Rant: Why People Don’t Play RPGs

[Arbane]

http://www.catthulhu.com/rant-why-pe...ont-play-rpgs/

So it goes around the table, with the most vivid imagery sounding something like this: “Whoa, a 23! They only have a 14, so with your plus five doubled, that makes negative three!” To put it mildly, this is not the captivating prose of the beloved fantasy books that inspire the players, and creators, of these games.

I thought this essay made a good point: Too much rules and numbers can choke the imagination and drama out of RPGs, and without that, all that's left is a skirmish boardgame and the occasional silly accent.

[Esprit15]

Reads very much like someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about, with a basically correct point being extrapolated far further than it should be. Excess rules are bad. So is overwhelming the new guy.

I remember when my friends ran a level 20 gauntlet game. A friend and I rolled up a wild shaping druid and he made a... I don't remember, something that hits things with a sword and forgot to buy an item for flight. My girlfriend, while she likes the game, has trouble with statting up a normal character, let alone someone sitting on the doorstep of epic levels. Rather than inundate her with rules and races and a dozen other things that would be confusing, the GM found a level appropriate, pre-statted monster. And that's how she got to play an angel.

Assuming you're welcoming a new guy into your group, you don't overwhelm them with stupid amounts of rules. You help them build something from core that doesn't have too much book keeping. If they want to play a caster, you point them to the sorcerer or the favored soul so that preparing spells isn't a worry. You help them play a not-crappy monk and don't say anything about it being unoptimized.

[Knaight]

http://www.catthulhu.com/rant-why-pe...ont-play-rpgs/



I thought this essay made a good point: Too much rules and numbers can choke the imagination and drama out of RPGs, and without that, all that's left is a skirmish boardgame and the occasional silly accent.

Freeform games exist. Incredible rules heavy long games exist. There's an entire spectrum between them.

I do think that this is a factor, if only because D&D is pretty much the one visible RPG, with WoD coming in second - neither of these are rules light, and if people don't find out about rules light games, potential RPG players may end up not playing.

[Zombimode]

I do think that this is a factor, if only because D&D is pretty much the one visible RPG, with WoD coming in second - neither of these are rules light, and if people don't find out about rules light games, potential RPG players may end up not playing.

Thing is, whatever RPG system the linked text tries to reference, it is not D&D. Sure, it fits the way people who hate D&D for some reason like to portray D&D, but that doesn't make it in any way accurate.

[Knaight]

Thing is, whatever RPG system the linked text tries to reference, it is not D&D. Sure, it fits the way people who hate D&D for some reason like to portray D&D, but that doesn't make it in any way accurate.

I'm saying that the core concept - rules keep some people out - is accurate. It pretty much comes down to the high visibility games being rules heavy, and thus people who would favor rules light games being more likely to be deterred before they find games they would enjoy. The exact same thing could happen if D&D (and WoD) were rules light, except for it's the people who favor rules heavy who would be driven away.

As for the reference, it's deliberately not using actual game terms from anything. That said, there very much are concepts there which are in D&D. Initiative came up pretty explicitly. Prestige classes, sourcebook limitation, etc. were all alluded to. What was described there is a pretty familiar look at D&D for newbies in particular veteran groups. It's not what it looks like all the time, but it really doesn't seem that off to me.

[Sartharina]

While the rant is interesting, now I have to buy a new RPG.

Cannot resist the kittening!

[Slipperychicken]

I have to agree with the article. It matches my experiences with 3.x, and makes me want to try lighter, simpler games.


As for the Catthulhu RPG, I hope it involves references to the Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, and other of Lovecraft's work involving cats. I'd be happy even if they simply gave us stats for Zoogs and Moon-Beasts as enemies.

[Airk]

Thing is, whatever RPG system the linked text tries to reference, it is not D&D. Sure, it fits the way people who hate D&D for some reason like to portray D&D, but that doesn't make it in any way accurate.

Oh come on. Clearly the author was REFERENCING D&D even if he didn't say so specifically. Why? Because these problems are not SPECIFIC to D&D, though they do tend to crop up there.

