The problem was they did so by trying to basically think up EVERY option you could want and apply a rule to it. This lead to not nessearily rules complexity, but overbearingness.
Yeah, the execution fell flat in some areas. But the goal was a strong one, and its one that has a lot of supporters. "A rule for everything, and everything with a rule" is going to alienate some, and serve others, just like "Only the rules we think you need" is going to alienate some.
It sets up the game so you can play it (which most people I'd say want to do) but also makes toying with it a snap.
Creating monsters isn't the whole game. They don't reveal why some races get +2 to two ability scores that reflect the same defense, but others don't. They don't tell you what damage codes balance out the Immobilized status or Thunder damage. They don't tell you how to set up rules for underwater combat, or how to use NPC's as PC's, or monsters as PC's, or what age your PC starts at, or what job he had before he was an Adventurer, or, if he worships an evil monstrous god, what enemies he can fight and what abilities he can take, or if he's not a divine-powered PC, what choosing a god even means....
3e expressly told you a lot of that out of the starting gate. They also told you how to make monsters (it was just a more involved process).
The 4e rules take into account the kinds of things they found people tend to actually USE at the game table.
But if you're one of those people desperately seeking an aquatic campaign, or one of those who likes having Beholders as PC's, or one of those who likes playing Mundanes who become heroes rather than heroes who become bigger heroes....
They probably know what most poeple want, but they don't know what everyone wants.
3e's solution to that problem was to give you as much as you could possibly need and have you choose to use what you wanted or needed at the time...a toolkit.
4e is not nearly as concerned with those who want to play the game differently (though, as I've said many times, its a continuum, not a binary choice).
It's not simplistic. It's just clear cut.
Simplistic is a value statement. I think everyone using the same basic forumla for powers (at-will/encounter/daily) is simplistic because it doesn't give me the complexity that I desire and that is fun for me.
In that respect, I'm one of those outliers that 4e isn't concerned with. They don't care as much if I'm not having fun with that set up, because MOST people will be having fun.
3e did kind of care, because they gave me new systems for resource management all the freakin' time, so I could play a Warlock or a Fighter if I wanted something straightforward or a Barbarian if I wanted a per-encounter mechanic, or a Wizard if I wanted a pool of per-day abilities, or...whatever.
Regardless of how effective that really was, they supported these outlying playstyles better.
To follow your computer theme... 3e was like Windows or Mac OS... It's made to be what it is. You CAN change it, but doing so without knowing a LOT about the system (with that info only being given to a select few, or those with the time/ability to reverse engineer it) has a LOT of potential hazzards.
I was measuring intent, not execution. 3e wanted to be Open Source D&D, to be a toolkit to tinker with and develop new things with. 4e, like a girl, just wants ta have fun.
