Well, to be clear, I'm not saying 4e is a game of "kill things and take their stuff"...I certainly expect that your games (from what you've said Pemerton) are nothing like that, nor are they solely combat (which I also don't think 4e is).
On the one hand, I think that the rewards, including story, magical items, and xp have increasingly focused on rewarding combat, not only by way of editions, but also by trends in adventures and from perspectives of people editorializing what their games are over time. I don't think this is driven by edition, but by an "evolution of focus".
On the other hand, I do think that 4e might pull more for this, by virtue of its being so good.
I hadn't even realized it when I started my prior post, but by the end, it had occurred to me: 4e did a great job making combat balanced and fun for all roles in a party...and that might have been a bad thing.
Now, that's overly dramatic, I think, what I really mean is that the good thing might have had some bad sideffects.
There are often complaints against 4e regarding lack of roleplaying or things to do outside of combat. These complaints are missing a few points, but I think I've noticed something new (new to me anyway) that approaches this critique from another angle.
2 things:
1. The first is Kamikaze Midget's post eariler in this thread. Rituals and skill challenges are very clumsy rule sets, in my opinion. Others may disagree, of course, but the fact that skill challenges have been errattaed/overhauled right out of the gate, and tweaked here and there since points that they're not perfect. But their not being perfect is glaring compared to the combat rules which are far more elegant. Here what I'm saying is the best rules in 4e are the combat rules. There ARE rules for lots of things outside of combat, but they're much clumsier.
2. Combat is balanced in 4e. Things outside of combat might not be so balanced, and indeed, some may have options where others have none (like characters who can do rituals versus those who can't). There is a group pressure for everyone to be having fun rather than sitting on the sideline (in pretty much all games). Thus, combat becomes the obvious choice. It is the place where all characters can shine.
As I mentioned with the rogue, why have one party member try to sneak when he could fail and be at risk by himself? Why not send in the whole party to take on the challenge? The rogue is discouraged from being a rogue in order to be a striker.
Now, I'm not saying that it's a big problem that 4e made too good a game. I'm saying that 4e combat has the best and most balanced rules in the game and the place where all players can contribute. Outside of combat, though there are rules, they are not balanced in the same way.
But, again, it's not just about a ruleset. It's about focus. Can 4e be used for a low combat, high intrigue, game wherein the players solve mysteries and dally in noble court politics? YES.
Another quick mention is that good dming with a real world feel that every challenge is not of a challenge rating/encounter level/etc. that CAN be overcome with combat. This is, again, not a ruleset issue, but a dming issue.
I think it's a combination of recent shifts (3e and 4e) toward increased use of combat to solve problems rather than finding other solutions. I also think that the more fun combat becomes, the more people will want to spend their time doing exactly that, and so will place more focus on that as well.
To sum up my point, balance, if a focus, needs to exist both in and out of combat.
.
