I don't entirely understand the question, but not in the way you think I don't understand it.
These optional rules are designed to alter the play style and change the entire campaign's tone. Now, of course, these rules are too simple to fully effect the change they're claiming they make. They're too brief to do that. But they're a reasonable starting point for most tables that are looking for a different play experience. They do still change the tone of the campaign and the style of play at the table significantly.
Asking if I "like" or "dislike" these optional rules is asking what style of play I like, but, like a lot of online discussions on short rests, this feels like someone trying to sell gritty survival rules as a panacea to the twin problems of short-rest-reliant classes and the 6-8 adventuring day.
So it's asking people to conflate the rest and recovery system working well with a style of play they don't want to use. That's not useful. It's like telling people to play a different game. Worse, it ignores that WotC chose the default style of play that they did on purpose. D&D at the default rules is what WotC's market research has shown most tables want when they imagine D&D. Nothing else makes sense. If the game can't provide that midline style of play that the default rules are intended to provide, then the game is fundamentally broken. It's what the game fundamentally needs to be primarily designed for, and it's failing at that design. It's okay if gritty survival or epic heroism doesn't work that well because they're less popular, but it's unacceptable if the default rules fall apart. And that's precisely where we are.
People want the default style of play. But the short-rest-reliant classes don't work well, and the adventuring day designed to facilitate that design also doesn't work well. It was supposed to encourage short rests, but instead it just results in unhappy fighters, warlocks, and monks. Changing the rest schedule will force the PCs to short rest, but it does so by changing the style of play, which makes the entire table unhappy.
If your table loves it, great, but there's no reason to think that it's what everyone wants. It's not a solution. It's a workaround. One D&D is trying to provide a solution.
So, I don't understand the question. I don't understand why you're asking me to change my style of play -- which I don't want to do -- just because I've correctly identified that the short-rest-recovery system doesn't really work very well. It doesn't matter if it's a successful workaround, the results are still just as undesirable. It's not that I like or dislike the rules. It's that I can evaluate them well enough without even playing them to know that I'd rather have the broken default than the more functional gritty realism.
That seems to be an opinion shared by many other people because reducing short rest reliance has been a theme of the One D&D playtest. That means it's got to have been pretty significant in the annual system surveys they've been running for years.
I'd say that the short-rest Warlock has about as much chance of surviving into One D&D as the Warlord does of reappearing.
