In general I would like to see a lot more specificity when people make claims or state particular preferences. For example when it comes to comparative claims of flexibility I would like to see people claim in which particular ways they believe D&D is more flexible compared to other games and which games in particular.
I also do not want to hear what other people think. I want to hear what you (the poster who makes a given claim) think and why you think it based on the actual games in question. I cannot have a conversation with a multitude of people who are not here to speak for themselves. I can have a conversation with other posters as long as they focus on games and game design rather than cultural norms and/or beliefs.
Well, in the spirit of that request...
I like roleplaying games because of those two words:
roleplaying and
game.
The "roleplaying" portion involves things like narrative and symbolism, portraying a character both earnestly and with integrity (the
character does not need to have integrity, but their
portrayal does), employing structural elements to support and reinforce the narrative content,* exploring the logical consequences of established events, discovering the unknown, engaging in extemporaneous improv theater/dialogue, etc. As a result of my love of roleplay, it gets extremely disheartening, to the point of easily ruining my game experience, if my character is unceremoniously ripped from me with little to nothing I could have done to change that (other than being prescient or the like.) Hence, I favor systems which give enough space to make
some mistakes without making those mistakes immediately lethal.
This leads to the "game" side. I enjoy solving puzzles and working out highly effective answers to difficult open-ended questions. I find it dull when there are clear and obvious power differentials that require no effort to pursue. Instead, I find it exciting and invigorating when my choices matter mechanically, but not in a way that is a simple matter of calculation--where I must make
value judgments, and my ability to discern and pursue that value is key to the process. This means I need to be able to (a) make informed decisions, (b) observe the consequences, (c) learn how the former produced the latter, and (d) re-evaluate and revise my understanding. If any one of a, b, c, or d is missing, then I don't feel like I'm
playing a game. Hence why I put so much emphasis on informed decision-making and being able to learn from past actions, not just having to start all over from square 1 every time.
This is why I love systems that provide solid, reliable mathematical structures, which have been tested and found to produce the desired results. It's why I love systems that have put in the work to make mechanics be,
in and of themselves, flavorful. Since flavor is often hard to specifically nail down, I favor systems which focus on "reskinning" over systems that prioritize a 1:1 synonymy between flavor and mechanics: it is better, in my opinion, for a single set of mechanics to have several different valid flavors associated with it than for us to try to make every single possible flavor-element have one and ONLY one representation in mechanics. That way lies madness (e.g. rulesets which try to give a rule for
truly every single thing, rather than capturing categories of things with common traits.)
Hence, despite their great differences, I love both 4e D&D and Dungeon World. The former has the mechanical crunch I desire, and is thus closer to my preferences, but Dungeon World does an extremely good job of emphasizing the interplay between fiction (which always takes primacy) and mechanics (which are secondary, but should always be followed as written when they apply.) I also like 13th Age, and appreciate the depth but not always the complexity of some other systems like
Werewolf: the Apocalypse and
Shadowrun 5th Edition.
It's also why I
generally do not like systems like 3rd editionD&D/Pathfinder 1e. That's a game that is needlessly complicated, self-contradictory, poorly designed, and absolutely chock-full of perverse incentives and broken rule interactions. I will play them, but only in a game that goes knowingly "gonzo," because then I can just sort of let my imagination run wild and do whatever I want, consequences be damned. It's the balls-to-the-walls wish-fulfillment edition, and when the DM embraces that, it can be fun for a temporary fling.
This is part of why I find 5e so frustrating. It doesn't permit the gonzo that I would get from something like Pathfinder 1e. It doesn't provide the rigorous balance that I would get from 4e or even its cousins like 13th Age. It doesn't provide the open-ended infinite potential of something like Dungeon World or Masks. It's too rules-heavy to be a total pick-up-and-go game, but intentionally too rules-avoidant (not "rules light" per se) to trigger my "let's solve this mechanical puzzle" reflex. It overtly emphasizes techniques like illusionism (or even outright railroading) and fudging, and gives the DM enormous
license but very little
assistance. In the end, I'm left with a game that...doesn't really offer any of the things I actually
want from a game other than roleplay...and then the game goes full steam ahead on actively supporting attitudes I dislike with regard to DMs curtailing and restricting roleplay when they want, where they want, however they want.
Does that answer the question in the intended direction and structure?
*E.g. 4e Lay on Hands. You literally sacrifice some of your own vitality, to replenish someone else. That's a situation where flavor and mechanics are one and the same.