Imaro
Legend
It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though how it works in clearly not to everyone's taste.
It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks. I've played rpg's based around narrative control... and the fact of the matter is they go through great lengths to explain this as the basis of the game because without such explanations the game can be approached from and interpreted in a way that makes it seem absurd or non-sensical. Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode? I would classify that as bad design. Good design should be based around a totally uninformed person playing the game for the first time.
The only way I can see 4e being based on narrative control (and let me not forget, it's only certain-particular-specific-individual-powers that do this) is that the designers made a big mistake and didn't think it mattered if the lens through which certain, but not all, powers were suppose to be interpreted through was narrative...even though D&D has never been based around giving narrative power to characters in very specific instances before (this was the realm of magic in previous editions). If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.
That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.
I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not liking 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.
You know what Mallus, the funny thing is to me this isn't about just admiting you do or don't like 4e, since there are people of both opinions on both sides. Though I guess it's easier to try and paint in broad strokes so that now if you like 4e you must say these particular powers make sense and if you don't then you must believe they don't within the context we are discussing.
Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case.
As far as the text, which one is it, is the fluff text relevant or not... it seems the answer often changes depending on whether the fluff supports a proponents view or not. If it's not and malleable as you and many others have claimed it is irrelevant to the discussion of how something works (putting aside the fact that most, if not all the text deals what happens in the moment of the effect... not what caused it) and the only thing we have to go buy are the mechanics in determining the why's of a power...right? thus if the mechanics of a power work in a way more similar to magic than not... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).