Quertus fails at defining roleplaying games again

[Quertus]

So as not to derail a thread, I’m posting my current failed attempt to define RPGs, and measure games’ suitability to be played as RPGs, here.

To be a roleplaying game, it has to have “roleplaying” and “game”. “Roleplaying” is making decisions for the character, as the character. Nothing terribly contentious so far.

My current failed definition of an RPG involves comparing “inside the box” buttons with “outside the box” actions, and the comparative difficulty in adjudicating them.

My claim is that the extent to which the game hinders one’s ability to adjudicate in-character actions for which there is no prebuilt button is the extent to which it is unsuited to being played as an RPG.

So, for example, a “choose your own adventure” book is at the far “not an RPG” end of the spectrum, because, when it comes to comparing buttons to RP-driven actions, WWQD to “would you rather…”, “choose your own adventure” books make it approximately impossible to write your own pages in for actions that aren’t pre-scripted.

Of course, this all started with me evaluating claims that 4e wasn’t D&D, deciding it was D&D but wasn’t something, declaring that 4e wasn’t an RPG, and struggling to explain what I meant by that.

So, in that context, and the context of the thread I’m trying not to derail, the question is, in the context of fighting orcs who have reinforcements on the way, how much harder is it to turn “I pull the rug out from under the orcs, and cram it in the door” into “Roll ____ against the orcs’ _____ to deal d6+____ with rider ______” than to adjudicate a button press like “I cast Burning Hands”, and to do so in such a way that it isn’t random and arbitrary, but actually matches the rest of the game? Is it an unprinted Encounter power, At Will, or Daily? Does it hurt the game to add dozens of these every session? To have a player who never presses an AED button on their character sheet?

Then, if you want to see how 4e compares to other RPGs, to see if this is what 4e “wasn’t”, you’d try the same math with other games, comparing the difficulty in adjudicating a “button press” in that started with in-character interaction with the environment like “I pull the rug out from under the orcs, and cram it in the door”, and look at those two differences, to see how they compare.

4 measurements, just to see how 2 RPGs compare in 1 specific example. Lots more measurements to get a generalized feel for how suited the game is for playing the character rather than playing the system.

That’s a quick summary of what I’ve got so far, in the context of the thread I’m trying not to derail.

[MutantDragon]

Interesting topic. Personally, my definition requires an TTRPG to meet two criteria:

1. Players assume the roles of characters of their design who they are free to play in whatever manner they choose, within the bounds of decency towards the other participants in the game.

2. There must be some rules or guidelines for determining the results of player decisions. This doesn't mean that there need to be skill rolls for walking down the hall, but it does mean that when the outcome of an action is reasonably in doubt there is some means of determining the results.

If it's just the first, then it's purely a game of make believe. If it's just the second, then it's a board game, video game, or something else. That's my take, anyway.

[InvisibleBison]

My current failed definition of an RPG involves comparing “inside the box” buttons with “outside the box” actions, and the comparative difficulty in adjudicating them.

My claim is that the extent to which the game hinders one’s ability to adjudicate in-character actions for which there is no prebuilt button is the extent to which it is unsuited to being played as an RPG.

I don't think this definition can be made to work, because it's fundamentally subjective. An experienced game master is going to have a much easier time figuring out how to adjudicate an action for which the system provides no rules than someone who's never played an RPG before, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that whether or not a game is an RPG depends on who's running it.

I tend to agree with MutantDragon's definition of an RPG, though I'd phrase it more simply: An RPG is a game in which you are supposed to roleplay.

[Tanarii]

Roleplaying = making decisions on the actions of an imaginary character in an imaginary environment
Game = rules for resolution of declared action

A roleplaying game is a game in which you have an imaginary character in an imaginary environment, make decisions about their actions, and there are rules for how actions are resolved.

The caveat is the most common rule is "the GM decides how the declared action resolves". In most games that covers not having to have a specific rule for everything that can be attempted by the characters.

Otherwise Gloomhaven would be a roleplaying game. Conversely, there probably are people that would consider it one.

[Quertus]

I don't think this definition can be made to work, because it's fundamentally subjective. An experienced game master is going to have a much easier time figuring out how to adjudicate an action for which the system provides no rules than someone who's never played an RPG before, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that whether or not a game is an RPG depends on who's running it.

