Yeah sorry obviously I dont care if you played D&D since the seventies or whatever. Thats a lame "argument".
You dont seem to understand the difference between simple (and elegant) and simplistic (and primitive).
And just to be clear, when I call D&D "simple and elegant", I talk specifically about D&D5.
In the mid 90s D&D was on version 2, or "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" (AD&D). I would never call that mess of arbitray rules that AD&D is simple, even less so elegant. Just for example try to explain why they made the saving throws this way, I cant find any logic in these tables. Or why you cannot have a higher stat than 25. Or why non-warriors dont get extra hitpoints from constitution above 16, and cannot have percentile strength, and why is there even percentile strength. There was all kinds of super wonky stuff going on in AD&D, and frankly the game was way less balanced and less fun. You had to actually know which are the good classes and which to avoid. In D&D5 overall the class balance is much better, you can pick really any class to play. Its not like in AD&D when you like Bards and then find out hey wait a minute, Fighter/Mage is so much better in every way than Bard it aint even funny.
D&D3 was already much simpler than AD&D, and D&D5 is astonishingly simple. Neither system actually lost in actual depth of gameplay though.
For computer games I actually would like to reintroduce some of D&D3 into D&D5, and even have more complex rules, because computer can handle complexity in the background just fine. For example it would be no problem to make a computer add two items that grant 50% reduction to all fire damage to a 75% resistance total, which what they logically should combine into. You can also have item condition, action points, and many other such concepts that wouldnt work well at all in pen and paper.
