One of my biggest problems with 4E was the notion that 1st level characters had 30 hitpoints. Then...to challenge them, Kobolds had 30 hitpoints. Local peasants...1 hitpoint (minions).
With those numbers, Kobolds weren't just a small problem to a village....they'd wipe it out!
I'd prefer a system that starts 1st level characters at a more reasonable pace than 4E's peasant to God progression just by chosing to become an adventurer.
Don't like the more fragile 1st level characters...don't start at first.
That doesn't mean we need to go back to 1E fragile though. If everything has starting HP equal to a die-roll + con score, most commoners are still going to break 10 HP...enough to live through a blow or two at d8 damage. Then we don't need 1st level characters with 30+ and Kobolds with 30+ HP. Without these beefy monsters, commoners can actually survive in a not-so-safe world that D&D is.
I agree that 4e can be 'gamist' and the numbers are a little inflated, but you're really mis-characterising what these numbers are meant to represent in 4e. The numbers are less of a world building simulation than the mechanics of how the Players interact with their characters in 4e. Who say's the peasant is a minion? That's up to the DM. The rules in 4e are not designed to support interaction without the PCs present. There are also kobold minions as well. Basically, the numbers where just there to provide a way for the players, through their PCs, to interact with npcs through game mechanics in a (hopefully) fun and challenging way. If a bunch of kobolds meet a bunch of peasants, that's part of the backstory and whatever the DM thinks is good for the campaign/story can happen. This puts a little onus on the DM to be consistent about his campaign, but also allows a tremendous amount of freedom as well.
I'm not sure I want to go back to the "rules are the physics of the fantasy reality", and I'm not sure previous editions where ever wholly in that boat to begin with. Surely there is some middle ground?