Actually… I’m perfectly fine with that type of subjectivity, with saying, “D&D is an RPG - but not under you”, just like “Disney is a fun vacation - but not with you”. I think that failing to take into account how much GM’s can ruin a game is an unfortunate oversight of most evaluations and designers.

It just wasn’t what I was aiming to create with my metric.

[animorte]

Roleplaying = making decisions on the actions of an imaginary character in an imaginary environment
Game = rules for resolution of declared action

A roleplaying game is a game in which you have an imaginary character in an imaginary environment, make decisions about their actions, and there are rules for how actions are resolved.

The caveat is the most common rule is "the GM decides how the declared action resolves". In most games that covers not having to have a specific rule for everything that can be attempted by the characters.

Otherwise Gloomhaven would be a roleplaying game. Conversely, there probably are people that would consider it one.

I think it absolutely is a role playing game. It specifically follows the prerequisites you stated, which I agree with. But there are also many video games that are role playing games. That’s why it’s helpful to note the difference with TTRPG, which still doesn’t set apart Gloomhaven (or those role board games) from D&D.

This link doesn’t even take into account table-top games but still has 6 variations.

Alternatively, this link talks about 7 variations of table-top games in general without technically mentioning role playing at all.

[Batcathat]

Actually… I’m perfectly fine with that type of subjectivity, with saying, “D&D is an RPG - but not under you”, just like “Disney is a fun vacation - but not with you”. I think that failing to take into account how much GM’s can ruin a game is an unfortunate oversight of most evaluations and designers.

But saying "D&D isn't an RPG" isn't like saying "Disney isn't a fun vacation", it's like saying "Disney isn't an amusement park". "Fun" is inherently subjective, but what category of thing something is usually isn't.

[Cluedrew]

For me (right now), I say that a role-playing game is a type of story-telling game that focuses on characters and figuring out what they would do. For those who consider story-telling game to be completely separate, pretend I made up a new term and then defined it to be a game where narration is an important mode of game-play. Then there is the stuff defined by game.

So, while you can still role-play during battle-mat combat, on its own it isn't a role-playing game because narration isn't a game structure any more. Narration becomes flavor text, now counting squares and checking health totals becomes the core of the game.

Of course, this all started with me evaluating claims that 4e wasn’t D&D, deciding it was D&D but wasn’t something, declaring that 4e wasn’t an RPG, and struggling to explain what I meant by that.

I remember that yes.

[Kurald Galain]

Paraphrasing what I said in the other thread, there are games where you first describe what you want to do and then you (or the DM) selects a suitable mechanic to represent that, or sometimes you do it without mechanics; and then there are games where you first pick a mechanic to use (e.g. which power) and then afterwards you (or the DM) comes up with a description, or sometimes you skip the description. Boardgames are almost always in the second group; most roleplaying games I can think of are in the first group.

Notably, 4E is firmly in the second group, at least the way it's usually played.

I'd say this is an important distinction in how a game "feels" and is played, and it's a fair basis to claim that "4E is unlike most RPGs in that..."

[Batcathat]

Paraphrasing what I said in the other thread, there are games where you first describe what you want to do and then you (or the DM) selects a suitable mechanic to represent that, or sometimes you do it without mechanics; and then there are games where you first pick a mechanic to use (e.g. which power) and then afterwards you (or the DM) comes up with a description, or sometimes you skip the description. Boardgames are almost always in the second group; most roleplaying games I can think of are in the first group.

Notably, 4E is firmly in the second group, at least the way it's usually played.

I'd say this is an important distinction in how a game "feels" and is played, and it's a fair basis to claim that "4E is unlike most RPGs in that..."

While it is an important distinction, I feel like it's between players just as much if not more than it is between games. Some players only ever use the options the rules and their character sheet presents, some players seem to think and act almost entirely outside of the box (and of course different GMs can be better or worse at handling different types of players).

[False God]

Paraphrasing what I said in the other thread, there are games where you first describe what you want to do and then you (or the DM) selects a suitable mechanic to represent that, or sometimes you do it without mechanics; and then there are games where you first pick a mechanic to use (e.g. which power) and then afterwards you (or the DM) comes up with a description, or sometimes you skip the description. Boardgames are almost always in the second group; most roleplaying games I can think of are in the first group.

