The flaw with your (rather insulting) line of thinking and analogy is that there is no reason whatsoever for people to "share". I don't see any advantage in compromising on a ruleset for a game like D&D. It doesn't help me if the game works better for people who like overpowered wizards and poor tactical play (as an example). Yes, it's selfish, but that is exactly what consumers should be. The only party who has a vested interest in having the different groups of fans get along is WotC, not any of those fans.
Except... 4e didn't have enough fans to be sustainable. The success of any new products require increasing the fanbase. Your incentive to share is having any new content at all; a third of most future books is infinitely more content than no books.
And if you thought it was insulting before, you should have read the first draft where I brought in the
Brady Bunch in relation to the new middle child and said "Marsha Marsha Marsha!"
Which is why I'm cranky about this. Unwavering stubbornness and slamming old editions will just mean 5e will fail and D&D will go away.
Your books will continue to exist on your shelf but it will only get
harder for you to find people to game with when the best selling RPGs on the market are
Pathfinder,
Marvel,
DragonAge,
Dark Heresy, and likely some of the World of Darkness books.
I'm not sure what edition of D&D you have in mind as encouraging intrigue or stealth-focused play.
I've run this in AD&D, but it required all the PCs to be (multi-classed) thieves, and there were no especially robust mechanics for social conflict.
Are we talking about D&D or 4e here. Because 4e is literally the only edition of D&D on my shelves (I can't talk about BECMI or oD&D) that provides me with significant support for solutions other than either violence or magic.
...
So don't tell me stealth can't be done with 4th when I have run an entire stealth and asymmetric warfare based arc for my party and been supported in it by the rules in a way no other edition of D&D would come close to. No skill challenges, stealth skills locked up tighter, a no-caster party. And don't tell me that intrigue can't be done in 4th when I've done that too - and would again say that 4e is better suited to intrigue than any other edition of D&D I've either run or played.
I'll handle both of these at the same time.
The first problem is that Skill Challenges don't work. They're a fantastic idea but the skill system in 4e is broken, and thus Skill Challenges are unable to work properly. They've errated the DC by level chart twice and it's still problematic.
I've written whole blogs on this so I'll try and keep it short.
The problem is bad math. 4e encourages one high stat for your to-hit stat and skill training gives too high of a bonus and it is far, far too easy to stack bonuses from backgrounds, races, feats, and magic items. So there is an incredible disparity from someone who is good at a skill to someone who is bad, and it only gets wider as levels increase. Very quickly the DM has to throw out DCs that either challenge the adept but are impossible for the amateur or challenge the amateur but are automatic for the adept. I've joked that 4e fixed the "clumsy expert/ lucky amateur" problem in this regard.
So Skill Challenges almost always become "PCs try and sell their best or second best skill".
Which brings us to Stealth. Now, typically this means the entire party rolling stealth. But the stealth experts are so high as to be on another level. So the DCs and challenge applies to the rest of the party. The person who built their character around stealth doesn't get to play, they can sit out, because they roll so high. They "win" stealth and stop playing, which is like telling the person who maxed out their character for combat that they autohit and deal max damage.
Now, other non-combat resolution. The problem here lies in the lack of other character support for non-combat options other than skill challenges. You pick skills at first level which is your only non-combat choice and after that, the remaining 29 levels, every choice reflects combat.
Playing a non-combat game becomes tricky because all the character's powers, all the tools in their toolbox, involve combat. They can't swap out attack powers for more Utilities and even then most Utilities relate to combat. And even seemingly non-offensive powers always deal damage. Illusionists are blaster wizards in 4e, with all their powers dishing the pain. I played a psion for a while, with the telepath build, and I didn't have a single power that let me read minds. None. All of them related to mind raping my opponents.
What incentive is there to level up? If the change of succeeding at a skill is static anyway, why not just stay at first level?
And are you really playing 4th Edition at that point? If you're ignoring 90% of the rules and options and content, is that really the best game for you?
4e doesn't discourage alternate types of play. There's nothing to prevent stealth or intrigue or
Game of Thrones style power plays. But there's nothing that encourages it, there's nothing that rewards it or prompts it or enables it.
Now, there are two things 4e doesn't support - grit and overwhelming PC magic. Your characters will be larger than life. And it's hard work to make a mage tricksy enough that you retire him to prevent the DM tearing his hair out (I've done it in 4th but tend to stay away from wizards in previous editions).
Gritty doesn't work, but neither does the only semi-related low-magic style. If you want a no-magic game or non-fantastic game then 4e isn't great. One of the base races can teleport at first level (and if they play a warlorck or swordmage they become Nightcrawler).
And, yes, magic being powerful and special is also tricky.
But, as argued above, there's little in 4e to really encourage heist or stealthy play.
And just because earlier editions didn't do a style of play better than 4e, doesn't mean 4e does it well, it just means 4e does it least badly. And that right there is something new 5e can bring to the table.