One game I just ordered that fits the description is Folklore the Affliction. While the setting resembles gothic horror more than high fantasy, the flow of the game resembles D&D without a DM, based on d10/d100 rather than d20. You follow a story, you make a lot of story-based decisions, those decisions usually end up with you having to do a skill check, and occasionally there is combat. Not all combat is tactical, there is a faster to play skirmish combat for minor encounters, while more important encounters get the full tactical combat on a map treatment.

Compared to Gloomhaven, tactical combat in Folklore the Affliction is a lot easier. Just like earlier editions of D&D, you roll dice and add modifiers to determine whether you hit, then roll other dice and add other modifiers to determine damage. There isn't a whole lot of advance planning involved, you just chuck your dice and hope for the best. Which might be exactly what you want sometimes. My only real criticism of Folklore the Affliction at this point is that the scaling appears to be very badly done. In the first tactical combat in the first story you will fight 3 wolves, regardless of whether you play with 2, 3, or 4 characters. Sure, the wolves have more hitpoints when more characters play, but their hitpoints don't even double when going from 2 to 4 players, and obviously 4 players end up having a lot more options. So in spite of the RPG-like bookkeeping involved, I am probably going to solo this as a full 4-character group. Having more characters means rolling more dice, and that somewhat reduces the randomness of the system. The more dice you roll, the less probable it becomes that you have a long streak of bad rolls.

I still want to talk about a third game, but before I do, I would like to talk about replayability. I have played some Gloomhaven scenarios more than once, for example because I failed to get the treasure chest on the first run. That isn't half bad: The decks that determine what the monsters do result in different behavior the second time around, and thus you need to adjust your tactics. So the same monsters in the same rooms still feel a bit different the second time around. I don't think playing a story twice in Folklore the Affliction makes as much sense, as the game is more story-centered, and the story will remain the same.

Lord of the Rings: Journeys in Middle-Earth is interesting in so far as it has an app as the DM, and that app randomizes certain things. So if you play the same story twice, you don't even get the same map, and only the story-relevant encounters will remain the same. Combat and skill checks in LOTR: Journeys in Middle-Earth are done by drawing cards from a deck, and there are some ways to manipulate the deck, which makes the system a bit less random than rolling a d10/d100. And of course you can play characters from Lord of the Rings, although the developer felt compelled to add two completely unknown female characters as options, to make up for the otherwise male cast of Aragorn, Bilbo, Gimli and Legolas. Why not Eowyn?

While the Lord of the Rings lore is nice, the gameplay again is a bit less story-based than Folklore. Just like in Gloomhaven, your decisions are mostly about gameplay, and less "choose your own adventure" style. But the system of assembling the overall map from somewhat randomized tiles gives the game a bit more exploration aspects than the other two. Although the threat meter pushes you to pursue the story and not just go wandering around. In the end, I think I will enjoy playing all three of these games.