Notably, 4E is firmly in the second group, at least the way it's usually played.

I'd say this is an important distinction in how a game "feels" and is played, and it's a fair basis to claim that "4E is unlike most RPGs in that..."

I feel like this differentiates 4E far more than it should. While players could certainly use whatever power they wanted for an attack, thats no different than any other edition or most RPGs. When it comes to your turn and you declare "I'm going to attack it with by sword." The DM tells you how hard (the DC) it is. Nothing functionally changed between 4E and any other edition in this regard when they said "I'm going to attack it with my Ice Hammer power." A die still needed to be rolled and a DC still needed to be met.

Very few games rely on playing "mother may I?" with the DM in the overwhelming majority of play. Situations where the player cannot look at their sheet and immediately determine a relevant skill, stat, or attack for any available situation are few. It is similarly unlikely that any game, or any DMs resolution mechanic will be dramatically different than what the game suggests is the usual skill or stat. It's highly unlikely that declaring to attack something will result in an apprise check, or asking to appraise something will result in a swim check.

[Kurald Galain]

I feel like this differentiates 4E far more than it should.

Perhaps, but 4E does get rather different player reactions than most RPGs, so clearly it differentiates itself in some way, and it's interesting to see if we can explain how. The commonly heard argument "but these players are just wrong" fails to be convincing, at any rate

[False God]

Perhaps, but 4E does get rather different player reactions than most RPGs, so clearly it differentiates itself in some way, and it's interesting to see if we can explain how. The commonly heard argument "but these players are just wrong" fails to be convincing, at any rate

It does not wildly fly outside the norms of RPGs in general, just within D&D. The lack of vancian casting, martials getting "wuxia" powers (or straight-up magical abilities). It's closer in terms of appearance and function to a supers game, with a limited set of often themed powers only available a certain number of times.

It gets different reactions from D&D players because it's not what they're used to or what they "want to see" in a D&D RPG. It doesn't IME, get much of a reaction at all from folks who are experienced with a wider variety of RPGs. With folks who regularly play outside the d20 spectrum, or folks who play more "gamey" RPGs.

If we use Quertus most basic interpretation, that an RPG is a "game" that includes "roleplaying", then the only real question of analysis is "to what degree?". I might be an outlier here, but I don't think D&D ever emphasizes roleplaying. It is a very crunchy, very "gamey" system that is IMO, intended to function from a more top-down level, like the 3rd-person-perspective in a video game, than from a 1st-person perspective. I think 4E radically changes the visuals for a more heroic, even "supers" style of gameplay, but I think all that only serves to emphasize how "gamey" D&D is in general.

I'd probably rate D&D 20% Roleplay, 80% Game. Stories, RP, thematics, flavor are all fluff. Like the flavor-text on an MTG card, almost none of it changes how the game is played. It is entirely up to the DM, the players, to do the heavy lifting for successful roleplay.

I don't think 4E changed any of that. It just made it more obvious.

[Morgaln]

The following are some thoughts that came to my mind and re basically just me collexting my thoughts. I'm not claiming it's the truth and certainly not the complete truth, but maybe it helps anyway.

I've played 4e long ago, shortly after it came out, and I liked it a lot better than 3.5 Mostly because I like to play martials, and this version gave me actual abilities to work with. I was playing a warlord and loved the class for the options it gave my to play tactically both on my own and in a team. Whatever you think about being "samey," this is the often-cited big positive of 4e. Every class had the same amount of special abilities to use.

However, those abilities are all combat abilities. And that might be the problem. If you have buttons to push, I think the first thing most players, especially inexperienced ones do is to look at those buttons and decide which one to use. Many players will not go far enough to even consider whether they even should push one of the buttons or if going for a different option would be better. Thinking outside the box needs to be learned.
That was somewhat easier in 3e, because martials didn't have any buttons; they necessarily had to think outside the box or proclaim "I attack" every turn. Casters had tons of non-damage spells that encouraged them to use these creatively.

4e certainly allows you to do things that aren't part of the rules. That is a basic tennet of RPGs and 4e is no different in that regard. But I think 4e is much worse at teaching both GMs and players to actually consider and use these options.