I agree with the article entirely, unfortunately. These games are often sold as something they are not "It's a cooperative storytelling experience!" when actually it's a minmaxing exercise with a whole lot of numbers and not a whole lot of storytelling. Are there games that are cooperative storytelling experiences? Sure. But the odds of a newbie blundering into one on their first try are not very good.

This goes well beyond "Excess rules are bad. So is overwhelming the new guy." - your examples of how to deal with this situation are interesting, Esprit15, but they basically boil down to "make a bunch of exceptions and if you're lucky, your group can compensate for this mess by having the new player not actually play the same game as everyone else." This is not really a desirable option.

Even WotC recognizes this as a problem, as evidenced by their clear desire to streamline things for 5E.

[Pluto!]

This is one of those articles that says it's about RPGs in general, but which is clearly talking about D&D specifically.

What it's describing are problems. Game designers know they're problems. And besides D&D, they haven't really been maintained in many games written in the past decade.

[Knaight]

This is one of those articles that says it's about RPGs in general, but which is clearly talking about D&D specifically.

It's about why people don't play RPGs in general. D&D specifically is really relevant to that - it's pretty much the gateway game, and is frequently the only game non-RPG players even know about. People who try RPGs once almost always do so through D&D (again, WoD is in second place here, and I'd consider that article every bit as relevant to it as to D&D). It's hardly every new player - I've introduced a number through Fudge and a few through WR&M, and even if I were the only person to do that that would prevent it from being every player - but it's the trend.

[Avilan the Grey]

Never heard of a person not playing RPGs because of the rules. EVER.
I have heard almost every other reason though, it being "for Dorks" as the number one, and "What is an RPG" as number two. But never, ever ever ever have I heard anyone except this person (and Knaight) say anyone won't play because of rules.

And as has been pointed out above the games on the market today goes from complete free form to extremely rule bound. Personally I prefer the latter, since I absolutely suck at anything acting-related.

[Sartharina]

Never heard of a person not playing RPGs because of the rules. EVER.
I have heard almost every other reason though, it being "for Dorks" as the number one

And the reason it's "For dorks" is because of how the rules work.

[NowhereMan583]

The article seems pretty spot-on to me. I knew a lot of people in college who approached RPGs in exactly that way, and at least one person who was turned off the hobby altogether because she came to one of those sessions with a character concept and got drowned in rules.

This ended up being why I GM far more often than I play -- for a significant chunk of time, my options were either to run a game for my friends, or play in a game where "serious" gamers constantly talked about their character's stats and how they could beat up everyone else. To this day, I don't seek out games to join because so many of them are like that, and I'd just end up wasting my time.

[Avilan the Grey]

And the reason it's "For dorks" is because of how the rules work.

Please explain? I see no connection here.

[Eldan]

Please explain? I see no connection here.

I've heard that one before, actually. People are throwing around a lot of calculations, sheets full of numbers, graph paper, pencils, oddly shaped dice... to a lot of people it looks really heavy on the mathematics. Which are for "the nerds" in a way that storytelling, maybe, wouldn't be.

[Avilan the Grey]

I've heard that one before, actually. People are throwing around a lot of calculations, sheets full of numbers, graph paper, pencils, oddly shaped dice... to a lot of people it looks really heavy on the mathematics. Which are for "the nerds" in a way that storytelling, maybe, wouldn't be.

Huh. Fair enough, though to me it feels like saying "I am dumb, I go now". Or something. Honestly I would say 90% of the people that say that are not actually put off by the math, but by the image of dorks as such, and don't want to be seen with dorks or actively enjoy bullying others.

But again, I have never encountered (nor felt it myself) the idea that it's the rules that keeps people out. my point is that the people I have met that have never played RPGs fall in a number of categories, primarely "It's For Dorks" and "I have never heard of the concept of RPG before". The first category is a lost cause, since they basically are bullies (so you don't want them to join) or too afraid of bullies to try to play. The second category however are redeemable . Surpsingly many have "I can't find a good game group" as an excuse*.

