First, thanks for a well written post.
This is a topic I've been meaning to write an effort post for some time.
Designing and implementing simulated systems increases the workload a great deal, is it really worth the effort from the developers' point of view?
Well, that certainly depends on the type of RPG experience the devs are aiming for (and obviously their capacity).
If the money/time/staff isn't enough to implement some highly dynamic system, then I think everyone can understand that it is more sensible to compromise the ambition of the project in order to focus on the fundamental elements.
But if the devs are working on a type of videogame that is well understood to benefit from simulationist elements (for example, a sandbox project), then yes, those elements at least merit serious consideration.
Most cRPG players don't want more simulated systems. They want to have the abstractions that were present in Pen & Paper. They want to have the 2-3 Canned Solutions to every quest and encounter
If you're talking about RPVG players in general, then I have to disagree with you on this.
Frostfall is one of the most popular (and honestly one of the best) Skyrim mods.
A lot of the charm of classic Gothic games to this day stems from their attention to detail in their game world simulation.
Games like Dwarf Fortress, Caves of Qud and Unreal World, which are basically pure simulation, have a very dedicated audience that, even if niche, still surpasses those of plenty of classic RPVGs
And frankly, the most interesting RPVGs in the indie scene right now are generally those with a healthy dose of experimentation with simulated systems.
Then on the other side of the spectrum, you have massive AAA games like Zelda BotW and RDR2, which garnered huge success in large part due to their emphasis on simulationist elements.
Even on AAA you have successes like Death Stranding because of its highly autistic walking simulation.
Clearly, there's a considerable enough audience that desires games that experiment with simulated systems. Desire that most RPVG devs don't tap because, like you said, it's easier to just give them usual clichéd approaches.
And so the "ideal" that RPVGs should be digital analogues of PnP systems keeps sabotaging their potential... Even when we have proof that these systems can work wonderfully with more classic RPG elements and still be successful games.
It's arbitrary and nonsensical beacause it's a Strawman Argument.
Hardly. That's the argument I've read countless times.
The actual argument is that "In cRPGs, success in combat should NOT be dependent on the Player's Twitch Reflexes and Hand-To-Eye Coordination".
This argument is still arbitrary and nonsensical...
Where is this "rule" written? What even is the logic behind it? Why can't the success of a combat action also be partly dependent on the player's reflexes and visual-motor coordination? How does this go against the spirit of Role-playing?