Fourth edition actually takes a step back from third toward the game’s wargaming roots, in its tactical combat system. Measurement in squares is essentially measurement in scale inches, after all… the more roleplay-oriented systems, on the other hand, are more rules-light than ever (to the point of being nonexistent in some cases).

I’d still count it as roleplaying, but that is a matter of semantics, not content. Also, there is no absolute divide.

@Tommi: True. If you play D&D as a wargame — and I connote nothing negative here; it was, at its roots, and it’s still a fun way to play the game if that’s what you want to do — all of those elements are a lot less painful. But if you’re playing it as an RPG, where each player develops one (or even two) character(s) in-depth, then “save or die” becomes much worse.

The reason I called out S1 is because it’s one of my favorite classic modules to play tournament-style with pregens (all except the demilich, whose weird “invulnerability to everything but these four specific spells” shtick was annoying back then and hasn’t improved any with age) — but I’d never want to run a similar dungeon with a character I actually cared about.

I think one of the biggest paradigm shifts in D&D was the change of the PC from something relatively interchangeable (and “third person”) to something more fully-developed and identified with (“first person”). It started as early as second edition, but I think third is where it really became apparent.

Hm, might be another post in that…

@bonemaster: I just realized on rereading it that I left out “loot balance,” too… although that’s kind of a subset of power balance.

bonemaster´s last blog post: Creating an RPG Wiki (or things to consider before you start)

For example: Quick character creation makes instand death much less painful. Considering a dungeon as the unit of adventure makes spheres of annihilation, and pools with arbitrary effects when sipped from, relevant: They are not arbitrary moments of destruction, but rather elements that punish carelessness and measure the risks one is willing to take. A group of hirelings and men-at-arms make instantly deadly effects even more palatable and possibly even necessary so as to reduce that valuable resource. Playing multiple characters has much the same effect.

As a GM, I know that experience is my only measure of what’s going to be an easy or difficult battle for the players – and often that’s wrong with the group throwing me a curve ball. But that’s a big part of the fun. I role-play FOR the unexpected, not against it.

When it comes to party balance, that’s even harder to quantify. My own group doesn’t want every character to be brilliant in combat because that’s not their thing, and feel it’s taking away too much from the Fighter if (for example) the Rogue is a better… uhhhh…. fighter than they are. It’s called ROLE-playing, not COMBAT-playing, and that implies each role has different strengths and weaknesses – including in and out of combat. Unfortunately, that philosophy flies in the face of current game design, it seems.