I think it’s a player choice in how they approach the game.

My favorite character of late has been a dwarven rogue I built. He’s a fleshed out character with a cool story and features, but I also did choose cool powers and feats that would give some sort of edge in combat. He’s a very versatile character IMO and not short on role-play for it.

Combat has become more tactical to be sure, but I don’t believe it’s at the behest of role-play. I look at it as a blessing; for once the combat rules are pretty clear and deterministic. However, I haven’t really noticed if any of the publications discourage house-ruling or modifying the game to suite your group’s needs. In fact, I believe it’s generally encouraged if it will make the game more fun for your group.

The game really depends on the players. Rules are rules only in so far as you are willing to follow them. They are after all, made to be broken.

The tactical thing I’ve noticed with my recent first session of 4e. The emphasis on push and pull is interesting and very different. However, I agree, most people are set on maximizing everything, and the push on combat for D&D justifies this in a way. It’s always more fun to survive than not survive.

I myself have been thinking of trying a related-but-not-the-same system, like True20, or maybe just houseruling a total mish-mash of what I like from various games and seeing if I can create something fun without introducing major balance issues. 3.5 has its limitations, 4e I’m very skeptical about, and 2e was a bit too complex for me (although maybe I should go re-read it, it’s been a while).

Min-maxing and metagaming: the worst things to happen to RPGs.

Otherwise the min-max style will win out, as it does in CRPGs, simply because players assume the point of the game is the level grind instead of the story.

I agree with wyatt when he says that you can easily “skin” anything you want. It’s easy to feel constrained by powers and the battlemat, but if you look a step beyond it, you can see that those features free you up to do whatever you want.

I’m running two games now. One is a standard high-fantasy game that’s starting to go heavy on the intrigue and politics in the paragon tier, and another has the PCs working as archaelogists in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world. 4e has worked wonderfully for those games, and both often see no use for the battlemat whatsoever.

When there is use for it, I do my best to keep it from being just a tactical exercise. Battlefields shift, monsters cajole the players, etc.

For roleplaying, I’ve always felt that less is more.

@Dyson: I’m not sure how we would play 4e without a battle grid and tokens. You’d either have far better processing power than I do or you’d have to be simplifying the game system. Sounds like either way, it works.

@Dar: Sounds like fun! Enjoy it!

My kid made a Dragonborn wizard that thinks he is an elf.

I made an Eladrin cleric that charges into battle cause the durn dragon born does first… then pays for it.