As for the rules themselves... It seems to me that if this really is a problem, it's because someone sucks at explaining the rules, not that the rules are too contraining or "destroying the fun".
Again of course this comes from someone who needs rules to play, since I cannot stand anyting close to Free Form.

*It seems RPGing is, at least among people I have talked to, almost like the stereotypical (in sitcoms and movies) lesbian college experiment: A LOT of people I talk to admit they played some in college or university, and don't know how to find players / game masters / groups outside that circle.

[Knaight]

Huh. Fair enough, though to me it feels like saying "I am dumb, I go now". Or something. Honestly I would say 90% of the people that say that are not actually put off by the math, but by the image of dorks as such, and don't want to be seen with dorks or actively enjoy bullying others.

Or "I don't have time to read several hundred pages for a game I might like", which I've heard a bunch. That said, this phenomenon is more of one where someone gives it a try, decides they don't like it, then doesn't come back. Exact reasons might not even be given, but it is a thing that happens, and I've definitely seen it happen because of the rules - it's not what people were interested in, so they leave.

[Eldan]

It's not necessarily "those mathematics are too complicated for me". I mean, it's mostly some basic addition. It's more "Why would I want to do calculations in my leisure time".

[Avilan the Grey]

Or "I don't have time to read several hundred pages for a game I might like", which I've heard a bunch.

Well that is not a failure of the game system, the rules or anything else than the DM / GM.
You should be able to just sit down and play. The DM (and the other players) explain as it goes along.

It's not necessarily "those mathematics are too complicated for me". I mean, it's mostly some basic addition. It's more "Why would I want to do calculations in my leisure time".

I understand this, in theory. I don't do things that feel like work to me to have fun. If it feels like work, it is work. However I feel sorry for people who feel that calculations as such always is work, no matter what you are calculating.

[AMFV]

http://www.catthulhu.com/rant-why-pe...ont-play-rpgs/



I thought this essay made a good point: Too much rules and numbers can choke the imagination and drama out of RPGs, and without that, all that's left is a skirmish boardgame and the occasional silly accent.

And to insist people be imaginative on command can cause people to have a social meltdown altogether. When I was in the military I introduced many people to roleplaying games. People have a lot, and I mean a LOT more trouble with "I'm a fantasy warrior in Elfland" than "I roll a 13 or higher and I hit". People are trained to play boardgames, they are not trained to play pretend, at least not anymore. In every single situation giving people tons of options in my experience or telling them "Your character can do whatever you want" results in a complete blank stare, whereas defined rules and objectives gives people the framework they need.

This isn't a statement saying freeform games can't work, but I think they are less welcoming to newer players because of a less defined framework.

[Lycoris]

People are trained to play boardgames, they are not trained to play pretend, at least not anymore. In every single situation giving people tons of options in my experience or telling them "Your character can do whatever you want" results in a complete blank stare, whereas defined rules and objectives gives people the framework they need.

This isn't a statement saying freeform games can't work, but I think they are less welcoming to newer players because of a less defined framework.

I feel that it's more that people are trained to stop playing pretend, rather than not being trained in it. I believe that people are plenty imaginative to begin with, but that imagination gets dulled or dialed back for a myriad of social and personal reasons.

Definitely agreed that a certain amount of rules/objectives can give focus to a group or game though. Even freeform games rely on a certain amount of shared assumptions to work, even if they aren't always explicitly written as rules. Being able to say "I'm a fantasy warrior from Elfland" implies that to a certain extent, the group/game has accepted that fantasy warriors and elfland exist in the game, alongside everything they're likely to imply.

[AMFV]

I feel that it's more that people are trained to stop playing pretend, rather than not being trained in it. I believe that people are plenty imaginative to begin with, but that imagination gets dulled or dialed back for a myriad of social and personal reasons.

Definitely agreed that a certain amount of rules/objectives can give focus to a group or game though. Even freeform games rely on a certain amount of shared assumptions to work, even if they aren't always explicitly written as rules. Being able to say "I'm a fantasy warrior from Elfland" implies that to a certain extent, the group/game has accepted that fantasy warriors and elfland exist in the game, alongside everything they're likely to imply.

