While this may allow for emulation of the ruleset in computer medium, it also tends to prevent the free-form abilities of the past generations of the game.
I have to really object to this statement - nothing about the rules is
preventing the ability to run free-form roleplaying challenges and scenarios. That is simply outright incorrect. While I disagreed with your previous claim - that the rules
discouraged such activity - I could see how you could get that impression.
But there is absolutely nothing stopping a DM from running a free-form puzzle or social event.
You ignored my previous post, in which I discussed the fact that the DMG has guidelines for running such free-form puzzles - and, indeed, the default is to have them driven by player skill (as you like it) rather than by character skill. One of the earliest quotes in the PHB indicates the same thing - some non-combat challenges you overcome through your character's skills, some require creative solutions and clever uses of magic, and some require your wits alone. That seems to be telling the players quite directly that skill checks alone don't solve everything!
Now, let's take a step back from 4E itself. The issue at hand, honestly, is one that has long been debated about by roleplayers.
Should a character be limited by the capabilities of the player?
We don't require the player of a powerful fighter to be able to swing a sword with skill and strength in real life - should we require the player of a diplomat to genuinely be a smooth talker and skilled negotiator, or can he resolve such skills with a simple roll?
I've seen players fall on both sides of the fence, and if that is how they prefer to play, than there is no one to say that they are wrong. The rules themselves allow for both - nothing in the rules says that if a player gives a rousing and brilliant speech, you have to force them to roll a die for it to count. Nothing in the rules says that if you confront the players with a devious and intricate puzzle, and one of them instantly sees the solution, you have to force them to roll a die for their character to claim the same knowledge.
But what you do have is different opinions among players - and the biggest disruptions that arise from this are when a player and a DM view things in a different fashion.
I've seen a DM who required the player of a rogue to fully detail every action his rogue was taking in any attempt to disarm a trap, and if anything is out of place, the rogue sets off the trap regardless of what he might roll.
For some, this is great - the challenge is to the player, not the character. The player needs to think up every way the DM might have trapped the doorway and come up with a reasonable solution to avoid setting it off. But for others... well, the player of the rogue
simply is not as knowledgeable as his character. He doesn't have any experience with traps. He can't predict how the DM has trapped the doorway, or what slight mistep he might make to allow the DM to screw him over. All he knows is that his character is supposed to be good at traps... and yet, because of how the DM is running it, the rogue fails at it every time.
Either method is a valid one... as long as everyone at the table is happy with it. And on such a fundamental question, there is always going to be disagreement. You yourself gave the example of a puzzle where you wanted to solve it with your personal skills... but another player wanted to solve it with a roll, and when he did so, it detracted from your enjoyment of the game.
No one was playing incorrectly. You just had different goals, and that specific table was, apparently, not suited to your playstyle. That isn't an issue with the rules - that is an issue with the group you were playing with.
For myself, I like to combine the two elements. For a social situation, I am likely to run a skill challenge with rolls being the deciding factor (assuming characters choose the right skills to use in the right fashion.) But using skills
well will merit bonuses on those checks. If someone makes a Diplomacy check, and gives a brilliant and rousing speech in person, they'll get a +2 bonus to the roll, or more. If someone thinks up a creative skill use, like making a History check to remember some famous deed of the kings, on which they can compliment him to win his favor - then I might give them an extra success if they are able to pull it off.
On the other hand, for a puzzle or riddle, I'm likely to let player skill be the deciding factor - they need to actually solve the puzzle to proceed. But if players are having difficulty, I will let them make rolls to gain clues and hints - not an outright answer, but some extra bits of info that might steer them in the right direction.
That's my personal preference, and people I play with seem to largely agree with those methods - and that is the important part. There is no single right way to run such things, and the rules allow for the entire spectrum, from resolving challenges through countless rolls to resolving challenges through free-form roleplaying.
What matters is that you are using the right method for your group - and that isn't something the rules can decide for you.
They most certainly don't have any element that actively
prevents you from playing the way you desire. Claiming that anything about 4E stands in your way from sitting around the table and roleplaying having dinner with the king, without ever rolling a single die... well, such a claim is simply wrong. Roleplaying is entirely determined by the people at the table, and nothing in the 4E rules changes that.
