Reading Rules

Here's a quote from "Neithan" from the Paizo.com messageboard:

When you read the rules, it totaly seperates you from the things they are meant to represent. Not a fault of the book, but the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world.

This, my friends, is what is wrong with 4th Edition. I've been reading more and more posts lately about the debate between 4E and 3.X. There are a couple of people advocating 4E who refuse to see the personal preference of play style for 3rd Edition. They cite examples where the game goes too far into "simulationist" territory, such as a 1st Level Wizard getting creamed in a first encounter. There's nothing wrong with the game. That's the way it was meant to play. You HAVE to protect the wizard at low levels because he's going to be protecting you at high levels. The roles in the party change from level to level.

What is at the core of this debate is how some people see it as a fantasy game, and others see it as a fantasy simulation. This is not new, but 4th Edition chose a side in this conflict and some people see it as a great thing. Others do not.