[Kurald Galain]

It does not wildly fly outside the norms of RPGs in general, just within D&D.

Whatever gives you that idea?

[Jay R]

Can you come up with a clear definition of "dog" that unambiguously includes both dachshunds and great danes, that includes feral dogs but not tame wolves, and doesn't use scientific jargon (like "canis familiaris"?

Many straightforward concepts cannot be unambiguously defined in a single English expression. And many attempts to do so are really attempts to re-define the concept around the speaker's preferences.

John W. Campbell Jr. (perhaps the most influential science fiction editor of all time) was once asked for a clear definition of science fiction. He eventually said, "Science fiction is what science fiction editors buy."

In short, the definition is created over time by people's actions and choices.

Similarly, role-playing games are the games that role-players play. That's the actual definition, as created and modified by people's actions. Unfortunately, it includes 4e and all the other role-playing games that you don't like and wish to exclude. It also includes all the rpgs that I don't like and wish to exclude.

That's a feature, not a bug. That's why it's a real definition, not one customized around my, or anybody else's, preferences.

[Morgaln]

Can you come up with a clear definition of "dog" that unambiguously includes both dachshunds and great danes, that includes feral dogs but not tame wolves, and doesn't use scientific jargon (like "canis familiaris"?

While I agree with the rest of your post, I can't help but take a stab at this:

"Animals that are descendent from wolves, which have gone through a breeding and selection process (i. e. domestication) by humans to make them more fit for specific purposes."

Excludes any animal that isn't a wolf or dog, because "descendant from wolves)
Also excludes wolves, because they have not been domesticated.
Even "be food" and "be a lapdog" are specific purposes, so it doesn't even exclude breeds like pugs or chihuahuas.

Much easier than defining RPG, actually. ;)

[InvisibleBison]

Similarly, role-playing games are the games that role-players play.

So if a bunch of role-players play Monopoly, does that make Monopoly a role-playing game?

[Thrudd]

You have decided that 4e isn't a role playing game, because of the ways it's different from other versions of D&D, and you're now trying to come up with a definition for all RPGs that will conform to your decision that 4e isn't one. I think you are wrong about that. I think the problem you are having with 4e is only the combat and magic rules, which are significantly different from other editions of D&D. 4e has ability scores and skills just like other wotc editions, and handles non-combat actions in the same manner as the others- with the DM deciding if a skill or ability should apply to an action, setting a difficulty and having someone roll a d20 with a modifier.

Your example of pulling a rug and shoving it under a door wouldn't be a combat power or an attack against the orcs with a rider, it would be a skill check, probably using strength, to yank the rug out from under people standing on it. I never played 4e, but just looking at the rules, you can see that it isn't that different from other editions outside the way it handles combat and spells. All editions of D&D give the most page space and character sheet space to combat rules: however, just like in earlier D&D editions, there are "utility" spells as well, that fall outside the combat framework altogether, and skills that are to be used in a very broad way for everything that isn't fighting. So it is clearly written as an RPG, with not much more or less attention to non-combat scenarios than other versions of D&D, with just as much ability for the DM to adjudicate things in an "out of box" manner.

Perhaps the biggest criticism of 4e you're having is that most magic is relegated to combat-only powers, and those combat powers don't have an attending text that describes what the spell is actually doing apart from the attack and damage and status effects. So it is a valid question to ask how a DM is supposed to decide what happens if you want to use a "chill strike" spell to try to freeze an inanimate object, outside a combat scenario, rather than using it to damage or slow a living creature. There isn't a rule for it, the DM just decides what happens. That isn't all that different from other D&D editions, though it certainly gives the DM less to work with than other editions, where sometimes a spell's text would describe how it might affect or not affect things in the environment. I can see how this particular issue is most jarring when you are trying to port over your "signature mage" character from earlier version of D&D. However, a system not supporting playing a type of character from a different game doesn't invalidate it's status as an RPG. I wager you'd have similar problems trying to port your character over to any number of other fantasy RPGs that treat magic differently than TSR/3e/5e D&D.