Certainly, people are trained to stop playing pretend. But in that same context, the rules give them a framework to start again, and it's a framework that in my experience is much easier to understand than just telling people to jump in and go. Since the author of the rant is trying to get people to play games who don't already, I think his approach is exactly the opposite of what it should be.

Also not that people should be elitist jerks, but people are generally willing to accept even very arbitrary rules so the "you can't be a mountain jumper unless you're a [whatever-he-said] because we don't use those rules" is more likely to be accepted out of hand if people aren't familiar with the system, than it is for people who are extremely familiar with the system.

[Airk]

Well that is not a failure of the game system, the rules or anything else than the DM / GM.
You should be able to just sit down and play. The DM (and the other players) explain as it goes along.

No, it's a failure of the game; The fact that the GM and players can mitigate it if they are on the ball does not make it not a failure of the game. If the game itself cannot present itself in such a way as to be comprehensible to someone in a "Read the rules on this sheet" sort of way, it is a failure of the game.

I understand this, in theory. I don't do things that feel like work to me to have fun. If it feels like work, it is work. However I feel sorry for people who feel that calculations as such always is work, no matter what you are calculating.

This is partly it; It's also partly "Why do I have to do all this math to be an elf warrior?" Fundamentally, when people show up expecting to go on a fantasy adventure, they do not expect to have to do a bunch of fiddly math.

AMFV: I don't think the author of the article is trying an approach at all, he is just criticizing the one that he sees used so often. I think you are putting in words in his mouth if you take it beyond that point. Also, I think that how much trouble people have "playing pretend" varies HUGELY from person to person. I submit that your experience in the army might not be a particularly good sample set.

[AMFV]

No, it's a failure of the game; The fact that the GM and players can mitigate it if they are on the ball does not make it not a failure of the game. If the game itself cannot present itself in such a way as to be comprehensible to someone in a "Read the rules on this sheet" sort of way, it is a failure of the game.



This is partly it; It's also partly "Why do I have to do all this math to be an elf warrior?" Fundamentally, when people show up expecting to go on a fantasy adventure, they do not expect to have to do a bunch of fiddly math.

AMFV: I don't think the author of the article is trying an approach at all, he is just criticizing the one that he sees used so often. I think you are putting in words in his mouth if you take it beyond that point. Also, I think that how much trouble people have "playing pretend" varies HUGELY from person to person. I submit that your experience in the army might not be a particularly good sample set.

I was absolutely not in the Army (I was a Marine), furthermore I was in intelligence, which is full of people who are very into the sort of things that would indicate a willingness to "play pretend", such as a love of anime, fantasy novels, science fiction, video games, and my experience is still that way.

Well if the author isn't suggesting something different then he contributes nothing. I read it very clearly that he was pushing for a less rules heavy approach on his contention that he believed that lots of rules scare off new players. Whereas I submit less rules scare off new players. So I'm debating his statement, and the direction of action one might presume he would suggest from the things he states.

Also I'm debating his entire tone, which is contentious and not exactly productive, because if there's one thing that scares new people away from a hobby it's being an elitist jerk, whether you're an elitist jerk in favor of a rules heavy system, or no rules at all, elitism is practically guaranteed to shoo people off.

[Terraoblivion]

I don't really think anything definite can be said either way. There are definitely people who really want to do the shared storytelling aspect, freeform fandom games are absolutely massive online, but there are also people who want to play a really complex tactical game and don't really care for the narrative aspects, they're pretty easy to spot if you're reading people discussing D&D online. The problem is when people who would favor one gets introduced to the other instead and get turned off by it. I agree that this mostly happens to the former group and that there appears to be more of an infrastructure to learn about the latter, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an audience for games like that among newcomers to RP'ing. It's ultimately a matter of taste and I wouldn't think that heavy championing of any specific amount of rules is going to help accommodate a greater range of potentially interested people. Being more open and aware of the different possibilities and what people are interested in will, not some form of definite view of what's the one true way to game.

