There's a vital distinction between complexity that adds depth and complexity that does not. D&D is, by design, a crunchy game, and the "combat minigame" is a big piece of it--it may not be important at your table, but at a lot of tables, it is the centerpiece of D&D. And that minigame requires a fair bit of mechanical depth to keep it fresh.
I do think there are elements that add complexity without adding depth, and removing them would make 5E a better game. Unfortunately, they are almost all sacred cows. Ability scores are the poster child for this: I can and do rant at length about how poorly designed they are, and how they add a heap of complexity and confusion for minimal mechanical value. (And I'm not just talking about the distinction between "raw number" and "bonus," that's just icing on the cake.) No sane game designer, starting from scratch in 2021, would design a mechanic that worked like ability scores in 5E.
But the six ability scores are at the very heart of D&D. If you tried to get rid of them, or even move them off a scale that was designed for rolling 3d6 in order back in the '70s, you would face the mother of all backlashes. They're never going away.
I do think there are elements that add complexity without adding depth, and removing them would make 5E a better game. Unfortunately, they are almost all sacred cows. Ability scores are the poster child for this: I can and do rant at length about how poorly designed they are, and how they add a heap of complexity and confusion for minimal mechanical value. (And I'm not just talking about the distinction between "raw number" and "bonus," that's just icing on the cake.) No sane game designer, starting from scratch in 2021, would design a mechanic that worked like ability scores in 5E.
But the six ability scores are at the very heart of D&D. If you tried to get rid of them, or even move them off a scale that was designed for rolling 3d6 in order back in the '70s, you would face the mother of all backlashes. They're never going away.