There are certainly valid criticisms of how 4e was designed, and resultantly how it is played at some tables, but poor design choices and lack of guidance for GMs in specific situations doesn't revoke it's status as an RPG. At worst, I'd say that perhaps 4e can be viewed as a rather simple RPG with an included tactical battle game used to resolve combat scenarios- maybe like the Mechwarrior RPG+Battletech (note, I haven't played these since the late 90's, I don't know if there are newer editions that are different). What happens when a mech pilot hops in their mech and wants to use the Gauss Rifle to do something other than shoot at another mech? Mechwarrior/Battletech switching rulesets from RPG to battlegame perhaps makes more sense than it does in D&D, since the scale of combat is so much different- it makes sense to have very different rules. However, just like D&D, Battletech was originally a tactical war game, which some players later decided they wanted ways to play as the heroes/pilots in between the big battles they were taking part in, with ways to increase their skills through gameplay. If anything, 4e is closer to the original system which was a role-playing supplement to be used with a tactical war game (Chainmail). If OD&D is an RPG, so is 4e.

[Kurald Galain]

Your example of pulling a rug and shoving it under a door wouldn't be a combat power or an attack against the orcs with a rider, it would be a skill check, probably using strength, to yank the rug out from under people standing on it. I never played 4e

Thrudd, since you haven't played 4E, perhaps you should not assume that pulling a rug like that would necessarily be resolved with a skill check?

Based on the 4E rulebook, equally valid ways of ruling this would be (A) make a basic attack with the rug, then they get a saving throw to avoid falling down; or (B) use one of your existing powers and refluff it; or (C) you can pull out the rug but it has no mechanical effect. Back when the 4E forums were active, questions like this would receive wildly varying answers from different posters.

[BRC]

So as not to derail a thread, I’m posting my current failed attempt to define RPGs, and measure games’ suitability to be played as RPGs, here.

To be a roleplaying game, it has to have “roleplaying” and “game”. “Roleplaying” is making decisions for the character, as the character. Nothing terribly contentious so far.

My current failed definition of an RPG involves comparing “inside the box” buttons with “outside the box” actions, and the comparative difficulty in adjudicating them.

My claim is that the extent to which the game hinders one’s ability to adjudicate in-character actions for which there is no prebuilt button is the extent to which it is unsuited to being played as an RPG..

I think it's a simple binary, can you do something without being giving a button.

Consider, The Windowpane Test.
Narratively, Ms. Scarlet is in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe. She would like to smash a windowpane. This would change the situation.

The game you are playing has no rule for breaking a window with a lead pipe.

In an RPG, if you say "I break the window" without an explicit ability to let you break the window, the game, whether it's GM'd or GMless, is obligated to assume that you did, in fact, break the window, and proceed forward with that being the situation.

In a Not-RPG, you cannot.


Difficulty of Adjudication can't be relevant, because different RPGs are going to be different at adjudicating different sorts of "Outside the Box" actions. So any given example, say, yanking the rug out from under a bunch of orcs, is going to heavily depend on the system in question. 5e Dnd can probably adjudicate yanking the rug as a simple application of physical strength, but an RPG focused on social intrigue may not even HAVE a physical strength stat.

Does that mean that Dungeon and Dragons IS an RPG while Courts and Countesses (The hypothetical social intrigue focused RPG) is not?

I don't think you can really say "X is MORE of an RPG" or "Y is LESS of an RPG" in any meaningful way. Especially because the test kind of falls apart with certain more abstracted systems. I vaguely recall some system, I think designed to do Arthurian Legend type stuff, and in it the stats were based not on your character's capabilities, but on their Motivations, whether you were doing something "For Duty", "For Glory", or "For Love". You can't apply the "Outside the box" test to such a system because the rules don't actually care about what an individual action is.

[kyoryu]

"I don't like a game so I'm going to make a definition explicitly designed to define it as objectively bad."

Dude, stop. Just stop. You've got better things to do.

[Pauly]

I think the OP has made an error. I see it as 3 elements.
Role - Taking on a persona different to your own. Although it is rare you can RPG using historical or RL characters as your persona.
Playing - using the adopted persona to interact with others
Game -using an agreed set of rules that limit how the players can act to achieve an outcome,

[Thrudd]

Thrudd, since you haven't played 4E, perhaps you should not assume that pulling a rug like that would necessarily be resolved with a skill check?

