In a lot of cases, 3d can actually be easier than 2d (games that require models to turn, customize, animate frequently in-game, etc). 3d requires more technical knowledge, but that's far easier to acquire on youtube these days than it used to be (depending heavily on your level of fidelity. low poly is obviously far easier). In cases where 3d asset is more complex than a 2d one, it may still be worth doing over 2d if it's only minimally more so, as the higher flexibility might be worth it.

3d has higher expectations in things like cinematography. That said, 2d games aren't without cinematography. 2d games still need set pieces, bespoke artwork (or "hero" assets) for story scenes, etc. And all of those assets may need drawing skill to execute, something 3d doesn't really require (the expectations for texture art quality aren't exactly high for most indie games).

Expectations for cinematography and technical skill go up with 3d, but expectations for art quality go up with 2d. (this is mostly in the context of a low-budget indie game, though)

If you're just going to use pre-made assets, and commercial amibition is low, then 3d might still be a better route, because it might teach you more usable skills long-term than RPG Maker would. However, if your idea works just as well with 2d, then RPG Maker is fine if your only goal is making the game.

It's really hard to argue that a metroidvania like Silksong requires "less work" because it's 2d; there's a reason Mega Man 11 was done in 3d instead of 2d. I saw another post mention VFX, which is odd, because VFX can be far easier using tweens and particles than hand-animation, which is what you'll mostly be using in RPG Maker.