@etonbears
Cool background BTW.
I think the main thing I find wrong by what you are saying is that you think 5e is a challenge if you also want to appeal to non-TT players. I think 5e is SO much simpler, by far, than 3 and 3.5. Playing Pathfinder after Solasta really smacked me in the face with this. I then went back and played a bit of Neverwinter Nights 2 and was like, "Geez! So many options. So many choices for level ups and jazz. I forgot how complicated D&D could be compared to other RPGs.
Never played 4e, admittedly, but I've always heard bad things. So, is 5e harder than 4e? I guess maybe. I don't really know since I never played 4e.
But I can say that 5e is simple and easy to master. That's what I love about it. It would work SO well with a video game, which is why it drives me crazy that they aren't being faithful to the game. I fully believe a faithful adaptation could be done very well, and gamers would really like it. The problem is, we won't know because they're not doing it.
EA would be the perfect time to test it out. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. But why not test it and find out?
Yes, I agree with you that 5e is probably the simplest and most understandable version of D&D since about 1980. That is by design, since TT players actually need to be able to hold everything in their heads; and arguably the evolution of both 2e and 3e got out of hand to the point that it was sometimes impossible to determine what was "correct" in a given situation. That was also true with the original 1970s rules that were added to in a haphazard manner as TSR came up with their next "great idea" leading to frequently inconsistent rules. And that inconsistency was what led to AD&D, an attempt to draw a line under the previous anarchy and provide a clear and consistent set of rules; which is probably why I really quite liked that version.
The 4e rules ( which I also have not played TT ) were a clear departure from the "feel" of D&D, and a deliberate attempt to "follow" the evolution of computer RPGs which had moved away from the concepts of TT. This computer RPG evolution was no accident, more a recognition that modern PC/console hardware could provide more dynamic and complex games than were suited to TT, and also that most of the PC/console player base liked more action-oriented games anyway; just look at how Bioware RPGs have changed from BG1 to DAI.
WotC made a clear mistake with 4e with respect to the TT audience, which led to the 5e rules. But they were not wrong about what the PC/console audience wanted. As far as I can tell from public sources, the only 4e game, Neverwinter MMO, has been more successful than any other D&D videogame, and has been active with continual new content for 10 years. It has a lot of players who are critical, as do many MMOs with their pay-2-play models, but it is still the sort of game that they choose to play, rather than party RPGs.
So, I would say that, reflecting on these experiences, Larian and WotC are trying to walk a path between the TT and the broader PC/console audiences. I'm sure they don't want to alienate either group, because that is bad business.
My guess ( and it is just that ) is that Larian, with their cheese, have been successful in widening the potential PC D&D player base beyond those that usually play party RPGs, and that may be part of why they got the BG3 licence. Similarly, WotC have made it quite clear that their D&D franchises are not tied to particular interpretations of rules, and they are quite cool with digital D&D being quite different ( like "Warriors of Waterdeep", for example ).
So, which rules are being used, and whether they are strictly accurate is probably secondary to maintaining a broad appeal, for both Larian and WotC. You should definitely keep saying what you want, just don't expect you can argue your way to changes that may work against their interests.
