And here we have the problem. This is the attitude currently catered to which leads to the decline of rpgs. Reducing role playing games to war games where "the main task" is to create optimized combat character for combat encounters. Immersing you into the world? Experience a story with interesting characters? Playing a role in a fantasy world? All of this is playing wrong, unless your role is +5 attack 2d6 damage DD/off-tank.
Not “wrong” - ther “wrong” way of playing is whatever you find unfun. But that’s not something the game is set up to encourage and take into account.
BG3 is a fine example to examine - I didn’t multiple playthroughs, with different classes and builds and the major difference between the runs was the combat. My capabilities and options outside combat were mostly the same in each playthrough. This is partially because D&D systems are very combat heavy, and partially because for some reason Larian took steps (at least in EA) to unify tools available to everyone - with Speaking with Dead/Animal, vision cones and stealth rarely relying on stealth checks etc. “social” skills just aren’t much of a concern. What would be a benefit if coming up with unusual attribute spread? I see those more as a test of player’s system knowledge, rather than a meaningful choice. Whatever attribute spread I pick, same roleplaying choices will be available to me.
I don’t think those combat heavy RPGs are necessarily bad - I like them a lot - but character building does mostly encourage thinking about your character’s combat efficiency.
There are games that are more roleplay focused. Classic Tim Cain RPGs had a wider array of character roles, with combat being one of potential expressions, not necessarily a main gameplay pillar. Lowering intelligence would change conversation options. Recently Disco Elysium tried some interesting thing with specialisation - with high ability scores coming with downsides as well as benefits. Those games reward and encourage roleplaying.