[Airk]

I was absolutely not in the Army (I was a Marine),

Sorry, my bad. I wasn't reading thoroughly.

furthermore I was in intelligence, which is full of people who are very into the sort of things that would indicate a willingness to "play pretend", such as a love of anime, fantasy novels, science fiction, video games, and my experience is still that way.

But clearly your own evidence proves this to be incorrect. Are you actually attempting to argue that since you didn't encounter this situation in the marines, that no one could ever possibly encounter this situation enough that it might be a problem? Because it sounds like you are, and that's...not very polite.

Well if the author isn't suggesting something different then he contributes nothing.

I disagree. The first step, as they say, is recognizing the problem, and clearly, some people even in this thread, don't even do that. So I think the 'rant' has value. I think you understand this, even if you claim otherwise, because you are addressing the issue as if you understand that there is value there.

I read it very clearly that he was pushing for a less rules heavy approach on his contention that he believed that lots of rules scare off new players. Whereas I submit less rules scare off new players. So I'm debating his statement, and the direction of action one might presume he would suggest from the things he states.

I think this is fundamentally incorrect and you are not even representing your OWN point properly. Are you suggesting, and I don't think you are, that more rules are ALWAYS BETTER for new players? Because that is clearly not the case, even though it sounds like you are trying to say that. What the author is clearly suggesting is that the current "norm" for RPGs has too many rules. He is not suggesting that "zero" rules is the correct number, but he is asserting that what is "normal" right now is too many.

Since you mentioned boardgames and how people are "trained" to play them, lets talk about boardgames. The traditional "gateway board game" is STILL Settlers of Catan, or perhaps something like Smallworld. Both of which are games with...wait for it...comparatively few rules. You do NOT, for example, try to get someone into boardgames by sitting down to play Terra Mystica or Advanced Squad Leader with them. I don't think you're going to argue that point either, because I don't think you can reasonably make a case for using super complicated boardgames as a teaching tool.

I also don't think you will disagree when I say that there is a "right" amount of rules. Neither the author of the rant nor anyone here here is seriously suggesting freeform, in spite of your efforts to set that up as a strawman. But there's a big difference between Savage Worlds, or Dungeon World, and Pathfinder, and I know which games _I_ would rather try to explain to a new player. And neither of them lacks the appropriate structure for someone who is looking for rules to latch onto.

If anything, the author of the rant is suggesting that there are more people who favor fewer rules than there are people who favor lots of rules. I think that's the most you can read into it.

Also I'm debating his entire tone, which is contentious and not exactly productive, because if there's one thing that scares new people away from a hobby it's being an elitist jerk, whether you're an elitist jerk in favor of a rules heavy system, or no rules at all, elitism is practically guaranteed to shoo people off.

Because things that are labelled "rant" are all about polite tone? Clearly, it has served its purpose.

[AMFV]

I don't really think anything definite can be said either way. There are definitely people who really want to do the shared storytelling aspect, freeform fandom games are absolutely massive online, but there are also people who want to play a really complex tactical game and don't really care for the narrative aspects, they're pretty easy to spot if you're reading people discussing D&D online. The problem is when people who would favor one gets introduced to the other instead and get turned off by it. I agree that this mostly happens to the former group and that there appears to be more of an infrastructure to learn about the latter, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an audience for games like that among newcomers to RP'ing. It's ultimately a matter of taste and I wouldn't think that heavy championing of any specific amount of rules is going to help accommodate a greater range of potentially interested people. Being more open and aware of the different possibilities and what people are interested in will, not some form of definite view of what's the one true way to game.

And I'm not saying that one shouldn't be open to that, but even in your post (the bolded section), where you reference a specific system and then claim that people who play D&D "don't care for the narrative aspects", is a pretty elitist statement. It's implying that people who like narrative stuff, can't enjoy the complex wargame aspects, which is incorrect, or that this somehow takes away from the narrative aspects. Now I've been in lots of D&D games that were just hack and slash, but I've been in just as many that were deep political intrigue and developed world settings.

