In general I agree with you but you can't argue that D&D 4 hasn't been dumbed down.

squares and moving diagonally

The 3.5 rule of every other diagonal costing double is a simple way to describe a real effect.  By making diagonal movement be linear with non-diagonal movement you destroy euclidean geometry and make the map less useful. 

The 3.5 movement rule isn't exact at all, there are more accurate ways to do it but its simple and not that hard to follow.  In my mind, making diagonal movement linear makes things worse and the 3.5 is nice and simple.  So, what is the reasoning for it if not dumbing down of the game?


Again, in general, I agree but some changes strain my suspension of disbelief, even in a world where there is magic.

There is stuff I like about 4E.  I like how some stuff is made simpler.  I just can't forgive the diagonal movement thing because the whole point of the map is to give you a visual idea of how far apart things are and declaring that diagonal movement (which is just a straight line on a different axis) is equal distant when clearly it isn't is dumb.

Magic does the same thing with its areas of affect for blasts but that doesn't bother me because I don't expect magic to follow the rules of physics.

My basic problem with the diagonal thing has to do with outdoor combat and fast movement.   Suppose you are your full charging distance from an enemy, a mage, but halfway between you and him is his buddy, a fighter.  If you run straight at the mage you will invoke an attack of opportunity but if you move diagonally out to the right and then diagonally back in once you are half way you can avoid getting close enough to his buddy for the AoO.  But now you've traveled farther to do that... still you can get to the mage.  That makes no sense.  If I am the mage I am annoyed that I can't predict the laws of motion well enough to strike from a distance because distance has lost some of its meaning.  Its dumb.  The 1.5 rule for diagonal is close enough to reality without slowing anything down that it is dumb to change that.

They could have switched to hexes but that makes mapping harder.

They could have left it alone.

But they assumed the audience couldn't keep track of diagonal movement so they made a dumb rule.

I don't like it when entertainment assumes I am stupid.

But really, its the only big gripe I have with 4E.  Most of the other stuff that people complain about doesn't bother me.  As you said, each system has its strengths and weaknesses and you should use a rule set that works for the kind of game you want.

And unless there is something warping the rules of physics, I'd never let a gnome knock a dragon prone.  Again, its dumb.  If such a thing can happen then mass and gravity don't have standard rules.  (Magic breaks the rules of physics... that's what magic is and that's OK.)

The game does rely on the D&D name to establish its market.  I think the comments on versatility of systems though are somewhat off focus. Hero might be the most versatile system of all but it’s a bookkeeping and preparation nightmare to run. I find Gurps only slightly less so. But to specifically address points.


Clutch:

Still the gnome can knock the dragon prone so whats the solution? Apply the mechanics effects of knocking the dragon prone but instead have the in story description of the action differ than the dragon flopping around. Whats the difference between this and saying the diagonal movement counts the same?

As far as not predicting ranges because of diagonal movement it cant be that you have difficultly counting to ten can it? What you mean if that you think squares are distracting method of dividing space. Which is true. Counting 1.5 for alternate squares does not correct this distortion only makes it less distracting to you. Though as discussed elsewhere given odd movement values and the ability to shift and terrain effects it does not elegantly address the situation. Hexes are an elegant solution though they do make neat mapping more difficult and require rules regarding what portion of a hex constitutes inhabitable space. Squares are simple. You can count them faster than hexes and look better on maps in a world of square buildings. Its not ideal but  workable.

Still your assumption on their motivations is …..I’m not sure you should take it as a hit on your intelligence to have a simplified non bookkeeping method of movement. But yeah I hate it when playing risk that moving through Europe takes longer than moving through Africa.



Sombrenote:

I think your description is putting the cart in front of the horse.  I disagree with your assertion about combat. The array of status effect, movement options, and yes even grab, hold and pin rules that make combat much more dynamic than most of game systems out there. ( I was always a fan of the Top Secret unarmed combat system.)  I’m not sure about what you mean about only ever fight monsters though. Do you mean that the rules don’t allow for non combat situations or that they don’t support fighting npc’s?  Im not sure that I’ve found either to be true but I must confess many adversaries end up dead after facing my group. (No one seems to like using the intimidate bloodied foe rule.) Still delivering a captive to authorities was the result of the last combat encounter that they went through.

As far as realism goes, I think the game is more cinematic that gritty.  There is no regular mention of <ahem> bodily functions in my game (though there are sewers in the city.) To say there is no realism though is hyperbole. But I take it to mean that you prefer more realism than what the games is good at depicting. I agree the game is more Super Mario Brothers than Flight simulator.

I don’t know about fearing classes / vrs level. That seems to be spread evenly though-out all systems. I cant recall ever having a group of players fearing “The wizard apprentice.” Though the grand Wizard of the chamber of  the Seven, he’s probably a boot-shaker. But Maybe I misunderstand what you mean.

As far as superficial characters, I could not disagree more.  I guess the difference is  “do rules exist to limit what you can do? or allow what you can do.“ In a game with a vigorous specific skill system, you have rules to assist you in various critical tasks and skills that exist as flavor. Many systems give these skills equal weight some do not.  All too often vigorous skill systems are at best a crutch for role-play at worst a substitute or even an inhibitor.  In 4th you want to be a good cook? Rp like one. You don’t develop the character as being a good cook then they aren’t one. It’s the character development and role-playing that resolves the situation not a d20 roll and 2 extra skill points that were thrown in craft: cooking because everything else was maxed out. 4th edition requires actual role-playing and character development   to resolve these situations.  The justification for being a competent cook is no longer a point during leveling or character creation but an actual in-character reason.  Characters are by force more than an allotment of points but an accumulation of fictional experiences lending depth to the character.  Characters can be played fitting with their backgrounds without trying to constrain their backgrounds to fit within an arbitrary number of points dictated by a more vigorous skill system.




I am not saying that 4th ed cant be played like a version of D&D miniatures because we all know it can be.  The resulting game might not appear to different to the casual observer than a well run character driven game. The question is what system best fits the style of game you want to run. For a  high-fantasy,  cinematic style  strategic game with in-depth story related character development I think that 4th works much easier than anything else I tried.