The Old Game Compared To A Fixed Game

Just real brief: Recently I heard an argument that we should use the original rules in light of a new home brew rule that isn't perfect. This is not about changing rules willy-nilly, or strictly for personal preference. This is about changing broken rules for thought out, even established new rules. Personally, I don't need to compare, and find equivalency between old and new completely unimportant. If I buy a toaster that is broken, only toasts one piece of bread, and I fix it so that it toasts two, then I don't need to regret not having a toaster that toasts one. I need never think of it again. Even if the ideal toaster toasts 4. But, it's down to preference. I, for one, choose to part from much of the original materials, because those books are fouled. I don't trust the makers to be right about producing a good, lasting game experience. No one thinks like Henry Ford did, when they build a car today. In the end, I am not an idealist. I don't think that the core campaign is holy, that it needs to be extra special. Trying new things in campaign is much more practical than in side-game testing. If new stuff doesn't work, end it quickly. Be aware of how stuff IS working, no matter what. Also, everyone should teach themselves what it means to be in and have a good game.  (This isn't for the player who can stop playing in a moment, and never go back to it.  It is much more for people like me, who can't imagine being without it.)