I hope you don't mind my clarifying my terse overview:
Not at all. Clarification is good, and can lead to productive discussion.
Here, I also had in mind things like how a AD&D fighter would become a "lord" at level 9, but a player in Fate could declare that their fighting-person a "lord" in their aspect at the very beginning. You can start as a "grizzled veteran of a thousand wars" or something in Fate.
Yes. But note how, "You can do X" doesn't really strongly argue, "You cannot do not-X". The fact that you can start the game as a "grizzled veteran of a thousand wars" doesn't mean the game is not designed to handle starting as "green recruit" and growing into "grizzled veteran" - this the game does well, but we have to note that the
power curve in the game isn't particularly steep. As you go from green to veteran, your gains in outright power will be modest, but your overall change into a different person can be substantial.
Here, I meant more in Lanefan's sense of exploration and dungeon crawls that focuses on skilled play, simulated prefixed environments, and the like.
Okay, so, here's a thing we need to crack open. We can agree, I think, that skilled play in soccer looks very little like skilled play in chess, yes? I mean, yes, there's some bits about strategy and positioning and pace and pressure, but really, playing one doesn't make you good at the other. So, I submit that skilled play in wargame-leaning D&D looks a whole lot different from skilled play in Fate. But, that doesn't mean skilled play is not involved in Fate. Any game can focus on skilled play, or not - but what skills are involved may be different.
It may be fair to say that Fate does not involve the skills he (or any particular person) finds fun to exercise.
Fate, IMHO, usually has more blank spaces in its play that are filled by the proactive play of players. For example, a character with the aspect "Disgraced Bodyguard of the Prince" could invoke their aspect to declare a narrative fact that is consistent with the fiction: e.g., "Because I was a bodyguard for the prince, I know that there is a secret escape route into the manor that connects the kitchen to the shed in the garden." The GM can accept the fate point and go with the new narrative fiction. This sort of thing doesn't really jive well with Lanefan's own sense of what D&D exploration and dungeon crawls entail.
Okay. 1) The GM
can. Not
must.
2) So, there's a story of a guy who goes to a doctor, and says, "Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor replies, "Well, don't do that!"
This can be handled by saying, "Hey, folks, I'm going for a particular feel in this game, please don't spend fate points to Declare Story Details (that what this is called in the Fate SRD)." This will not break the system. The intent of the rule is largely shift the burden of creation off the GM - so when a player wants to ask, "Hey, is there a chandelier here, my plan really calls for me to swing from it, if there is one," the GM can just make them pay a bit for the convenience, and let it go. If you want to shift that burden back, just eliminate that one use of Fate points, and you are back in the traditional mode. In my experience, this is the least commonly used power of the Fate Point anyway. Nothing will melt if you don't use it at all.
Here, I was referring more to the grid-based movement tactics here as opposed to the more abstract Creating an Advantage and Invoking Aspects actions where a lot of the tactical scene-engagement comes into play. Fate wasn't built out of a tactical skirmish wargame. D&D was.
Yep. I'm happy to refer to this as the D&D wargame aspect. And yes, Fate is not a wargame - this hearkens back to the discussion of skilled play - if what you are looking for is the number crunching of Advanced Squad Leader, Fate will not provide that experience. No argument.
I should note, though, that the Fate mechanics you are using there you describe as "abstract" - they are always used in terms concrete to the situation in the game. In D&D and attack action is abstract - it is only a concrete thing when you actually put it in a context, like a slavering orc coming at you, and you add in what you attack with - "I attack the slavering orc with my sword," is concrete. Similarly, you don't create an
abstract advantage. You drop your "Banana peel underfoot" that happens to be an advantage because the slavering orc needs to dodge it. The thing that happens in the session is concrete - it is only abstract when we discuss it sans context.
Traps and puzzles are often part of the resource management game, a means to whittle things like HP and spells. Fate's not really into that.
Yeah. Go into the boss fight having filled up many stress boxes, having taken some Consequences, and used up all your Fate Points on small stuff, and then come back and tell me that.
But, really, puzzles in D&D are by tradition, not by mechanical design. The only mechanics D&D has that directly speak to puzzles are the find/remove traps skill, and the 4e Skill Challenge, which does not exist in any other system edition. Everything else is a GM choosing to wedge an ad hoc challenge in that will happen to eat up resources. You can do that in any game.
Create an Advantage, invoking aspects, aspect permissions, declare a story detail, conceding a conflict, compels, etc.
Move, attack, cast spell, use skill/class feature, interact with environment, dodge help, etc. In the abstract, the list of things isn't long in either game.