Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, the wonder of the internet is, you don't have to participate in such discussions.

Discussions will always include some segment of "I think this thing is bad." We've just had over a decade of talking about the flaws in 3e (from scry-buff-teleport to shoddy grapple rules), and we've only had about 3 years of talking about 4e's problems (long combats, balance obsession, rejection of previous story material), so there's a lot more about 4e to talk about.

And, of course, there are more subjective and relative problems. Some folks really didn't like the fighter/spellcaster balance split in previous editions, but individual campaigns could handle them just fine pretty often, on a practical basis, so there's many that never encountered the problem.

But if you don't like hearing it, you don't have to hear it.

Agreed, but when many of these statements are based on exaggeration or misconstrual it does get quite tiresome.

 

[SteveC]

Well, the wonder of the internet is, you don't have to participate in such discussions.

Discussions will always include some segment of "I think this thing is bad." We've just had over a decade of talking about the flaws in 3e (from scry-buff-teleport to shoddy grapple rules), and we've only had about 3 years of talking about 4e's problems (long combats, balance obsession, rejection of previous story material), so there's a lot more about 4e to talk about.

And, of course, there are more subjective and relative problems. Some folks really didn't like the fighter/spellcaster balance split in previous editions, but individual campaigns could handle them just fine pretty often, on a practical basis, so there's many that never encountered the problem.

But if you don't like hearing it, you don't have to hear it.

I just wanted to make a quick comment about this. This isn't directed at KM specifically, but is intended to be more general. Of course if you don't like hearing about the problems of 4E you don't have to listen to or read them. This is in large part why I find myself reading the general forum a lot less these days, since it tends to focus on negativism when 4E comes up. That's why I don't read it, and why I think a lot of the 4E crowd doesn't come in here that much.

And that's a shame, really. This isn't the Pathfinder discussion group or the OSR group or, well, you get the idea. It's the general group. My vision for a general discussion board is that everyone gets to discuss things, but grudges are checked at the door. A sort of "Casablanca with no Nazis" (with apologies to Godwin's rule).

Largely this happens for every other rule system (obviously not exclusively, there are exceptions but they are rare--and I don't agree with them either!). The issue is that people just can't seem to behave with any sort of decorum around 4E issues.

To me, this is a simple issue of respect. I have played a lot of 3X, and some Pathfinder, and I don't like them very much anymore. I could go on a really hateful screed about how bad they are for any of the common faults, but what would be the point? Plenty of good folks who have lots of interesting things to say about gaming play Pathfinder or 3X, and I'd be insulting them if I
decided to come in and rail on their games in this forum (not to mention the Pathfinder one!)

The thing is: there are a lot of general RPG topics that I find interesting and fun to discuss that aren't system dependent. I'm playing 4E at the moment, so comments I make about my game are going to come through that lens, just as someone who's playing Labyrinth Lord will be thinking in those terms.

Here's the point: most (if not all) of the issues about campaigns, game sessions, classes, player issues, DM issues, races, spells, powers, encounters, monsters, traps... frankly you name it that you discuss about D&D are system independent. Each edition handles things differently, of course, but you're talking about a very similar game across the editions, especially if you compare D&D to other RPGs, even other fantasy RPGs. I can have a discussion with a Castles and Crusades player about how their game is going and we'll make sense to each other in a way that, say, an Eclipse Phase or Dresden Files game discussion wouldn't.

I'm not sure if this long-winded post makes any sense, so let me distill it to this: while 4E players can simply not get involved with discussions about how their edition of the game is a board game, a MMO, too simple, too complex, not D&D, a superhero game or any other number of things, starting that kind of discussion is being a jerk. Don't be a jerk in general, okay?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Agreed, but when many of these statements are based on exaggeration or misconstrual it does get quite tiresome.

Yes, and that is the heart of my problem with some of the discussion. It is fairly clear that a lot (but by no means all of it) is coming from people who have never given 4E any serious attention, much less played it for any length of time. But even that's ok in a way, because people have critical facilities, and a big part of that ability is understanding things somewhat before you experience them in order to understand if you want to experience them more. That is a major part of how people keep from wasting their time.

Feeling naturally plays a huge part of this. You really should listen to your instincts.

