Here's my problem with this "adversarial GM" business -- it's a farce both ways. Part of the GM's job is to be adversarial. It's a requirement. They have to create challenges and occasionally kill PCs and certainly hurt them all the time. It's very much GM vs PC.
No, it's not, it's never been ever since we started playing, at least in our groups. It's not more the GM than the players, it's at best, "the world that the DM has created" vs. "the characters that the PC have created" and even that is not true, not everything in the world is out to get the PCs. They have allies as well, and friendly places, etc.
The right view IMHO is the "DM with the PCs trying to create incredible stories" for the real world, and "The characters created by the players having incredible adventures - of course filled with drama and danger - in the world created by the DM" for the game world. Nothing more adversarial than this.
D&D is for me the ultimate collaborative game, not only between the players, but actually with everyone around the table including the DM. There is no winning or losing, just incredible stories being created together and the best part is that
most of these stories can be about friendship, both in the real and the game world.
And this is what pisses me off mightily when jerks insist on disruptive behaviours, whether in or out of game.
What it shouldn't be is GM vs players.
I agree that it shouldn't, but the problem for me rose with 3e, not intentionally, but as a result of entitling the players to much, giving them too many rules to play with, too many things for the DM to respect, and that the players expected him to follow. And this continues even in 5e, with some entitled players still claiming that the DM should publish all the rules that he intends to use for his campaign in advance, so that the players can check that he is not screwing them somehow (and depriving them from their rights to create powerful builds). This has been parodied excellently in KotDT, with auditing of modules, etc.
This is purely adversarial in the real world, and creates situations in which the players really have the impression to beat the DM every time their characters survive, which is more or less all the time because the DM applies the rules and does not really try to kill them. And this in turn causes them to often mock their DM, saying that it's too easy, that they find no challenge, etc. I've seen this so much on DDB forums, it's painful.
That being said, it's not only the players's fault, it's also due to some DMs themselves saying "I run a tough campaign, only the best (understand the most minmaxed munchkined characters ever) can survive, etc.). It does not help.
This went down a bit with 4e, because it was so formal and with less of an entitlement of the players, although the really boargamy feel did really make (at least me) feel like you were pushing pawns on a game board against the DM's pawns.
And it's not totally over with 5e, as some people (see above) still insist on a 3e player entitlement feeling, always whining about player agency (and often using these words incorrectly).
And it rebounds on (you have guessed) powergaming, where the intent is clearly to mark one's character out, by competing, possibly for survival (see above), but certainly in terms of DPR or other spotlight hogging contest with the other players. Again, it's not always that strong, but it's this individualistic and competitive streak that can be really disruptive in a table where people just want to tell stories together.
Now, if all the people at your table want to play "competitively", against each other and against the DM, and that is the way you find your fun, good for you, have fun. But it's not the spirit of the game as I understand it and as our groups have been practicing for more than 30-40 years now.
By the way, that does not prevent us from being competitive in games in the same "setting", we have massive "play by mail" kingdom management games with about 20 players each one plays a ruler, and where the "best" man wins, with a referee, etc. In a sense, it's not that different from a TTRPG, because each player has a character, there is roleplaying of the relationships, etc. But the intent is not to tell a story, it's a fight, to the death. Very different despite some similarities.