Here's an excerpt from the introduction to
The New C Standard: An Economic and Cultural Commentary by Derek M. Jones
Jones said:
1. the more practice people have performing some activity the better they become at performing it.
Aristotle Meta-physics book Ii said:
Our attitude towards what we listen to is determined by our habits. We expect things to be said in the ways in which we are accustomed to talk ourselves: things that are said some other way do not seem the same to all but seem rather incomprehensible. . . . Thus, one needs already to have been educated in the way to approach each subject.
Many of the activities performed during source code comprehension (e.g., reasoning about sequences of events and reading) not only occur in the everyday life of software developers but are likely to have been performed significantly more often in an everyday context. Using existing practice provides a benefit purely because it is existing practice.
For a change to existing practice to be worthwhile the total benefit has to be greater than the total cost (which needs to include relearning costs),
Jones said:
2. When performing a task people make implicitly cost/benefit trade-offs. One reason people make mistakes is because they are not willing to pay a cost to obtain more accurate information than they already have (e.g., relying on information available in their head rather expending effort searching for it in the real world). While it might be possible to motivate people to make them more willing pay a greater cost for less benefit the underlying trade-off behavior remains the same,
Jones said:
3.people’s information processing abilities are relatively limited and cannot physically be increased (that is not to say that the cognitive strategies used cannot be improved to make the most efficient use of these resources). In many ways the economics of software development is the economics of human attention.
I feel as though this is a the heart of why there is so little willingness for edition-hopping: the cost vs. benefit. Jones was referring to resistance to changes in an established programing language, but there are similarity with D&D.
For example, I am convince most OD&Ders rail against the "stupid" complexity and disorganization of AD&D mainly due to an unwillingness to expended the effort to (re)learn it---i.e. the benefits are not immediately recognizable given the effort. However, that same crew happily grab the expanded spells, classes, monsters, and treasure listed in the AD&D book because all that is low hanging fruit that can easily be made to fit in their existing mental framework.
Similar arguments could be made about the 3e to 4e shift (the benefits were not clearly spelled out, and the complexity/changes price seemed too high). Also, 5e was a clear attempt to lower the complexity bar to get new players into the game (and older players to reunite)---and it worked.
In the context of changing the C programming language, Jones (who was involved with the language standard) seems to be waiving a cautionary flag against radical, frequent, or frivolous change---because of the human factor. Perhaps WotC should take heed as well, and find a way to generate revenue without another reboot.
Once you've found your "Jeep", you don't see the benefit of change...you just want to play D&D. There's probably a fairly small window in which a players or DM's mind is open to tinkering with rules. I feel as if mine is closing (closed?). When I talk about the OD&D/AD&D "vibe", perhaps I am just exemplifying what Aristotle said: "
things that are said some other way do not seem the same to all but seem rather incomprehensible". I cannot connect what is being said in 5e to the type of game I like. It's not that it's not possible---it's just being said in a different language...one I do not speak, so it sounds like gibbering-badness to me.
There is a wonderful quote with regards to coding format which is (tongue firmly planted in cheek) called
The One True Brace Style. (
@The1True!)
The Commandment:
10 Commandments of C Programming said:
Thou shalt make thy program's purpose and structure clear to thy fellow man by using the One True Brace Style, even if thou likest it not, for thy creativity is better used in solving problems than in creating beautiful new impediments to understanding.
My favorite part:
"...even if thou likest it not" 
LOL!
There it is, in a nut shell. I offer up
The First Commandment for a Newbie DM:
"Thou shall learn the D&D rules completely (even if thou likest them not). Instead of modifying them, use your creativity to make wonderful game content for your players---otherwise all you will have done is created new impediments to human understanding."
The other option is to, like the OP
@Yora decided, convince yourself that for what you are trying to do, D&D just isn't a good fit---and then go play some other game. The Commandment is truly edition agnostic, but that last little bit of advice is not. Once you've truly learned the edition you are using, and discover it's just not doing it for you...then perhaps it's time for a new pasture.
Tired of all the "house ruling" that was happening with OD&D (due to ambiguity), I believe this was what Gygax & Co. were attempting with AD&D. Not a straight-jacket for creativity---just one for
misplaced creativity. In the case of rule-mod'ing,
Better is probably the enemy of
Good Enough. They just wanted to get everyone speaking the same language (e.g. at tournament$). The Holmes Beginner rule-set was a similar (initial) attempt at unification. Ironically, AD&D ended up being too "advanced" for the average Joe and instead of uniting the tribes, was D&D's
Tower of Babel. (The B/X rules...I would argue were attempting something else entirely, and I personally struggled at it's initial publication with the vibe/language shift.).
For me, moving from OD&D and learning AD&D (properly) has had a rewarding cost-benefit. I am glad that---through the efforts of the folks that produced the trailblazing retro-clone OSRIC---that option is still alive and kicking. I'm also thankful there are sites like
K&KA and
The Blue Bard to teach me how AD&D generally works better once I stop ignoring half of the rules!
After that, I'm not sold---i.e. the benefits are just not obvious. I love to learn new things, but "
it's simpler/easier" is just not a sales-pitch that resonances with me.
"There's more knobs" (for players to fiddle with) seems just like bad design practice (e.g. tits on a bull).
Popularity has never been a big motivator in my decisions (unless I'm worried about support). Lastly, change for the sake of change also seems kinda pointless and dumb (unle$$ you are WotC).
When I came back to the hobby in 2012, it was overwhelming. So many rules! So many systems!
Do I pick one? Or is it a smorgasboard?
My thinking now is that's it the former, but had initially assumed it was the latter---after all OD&D was extremely DIY. I had even a some point mistakenly bought into the twin myths of "
broken" and "
progress"---but that was just salemens' FUD. Still, my sincerest thanks to all who genuinely helped me navigate the edition maze and find my way home.
I just wanted to close out this ancient thread at a personal level. My hardback copy of OSRIC arrived in the mail from Blade Blade Publishing yesterday. It's beautiful.
