(long)
First of all, I'd like to apologize, not to anyone in particular, for my previous tone. Sometimes I am far too sensitive to statements that sound like someone is saying, "You are playing a game of Let's Pretend wrong." That irks me to no end, but it also does not do me or anyone else any good for me to lose my temper about it.
Now...
Part of the problem, as far as I am concerned, is there is still not a good definition of "Rules-Lite", and I don't see one coming any time soon.
The system I am currently in a love affair with is Savage Worlds. Some hate it, some like it, some are indifferent about it. But many people call it "Rules-Lite". And to a certain degree, I would agree with them. But I call it, myself, "Complexity-Lite". There are rules for darn near anything, even some situations that D&D 3.5 does not cover, like permanent injury.
I'm not going to spend a long time detailing or defending the mechanics. That goes no where. But my point is, in a nutshell, that no "game" simulates "reality" whatsoever. Seriously. What happens when a fighter in D&D, for example, who starts with 100 hp, has taken 99 hp of damage over a few rounds, then takes 2 hp of damage from a dagger? I mean, I know what I would say in a game to justify that, but in no way is this modeling "reality". So I wonder why that appears to be such a strong argument?
I DM'd 3.x since it came out. I wrote custom software to track initiative and roll attacks for NPCs, etc. Combats went Ok, until someone came up with a combination of spell, attack method, etc. that we had to look up. Because of the fact that 90% (guesstimate) of things that players want to do *are* covered in the rules, I felt compelled to search the various tomes until I found the exact rule. Many do not feel this need, and adjucate on the fly.
So now, with Savage Worlds, because of the way the rules are laid out, I rarely have to look anything up. There are rules covering most situations; they are just not legion in their numbers and complexities. And if something unusual does arise, it is farily simple to say, +2/-2 for most things, +4/-4 for major things, and +6/-6 for outrageous things. Neither I nor my players (who are a reasonable group of people, there to have fun rather than arguments) have no problem with this whatsoever.
Why? It comes down to what I said about game mechanics not simulating reality. It's called being reasonable. If we are playing in a genre that does not allow superhuman feats, they know that there is very little chance to jump a 20' gap. In a genre with over the top antics, there is a better chance of jumping that gap.
There is enough "crunch" to make combat fun and exciting. The rest we fill with plot, characterization, descriptions, interaction, etc. And we have *fun*. Fun, badwrongfun, if *you* want to think about it that way, but fun to us nonetheless.
I don't expect everyone in the world to like the same things. Can't and won't happen. What I do get irritated at, is people who think that I/we are wrong for having this fun, and for sounding like their way is somehow superior, and that they can look down on me and my group in a derisive manner. Makes me kinda peeved.
So if you want to discuss improving D&D, that's cool. If you want to say, "I need a lot of charts, modifiers, and other fiddly bits to have fun," that's cool too. But it is unecessary for us to "take sides". For god's sake, we are all on the same "side". We are the freaks and the weirdos who like to roll funny dice and pretend we are someone else. Who cares how?
Fighting amongst ourselves over these issues is destructive to the hobby as a whole, and does nothing but make us look silly.
You play d20? Cool. I've played that before, I liked it a lot. I'm glad you're having fun with it. I'm having lots of fun in my game too. See you at the game store. I hope we both can get the chance to spend our money on cool, geeky game supplements for a long time to come.