OTOH, what we actually get in text is some variation on (hyperbole here so that the point is clear) of: "I feel this doesn't work. I kind of looked at it briefly. I tried it once with some people that I didn't know, who were hack and slashers, and it went about like you'd expect. My second cousin, three times removed knows a guy whose wife was in a group where the DM said it absolutely sucked at roleplaying/characterization/whatever." And then based on this as the starting place for a discussion, we get the reason why so and so thinks this.

You listen to your instincts. You check your feelings. You go with your experience thus far. And then before you go and tell other people about what X can or can't accomplish, you remember that all of these things are very useful but prone to spectacular failures, too. Maybe, just maybe, your instincts and feelings and brief experiences are managing to tell you that you won't like something, and are correct in doing so, but the why is not exactly as you think.

And this, BTW, is exactly where I part with some of the more rabid 4E defenders that have, as near as I can tell, made exactly the same kind of category errors knocking 3E, in the mistaken assumption that a counter-attack on edition grounds gets anywhere with such problems.

It is entirely true, for example, that there are issues with the 3E fighter, vis-a-vis wizards/clerics/druids, that bother some people in ways that can be directly traced back to the balance and mechanics. In order to compensate for this, many people have used some combination of player fiat, DM story crafting to gloss over the issues, and other things. If someone feels (as I do), that the amount of such tricks is excessive for what you get in return, then the system is not entirely a good fit. But it is precisely the same bridge too far to generalize from this personal fact to some wild conclusion that the 3E fighter is a hopeless situation, inherently. For other people, navigating this issue may be almost as easy as breathing, and thus not much worth worrying about. For them, it isn't entirely correct to say that the problem doesn't exist, but is correct to say that the issue is not causing any trouble. Practically speaking, the problem doesn't exist for them.

It is the difference between "solving problems" versus "managing issues". (A key business skill is telling the difference, so that one can apply the correct category of solutions. Try to "solve" some "problem" that is really human nature showing itself again, and you will get nowhere.) Well, in games, some things are solved, some things are partially solved, and some things are sort of solved if you squint at them in bright light on alternate Wednesdays. And then for other things, the game gives you tools or advice to manage them--or sometimes throws up its hands and tells you to deal with it. And in fairness, as with any model, whole reams of problems and issues are shunted aside, deliberately, by the game as, "too much trouble to handle or risk for too little benefit."

So it is a cogent but debatable argument, for example, to say that the 4E designers messed up when they took the issue of the 3E fighter needing to be "managed" in certain ways as a "problem" which they then "solved" at the expense of less granular skills, giving the fighter daily exploits, etc. The place to draw the line between what you can "solve" versus what you are left to "manage" always has costs at the margins, no matter which way you go. And of course, the decisions you make intersect with other parts of the system, and have costs and benefits there, too.

To make that argument, one has to first realize that not only does the 3E fighter have "issues" that some people have "managed", but also that the new "issues" that have emerged from the new 4E fighter "solution" are "issues" that some other people have equally "managed." And they did this without dropping all roleplaying or playing a board game or any other of the trivial ideas that might first suggest themselves.

For every problem, someone will quickly suggest a solution that is, "simple, obvious, and wrong." Those solutions are all provided by people that stopped with their instincts, feelings, and a cursory examination of the subject matter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, and that is the heart of my problem with some of the discussion. It is fairly clear that a lot (but by no means all of it) is coming from people who have never given 4E any serious attention, much less played it for any length of time. But even that's ok in a way, because people have critical facilities, and a big part of that ability is understanding things somewhat before you experience them in order to understand if you want to experience them more. That is a major part of how people keep from wasting their time.

Yeah, I don't know that I feel it is so much an issue of people simply haven't played 4e. That may be, but what I see is that the same refrain gets repeated endlessly.

I look at it this way, sure I've DMed for as long as anyone in existence practically, but I don't claim to be some kind of brilliant genius DM. So I don't think I'm possessed of some unusual ability to pull magic out of a game. So, when I hear for the 80 thousandth time that "oh, 4e ignores role playing, you don't even get perform, profession, and craft! Everything is just combat!" my reaction has to be "bunk" because it simply isn't true. Again, I'm not some brilliant DM, yet I have no problem using the perfectly good facilities that 4e provides for these kinds of things. Other people may not LIKE the way these things are handled in 4e, OK. That's a matter of taste, but CLEARLY the game accommodates these things and it does so with a facility that is perfectly adequate to allow this ordinary DM to use them perfectly effectively. Thus, yes, the reaction to these kinds of comments is at best to explain for the umpteenth time how it works in 4e or often one is sick and tired of that and the response is just "your talking kaka, go away." It certainly isn't advancing any debate anymore or providing any kind of insight into the game. That could probably be equally said about common criticisms of 3.x as well, as you pointed out. I don't really want to hear either side of that anymore personally.

