said you have to enjoy using the rules to resolve rules disputes
in reference to a discussion of how Polaris was a good system because the rules could be used recursively. Jim's point is vast and covers an aspect I think is underconsidered in game design.
If you enjoy using the rules you'll like games that spend a lot of time using the rules. If you don't enjoy using the rules you'll like games that don't spend a lot of time using the rules. System does matter, but 'least intrusive' is a plus for some gamers and it's not something the 'rules enjoyers' consider a virtue.
It set off a lightbulb over my head about what I don't like particularly about DitV. I love the drive towards conflict, I like the setting. I don't enjoy the conflict resolution. The drive of the game pushes me towards an activity that I want to be lighter. I am willing to give the GM a great deal of whimsy-latitude in exchange for less time spent on the mechanics of game. I don't know if it's a complete zero-sum system, but more game seems to lead to less role-playing. 'Role-playing' and 'game' are an uneasy alliance, brought together by accident and wildly successful, but not necessarily striving for the same goals. One of the reasons I think that D&D isn't for me is that we spend a lot of time on the game: managing hitpoints and spells and tactics. I'd rather do that solo on the computer.
DitV tells you to break free and work on stakes and conflict and moral dilemmas, until conflict resolution happens. Then it becomes the DitV abstract tactical dice game for many rounds. It works for a lot of people, but I never invested. It seemed like a step back for me, personally, to something I wasn't interested in. All the rules and advice were to push for more conflicts faster and more traits and relationships. The game advanced exactly in the opposite direction of my goals. More and quicker and longer abrupt stops to the real action for the dice.
Prime Time Adventures is much more like Everway (or Kobolds Ate My Baby!): Conflict resolution is fast
. Decide what's at stake, decide how invested each player is and on what side, shuffle, deal, flip, done. On to narrating the results and orchestrating moving the story to the next conflict.
It could have been the groups. It could be that we do a kickass job of setting worthwhile stakes in PTA and didn't get it right in DitV. But I think it's the PTA embrace of 'rules-light' mechanics that don't get in the way that really let it work for me. The abstractness of the resolution and the minimal characteristic/relationship definition work towards hiding the flaws that a truly in-depth system just exposes. Everway's elemental stats hide complexity similarly. "Fire" incorporates physical action and decisiveness, so I don't need to worry about an specific trait like strength (or the differences between agility and dexterity), I just have an abstract "action" element to base my conflict resolution on and expectations from.
I thought I didn't like forge-derived games. It turns out I didn't like forge-derived games that had elements that I didn't like in old-school-derived games. I think I need to look specifically for rules-light forge games to rock my gaming world.