I suspect it depends on what "simple" and "complex" mean to the viewer. I'm of the opinion that most exception-based designs are intrinsically bloated, often more, in practice, to more complex (in having more moving parts) games that aren't, but some people are willing to act like (as an example) long spell lists aren't there if the combat rules are straightforward.
I was wondering if someone would ask what I consider
complex to be
The "having more moving parts" is related to complexity in its original meaning. Having more moving parts is ok, as long as they are understandable in isolation and work together.
Etymologically speaking, simple derived from the latin simplex, which literally means "one fold" or one "strand". Compare this to
complex which can mean "many folds". While we use complex and complicated as synonyms, etymologically speaking, they have different meanings and origins.
Something that is complex has many interconnected parts or folds (like a manifold). This is what tends to make complex things complicated, due to the intertwining of parts and folding into and among themselves. On the other hand, something that is simple only has one strand or fold, so its easier to follow. "Realistic" or "Crunch heavy" games don't necessarily have to be complex (or complicated).
A good example of this is having lots of attributes to describe a character versus fewer. As an extreme example, imagine a game just has 3 attributes, Mind, Body and Spirit. This means that a character is equally strong, agile, hardy, etc. But it's
simple right? Better than having to keep track of say Power, Endurance, Dexterity, Agility, etc etc. But does it make sense that a character is equally good at all physical attributes? Of course not. So now, to make up for this "simplicity", you actually introduce complexity by having another set of rules like Advantages and Disadvantages. So now, I have to purchase an Advantage to indicate that a character's Agility is higher than the Body would indicate.
)
