So, you skipped the part where the magical unicorn appears? That's kind of an important step.
It's true, I did skip the Magical Unicorn! Thanks for the reminder. :-D
I'm quite close friends with the Magical Unicorn. For example, back in 2015, I wrote a 'fake news'* post about WotC opening up their Setting IP for commercial fan publications. I suggested that WotC open up one Setting at time. *('Fake' but earnest.)
The post is archived here:
Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).
I was almost universally mocked by the ENWorld Community. With words such as "Magical Unicorn", "Pony Wishing," and "IMPOSSIBLE!"
And my thread was locked.
...And, soon after, DMs Guild was announced.
Assertion that it [designing a game scales in complexity, and which allows different players to be playing with different complexity levels (e.g. Diceless vs. Polyhedral) at the same table] can be done, and proof that it can be done and be appealing to a large population of gamers are not the same.
Well, ya gotta start somewhere. Desiring that there were such a thing. Imagining how it could be done. Then designing such a game myself. (No one can offer 'proof' of mass appeal beforehand. This is a discussion forum, not a board meeting.)
I mean, basically WotC's Monster Slayers (kids d20 game), 5E Basic Rules, and 5E Advanced Rules are the same game, with different fiddly bits. Just need an customary interface for allowing one player to be playing Monster Slayers, while another plays Basic, and another Advanced, within the same story, at the same table. Adding a Diceless mode is just one step simpler than Monster Slayers.
P.S. Recent WotC product announcements point to a new kind of product. And Mike Mearls himself has passionately railed against the math-heavy status quo of D&D.