liar, a gambler, and general all around flake.
Despite his "optimized" stats...Han Solo is not "played" in an optimized manner. Han Solo is reckless...he doesn't care about the odds..In fact one of his famous catch phrases is "never tell me the odds".

This, (often), self sabotaging, reckless panache, (despite Han's prodigious natural gifts), is why audiences love the character.

People would not love Han Solo if in addition to his optimized stats, he was depicted as being meticulous, and prudent.

Sorry, I'm afraid, I just don't agree with your statement.
(This is not meant as an insult...just a discussion)

[Morty]

In general, I wouldn’t disagree with you, but in this case, I do. Go back and look at the OP’s description of the character. Until he writes the words “Storm Herald Barbarian”, there is nothing in the description that made me think Barbarian.

On the other hand, the description: tough, crusty old pirate fits a fighter or rogue a lot more than a barbarian.

True, but I don't think it really affects my point much. Barbarians don't fit characters that aren't explicitly designed as barbarians. Meanwhile, rogues and fighters just sort of hoover up all concepts that don't suit the very specific parameters of barbarians, paladins, monks or rangers. I really can't blame someone wanting to make a sea-themed character for seeing the storm herald barbarian and thinking "it's cool, I should use it". And being disappointed when it turns out it doesn't work and they just need to settle for a rogue or a fighter - the "sorry, there's nothing special about you" classes.

I disagree that it is necessary. Indeed, a salient fact of many persons that would be referred to as "characters"..as in they are interesting people is that they are flawed or eccentric.

Han Solo is a fairly optimized character in Star Wars terms. Han Solo is a good fighter, a great pilot, resourceful, and a natural leader.

Han Solo is also an inveterate liar, a gambler, and general all around flake.
Despite his "optimized" stats...Han Solo is not "played" in an optimized manner. Han Solo is reckless...he doesn't care about the odds..In fact one of his famous catch phrases is "never tell me the odds".

This, (often), self sabotaging, reckless panache, (despite Han's prodigious natural gifts), is why audiences love the character.

People would not love Han Solo if in addition to his optimized stats, he was depicted as being meticulous, and prudent.

Sorry, I'm afraid, I just don't agree with your statement.
(This is not meant as an insult...just a discussion)

This doesn't really support your argument. Picking a spear instead of a sword isn't being "flawed" or "eccentric". Neither is wanting to use a fighting style that isn't a two-handed or archery, or any other choice the game makes weaker. And it has nothing to do with Han Solo, a movie character as opposed to an RPG character.

[diplomancer]

True, but I don't think it really affects my point much. Barbarians don't fit characters that aren't explicitly designed as barbarians. Meanwhile, rogues and fighters just sort of hoover up all concepts that don't suit the very specific parameters of barbarians, paladins, monks or rangers. I really can't blame someone wanting to make a sea-themed character for seeing the storm herald barbarian and thinking "it's cool, I should use it". And being disappointed when it turns out it doesn't work and they just need to settle for a rogue or a fighter - the "sorry, there's nothing special about you" classes.



This doesn't really support your argument. Picking a spear instead of a sword isn't being "flawed" or "eccentric". Neither is wanting to use a fighting style that isn't a two-handed or archery, or any other choice the game makes weaker. And it has nothing to do with Han Solo, a movie character as opposed to an RPG character.

I'd say swords are worse than spears, even without factoring in PAM, except for high level fighters. Being a thrown weapon is useful in many circumstances, so that, in my opinion, it more than makes up for the lower damage die. At the very least, while exploring, you should have a spear in hand and, if possible, switch to swords once you're in melee range. Even then, you may regret the switch if the enemy tries to escape.

What's really weird is that, without PAM, javelins are better than spears, unless you're a monk.

[qube]

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?

The thing is ... DnD is a game, DnD 5E is a ruleset. If you're looking at movies that analyse the rules, yes ... that's comparing mechanisms, which eventually lead to optimizing in some form or another;

But if you look at roleplay/flavor channels, you encounter clips like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIp_p0z4J14
"... play a halfling barbarian try to prove to the world that size doesn't make the warrior ..."

I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.

Except, there are no "typical 5e characters".
A table wilt cofeelocks & sorcadins, one where DM always have very difficult encounters, etc ... on those tables sub-par character won't pull their weight.