 

[pemerton]

I think this has to do with role play support outside of combat

<snip>

Additionally, 2e had non-combat proficiencies, and 3e had narrow skills. I'm kind of hazy on other tools previous editions had, but I'm under the impression that as the game progressed, non-combat tools had historically increased in depth (I may be wrong on this, though). If that's the case, then people may have felt that 4e was a big step backwards in this department. And, seeing as how people were used to non-combat support, I can understand them seeing the lack of several obvious tools (Craft and Profession spring to mind) coupled with the focus on the board, and come to the conclusion that you have come to.

<snip>

Then there's the step towards "gamist" play.

<snip>

I understand the irritation, but, again, I don't think it's malicious.

Whether or not malice is involved I think varies from poster to poster and post to post. I think more of it is based on ignorance rather than malice - in particular, ignorance of the RPGs that inspired the 4e design.

The non-combat issue is one clear example of this. As a preliminary, it has to be noted that the failure of a game to support crafting or profession as part of its action resolution mechanics manifestly does not show that it's all about combat. (It is frequently said, for example, that combat - as opposed to exploration and looting - was secondary to classic D&D play. Whether or not this is true, the way that classic D&D approaches crafting and professions - namely, by treating them as something you pay NPCs to do - is obviously neither here nor there to its truth.)

But moving to the more substantive point, 4e has non-combat encounter design guidelines and action resolution mechanics - namely, skill challenges - that are very obviously inspired by scene-framing-and-resolution mechanics of the sort found in games like HeroQuest, Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling etc. Now it is an open question (i) whether or not one wants that sort of action resolution mechanic, and (ii) whether or not skill challenges are a good design for such a mechanic (to my mind they have some difficulties, both obvious and subtle, but are far from hopeless). But these games are obviously roleplaying games, and generally well-regarded ones.

So when a discussion about 4e begins from the premise that it is not an RPG because it doesn't address non-combat activities, something has (to my mind) already gone pretty wrong.

Another relevant piece of data that I've posted before, but - as best I recall - never had any response to: of the 21 wizard utility powers in the PHB, at least 9 have obvious or primary non-combat utility, and of the 18 warlock utilities, at least 11 have obvious or primary non-combat utility. Yet one frequently is told that PC powers are all about combat.

And in this post on another current thread we have one poster saying "If a mechanic says that a thief or a fighter can perform some action which doesn't align to thieving or fighting at all... something similar to teleportation (you just appear somewhere else), then you begin to lose me" and other posters awarding XP and quoting with approval. But how many rogue powers in PHB, MP and MP2 grant teleportation? One: a level 22 utility power called "Mountebank’s Flight" with the flavour text "You steal a bit of magic to stow away on another creature’s teleportation." (There is also a 20th level teleportation power for the paragon path Arcane Trickster.) Across those books, how many fighter powers grant telepotation? None. (Again, a fighter paragon path which requires warlock multi-classing grants a teleportation utility power at level 12)

I don't think posters on an internet forum have any sort of duty to know what they're talking about. It's a hobby site, not an academic colloquium. But comments based on obvious ignorance or disregard of the actual rules text for the game are irritating nevertheless.

As to the gamism - I'm not sure what this means. In the Forge sense, classic D&D is a highly gamist version of D&D (Gygax's instructions to players at the end of his PHB are all about "stepping on up" and engaging in "skilled play"). So is 3E. 4e is playable in a gamist fashion, though very different from classic D&D (it doesn't support Gygaxian "skilled play" very well) and also (in my view) provides the best support for narrativist play of any version of D&D. 2nd ed AD&d is the only version of D&D I know that, at least in its official rules text, decried gamist play in the Forge sense.

If by "gamism" you mean "ignoring the fiction", then we're right back to the suggestion that 4e is stepping away from being a roleplaying game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Agreed, but when many of these statements are based on exaggeration or misconstrual it does get quite tiresome.