Based on the 4E rulebook, equally valid ways of ruling this would be (A) make a basic attack with the rug, then they get a saving throw to avoid falling down; or (B) use one of your existing powers and refluff it; or (C) you can pull out the rug but it has no mechanical effect. Back when the 4E forums were active, questions like this would receive wildly varying answers from different posters.

You could say the same about the same action happening in AD&D. There isn't anything in the game that says how you should do this, the DM decides. They would just have to decide what happens, maybe having the orcs make a saving throw, maybe having the player roll a d20 or a d100 or a d6 or any other die, or using the "bend bars/lift gates" roll as a way to test strength, or rolling under their strength score...or anything. The fact that there are lots of precise combat rules doesn't mean the DM is incapable of ruling what happens when someone wants to do something "out of the box" of the combat powers. Wildly different answers for different DMs is exactly what I'd expect for most editions of D&D, and since we aren't questioning whether all editions of D&D in general are really RPGs, I'd have to say this doesn't disqualify 4e, either. Maybe the solution I proposed was only obvious to me, because I've played 3e, and other systems, where ability scores and skills are used in this manner: but the fact that 4e has such a sub-system means the capability is there, whether or not the book was written in such a way that people would not think to use it. Do the 4e authors give bad guidance, like telling people that skill/ability checks can never be used during combat rounds, only at-will/encounter/daily powers can be used when play has moved to the grid? I'm pretty sure that's not the case - aren't skills listed as one of the possible uses of standard and movement actions?- like "feat of strength" under Athletics skill, use as a standard at-will action. Maybe this is something people corrected later in supplements and wikis, and was much less obvious in the original core books.

Anyway, it's fair enough to say that the way many people have played 4e may not be reflected in my reading of the system, and I just don't know. The written rules clearly didn't give some people enough guidance to treat the game as other than a tactical combat board game. But I've read a lot of 4e's defenders relating how the system worked perfectly well for their role playing needs. Just as people who defend TSR D&D editions claim the same, despite it's complete lack of specific guidance on gamifying/adjudicating a huge array of possible character activities.

I can certainly see the validity of the criticism that so many of the magical spells and powers are just treated as combat abilities, with little or no text describing what is actually happening in the fiction. It is left to the DM and the players to imagine what is happening in the fiction and rule accordingly, if someone wants to use those powers outside context of directly attacking enemies. How many times can you use an "encounter power" outside the context of a combat encounter? Is it once per minute? Once per hour? How cold is a cold spell that can damage and slow an opponent, can it freeze water solid? how hot is a fire spell that does fire damage to someone, can it catch things on fire? What happens when stuff is on fire? Other than the encounter question, these sorts of questions occur in other editions of D&D, as well. Some editions addressed them better than others. Sometimes the answers are "hidden" by poor book organization or found somewhere in the DMG which isn't thoroughly read by the DM. Maybe 4e was the worst at this out of all the editions. But it is clearly meant to be more than just a board game.

[Quertus]

But saying "D&D isn't an RPG" isn't like saying "Disney isn't a fun vacation", it's like saying "Disney isn't an amusement park". "Fun" is inherently subjective, but what category of thing something is usually isn't.

D&D isn’t an RPG. It’s… more like a brand, with several related RPGs, at least 2 War games, a cartoon show, and definitely no movies it should acknowledge.

[Batcathat]

D&D isn’t an RPG. It’s… more like a brand, with several related RPGs, at least 2 War games, a cartoon show, and definitely no movies it should acknowledge.

Alright, so let's pretend I said "D&D 4e" (or 3.5 or 5 or whatever), the point remains. Not to mention that Disney is also a brand, rather than an amusement park.

[Psyren]

It does not wildly fly outside the norms of RPGs in general, just within D&D.

I agree with this. 4e is a TTRPG, and definitions of TTRPG that attempt to exclude it as one are generally cloaked in No True Scotsman or other fallacies. And I say this as someone who doesn't even like 4e in the slightest.

[Beoric]

Thrudd, since you haven't played 4E, perhaps you should not assume that pulling a rug like that would necessarily be resolved with a skill check?

Based on the 4E rulebook, equally valid ways of ruling this would be (A) make a basic attack with the rug, then they get a saving throw to avoid falling down; or (B) use one of your existing powers and refluff it; or (C) you can pull out the rug but it has no mechanical effect. Back when the 4E forums were active, questions like this would receive wildly varying answers from different posters.

