Boardgame as an adjective

I think I have hit on one of the major differences between D&D 3e and 4e, from my standpoint. 4e is more boardgame. Imagine, for a moment, you are playing Monopoly, and the available pieces are the train, the hat, and the little dog. Imagine if each piece was given a special power. For instance, the train might be able to ride for free on trains while doubling rent for those who land on their trains. The allows you to take $50 from each player every time you pass Go. The little dog moves one more space than rolled on the dice. Each piece is now unique and in some way thematic. The train has abilities related to trains, the hat allows you to "pass the hat" and the dog is highly mobile.

Now let us look at cinematic versus realistic game systems. In a realistic game, you have only what powers you actually have. In a cinematic game, you have whatever powers you need to do cool movie stuff. For instance, in AD&D, a fighter has little in the way of abilities, since they are largely defined by being good at using a weapon and having a wide variety of weapon and armor proficiencies. In Torg, by contrast, a character might use a Martyr card to succeed at any one task at the cost of their life. That's not a "real" ability. However, it makes sense in context.

D&D 3e has a mixture of realistic/simulitide and cinematic/dramatic powers and rules. Actually, all versions do, from the beginning; hit pionts are abstract and ultimately based on the dramatic concept that more powerful characters and creatures should outlive less powerful and notable ones. Ultimately, all powers, whether simulatory or dramatic, were based on game world reality, what is sometimes called the Simulationationist goal. D&D was a game of both realistic elements and dramatic elements based on fantasy, mythology, and modern poetic tastes.

D&D 4e is a different beast. 4e assigns characters powers based heavily on dramatic rules. Wizard spells still represent a simualtion of a wizard spell, but most of a fighter's powers are based on dramatic combat moves, not on supposed actual skills. Healing surges are another dramatic power, even more removed from simulation than basic hit points. Another consideration in 4e is distinctiveness. Roles, which existed informally to some extent already, became a goal in themselves as a short and simple path to niche protection. Power sources ensured each character type had a distinctive style within a role. Character builts became a way to customize class, making each class distinct from the other but also allowing players to differentiate a character in a particular way. In the end, it does not matter what is "real." What matters is that a power is thematic, distinct, and balanced. How, exactly, a character pushes someone or grants a +1 is not intensively examined. It is up to the players to provide that narration but it's not even truly necessary. In short, many 4e abilities do not simulate anything at all. They provide some dramatic simulation, but they do not refer to any particular reality. The results of these powers, however, do.

Thinking back to the Monopoly example, the purpose of abilities in 4e is to make each PC a unique play experience. And just as we don't worry about whether the train runs on tracks or whether the dog has something to eat, the mechanics in 4e are not given any more underlying reality than is necessary to provide their context within the rules. 4e has become more boardgame. The essence of boardgame is, "Rules are what they are."