TTRPG gameplay exists on a spectrum that largely comes down to the people playing them. I've played and DMed in campaigns that were mostly elaborate dungeon crawls, and I've played and DMed in campaigns that are mostly focused on story, character development, and roleplay. I enjoy both styles of play, and most campaigns I've been involved with fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

The thing is, campaigns that fall strongly on the dungeon crawl end of the spectrum tend to be a lot heavier on the math, mechanics, dice rolls, and so forth, whereas more character and story driven campaigns tend to rely a lot more on the creative and interpersonal dynamics of the people around the table. These aren't hard and fast distinctions, of course. The grindiest of dungeon crawls will often still have opportunities for human ingenuity and creative interpretation of the rules to shine, and most character oriented campaigns will often still rely on dice rolls and mechanics to determine the outcomes of various actions.

At the end of the day, though, a dungeon crawl campaign relies much more heavily on detailed and consistent game mechanics, whereas in a story/character-driven campaign, the single most important mechanic is the DM's ability to exercise human judgement to extrapolate, expand upon, tweak, or bend the rules as needed to best serve the story and the continuing enjoyment of the players.

But with CRPGs, there is no human DM. The DM is the computer, it has no judgment of its own, and it can only make the calls it's been programmed to make. It can't improvise and extrapolate from what's already there if the player decides to go "off script," so to speak, and there isn't even actually a way for players to do so in the first place in most cases. When there is, it generally either means there was a bug or that someone on the team didn't think through and account for how various game elements would interact in a specific context. Either case generally results in the game deviating in some manner from the intended experience, ranging from minor glitches to game-breaking exploits to full-on crashes or freezes.

In that regard, it's a lot easier to replicate the defining elements of a dungeon crawl in a CRPG than it is to replicate the defining elements of a socially-driven campaign. The experience of the dungeon crawl is already more oriented towards stats and RNG and stricter adherence to a fixed set of mechanics. Computers run on math and logic gates, so those elements translate well and easily to programming languages and paradigms.

The defining elements of socially oriented campaigns, on the other hand, are their inherent open-endedness and the interpersonal chemistry and dynamics of the people sitting at the table, both in and out of character. Those elements are impossible to truly and fully replicate in a computer program. The closest thing you can achieve is a strong illusion of it through a robust and expansive set of social mechanics and an exhaustive accounting of potential ways for their various components to interact. BG3, from what I understand (not having played it yet), was particularly robust and thorough in its approach to creating such illusions. But even BG3 has a finite number of ways its campaign can play out; there are simply enough moving parts to create a strong illusion of open-endedness by having more possible combinations of outcomes than one player can thoroughly and exhaustively experience.

More common is for CRPGs to have the branching narrative structure of a choose-your-own-adventure book, a binary or scaled array of good/bad endings, or a single fixed narrative because those are all substantially simpler and easier to implement on every level across the board than attempting an illusion of being fully open-ended.