Welcome, welcome, welcome, one and all, too the internet!

Ever been to a politics website? We're pussycats over here.

Not that it's not wrong, just that you're not going to convince someone who thinks that 4e shot their dog that 4e is the sex. Likewise, you're not going to convince someone who thinks 4e is the pinnacle of modern design that it is a waste of time and effort. The extremes can't find a middle. You can't carry on a discussion with someone so polarized. The most you can do is try to find the reasonable position that they launched from, and try to talk about that...or just ignore it entirely.

My vision for a general discussion board is that everyone gets to discuss things, but grudges are checked at the door.

My vision for my life is that I have a unicorn that dispenses ice cream and a nightly booty call from Halle Berry. I'm slightly more likely to have my vision realized than you are to have yours.

STILL: Good vision!

Largely this happens for every other rule system (obviously not exclusively, there are exceptions but they are rare--and I don't agree with them either!). The issue is that people just can't seem to behave with any sort of decorum around 4E issues.

Talking about a sometimes-emotional issue, to me, is a lot like driving.

I can't control how anyone else drives. I can only control how I drive. My job isn't to stop other people from driving recklessly, it's to not drive recklessly myself, and to get the hell out of the way when someone is driving recklessly.

Again, we're not so bad here. Politics. Religion. Apple products. People get crazy about stuff that helps identify them. To a lot of people, D&D is something they identify with. Other rules systems don't often have this problem, since other rules systems don't inspire quite the same level of personal identification that D&D can inspire.

while 4E players can simply not get involved with discussions about how their edition of the game is a board game, a MMO, too simple, too complex, not D&D, a superhero game or any other number of things, starting that kind of discussion is being a jerk.

My reaction is generally to do some detective work to find the sane point that they leapt off from in a frothing mania.

Someone thinks 4e is a board game? Well, maybe it's because they don't like playing with minis and a grid, which 4e is pretty dependent on. Maybe a D&D that didn't rely on that so much would be better.

Someone thinks 4e is an MMO? Well, maybe it's because they don't think 4e offers much choice, since so many powers are all about damage. Maybe a D&D that diversified the threats a party faced would be better.

Someone thinks 4e is too complex or too simple? Well, maybe it's because it isn't the right complexity in the right places for everyone. Maybe a D&D that let you choose your level of complexity would be better (mearls's posts often hit this point!).

Someone thinks 4e is "not D&D"? Well, maybe it's because 4e ditched a lot of the story elements of earlier editions. Maybe a D&D that embraced the tropes that people love would be better.

Someone thinks 4e is a superhero game? Well, maybe it's because 4e characters always feel above and beyond the turnip farmers and town guards that start adventures in fiction. Maybe a D&D that embraced that tier of play more would be better.

It's undoubtedly a jerky way to start off a thread, and it's undoubtedly an emotional over-reaction to something that's probably quite solvable, but it's almost always based in something that makes sense. It takes work to get there, and not everyone would enjoy putting in that work, but for me, discovering what people like or don't like about certain elements (and it's almost always don't like -- people are almost always, universally, on about what they don't like, no matter what the topic) helps me explore the diversity of the D&D player community. People have reasons for what they believe, even if they express their beliefs like frothing lunatics. We all do that from time to time, about things that are emotional to us.

Don't be a jerk in general, okay?

Good advice! But we're all jerks sometimes, especially about things that are important to us, and we all have to live in a world where sometimes, people are jerks. And getting all riled up and confrontational about it doesn't help the problem. You can't control how other people drive. All you can do is watch your blind spot, and maybe hide your drunk friend's keys before they try and drive home.

Haters gonna hate. You can't put a cap on it. Learn from it, or ignore it. Deal with it, and move on. Don't let it drag you down, because that's the only way the hate wins.

Oh, and to reward those people reading to Page 15, here's a picture of Halle Berry.

You're welcome.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If by "gamism" you mean "ignoring the fiction", then we're right back to the suggestion that 4e is stepping away from being a roleplaying game.

1) Please, please, please don't put words into my mouth, assume I meant anything beyond what I've written (as you've assumed incorrectly in other threads, and I can quote those if you'd like), or try to twist this into some sort of argument.

