I don't play pen and paper so this is quite possible, but whatever the reason the end result remains the same. Has absolutely nothing to do with that. I love Star Trek for example, and the more people watching it the better IMO, as long as it remains Star Trek. The issue here is that going mainstream means changing the mechanics and depth. It is ten times simpler than games like Wrath and Pillars, and now every CRPG that comes out will chase the same success this had. This changes GAMEPLAY, not the group I'm in.

BG3's base-rules are not simpler than WOTR because larian chose to simplify things for mainstream. The base-rules are simpler because D&D 5e is a simplified version of pathfinder (D&D 3e). BG3 has far more complexity in the role-playing options than WOTR does.

Any [D&D 5e] game will be simpler than a [D&D 3e] game in the context you are describing. Has nothing to do with larian, owlcat, or any other developer. The complexity scripted into larian's titles like DOS2 and BG3 is unbelievable, more so than any other developer. Decisions are impactful, interactions which you do not expect to be impactful are, the game can change on a dime based on your decisions, you can solve scenarios in creative ways (unlike WOTR where there is generally just one way to solve it, and possibly a dialogue option to choose something else; but no outside interactions to change the outcome). Surfaces combine together and trigger alchemical reactions. You can solve areas by manipulating environments -- unlike WOTR where the environment is dumbed down and incredibly simplified.

You can go around robbing or killing NPC's, get caught and face consequences -- unlike WOTR. Relationships are incredibly dynamic. The environment is dynamic. Alternative paths do not feel like linear variations. In BG3, each area can be solved in a large variety of ways (stealth, disguise self, diplomacy, deception, varied alliances, sowing unrest among their ranks so they fight each other, exert a power struggle between you and competing leader, intimidation, or straight up combat). How much of this complexity does WOTR offer us?

If by "roleplaying" you mean story stuff then maybe, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. Gameplay is king. It's also beside the point whether 5e started it or Larian did. At the end of the day my concerns are the same either way.

IMO, the gameplay in BG3 is far better than in WOTR. If you came here to tell us that you've got incredibly narrow tastes and you're sad that everyone on earth doesn't cater to your extremely narrow tastes... thanks, I guess. Good to know. Now go play the one or two video games that meet your narrow tastes and let the rest of us enjoy our game.

The more you talk, the more you sound like that indie music guy who liked The Killers, but only before they became mainstream and "sold out"... or, you know, exactly what I said in my first reply.

TES is an RPG series, thats not up for debate, i dont like the quests in Oblivion or Skyrim, the exploration was amazing though. I find bethesda games shallow as hell, im deep in Act 3 in BG3 and thats not even fair to compare the reactivity of your actions between the two games.
I have saved people in Act 1, done things there and found itens that have opened up quests and dialogues in Act3, some 40 hours after those decisions. The city is believable too, the ES engine is garbage to make cities, some half a dozen people walking around saying the same thing is not immersive, BG is like witcher 3 city, full of people and commerce, you know chaotic as fuck.
That being said both games have merits, i still love Skyrim for the freedom to roam and discover, open world and all, but with a lot of mods, bethesda needs a boycott to learn how to polysh their games before release.

I don't play pen and paper either but I understood your post and review as saying that whilst you like BG3, you can't help but feel bitter about it due to fearing it's success heralds the end of more complex games. However, if we accept the simplification is primarily due to DnD5e and that not all future games from any studio will be DnD based, it lends some small credence to your fears being unfounded.

By 'gameplay', are you only referring to combat? If so, then I can understand your disappointment. Whereas for me, 'gameplay' encompasses much, much more, including dialogue and decision based role playing, story/decision based reactivity, exploration and immersive sim experimentation, both within and outside combat. So as a total package, BG3 exceeds the delivery of any other RPG I've played and is thus deserving of its wide spread praise. Although I do also enjoy the combat, with it being just complex/difficult enough to be interesting whilst not becoming a slog like DOS1 and DOS2. It maybe also helps that I tend to shuffle my party frequently so there's often a bit of new thought as to how best to utilize my current party mix.

I can't find evidence that you've even played BG3. Have you?

"No, but I read a bunch of reviews on reddit and watched a YouTube let's play, so it's the same thing"

I see a difference here between a few points of view. It's also the difference in the pen and paper game.
1) There are players obsessed with stats, building a character out of that or min/maxing. Pathfinder has a lot of those and even D&D 5e. Players like these are focussed on rules and stats and enjoy the games for this. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but this is my personal (limited) experience with pen and paper pathfinder and Dnd 5e.
2) There are players who like the "role"-part of roleplaying games. Inventing a character with a deep backstory and a DM who lets you play your character and describes the world in a gripping way so you can really feel like your character. Stats are secondary.

I feel that the Pathfinder CRPG's cater more to the first group and BG3 caters more to the second group.
Neither points of view are invalid though, It's just what you enjoy.
Personally I like my DM to be more of the second type and I strive to be one of those myself. I see the players enjoy themselves a lot more if you're not constantly focussing on the number crunching, but just using it more in the background and describing what is happening (even though you DO roll those dice :P).

As for the games, I played quite a few hours of the pathfinder crpg's, but everytime quit halfway through because I'm getting very bored with the game. Baldurs Gate 3 I finished in one go and even started a second playthrough right after, only for a short Starfield break, but returning after getting tired of mediocrity :P

But as for the OP, comparing it to Oblivion and being scared all RPG's will be more like BG3 is completely unfounded imho. How many RPG's are like Oblivion apart from bethesda games? Most RPG's that I've seen are much more either like diablo/looter/lootershooter, I've seen quite a few turn-based rpg's like Wasteland 2/3, and some more in the bioware style that started with the original Baldur's Gate like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Pillars of Eternity. Weird ones like Yakuza Like a Dragon and many other jrpg's. These games are all much more focussed than Oblivion. Bethesda games do almost everything incredibly mediocre, but they do so much that they can be more than the sum of their parts. And they can be fixed and improved by modders. The other games I've named don't need mods at all to be good (enough).

Finally, remember that the success of Baldur's Gate got us one of the best CRPG's ever made: Planescape:Torment.

I personally prefer simpler rulesets to the Pathfinder games in my CRPGs. Games like Ultima VII, Champions of Krynn, Legend of Grimrock or the previous Baldur's Gate games being good examples.

I prefer focusing on adventuring to number-crunching and creating "builds."