Being or feeling caged in by mechanics is terrible, because it limits the very reason tabletop games are awesome - you aren't limited to pre-programmed scenarios, you can jump around on your own thing.
<snip>
I don't think this is an X Edition Only thing, but getting caught in rule minutia and closing the box around is a problem.
Beyond shooting off your powers to resolve a given situation, the only other mechanical options they gave us are: magic items (which are now just a subset of your power deck), and skill checks (which involve either a very vanilla d20 roll on a chart for a few set tasks; or else a process of free-associating a particular function out of the broadly defined skills, "Mother May I" negotiation with the DM, and page 42...). Rituals only count if we restrict the "obstacle" to something with a longer time frame, and in any case don't really change the "spellbook" nature of 4e PC abilities (i.e. if you know you have 5+ minutes to solve the problem, you go from flipping through your power deck to flipping through your list of known rituals).
There is a modern approach to RPG design that tries to straddle the divide between
rules and "
Mother may I", by giving the PCs broadly defined, open-ended capabilities and by giving the GM sound rules advice on how to set difficulties for conflict resolution that will (i) fit well with the PCs' capabilties and (ii) produce an outcome that is reasonably satisfying for the players at the table, both in gameplay and narrative terms.
Probably the poster-child for this sort of design is HeroQuest. But D&D 4e also has a go at it, via the rules on p 42 of the DMG and the (not ideally implemented, but nevertheless there) Skill Challenge mechanics.
I have two players in a group of 5 - one playing a Wizard, the other a CHA Paladin - who use p 42 on average probably once each per session. They have done things like cleansed altars of dark gods, dispelled zones of darkness created by enemies, and prayed for boons from their gods (both in combat and out of combat). I normally resolve these things by staking some damage on a skill check failure against some benefit (clearing the zone, getting combat advantage) on a skill check success. In yesterday's session the Wizard's player initiated an impromptue Skill Challenge that invovled modifying a Delay Affliction ritual so that it would lift the binding placed on the soul of a just-defeated vampire, ensuring that the soul went straight to the Shadowfell rather than lingering to cause more suffering in the mortal world.
By the standards of mainstream fantasy RPGs, I think 4e gives reasonable support for this sort of thing - certainly better than B/X D&D, for example, which has only a brief discussion of assigning a percentage chance for a PC to jump up and grab a lever; or AD&D, which I don't recall having an account of how to resolve ad hoc actions at all. (Remember that
better here means not just mechanically more robust, but also contributing in a fun way to the gameplay and to the story. This is part of the strength of the Skill Challenge mechanic.)
However, our rule sets have become increasingly like videogames to the point where I've seen GMs unpack a suitcase full of rule books and spend most of the game inside them.
<snip>
You would think, hope, tabletop players would recognise this and opt for/ demand rule sets that encouraged novelty and roleplaying but we're dragged towards the videogame model and the 'DRM' that goes with it.
I think 4e goes some way towards this, as explained above.
Bingo - and that's the problem I'm finding the more and more I run 4e. It becomes about "but I have a card that does this" rather than, "Wouldn't it be cool if I tried this action that's vaguely justified by this elaborate game of pretend we play?"
I think that 4e supports "wouldn't it be cool", as explained above.
