Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
I don't see why a more simple moral perspective precludes storytelling and roleplaying; as I've already pointed out, many great stories did not worry themselves about great moral issues (not these ones, anyway).
The difference between a tactical game with simple morals and roleplaying is just that, if you're not worrying and dealing with moral issues you aren't roleplaying, you're simply pushing a miniature figure on a playing board.

Both types of games can be fun, but they are two different games, and you need to be aware of the group you're running/playing in.

Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
I'd say there's two issues, first being not that I dislike more complex fiction but that I think this game is a bad fit for it (again, the game seems designed in such a way as to suggest the folks behind it agree, particularly its most recent incarnation), and then the second being how does the game relate to the comic, and how successful (in my opinion) that implementation is.
No, tactical gaming vs roleplaying goes to group's taste and style, it is not dependent on the actual game rules design, though naturally certain elements of rules will be better at helping instead of hindering roleplay, just like certain elements of rules will be better at helping instead of hindering tactical gaming.

In D&D this dichotomy goes back to the creators, with Gygax being into tactical gaming, and Arneson being a roleplayer into complex world creation and story.

It goes without saying that you can find numerous first person accounts from DMs and fellow players on how Gygax was a terrible roleplayer and ran tactical games, while Arneson was a great roleplayer who ran games in complex worlds, different strokes and all.