No, not really. That is to say, you have a very comprehensive resolution system for combat (action) in 4e, which frees the players from dependency on the opinions and agenda of the GM in terms of deciding what does and doesn't work, etc. That system, being necessarily detailed (the grid and such is there for a reason) is inherently wargame like and naturally lends itself to a game with a developed sense of tactics. The tactics, IMHO, are not in and of themselves central to the core aspect of the game as a story game. You could replace them with a flavor of the SC rules, it would have an impact on the player's dependency on the GM (because SCs are much more subject to GM arbitration than combat) but in terms of being able to be story centered, that would still be equally possible. One might argue even more so.
OTOH, as played by many, 4e is largely a wargame with some RP attached, but those people mostly abandon the SC system entirely, don't bother with quests (probably only skimmed the DMG mostly) and declared things like players declaring what items they would like to be anathema. I'm not sure they are actually playing 4e, but rather using 4e rules to play something else, maybe a sort of idealized 3.x? I think 5e is largely aimed at this, and clearly its satisfactory to a lot of people. So, 4e as experienced may be more 'dnd tactics' than 4e as designed.
My answer is probably discernible from my earlier comments, the structure of these systems, combat and skill challenge, puts the players much more in charge. In a combat I can see the terrain, and the geography of what is around me, and I can maneuver around in it in a detailed way. I can reason about it, too "that orc cannot get to me if I stand over beyond this difficult terrain here." In an AD&D combat none of that is apparent. This is pretty well realized from the example combat in the 1e DMG where position and tactical situation are fully abstract. The player in a 1e game HAS to rely on the GM to adjudicate what exactly is and isn't allowed, etc. In fact 1e's (and 2e's) rules are actually VERY ambiguous and more of a generalized toolkit for the GM to judge things by than a set of hard rules.
So, by having hard rules, the player knows what he can depend on. This is empowering. The same is true in a different sense for the SC system. That system governs how much a check is 'worth', its VALENCE. It is worth 1/4, 1/6, 1/8, 1/10, or 1/12 of total success! Consider the situation in 5e. You are 'sneaking into the castle'. So what is the 'worth' of a stealth check? In 4e I know this is a complexity 3 challenge and thus if I succeed in this stealth check, I have to succeed in 7 more checks to win. In 5e, there's no such guarantee whatsoever. The GM is free to impose as many more checks as he wishes between me and my goal, and the consequences of failures are likewise entirely their business. If I spend some resource on passing a check, I have a pretty good idea in 4e what I'm getting for my 'money'. This is empowering! Moreover there's a very interesting corollary here, which is it doesn't actually matter what the notional fictional 'riskiness' of the challenge is. 4e SCs always throw checks at the DCs appropriate to the character's level, there is NO discussion in 4e of SCs having a 'level' as combat encounters do! Now, I would posit that there is a thematic test there, in that 4e has a very clear set of definitions of what sort of character you are, a hero, a paragon, or an epic (yeah, that doesn't work does it?). So, the GM will control that aspect, describing a dangerous trek in the woods, or a dangerous trek in the deep underdark, or a dangerous trek through the 5th circle of Hell depending tier and maybe everyone's preferences. No matter, the actual mechanics are identical in each case, though the fiction will be different.
I never paid the slightest attention to DL, so I am not sure what those modules are like. I would think that the ideal of how to design a module for 4e is to have a whole bunch of encounters, each of which provides some hooks and information which pertains to the others. These probably form a sort of graded set, so you will pass through at least some of the more peripheral ones early on, and then logically move on to others that are part of the ramp up, and finally there will be one of several possible finale. I mean, really, it COULD all inevitably lead to a single final capstone, but with the PCs having engaged in one of several, perhaps almost infinitely many, possible paths to getting there.
For example, the Shadowfell city setting, Gloomwrought, is quite amenable to this sort of thing. It has a rich set of situations, characters, plots, etc. which all form a kind of tapestry. There's definitely stuff going on, though its loosely enough described to be fairly mutable. Prince Roland runs the place, and if a campaign plays out there it is ALMOST inevitable that the PCs will eventually come into conflict with Roland. Its possible they could ally with him, though he will probably try to get rid of them because they're too powerful. So, you don't have to play out a final struggle with Roland, but you'll certainly play out the consequences of the whole power structure of Gloomwrought (or just leave and go somewhere else). It is more of a story now kind of module than many people would think, as it LOOKS like just a 'resource book'. I would say probably some other similar setting aids could work similarly. The Fallcrest location in DMG1 for instance is not so well realized, but it does have kind of a similar setup, you can ally with different factions, fight them all, etc. It just lacks an explicit kind of 'top dog' that is an obvious opponent. I think because the idea is you will just use it as a launch point vs it BEING a campaign arc.
