Simon_Shitewood

This is less a misconception and more a lie told to teens to get them to shave their horrible little pube faces.

See? You have nothing but insults, no analysis of your definition, no source, no answers to the simplest of questions about it. Of course carrots are vegetables, but admitting that would make you wrong, so instead you project your failings onto me.

Playing under someone more experienced can build confidence, but the only way to learn how to run a ttrpg is to start running one. Find some one page RPGs with really simple rules that can be learnt in a few minutes and played over an hour or two. No one has to invest in anything, you can switch between different ones to find what people like, and there's no pressure to keep running a campaign if you find it too much. Once you have an idea of what it's like running a game you and your friends can decide if you want to play a long adventure.

PF2e does a surprisingly good job at both unequaling the odds with it's degrees of success mechanic and making class and level a much more flexible system through feats, but probably not to the degree you're wanting, and I can't argue with the rest.
Delta Green isn't a perfect fit for your requirements as it uses a single die, but it's degrees of success system also unequals the odds, so it might still work for you. VtM and it's relatives are probably a better fit, but I personally find them a bit melodramatic. I've found it pretty easy to find a VtM group by hanging around Goths, but haven't had any luck with Delta Green yet.

Depending on what you're parts of D&D you're sick of Pathfinder 2e can be refreshing and relatively easy to find groups for, otherwise I've found if you want to play something else you probably have to run it yourself.

You're not being abused you absolute melt, you're the one resorting to insults when I point out your logical inconsistency. All I'm doing is applying your definition to the real world and asking if you agree with the conclusions - seeing as you've avoided confirming or denying a single one, the obvious answer is that you don't and are just trying to deflect. If you don't think your definition is accurate, why would anyone else?

They don't have to be devoid of love, you can put as much cheese as you want on.

Hey, I keep answering your questions, I'm just asking perfectly reasonable questions that poke holes in your definition (that's definitely real and not made up because you claim to have found it in the vast world of "online") that you're refusing to answer because you know it doesn't actually work. Now, are you claiming root vegetables are fruits or do you recognise how ridiculous your definition is?

Sure, but I can grab a can of beans and some bread on the way home then cook and eat them in all of 20 minutes. They're not something you make because you enjoy cooking, they're just cheap, quick, easy, and filling.

I'm not having a hard time, I'm interrogating your fake definition, so answer my questions: are peas a fruit or a vegetable? Are root vegetables fruits or vegetables? On the flip side, what about sour fruits like limes or blackberries? Are they vegetables?

Wait I got a better one: if carrots and sweet potatoes aren't vegetables why are they called root vegetables?

Well no, you're switching between multiple definitions, none of which have ever been used culinarily, but more importantly, can you not name a vegetable? Are beans a vegetable?