Nope. Again your issue is that you are not even trying to understand. This is extremely clear cut. I am literally saying "if you have more fun, you will have more fun." And you are saying "shut up, you don't know that."
So here is the thought exercise. Assume I am correct and try to understand what I am saying.
Well yes, if everyone at a gaming table has tried every system and is at least passingly familiar with each of them, then they would choose the game (or one of the games) they enjoy the most. But if the group only has two or three games in which they share familiarity, most of the time it would be those games they would play, because there is a time expense in teaching a new system.
Also "play a better game" is a nice theory, but practically speaking those in the group who run the games are the ones who decide what game is played and the real pool of games would be only the ones they are familiar with. And they're probably already running the game that they enjoy the most. Really, the only guaranteed way to play a better game would be to run it, even if you'd rather be in the player's seat.
OK, so this is a pretty common type of response that I see all the time. First off, the amount of time to teach a new system is miniscule compared to even just the time that better systems will save you in the long run. Of the "good" systems the most time consuming to learn are without question 3rd and 4th DnD. I can teach danger patrol or apocalypse world in 15 minutes or less. Mouseguard or misspent youth in under an hour.
And yes, if you want to have more fun, you may need to step up. But if you are content and having fun playing, you have no impulse to step up. So don't. (It is my experience that this is simply untrue. something that gets proven over and over again.)
Also, if it is the game they enjoy the most, and they have tried a range of games, they are running a good game by now. (so in other words, they have not, in fact, tried other games.)
I never said "played a game they liked, and had less fun." That was you, apparently (by the above quotes) equating "a game that's better by the standards you put forward" with "a game they liked." I said "played a better game by your standards, and had less fun." You (the BGers, and Josh in particular), have said more than once that it's possible to apply objective analysis to RPGs to determine which ones are 'good' and which ones are 'bad' - or at least, 'less good'. Are we simply to dismiss out of hand those folks who have a good time playing Rifts and hate every minute of playing Burning Wheel, or a game that fills the niche of Rifts (by the BGers standards) better?
You did. It may not be what you meant.
Go back to the original post and rephrase the question and i will answer that.
Fun is irrelevant to the issue. Hanging out with friends is fun. We want to know if the game gives you payouts from play and does not have too many turnoffs.
If you don't want to play a Burning Wheel type game you wont like it. But if you want to play a crunchy, gritty, character driven game, it is the best option. If you want drama and politics it is better at that than WoD.
If you want Over the top Action, don't play BW.
So yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.