And I caveated my one reference on here to board games inside out. I did not say 4e was a board game. I said the people approached the playing of the game in the same manner where they are moving pieces instead of being a character.
I noticed that you made it clear you weren't repeating the baseless '4e is a boardgame' things. As the several replies you got to that particular bit should have made obvious, though, that's not what anyone was upset about. You launched a general attack against a whole swath of gamers, there. Maybe you didn't mean to, exactly and you were just trying to illustrate a difference in style, but it ended up coming across as belittling or setting up a straw man of the alternate style.
And I do think that our edition-war-shell-shock makes that kind of mistake very easy to make. I'm sure I've done it to you a few times in this exchange, as well.
Anyway, while trying to avoid that, one more time: I understand the whole 'dissociative mechanics' stance. But, it simply doesn't hold up. It takes something that, in 4e, is present really only to the degree that the player emphasizes it, and presents it as an insurmountable obstacle to real roleplaying. In a game like Hero, the objection would almost make sense, because there's no way around the effects-based nature of the system. Almost. It would still fall apart because it requires willfully setting up straw-men to create examples.
Ultimately, the situation could be no different if 5e did succeed in it's lofty something-for-everybody modular goal. If someone decided to hate 5e, they could craft an analogous argument by picking out a set of modules that doesn't work for their style, and decrying it as making the game impossible for them to play. Take an option, choose something you find nonsensical, and complain that it doesn't make sense to you.
The same goes for the occasional GNS-based rationalizations for hating 4e. GNS is a not-particularly-compelling theory about /how/ people play games more than it is a theory about the games themselves. All three approaches could work in virtually any published game. A 'gamist' for instance, could still have that attitude in a game that offers mechanical rewards for 'good RP,' (faking?) 'good RP,' just becomes part of the game. A narrativist could still make decisions for his character based on how he perceives his character's role in the unfolding story rather than based on the how the mechanics model the situation the character is in. A simulationist could immerse himself in a role regardless of 'fiction in the middle' or any other rule quibbles, if he's so inclined. Honestly, GNS takes three aspects of RPGs - story, gaming, and role-assumption, and paints them as incompatible extremes when they are more all to be found at the same table, being embraced in varying proportions by the various players. One player says "I" when describing character actions, another uses his character's name, they could also both be intent on wringing the most mechanical effectiveness out of every design and in-play decisions as well, or not. Games may try to emphasize one or the other, or other conscious styles, be it with mechanical carrots & sticks or with advice to GMs and players, but they can never get completely away from any of it.