... but "on average", because of bounded accuracy, you'll have to go out of your way to make a bad character before it's not able to pull it's weight.

People stare themselves blind on a +1 difference on damage ... but, for example, when we look at the battlemaster vs champion, many people think on low level, that a champion needs to be a critbuild for it to pull it's weight. However, if we run the actual numbers ; if you start to compare the amount of rounds combat lasts for a battlemast vs a champ or even a featureless fighter ... a couple of d8's extra in damage or a higher crit range simply don't have a significant effect.

Consider that at lvl 5, a monster will face 8 attacks per turn , the statisitcal chance that difference between 8d8+32 , and 9d8+32 isn't that much ; you're much more influenced by the luck of the rolls (if those 8 or 9 dice roll well) then the amount of dice.

Yes, obviously, more dice/damage/... is better ; but if the lack of said bonus is so small it's nearly indistinguisable from luck of the draw it's hard to argue said character "can't pull it's weight".

[Yora]

I ran a six month campaign of D&D 5th edition last year, which I can absolutely say was the best campaign I ever ran in my 20 years as GM by a wide margin.

It also made me realize that D&D is really not what I want out of RPGs. All the best parts of the campaign where when no dice rolls were done for hours, other than the occasional simple skill check. All the parts that I felt were the weakest and I had no fun running where the times were I tried to run dungeons with interesting encounters.

I don't like setting up and running fights.
I don't like dungeons.
I still have no idea how to make exploring dungeons feel like a story.

I still see how it could be a fun game to play a rules-light dungeon crawler where the players do nothing but try to get treasure out of ruined castles, tombs, or caves. But for something where the PCs have goals and motivations, make allies, and create proactive plans to make a change to their world? I just don't see how to do that in large complexes of rooms full of hostile monsters.

Is the roleplaying aspect of D&D gone? I think there actually never was that much to begin with. D&D was always at its best when it knew it was a treasure hunting dungeon crawler. For everything else, it's not the right tool for the job.

[Zombimode]

Is the roleplaying aspect of D&D gone? I think there actually never was that much to begin with. D&D was always at its best when it knew it was a treasure hunting dungeon crawler. For everything else, it's not the right tool for the job.

For you. That is very important to realize.

For other people it is very much the right tool for the job.

I run games with strong focus on setting exploration, character-setting involvement, character exploration, carefully conducted situations and encounters. Treasure hunting dungeon crawling isn't really much of thing. And for me, D&D (3.5 to be precise) is very much the correct tool. My DMing style is flat-out incompatible with an approach like the Powered By the Apocalypse games. Or Fate.

[Segev]

I feel like it's worth noting that even FATE has optimization. The notion that you aren't optimizing when you pick Aspects is self-deception. You are always going to want to pick a breadth of Aspects that enable you to apply as many as you can to as many rolls or situations as possible. The more you can always have at least one applicable and the more you can apply as often?as possible, the better your in-game results will be.

Optimization is part of any game. It may be that one game's optimization is more fun for you than another's, though.

[Lord Raziere]

I feel like it's worth noting that even FATE has optimization. The notion that you aren't optimizing when you pick Aspects is self-deception. You are always going to want to pick a breadth of Aspects that enable you to apply as many as you can to as many rolls or situations as possible. The more you can always have at least one applicable and the more you can apply as often?as possible, the better your in-game results will be.

Optimization is part of any game. It may be that one game's optimization is more fun for you than another's, though.

Yes but its incredibly minimal optimization in comparison to many others.

[Segev]

Yes but its incredibly minimal optimization in comparison to many others.

Perhaps. I am unsure I agree, especially since the optimization floor can be very low. Choose too narrow or too overlapping a set of aspects....

And the during-play optimization of your tactics to your mechanics is even more important. Including meta-game considerations about what stakes to set.

But this is a D&D forum, so I won't belabor this further other than to say that the point is that any system gets bogged down in the optimization if you let it, and any system lets you build subpar characters if you believe devotion to theme over adapting system to theme is paramount.

[Pelle]

All the parts that I felt were the weakest and I had no fun running where the times were I tried to run dungeons with interesting encounters.

If you don't find balanced tactical combats fun, there's no point in playing 5e over a more simple OSR game.