...that is the question.
For years now, I've been accustomed to the idea that an adventuring party needs a rogue to overcome the locks and traps that the dungeon master will inevitably strew in their path. But is it true? 
Leaving aside the usefulness of thieves cant, the joy of Expertise, and the common multi-class players strategy of starting as a rogue in order to gain additional skills/ skill points,  just how essential are rogues now that tool proficiencies are so readily available based on background choice?
I am curious as to how many of you are running for or playing in a party without a rogue, and how well that is working.  

IMO the whole point of D&D is that you present obstacles and conflicts to the party and they solve them in a way that's unique to their talents and personalities. So a rogue is by no means required, it just means things are more likely to be done in a "rogueish" manner. 

You can fulfill the job of a rogue without being a rogue. Bards have Expertise, Artificers have Thieves' Tools and Tool Expertise, Monks often have good Stealth and Perception for scouting, and any fighter, bard, monk or other Dex based character can get proficiency in Thieves' Tools through their background or their race with the Lineage System in the upcoming TCoE. 

Wizards and most other casters can also fulfill the role of a rogue through spells like Invisibility and Knock. 

So, yes, rogues are good, but don't own their niche. You can "rogue" without actually being a rogue.