Now it's possible that a different game system would have done it better, but I doubt you'd be easily able to find one that can handle both a tactical minigame and have a developed setting in the same way (although I'm sure it exists).

My claim is that people tend to want to follow rules. The first thing you do when teaching anybody, any game in my experience is explain the rules, freeform tends to be so light on rules as to be overwhelming to most folks, in my experience. I'm not saying anything is wrong with freeform, I'm suggesting that it may be very, very overwhelming for people. That's been consistently my experience.

Sorry, my bad. I wasn't reading thoroughly.



But clearly your own evidence proves this to be incorrect. Are you actually attempting to argue that since you didn't encounter this situation in the marines, that no one could ever possibly encounter this situation enough that it might be a problem? Because it sounds like you are, and that's...not very polite.

That's not what I said at all, if you'll read more carefully I said I said in the majority of my experience it was the opposite. Not that there couldn't be cases where the reverse was true. But that my experience has been the opposite. Someone could, but I'd bet more people would find it difficult to work with no rules than with lots of rules.

I disagree. The first step, as they say, is recognizing the problem, and clearly, some people even in this thread, don't even do that. So I think the 'rant' has value. I think you understand this, even if you claim otherwise, because you are addressing the issue as if you understand that there is value there.

I'm claiming it's a non-issue, and that deeming it an issue will have a negative value, that doesn't mean the rant has value.

I think this is fundamentally incorrect and you are not even representing your OWN point properly. Are you suggesting, and I don't think you are, that more rules are ALWAYS BETTER for new players? Because that is clearly not the case, even though it sounds like you are trying to say that. What the author is clearly suggesting is that the current "norm" for RPGs has too many rules. He is not suggesting that "zero" rules is the correct number, but he is asserting that what is "normal" right now is too many.

And I'm asserting that what is normal right now has not proven to be too many for many people I've played with and has in the general case proven to be too few.

Since you mentioned boardgames and how people are "trained" to play them, lets talk about boardgames. The traditional "gateway board game" is STILL Settlers of Catan, or perhaps something like Smallworld. Both of which are games with...wait for it...comparatively few rules. You do NOT, for example, try to get someone into boardgames by sitting down to play Terra Mystica or Advanced Squad Leader with them. I don't think you're going to argue that point either, because I don't think you can reasonably make a case for using super complicated boardgames as a teaching tool.

The gateway boardgame is Monopoly, or Risk, or Chess, not Settlers of Catan. Which are much more rigid and formalized. There isn't a boardgame analogue for freeform roleplay, it doesn't exist, as such you can't make that analogy, my analogy was that boardgames in general have rules.

I also don't think you will disagree when I say that there is a "right" amount of rules. Neither the author of the rant nor anyone here here is seriously suggesting freeform, in spite of your efforts to set that up as a strawman. But there's a big difference between Savage Worlds, or Dungeon World, and Pathfinder, and I know which games _I_ would rather try to explain to a new player. And neither of them lacks the appropriate structure for someone who is looking for rules to latch onto.

Savage Worlds is from what I've read fine, it's a little rules light for my taste. I've read some of Dungeon World, and I'm not sure about it, but it should be fine to. Pathfinder is easy to explain as well. I'm arguing that less rules does not necessarily make a better new player experience, and that elitism makes a worse one.

Because things that are labelled "rant" are all about polite tone? Clearly, it has served its purpose.

Making me angry? Causing me to ignore his point because it was designed to make me angry? That seems like a waste of time.

[Terraoblivion]

No, my claim is that a subset of people who play D&D are in it for the rules. And given how many people explicitly state that is their preference I don't think that's a terribly controversial statement. There are people who play D&D for the story or for the combination of the story and rules as well. I would even venture the assumption that of people making a conscious choice of D&D as opposed to simply playing what their friends are playing or the only system they know play for a combination of story and rules, rather than purely the story or the rules. If you hate rules you'll probably pick something lighter than D&D if you know about other options and are willing to seek out new people to play with, because it's ultimately both rules heavy and pretty dense in the coverage of the rules, so I think that people purely in it for narrative make up a smaller proportion of D&D players than most other systems.

