Simple Rules?

I downloaded the new and free QuickStart rules for 4th edition D&D.

Contained therein, at the bottom of page 2, is this bit of design insight:

Simple Rules, Many Exceptions: Every class, race, feat,
power, and monster in the D&D game breaks the rules in
some way. From minor to significant, the game is built upon
exception-based rules design. For example, a normal melee
attack always deals a few points of damage, but every class
has powers that ramp up the damage when they get used.

To a certain extent, this is true of many, if not most, roleplaying games. The rules define some skill, ability, or power lets you do something that you would normally not be able to do. We certainly saw that in 3rd edition D&D. My first experience with it was to note that all the cool manuevers (disarming, tripping, etc.) came with heavy penalties, making them tactically useless, unless you had the proper feat (and each maneuver had its own associated feat).

On the other hand, having all these exceptions means the rules aren't simple. Perhaps I'm arguing semantics, but I'd say the core mechanic is simple, but the rules are fairly complex. One of the core concepts of chaos theory is that you can get very complex systems out of a few simple rules. But that's not how D&D does it. They have a core concept upon which they add a multitude of special rules and abilities to create a complex system.

As I said recently in A&E (specifically, here): "With rpgs, there is already inherent complexity in the characters, plots, and settings. To me, adding extra mechanical bits is overkill." And this is what keeps me from embracing D&D. All the classes, races, and exceptions that they built the rules around keep me at arm's length.