That's dave. I don't think using the page 242 of the DMG rules is actually particularly beneficial, so broadly agree with you, though people acting like they don't exist is unhelpful.
However, have you actually read them? The way your post is phrased it suggests to me that you haven't. I agree in very broad terms with your general point that using them doesn't necessarily improve the situation, however, I think your suggestion that they actually further cloud the waters and actually make things worse is borne out of ignorance of what is being suggested on page 242.
I'm actually very familiar with them, and recommend them to others, albeit with my suggestions of making things player-facing. No, it's not unfamiliarity with them -- I use them in my game often -- that makes me say what I say. If that's your thinking, you need another. I both fully grasp them, and use them, albeit in a specific way, and still say what I say about them.
I'm with you on this sentence until you get to "hides it more from the players". I don't see that as justifiable on the basis of what is actually being suggested on page 242. I can see why you might guess that though.
The GM asks me to make an ability check to resolve my PC's action. What is the space that I, as the player, can understand that the GM will resolve the check? If it's binary pass/fail, then I at least understand what the risks are. If, however, the GM is now using the full gamut of options, then I as the player do not know if this action will be binary pass/fail where fail is bad, if this action will mean I will succeed, but there may be a cost, or if I can fail just as bad as 1, but the GM will open a new window (fail forward). My ability to grasp the risks of the situation become worse if the GM has all of these options on the table. The only way this clears up is if the GM is either extremely consistent and I have enough experience to rely on that (idiosyncratic to table) or if the GM makes things very player-facing, so the outcome space is clear before the check is agreed to.
I'd also suggest that I'm not really buying the apparent underlying notion that D&D is peculiar in the players having limited tools to assert fiction and the DM deciding what happens on success/failure. I would say that the vast majority of successful RPGs on the market are like D&D in this.
I wouldn't argue, except on "vast." Most RPGs out there are heavy GM decides as a central, if not core, mechanic. It's why there's a host of systems that can be easily grasped and swapped between for D&D players because they're not really that different, just some cosmetics or mechanics differences. The core of the system is still check with the GM. You actually see the problems when the shift is from games like D&D to games like FATE, or Cortex Prime, or Burning Wheel, or PbtA. These games have a fundamentally different set of base assumptions about play, and most D&D players are not used to considering their game from those baseline assumptions and so miss the shift. And why would they? The vast majority of gaming they're likely to be exposed to shares common baseline assumptions and so there's never really any challenge to the ingrained thinking that creates. D&D can do all games because, really, the only thing understood is that all games are essentially like D&D so there's no need to change -- just make some cosmetic mods and you're good!
If we look at DriveThru's top sellers for example (ignoring supplements/modules):
1. WWN - like D&D (does have more heist-friendly rules though due to multi-dice skills and Execution attacks).
2. Dune - Totally honestly I have no clue. It's 2d20 system, and it sounds like it's the same as D&D, but I could be wrong.
3. Hard-Wired Island - Like D&D only it's clearer that the DM has options, which by your logic is worse than D&D - specifically failure = GM picks between outright failure, success-at-a-cost, or a bargain, which seems to be exactly what you're condemning. Yet this is regarded as a narrative-friendly, player-friendly modern system.
4. SWN - See WWN.
5. Cyberpunk Red - Like D&D.
6. Blades in the Dark - As discussed at terminal length!
We could go on.
I don't know why we would? Is there something to this argumentum ad populum that tells us something? I'm absolutely fine with saying that most games out there share the same core assumptions that 5e does. This is even ignoring the outsized effect 5e has on the market -- with it it's even more true. That, however, doesn't show or prove anything, so I'm curious as to what you think this appeal to popularity really shows?
And no, more options is not worse, this is a terrible take, stop that one right now. Options that are more "GM decides how this works" make the game less understandable to the players. How this is a challenging statement I'm not sure.