In any case, I'm simply saying that people who don't care about the shared narrative exist in gaming and they are at least more vocal in D&D discussions than in discussions about other systems. Not that all D&D players are hostile or indifferent to narrative, I'm almost certain this group is a minority. People like this also exist with other systems complex enough that system mastery is a thing, they just seem proportionally more common among D&D players. Also, these people are perfectly legitimate and decent people, their fun is no less worthy than improvised storytelling and they're just as deserving of being catered to. That was my point. That pushing for lighter systems at all times would leave a different group just as hanging as the writer of the original blog post claims people who get overwhelmed by rules are.

Also, I do think that there is another point buried in the original rant that seems missed on the writer himself and most people discussing. It is that a lot of gaming groups are terrible at introducing things and explaining rules in a straightforward manner. Making a character for people and giving them what's "best" without proper explanation is being a controlling douche, expecting them to seamlessly drop into an established group dynamic and game with little explanation is rough on them and so on. It's not out of malice, but most people are not trained in teaching and it happens often enough to bear mention. Really, I'd suspect that rather than amount of rules, it's the feeling of being overridden and losing control like that which drives people off.

[AMFV]

No, my claim is that a subset of people who play D&D are in it for the rules. And given how many people explicitly state that is their preference I don't think that's a terribly controversial statement. There are people who play D&D for the story or for the combination of the story and rules as well. I would even venture the assumption that of people making a conscious choice of D&D as opposed to simply playing what their friends are playing or the only system they know play for a combination of story and rules, rather than purely the story or the rules. If you hate rules you'll probably pick something lighter than D&D if you know about other options and are willing to seek out new people to play with, because it's ultimately both rules heavy and pretty dense in the coverage of the rules, so I think that people purely in it for narrative make up a smaller proportion of D&D players than most other systems.

Well I will concede that I like the rules aspects of D&D, but I also like the shared narrative as well. And many people, most of the heavy optimizers I've met are very much into the narrative aspects as well and not just the ruleset.

In any case, I'm simply saying that people who don't care about the shared narrative exist in gaming and they are at least more vocal in D&D discussions than in discussions about other systems. Not that all D&D players are hostile or indifferent to narrative, I'm almost certain this group is a minority. People like this also exist with other systems complex enough that system mastery is a thing, they just seem proportionally more common among D&D players. Also, these people are perfectly legitimate and decent people, their fun is no less worthy than improvised storytelling and they're just as deserving of being catered to. That was my point. That pushing for lighter systems at all times would leave a different group just as hanging as the writer of the original blog post claims people who get overwhelmed by rules are.

I agree with that, and very similar to the point I was trying to make.

Also, I do think that there is another point buried in the original rant that seems missed on the writer himself and most people discussing. It is that a lot of gaming groups are terrible at introducing things and explaining rules in a straightforward manner. Making a character for people and giving them what's "best" without proper explanation is being a controlling douche, expecting them to seamlessly drop into an established group dynamic and game with little explanation is rough on them and so on. It's not out of malice, but most people are not trained in teaching and it happens often enough to bear mention. Really, I'd suspect that rather than amount of rules, it's the feeling of being overridden and losing control like that which drives people off.

My emphasis. I agree with that, and I think that is the biggest problem.

[VoxRationis]

I personally don't think that rules-heavy systems inhibit storytelling at all. In fact, I think they provide for better storytelling by defining what can and cannot happen in the world. Without that, it's easy to fall into a childish argument about whether your PC or the NPC is the better fencer, or whether it's reasonable that your acrobat can jump 20 feet from a standing position.
Furthermore, the core rules for D&D aren't that tough to get into if you have supportive friends teaching you step-by-step. All the sourcebook-delving optimization, I admit is tough to follow (I don't even know what people are talking about half the time, though that's probably due to a lack of the sourcebooks being referenced). But playing a core-only, low-level character isn't hard, even if they're a wizard.
Also, the "calculations" are mostly basic arithmetic, usually 3rd grade or lower things. Do it on paper if you have to, but it's hardly a prohibitive element that prevents storytelling.