You can make as many supplemental, or "house", rules as you desire. I mean, if people don't like when a game isn't realistic, citing that other games are realistic... if this is such a hitch for you, I don't understand why you stick to the less realistic one. Or does it wind up that it's not really that important?
I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around this complaint. I mean, you complain that it's unexplained, yet refuse to explain it yourself. Do you have the same problem with magical spells not being explained? Yes, we know how certain things work in real life... the fictional world is not real life. Falls and lava don't have to be as deadly as in real life, you simply want them to be. And that's fine, but if the rules state something works that way, either it does, regardless how or if it gets explained, or you're free to change it to how you desire it to be. Where's the problem?
It's not. I may even be debating the issue, but my point is certainly not that either of us, or that anyone, is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. I do find it kind of silly that someone's upset over the unbelievability of HPs. Yeah, they're unbelievable, but I don't see that as a weakness. It's simply a part of how the game works. The game isn't trying to duplicate real life, which is made patent through the existence of magic, gods, monsters, HPs, etc. Nothing in the game is realistic, and I have a hard time understanding why someone would have a problem with "mundane" people also being unrealistic. Basically, it seems like cherry picking to me.
By pure coincidence, that's exactly the kind of game I'm working on right now. Still, I don't know if it'd suit all of your tastes, but those two aspects are there.
It was the answer to a question about opinions, so I presumed it'd obviously be about my opinion. However, I have a habit of taking things in ways other people do not, so there's a good chance I didn't pay enough attention to how I worded my answers. If that's what happened, I am sorry.
I can't help but notice that the very second poster says something about how skipping over the parts that aren't fun would mean going from combat to combat... and I'm curious; If this sort of thought is why people have a problem with 4E, then it's them who are defining the fun part of the game to be fights. And, certainly, the fights are fun, but that's not the only fun part (to me). The idea to skip to the fun parts would include skipping the mundane parts such as walking down the road to the palace and waiting in the clerk's office, and skip right to the meeting with the king's adviser, which will likely involve no combat, yet will probably still be fun. If you find only combat to be fun, awesome, play as you will, but that doesn't mean the game created the definition of what you find fun, it's only advising to skip the parts that are irrelevant to your fun. I fail to see how that's bad advice.