2) Let me go back to what I originally posted (what you originally replied to):

The case against any edition? It's got stuff people don't like, based on their preferences. Your mileage may have varied.

3) You telling me that how I feel is wrong, or how anyone else feels is wrong, based on your views or experiences? Again, let me go back to what I wrote:

However, try to convince either one of them that their experiences are wrong and you'll hit a brick wall. They aren't going to say, "you know what? You're right, that's not how I feel at all!" It just won't happen.

If you don't think these are reasonable people, or assertions, or the like, feel free to say why. These are discussion boards. You aren't right when you say that their views are wrong. You are right when you correct their "objective" broad-based claims on the game, if it conflicts with your game.

But, again, if you tell anyone "that's not entirely correct because of X" then I wouldn't expect them to change their views. I know that I have not budged in my assessment of the game based on our limited discussions. You can bring nothing intellectually to the table that will "correct" my feelings. Nor can you do it for anyone else, no matter how "wrong" they are to feel that way.

I know you accept others not liking the game. I'd say it's probably not right to extrapolate certain posters' replies to most people who agree with them. Are some people malicious? Of course. Are some ignorant of the actual mechanics? You bet. Are they going to feel differently if you debate with them? Not at all.

I see nothing productive about arguing about it. It's much more productive to say "my mileage has varied" and then expand upon it. For example, in another thread we both participated in, I mentioned that I did something differently than Hussar. Lost Soul inquired as to what it was, and after I gave an example to him, he found it interesting, XP'd me, and told me it may end up changing his view on something.

I'd take that experience and apply it to this discussion. If I say "4e feels like a board game to me, and I don't feel like I can role play with it," then it's perfectly constructive to say, "that's not my experience at all. I was able to role play just fine, and I had no mental connection to a board game. I guess we had different experiences."

However, if you said, "no, it's not like a board game, because it's X, and you're wrong about not being able to role play, because I most certainly have while playing it," then it's now just going to be an argument.

I will not be sucked into an argument with you, nor anyone else from either side of this issue. Both sides have problem posts, both sides have posters who are inflammatory, and both sides have posters who have temporary lapses in judgment. I get that. But, again, anyone from either side telling anyone else that their experiences are invalid is just wrong. It's that simple.

If you want a debate, there are plenty of people in these forums that will engage you. If you want to discuss things, I'm wiling to do that. You can champion 4e because it's a fun game that you and your friends can explore themes in. That's great. Please, do not try to argue with my opinions or my views without an invitation to do so. I'm not looking to argue. I'm looking for discussion.

As always, play what you like

[SNIP]
Haters gonna hate. You can't put a cap on it. Learn from it, or ignore it. Deal with it, and move on. Don't let it drag you down, because that's the only way the hate wins.

Very good post (can't XP again yet).

You're welcome.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

1) Please, please, please don't put words into my mouth, assume I meant anything beyond what I've written (as you've assumed incorrectly in other threads, and I can quote those if you'd like), or try to twist this into some sort of argument.

2) Let me go back to what I originally posted (what you originally replied to):


3) You telling me that how I feel is wrong, or how anyone else feels is wrong, based on your views or experiences? Again, let me go back to what I wrote:


If you don't think these are reasonable people, or assertions, or the like, feel free to say why. These are discussion boards. You aren't right when you say that their views are wrong. You are right when you correct their "objective" broad-based claims on the game, if it conflicts with your game.

But, again, if you tell anyone "that's not entirely correct because of X" then I wouldn't expect them to change their views. I know that I have not budged in my assessment of the game based on our limited discussions. You can bring nothing intellectually to the table that will "correct" my feelings. Nor can you do it for anyone else, no matter how "wrong" they are to feel that way.

I know you accept others not liking the game. I'd say it's probably not right to extrapolate certain posters' replies to most people who agree with them. Are some people malicious? Of course. Are some ignorant of the actual mechanics? You bet. Are they going to feel differently if you debate with them? Not at all.

I see nothing productive about arguing about it. It's much more productive to say "my mileage has varied" and then expand upon it. For example, in another thread we both participated in, I mentioned that I did something differently than Hussar. Lost Soul inquired as to what it was, and after I gave an example to him, he found it interesting, XP'd me, and told me it may end up changing his view on something.

