None of what I wrote really takes into account DM’s modifying rules, but this is another problem: the people who play 3rd edition seem less tolerant of home rules, or modifying the rules. I don’t know if there’s something inherent in the rules or not, but this does seem to be a trend as D&D progresses–people expect the official rules to be followed.

If I have to address weaker concepts in the 3rd ed. I would say that there are other too complex rules, such as undead turning. There are some other concepts that are kind of ambigous: multi-class characters, unbalanced strenght growth of wizards, which are totaly unusefull on the lower levels, but overgrow other clases as they gain levels. Monk class is out of the context in the game, and so on.

Another thing: complex concepts and simple rules are little stange idea for me. Remember, it’s a game, and sooner or latter, concepts are thing that are more or less forgotten, and rules stay for game.

It is not true that 3rd ed. favorize combat over role-playing. Looking at the available adventures (which probably mirroring the way people play the game), I find much more good defined role playing in 3rd ed. adventures than in 2nd ed. ones. Also, I find that 3rd ed. adventures are much more realistic than older ones, which were much more combat oriented. But, it is on players and DM how you play the game. The only truth is that DM now have to know the concepts of the system, and cannot took it as he likes in the particular situation. So, DM’s still have to have imagination, but they also have to have much more knowledge on game concepts and rules.

I thought D&D was a game without winners or losers? This is semantics, I know. However, baroque rules systems are just one way of achieving the kind of consistent, persistent game world you talk about.

To put it another way, the complex rules can help you to grasp the complex ideas, but they are not totally necessary to do so. As long as the players and GM understand the complex ideas (the theme of the campaign world, its internal logic etc) you don’t need complex rules.

Want a simple system?

http://basicfantasy.org

Jeff: if someone loses their arm in a fight, do you reduce their overall hit points?

Unfortunately for you games of this day and age and beyond will be about mechanics at it’s core. That is how combat is balanced and maintained. But I fail to see how that stops you from role playing how you like.

Basing your abilities without rules to govern their use is just playing Calvin ball. It’s fun for a bit, but eventually it will get old because you just can’t lose. Strong mechanics make a game, or break a game. Just look at BESM.

Fourth edition is heralded as one of the best systems in production. It balances everything around a universal code of conduct. Saves, ACs and everything defensive being used as a score to beat, while an attacker will most likely always roll, whether it be an attack or a spell.

The only path to improvement is with complexity, but if done right you will not be burdened with complex rules, just complex ideas.

These are gantelets
the Wherewith that too much distant the removed use it e;
It is my brace;
All the marks that fix,
intensified the resistance!

The light jet
beholdest of thou by the skies,
in the flashes of crimson,
is but my red beard
puffed up by the night-wind,
frightening the nations!
Jove is my brother;
The eyes of mine are screw of the lightning;
The small wheels of my container
roll the effect of my cycle of the hammer unit in the earthquake in the thunder,
if forced always the reference guide the world,
governed, it govern;
Modesty is the weakness,
the resistance that prevails,
in the full track is always fixes of the turbine
to the steam of Thor,
and of the gas turbine!