My Only response to this would be that in my game I have made it quite clear to my players that they can attempt to do anything they can think of. For example, one of my players likes to shoot at eyes to attempt to blind people, if I had let him read the 3.5 players handbook he would of seen no rule for this and assumed it was not possible. The rulebooks do nothing but limit the imagination.
Here you're illustrating one of the weaknesses of 3.5 - that it's an incomplete simulationist system. This is not about system inherently being bad. It's about simulationism only simulating what it simulates.
In 4e there aren't really rules for an impromptu shot at the eyes. But if you want to take a character who specialises in going for the eyes, it's easy enough. You're unlikely to actually blind people most of the time (a tiny target, very hard to hit, and normally fatal). But you take powers that debuff the target's to hit roll or daze them to simulate blood in the eyes from a forhead cut or them flinching. And then you take temporary blinding powers like Blinding Barrage, Sand in the Eyes, or Go For The Eyes for the big stuff. And voila. You have your rogue who shoots or stabs for the eyes. In 4e the better you know the rules the
more you know how to do and can evaluate - and there are good rules for improvisation (p42). Of course that you need to grok 4e to see how to do things like this and the rules don't explicitely tell you how is a flaw.
So this is a limit of 3.5 not one of knowing the rules. As @pmerton points out above, the problem is that the players who know the rules don't know how attempts to go for the eyes will work in 3.5 because they need to read the DM's mind with ... limited support from the rules.
Now, let's instead of a gamist/narrativist system go for a narrativist system -
Spirit of the Century will do because the rules are online (the rules for Leverage and Marvel Heroic roleplaying which I mentioned earlier are similar - and if you want a fantasy version of SotC it's called Legends of Anglerre). Let's see what Spirit says on blinding.
Blinding
Whether it’s throwing sand in someone’s eyes, spraying someone with a harsh chemical or tossing a can of paint in his face, the goal is the same: keep him from being able to see. This likely involves the attacker rolling Weapons and the defender rolling Athletics, with the maneuver succeeding if the attacker gets at least one shift. A successful maneuver puts the aspect “Blinded” on the target, which may be compelled to add to the defense of their target, or to cause them to change the subject or direction of an action. It can’t force them to take an action they don’t want to (so a blinded character can’t be compelled to walk off a cliff if the character is not moving around).
Sounds complex? Tagging aspects is one of the core mechanics of SotC. So this boils down to "Make a maneuver in place of an attack - and if you hit instead of doing damage you've set them up for anyone to be able to invoke a debuff". This isn't a rule, it's an illustration of a general rule that you can do any maneuver like that and set someone up with an aspect they don't want for others to tag.
Spirit of the Century, because it is not simulationist, doesn't limit your imagination in the way you are claiming rules do. And the players have a clear idea of the expected outcome when they do so.
So once again, I suggest you try games that aren't D&D for a while. And recommend Dread and Dogs in the Vineyard. I'll also add
Wushu to the recommended list. They all actively enable their style of play by creating rules that enable a playstyle rather than attempt to simulate a world. And they don't get in the way.
