Again, it's where and how this kind of thing is applied. Personally, I think skill systems have a big influence on it. The presence of a skill system to cover certain actions encourages the use of that system (for fairness, consistency, etc) and discourage doing an "end-run" around it with "player knowledge." That's not inherently good or bad -- it's just the way it is.
I'll agree that the presence of a skill system encourages the use of said skill system. That's as near a tautology as makes no difference. However, I think the distinctions being raised are blown way our of proportion in terms of the actual play and the effect they have on the feel of that play. Let's take Mearls' example of the trap scenario...
Mike Mearls said:
OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).
... to me, the difference between the way a system with skill rules and a system without skill rules plays out simply comes down to this...
[System without skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: I wedge an iron spike in the lever mechanism to deactivate it.
DM: You successfully deactivate the trap.
[System with skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: I try to deactivate the lever by wedging an iron spike into the mechanism. ::rolls::
DM: You successfully deactivate the trap.
I suppose some people might find those two scenarios different enough to care about it one way or the other. The main difference, as far as I can see, is that in the first scenario, all the player has to do to succeed is say the "magic words" (spike/wedge/lever), while in the second, the player describes an action and then needs to make a successful skill check to succeed. From my personal perspective, that difference is so minute that I likely wouldn't notice it in actual play. I certainly wouldn't notice it to the extent that I would base two entire "schools" of game-play on it.
Philotomy Jurament said:
My comments about player skill and reasoning aren't meant to put down modern editions, or claim that player skill and creative thinking have no place in modern D&D systems. I don't believe that. Nevertheless, I do think there's a real difference in approaches, and in how and to what degree these things are applied and accepted.
I don't think you've been insulting at all. That's certainly not my point. I guess I've just never been exposed to the types of modern play or "old school" play that you have experienced. Either that, or the differences matter a lot more to other people than they do to me. There are SO many differences between the gamer culture of the late 70s/early 80s and today that (to me) are far more significant than the amount of deductive reasoning/problem solving assumed by the game that I just can't wrap my head around how someone would pick that out as THE major, defining difference.