The problem is most non-sandbox RPGs consider optional content to be not optional. In Shadowrun Dragonfall/Hong Kong not every mission has to be completed but you are expected to do every mission unless you go for challenge run, because it's fun, it's more loot, it's more powerful characters in the end game. Side content like talking to people is less useful as it's usually just a little EXP/Karma/Money but you still have to do it to optimize and there's never any drawback to doing that.
It should be obvious that there is a drawback to doing stuff you don't find enjoyable. Increased character power is an incentive, of course; but it's not all-important, nor should it be. The assumption that it is and must be is exactly what I am challenging (and have disproved through personal experience).
What's interesting is some series are transforming into what you've just described. Witcher 1 & 2 blatantly required you to do sidequests, especially 1 where you got into dead end with main quests till you solve unrelated sidequests.
And that's fine too. It's not required for any game to let you skip anything you want, or anything at all. That doesn't make it sensible to complain about stuff one doesn't like that
is skippable.
So the game should be tailored to this playstyle. And clearly telegraph that you're not supposed to complete everything.
Ehhhh. You are championing handholding on an insulting level. The very existence of multiple dialogue options (including "Goodbye" before you've clicked on every other single fucking option first) implies it is OK to click one and not the other, and the option to walk past an NPC without talking to him at all implies that that is fine too, at least to try. Hell, for decades RPGs have been putting in hard-to-find content that not every player is expected to complete, but some people just can't take a hint and still think they're "supposed to" do it all. The SR games are all perfectly easy to complete without scouring everything. The assumption that every possible xp
must be pursued may have its roots in experiences with some-but-not-all earlier games in which optimization is super important, but it is still an assumption, and a very stupid and limiting one.
We are all familiar with "soft gating", in which for example a tough monster guards a critical door - the game can't be completed without defeating it, and it is impractical to do so without doing x amount of other content first. A good game will allow you to attempt the fight immediately (should you wish to) and then decide for yourself whether you need to level up to beat it. To expect that a game requires you to do most or all other content first
before even trying another way is again a stupid assumption.
Try to play every game in a way that you find fun. If you can't finish it that way, then and
only then should you consider playing it in a way you find less fun. This should be self-evident but evidently needs to be said out loud. Playing in a way you don't enjoy first and then complaining about it is ridiculous.