FTR, when I first saw this example I immediately defaulted to "Strength vs the higher of Fortitude or Reflex; Hit: the target is knocked prone."

On reflection, if it was a group of orcs it would be harder; a group is heavy. So I might allow the foregoing against the first row of orcs, and allow a secondary attack against the second row only if there were no misses against Fortitude in the first row.

Paraphrasing what I said in the other thread, there are games where you first describe what you want to do and then you (or the DM) selects a suitable mechanic to represent that, or sometimes you do it without mechanics; and then there are games where you first pick a mechanic to use (e.g. which power) and then afterwards you (or the DM) comes up with a description, or sometimes you skip the description. Boardgames are almost always in the second group; most roleplaying games I can think of are in the first group.

Notably, 4E is firmly in the second group, at least the way it's usually played.

I'd say this is an important distinction in how a game "feels" and is played, and it's a fair basis to claim that "4E is unlike most RPGs in that..."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I consider 4e to be in the first group.

I think the real difference between 4e and other versions of the game was the presentation through marketing and the the culture that was fostered by WotC. Comparing 4e to 1e (and I have played a lot of both), they both actually have a lot of rules, but there was a culture of play with 1e that expected you to improvise actions that fell outside of the rules - or even actions that fell inside of the rules if the rules did not make sense in a particular context.

Making up rules on the spot, and encouraging out-of-the-box play, is not part of 4e's culture. Which I think is crazy, because as far as I am aware 4e is the only edition that gives you express guidelines as to how to improvise. Page 42 of the DMG expressly says,

Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.

And then it gives you guildlines that will straight up work in 90% of improvised actions that you are required to adjudicate, and work with modification in the other 10%. The adjudication I mentioned above was based on this guideline from p. 42:

Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC, or it might just be a Strength or Dexterity check against any defense. For an attack, use the appropriate defense of the target.

For anything that wasn't an attack, you would use a skill check, and there is a table to help assign DCs. If damage is a possibility, there is another table to help you assign appropriate damage.

Whereas in 1e, the DM would choose a die, more or less randomly, and assign a DC, more or less randomly, without any real reference to anything other than his own experience; this is basically what Thrudd is describing.

So really, 1e had a culture that better supported out-of-the-box play, but 4e has mechanics that better support out-of-the-box play.

But the 4e culture against out-of-the-box play is so pervasive that Kurald Galain, who is as active as anyone on the 4e boards, didn't apply DMG p. 42 when he posted his response. People have generally forgotten it even exists.

It is the same as the 1e/2e divide. Mechanically they are virtually identical (other than a reduction of support for hex crawls and domain play), but 2e adventures are so different from 1e adventures that everybody thinks 2e feels different. Diehard 1e players seem to believe the mechanics of 2e influence you to run plot-heavy railroads with min-maxed special snowflake characters. But it just ain't so.

[Vhaidara]

4e is absolutely possible to do outside of the box things. I primarily play with an organized play group, which limits the ability to do that on builds, but your distinction feels...very weird to me? You seem to be saying the difference of what the written rules actually cover? 4e is just as capable of handling "I swing from the chandelier and drop it on the boss' head" as 3.5, 5e, Exalted, or...honestly any other system I've encountered. Namely, the DM is going to have to come up with how it works.

4e, as a game with robust mechanical rules, trends not to be played with as much outside the box thinking, but it is just as equipped to handle it as any other system. But it is very easy to go outside of the fantasy standard. The first game I played in was a science fantasy type game, and my character was a warforged swordmage, using tech instead of magic. He had short range teleporters, he had nanomachines. I have multiple characters based on the Persona video games, two drawn from Hollow Knight, some from Shadowrun. I've run super hero settings, standard fantasy settings, sci-fi settings, Diablo clones, Mecha Anime.

Your metric isn't about inside/outside the box, it's a question of how big the box is. Because any game can handle outside of the box (where the box is defined as the rules) equally well. Namely: as well as the DM can.

[Gimby]

How many times can you use an "encounter power" outside the context of a combat encounter?

For what it's worth, this is explicitly answered - Encounter powers refresh on a short rest - 5 minutes. Broadly the 5e short rest system is lifted from 4e encounter powers.