i think you are missing the important part: All you do is choosing between the powers. You aren´t doing anything else. Took me three months to see how de-protagonizing that is, at least in B9S.

So, Seattle plays your character. Positioning is actually also not your choice, as you just move were it´s best/required for the power you use.

The only meaningful decision is to decide on the moment you use your daily power.

>>All you do is choosing between the powers

As opposed to what? Basic attack, basic attack, basic attack?

As for RPGPundit:

1. Powergaming: I think this concern is overblown. Power is relative. If I have 4hp and do 2 damage, monsters have 2 hp and do 1 damage, it's exactly equivalent to if I have 8hp do 4 damage and monsters have 4 hp and do 2 damage. Wizards, for instance, seem to have lots of HP now but in my experience they die in 2 hits, maybe 3 if they're lucky on the damage rolls. This is slightly more than 3.X and before (they would die in one hit, but then again so would a fighter if the opponent Crits), but this is part of their philosophy that random one hit kills suck and that it's better if the players get to recuperate from a mistake by rewriting their strategy, rather than get a TPK the second they goof.

At-wills are your basic attacks. So what? To me, it's just as if instead of one basic attack you had different basics depending on what you want to do. Other systems have things like that (I remember playing Tribe 8, for instance, where you had different maneuvers you could do in melee). These things already existed in D&D (full defense, charge, etc) and in fact these particular options still exist in the general case, but now characters have class specific basic attack options. The 'basic attack' now only exists because some powers grant them (one of the Warlord at-wills, for instance, makes your ally do a basic melee attack that adds the Warlord's INT bonus to the damage roll).

2. The Cleric problem: You'll notice that most of the 'aid ally' powers are coupled with an attack. So if the 'leader' character (buffer, cleric, whatever) still spends his actions helping his friends, it doesn't take him away from the action. For instance, Healing Word is a minor action, so you can do it on your turn AND attack.

3. D&D was always miniatures centric (early AD&D had measurements in inches, not feet). Miniatures-less D&D is merely a very common variant. And words I've heard is that it's still as valid a variant in 4E as under 3.X (though to be fair, in 3.X we really quickly graduated to graph paper and battle diagrams, so YMMV). For the first time in my life I've grabbed a collection of minis for my upcoming 4E campaign, but only because I had already grown tired of the confusion of miniature-less play in 3.X, and I think the minis look cool. And I'll admit it, if they came up with good (and cheap) Shadowrun/Conspiracy X/Call of Cthulhu/other modern-type minis, I would probably not go back to mini-less gaming again. Even in games that aren't as centred on tactical gameplay as D&D, minis get rid of a lot of inconveniences.

>>All you do, is choose between five-eight options. Every time.

As opposed to one. Every time. As long as you're a fighter, rather than one of the favored (i.e. caster) classes that actually get to play a game with more tactical depth than tic-tac-toe.

>>This choice is hollow, most of the time.

Traditional, rules light RPGs usually have hollow choices. No matter how many different ways you describe a basic attack, you're still doing a basic attack. It's a veneer of choice.

>>You are not saying what your character does. You know, like, roleplaying.

Your limitations are not shared by others. Roleplaying and 'roll' playing are not mutually exclusive choices, nor are they mutually exclusive talents. Rule systems do not influence roleplaying. The difference between rules light and tactical rpgs is that in one you ONLY have roleplaying, whereas in the other one you have a roleplaying GAME.

It is one area where Exalted does a good job of encouraging more than "I hit him". The rules reward dramatic descriptions of actions with bonus dice and, if you succeed, essence (magical power points). As a result combat doesn't tend to have much in the way of simple sword play, but does have a fair amount of bouncing off walls, straining against opponents with blades locked together and broken scenery.

@Settembrini - >>>No you don´t understand. In combat, you can´t describe an action.<<<

Oh? Where is that written in the rules? I don't remember seeing it anywhere in the Keep on the Shadowfell summary of the rules. How is having the option of using Mighty Cleaving instead of a basic attack stopping anyone from describing their actions? «I run up to the kobolds to slash them both across the chest.», «I slash the gnoll and slap the evil wizard across the mouth with a reverse swing», et cæte-fuckin'-ra.