In spite of my crippling AIDS affliction, I attempt the hit the dragon, the inflict upon it a merest fraction of the pain and suffering I have endured daily.

NOT IT

Unless by "it," you mean a person with AIDS. Which I am.

I'll put out the fire with my action.

Being on fire isn't as bad as having AIDS.

Not it.

Did I mention I have AIDS?

Fight - 6
Dodge - 4
Think - 2

Primary: Magic Hammer
Secondary: Magic Armour
Equipment: Armour spikes

My name is Liam Neeson. I have AIDS.

Religious people and atheists are almost certain to play up the parts of the other side with which they disagree. They have a fundamental difference in outlook on the world.

Of course, my first example in playing a religious fundamentalist would be playing up their need to find meaning in things which don't have it, adhering to tradition for no reason other than tradition's sake, and demanding everyone avoid making offence to them.

Then again, I can imagine a religious person playing a hardcore atheist who always tries to start religious arguments, insists that everything has no meaning, and justifies all actions as being acceptable in an amoral, dysteleological universe. Both sides would argue with the other on the portrayal as inaccurate.

Religion is really just a reflexive action, seeing determinism and causality in everything, and anthropomorphizing the environment. It's pretty easy to imagine a character who attributes everything to divine forces.

In response to caricatures... Poe's Law. No matter how bizarre it seems, someone out there thinks it's true.

I'll probably do about 10 minutes on straight-up Dungeons & Dragons, since it's still the general go-to system. Then we can concentrate on other systems and RPG's in general.

Yes, this. The idea of "as many spells as you can fit in your spellbook" is the biggest problem. A wizard who can throw a 20d6 fireball at level 20 should have that as his "thing." He shouldn't also be a master of teleportation and summoning and divination.

How can you justify a wizard being unable to do something that a regular guy with a really big sword can do? Is placing strict limitations on magic a good solution?

By "in a different way," do you mean like this?:

Class A can do something with power 10, 5 times per day
Class B can do something with power 5, unlimited times per day
Class C can do something with power 10, 10 times per day, but it has a chance of failing
Class D can do something with power 8, unlimited times per day, but power decreases by 1 for every use

4th ed summed up:

Not at all. In 4th edition, every class received spells, they just weren't always called "spells."

Maybe it would help if we thought of a high-level fighter as more like Hercules. Hercules could kill a deer with one arrow, and without spilling a single drop of its blood. Hercules could punch down a building. Hercules forgot his sword one day, so he beat the cyclops to death with its own severed leg.

A level 20 fighter who rolls a natural 20 should basically succeed at anything the player can describe him doing, provided it is sufficiently "fighter-esque."

Wizard: Casts a spell, resulting in damage, buffs, debuffs, creation of objects, manipulation of objects, summoned monsters, and/or teleportation.

Fighter: Swings a sword, resulting in damage, buffs, debuffs, creation of objects, manipulation of objects, summoned monsters, and/or teleportation.

Is this how it should be?

Maybe the concept of the fighter just doesn't work as a single class. There isn't any one good class who is "good with magic." Even at the very minimum, we have divine and arcane magic classes. Why is it necessary to make one class who is "good with combat"?