I may be missing a key point here, but what if the fencer (above) was facing an opponent with full plate and shield and a reach weapon that is longer then the fencing blade. In reality, is it equally easy for that fencer to make that opponent move? If not, and if D&D is full of opponents in full plate and shield and reach weapons, then would the fencer find any 4E combat-related mechanics to now be disassociated (compared to your analogy in which all other opponents are also fencers like him/her).
That depends if they are dealing with a real world reality or a cinematic reality. I have stated quite openly that 4e runs on Holywood Physics - and in a world using Holywood Physics, that isn't so much of a problem. Rule of Cool. On the other hand, in a world that uses the physics of the real world the problem isn't the rapier wielder moving the person in plate with a shield (although that's a pretty redundant combination). Moving them is about the one thing they can do. The problem is that even if the rapier can push, short of going through the eyeholes in the armour it can't do any actual
damage. Under Holywood Physics it can - but under real world physics it turns off the armour. It's eyeslits or nothing.
So either you can accept Holywood Physics, or you can have the rapier only hit on a natural 20 - and that's pretty much an instant kill most of the time. 4e works although it isn't in the real world. Given that in 3e rapier hits on plate don't often confirm (due to the critical confirmation roll), clearly they aren't going in through the eyeslit, 3e fails at having anything like realism here. If 3e is intended to be a mythic reality or under holywood physics, then that works. But it doesn't embrace it in the way 4e does.
GURPS and Rolemaster get this one right-ish for gritty games. In GURPS, Plate Armour has IIRC DR 6. And being a thrusting weapon, a finely made rapier does about 1d6+1 damage in the hands of an above averagely strong wielder. For 1d6+1-6 damage unless you went through the eyeslits at -10 to hit on 3d6. Rolemaster uses a separate table for rapier vs plate - and you don't damage much unless you are
really good.
If yes, then doesn't go to prove that the fictional context is important?
Fictional context
is important. As is fictional flavour. 4e is pretty clear on its fictional flavour - it's Holywood Physics or the physics of the Illiad, the Oddessy, and of Norse and Celtic Myth. This isn't the physics of the real world (there are some real howlers in Virgil for anyone who knows what they are talking about). It's also the physics of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser where people can go rocket propelled ski-ing. Or ride the shockwave from an explosion without ending up as a pile of jelly.
I have no problem with this physics model being criticised by fans of the gritter Rolemaster or GURPS. They are based on a more realistic physics model, and that is a perfectly valid choice. And if I wanted one I'd play those games. Where I do have a problem is if
3E fans start criticising 4e on those grounds. 4E has a consistent physics model (well, as consistent as large action movies get). In 3e a heavy pick does only fractionally more damage to plate armour than a rapier - and that only when you need more than a natural 18 to hit. That a weapon designed to be the first thing to poke holes into unarmoured targets does the same average damage against plate armour as a weapon designed specifically to penetrate plate armour is absurd. In 3e a rapier and a heavy pick hit with the same timing. This is equally absurd. One is what the heavy pick is designed for, one is what the rapier is designed for. But the two are more or less indistinguishable at both. Under Holywood Physics, that's fine. Both are going to be useful and it's a character choice which you wield. But under any sort of realistic game, this is risible.
You are in a glass house and throwing stones.
As I have said, if you take every event in 4E and look at in in isolation, you can always come up with a perfectly valid explanation. But if you look at the patterns that surface due to the mechanics, then the validity falls away. And because we are playing a game and know the mechanics are there, that pattern surfaces on the very first use.
Once more I have to say you are in a glass house and trying to throw stones. The patterns are IME
not as bad as you claim. But the first thing any game
must get right is character psychology. And here 3e fails and fails badly. Man is an economic animal. Humans in a world where (a) high level wizards exist and (b) high level wizards haven't completely upended the economy to me just do not make sense. Unless there are detentes enforced by the game world they just aren't behaving like humans. (Eberron manages this to be fair by (a) removing high level wizards and (b) having magic users forming cartels). Even if 4e physics breaks slightly, the people are all recognisable as people. If mid-high level arcanists are common in 3e, they are not recognisable. This to me is a far more serious problem.
And for the record,
hit points are obvious on the very first playthrough in 3e. And those are as disassociated as anything in 4e. 4e embraces them with healing surges and says "You are John McLane or Indiana Jones and you
can take a ridiculous pounding and come back." Which means they cease to be disassociated and become a part of the underlying game world. In older editions they are swept under the rug and make ungainly lumps in the carpet that you need to be careful to walk round until you are used to.
Oh, and I disagree with you about the patterns. The patterns are consistent - and one of Holywood Physics. If that's a deal breaker, fine. But it's consistent and valid.
Adjusting the plot to meet the mechanics is as fundamental to 4E as putting shapes in squares is to tic tac toe.
Oh, possibly. 4e is a high action game. It does what it does superbly. But doesn't do other things very well. But for a counter-argument, I'm once more going to point out that you need to adjust your gameworld to fit the 3e magic system.
