[entropicdrifter]

Ironically it's closer to the other way around: Most video game RPGs are mechanically either based on D&D, based on another tabletop RPG that came about in the same era (Runequest, etc), or based on a tabletop RPG that was in-turn based on D&D.

[tstrimple]

Yes and no. There are some major issues in my mind like Armor Class which fortunately video games don’t really mess with. I started playing D&D back in the Skills and Powers days. You had a lot more character creation options and more granular systems than what D&D has simplified into. It’s really the latest versions of D&D that I feel like are a bad video game abstractions. Probably because of their streamlining efforts for the D20 system.

[entropicdrifter]

As someone whose first RPG was AD&D 2e, I get where you're coming from. IMO 3e/3.5e/PF1e didn't simplify it all that much, moreso they formalized the existing skills/powers systems that were there and added a buttload of additional classes and prestige classes for deeper customization options.

It's really 4e and 5e that simplified the game in huge ways. 5e kinda-sorta added some complexity back to it, but got rid of a lot of smaller numerical bonuses in favor of the advantage/disadvantage system.

But yeah, I definitely get where you're coming from with respect to the latest editions feeling more video-gamey. AD&D 2e and earlier had this distinctly simulationist feeling, where the intent was that you were in a world where you had to survive first and foremost and could maybe get some gold and glory if you were lucky, whereas 3e and later definitely drifted more into a "your party is/contains the main character(s) of this world" type paradigm which probably led to a lot of the more recent mechanical decisions.

It's a bit like the difference between a traditional roguelike vs a modern roguelike. One is a world simulation and you're on your own, the other is a game where you will win if you keep trying.