Manbearcat
Legend
In 4e nearly anything can be knocked over by anything else... a halfling can knock a storm titan prone... for some that's heroic adventure at it's best... to me it gets kind of silly at a certain point.
This is one of my bigger issues with 4e standardization of stunting or improvisation... everything shouldn't always balance out or be equally possible... it should be personalized for the feel and tone of each GM's campaign... but then one of the greatest features/flaws of 4e is that it seeks to standardize everyone's games across the board. IMO it's akin to painting a picture by numbers vs. painting a picture however you want with a few guidelines. The first is going to produce great results for those who like the assigned colors and probably bad to mediocre results (as well as feeling stifling) for anyone that doesn't like the assigned palette of colors. The other is going to produce greater variation both great and bad and feel too loose for those that need step by step instructions. Personally I, and quite a few players of D&D, think that variation between games is a good thing but apparently some want us all running a particular type of campaign with a specific playstyle for D&D across all tables... go figure.
My bolded.
I think the problem with a lot of these commentaries is that, taken as a whole, they start to become greatly at tension with one another. Further, they completely bear no resemblance to the experience of proficient, tenured users of the rulset(s). Removing 4e to take the rancor out of the debate for a moment, consider Dungeon World (or any of the PBtA systems). Just take the fundamental principle of the system:
Math-centered, outcome-based, resolution mechanics whereby the bounded (but fiction-triggered) PC build inputs all orbit around the production of a bell curve, the majority of which fall into the "Success With Complications" (7-9) range. This produces a disproportionate number of dynamic, genre-relevant results that propel the fiction forward in interesting ways.
Presumably, the transparent, unified mechanics - eg play procedure standardization and simplification - of Dungeon World inherently creates less variation/dynamism than, say, D&D 5e? Is that the thesis (that isn't rhetorical, I'm asking)?