I'd take that experience and apply it to this discussion. If I say "4e feels like a board game to me, and I don't feel like I can role play with it," then it's perfectly constructive to say, "that's not my experience at all. I was able to role play just fine, and I had no mental connection to a board game. I guess we had different experiences."

However, if you said, "no, it's not like a board game, because it's X, and you're wrong about not being able to role play, because I most certainly have while playing it," then it's now just going to be an argument.

I will not be sucked into an argument with you, nor anyone else from either side of this issue. Both sides have problem posts, both sides have posters who are inflammatory, and both sides have posters who have temporary lapses in judgment. I get that. But, again, anyone from either side telling anyone else that their experiences are invalid is just wrong. It's that simple.

If you want a debate, there are plenty of people in these forums that will engage you. If you want to discuss things, I'm wiling to do that. You can champion 4e because it's a fun game that you and your friends can explore themes in. That's great. Please, do not try to argue with my opinions or my views without an invitation to do so. I'm not looking to argue. I'm looking for discussion.

As always, play what you like



Very good post (can't XP again yet).

Sure, but as pemerton said, there are certain 'issues' and certain statements that come up again and again, and no number of repetitions of "no, fighters can't teleport" or "if you want to be able to play the lute you can just put it in your background, it doesn't change anything mechanically about your character" ever sinks in. I totally agree, people don't have to like those answers, but I'm just not getting anything out of hearing these "truths" repeated again and again.

It is absolutely true, nobody is going to be convinced to like what they don't like in some kind of online debate. OTOH a "OK, I see, you can do X like that in 4e, I still don't like doing it that way but yeah you can do that and its fine if it works for you." Now, sometimes I hear that. Usually not though.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sure, but as pemerton said, there are certain 'issues' and certain statements that come up again and again, and no number of repetitions of "no, fighters can't teleport" or "if you want to be able to play the lute you can just put it in your background, it doesn't change anything mechanically about your character" ever sinks in. I totally agree, people don't have to like those answers, but I'm just not getting anything out of hearing these "truths" repeated again and again.

It is absolutely true, nobody is going to be convinced to like what they don't like in some kind of online debate. OTOH a "OK, I see, you can do X like that in 4e, I still don't like doing it that way but yeah you can do that and its fine if it works for you." Now, sometimes I hear that. Usually not though.

If your point is "not everyone is reasonable" then all I can do is agree with you. It's not confined to one side of a topic, nor one topic, nor just the RPG hobby, though.

If this is basically "I wish people were more reasonable" all I can do is sympathize, because telling me that you wish that was the case is something I can relate to, but cannot fix.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

1) Please, please, please don't put words into my mouth, assume I meant anything beyond what I've written (as you've assumed incorrectly in other threads, and I can quote those if you'd like), or try to twist this into some sort of argument.

Well, what did you mean by "4e's step towards gamist play"?

I offered two readings - "gamism" in the Forge sense, which D&D - except for 2nd ed - has always been oriented towards - and "gamism" in the sense of "ignoring the fiction". Apparently you didn't mean either of those things.

You aren't right when you say that their views are wrong.

<snip>

If I say "4e feels like a board game to me, and I don't feel like I can role play with it," then it's perfectly constructive to say, "that's not my experience at all. I was able to role play just fine, and I had no mental connection to a board game. I guess we had different experiences."

However, if you said, "no, it's not like a board game, because it's X, and you're wrong about not being able to role play, because I most certainly have while playing it," then it's now just going to be an argument.

It's none of my business what anyone else's preferences are. But on a messageboard about roleplaying, if someone posts and tells me that the game I happen to prefer playing at present isn't an RPG, I think it's within the legitimate bounds of discussion to explain why I disagree.

I believe that you don't like 4e. I don't like 3E. And I loathe 2nd ed AD&D. I have a soft spot for Runequest, but could never play it seriously, because it doesn't support the sort of play I enjoy. Classic Traveller likewise.

These are all statements of feeling. But describing 4e as taking a step towards gamist play looks to me like something else. It looks like a description of the sort of play that 4e supports, and presumably, then, that 4e players engage in. And I'm curious as to what you had in mind.

Maybe you meant "not tending to support immersion, in the sense of the player and the PC having their decision-making experience mereged"? If so, that is true (I think obviously true) of 4e. But there are clearer ways to express that than by saying "it's a boardgame" or "it's not an RPG". Those are obviously inflammatory.