People seem to be conflating "the rules are incomplete" with "the rules offer freedom".
One reason we HAVE rules is because "Let's pretend" tends to end in a lot of "Did not!" "Did too!" arguments.
From what I've seen of 4e, the possible set of *codified* actions is very small, smaller than in 3e. This means that if one looks down a list of "Possible combat options" for any character, there aren't that many, and of the ones which are there, it looks like there's always one overwhelmingly optimal choice.
"You can do anything!" is true of any GM-moderated game, so saying it's possible in 4e is like saying the game has dice. It's dim praise. Turning everything into a DM call is, pretty much, one step from playing Amber -- if it's "DM sets difficulty, DM describes results", then it comes down to "DM decides if he wants the players to succeed, then lets them pretend to roll." Without any kind of rules or guidelines for special actions beyond "Pick a difficulty", you really have nothing to go on, and if anyone things "The DM assigns a DC" is some kind of revolution in roleplaying game mechanics...well...you're wrong. Not much more to say than that.
No set of rules can, or should try to, cover all situations, but there should be enough rules that the DM can fill in the gaps based on similar rules. For example, in last nights game, we were facing very annoying creatures which had some kind of very high DR/bashing. we were ambushed sans cleric and with no bashing weapons, and we had one death (me), one would-have-died-but-for-DM-fiat, and one "knocked out and regenerating". (Ogre mage) IAE, once we deduced (via in-game experience, not metagaming) that we needed bashing weapons, I asked if I could smash down using the hilt of my sword, instead of swinging. The DM, experienced in the rules, figured that a:I'd take a non-proficiency penalty, since the weapon wasn't built for that, and, b:It would do less damage, treated as a weapon of one size smaller. Since rules for non-proficiency and 'scaling' were in the game, using them to make this judgement call was easy. Even more, if I'm with a different DM and have to do the same thing, I can point out those rules as the basis for a fair judgement -- or use them myself when it comes up in play.
From what I've seen of 4e, many of the options anyone can try in 3x -- disarm, trip, grapple, bull rush, overrun, sunder -- are either missing, restricted to feats/talents/powers, or neutered. You either use your 'buttons', as WOTC people have called them, or you rely on the tender mercies of the DM. Further, because fighter/rogue/etc attacks now come with a lot of flavor text, there is a *perception* of fewer options even though, mechanically, nothing has changed. In my games, a fighter might say, "I whirl my longsword overhead then slash downwards in a mighty chop!" or "I knock his shield arm out of the way and then go in for the kill!" -- even if all he's doing is rolling a standard attack. (Then, based on the dice roll, I can respond with "You smash down with a mighty blow, nearly cleaving his helm!" or "Sorry, he sidesteps easily and prepares to launch his counterstrike.") With 4e's "flavorful" exploits, it *feels* as if all you're doing is hitting a button labeled 'Careful Attack' over and over. I know that, mechanically, it's no different, but it FEELS more restrictive BECAUSE it's more detailed.
It's a phenomenon seen in many forms of art -- with abstractions, people fill in details, but if detail is given, they don't, even if they can/should, and you feel more distant from something 'realistic' than from something vague. (This is why 1e felt 'more free' than newer versions, despite having the most restrictive rules of all versions)
3x provided a lot of *mechanics* but very little *description* -- 4e seems to be going the other way, adding in a lot more 'fluff' in every area but giving fewer rules. For a lot of people, this is ideal; for me, it's making more work. I have to 'fight' the RAW every step of the way to strip out the fluff and get down to 'what kind of action are these rules modeling', and, further, I have to deal with a smaller set of 'data point actions'. The various things I listed above (disarm, etc) provide, if you will, points on a curve -- given a free-form player action, I have a lot of samples I can pick from that it's "sort of close to", and use them as guidelines. The variety of actions which provoke an AOO let me judge if a player action should, too. And so on. Now, maybe this depth is in the 4e DMs Guide, but from the oblique hints and wink-wink, nudge-nudge we've had from official WOTC sources, it seems it's more "How to set a DC" stuff without real crunch beyond that.
(As a side note, I think a lot of people use "First edition feel" to mean different things. To me, it means wild&wacky gonzo adventure -- the Arduin Grimoire is the ultimate "First Edition" book for me. While "Endless arguing over DM calls" was indeed a part of 1e play, it's not a part I want back. )
Funny, that.
