I honestly think the primary reason 4E has gotten the reputation of being "not for roleplaying" is that many, and in fact the launch adventure (Keep on the Shadowfell) are all combat heavy, linear slogs.
I think this is right.
If you read through the PHB and DMG for 4e, the talk is all of a game where history and mythology run deep, and still matter to the present day. The talk is of player-initiated quests, and of skill challenge resolution which is highly responsive to player ingenuity and the players driving the game forward.
And even the advice for tactical encounters talks about movement, circular paths, improvisation using page 42, etc.
But the modules, or at least many of the ones I know (Heathen, from Dungeon, and P2 with the drow perhaps being two exceptions) don't reflect this at all. As they are presented, history and mythology provide at best a supeficial patina of flavour. The situations presented are very static, and have little room for player input or incorporation of player-driven quests. Many of the encounters, as written, are boring even at the tactical level, let alone the thematic level. And the skill challenges seem poorly conceived - presented more in the manner of a script, than of a situation which the GM will adjudicate flexibly in response to the input of the players.
For a while now I've been wondering why WotC seem unable to produce good modules. And linking this back to the thread topic, it may be an "all things to all people" issue.
To try and explain that: I think that 4e is not especially suited to a classic D&D "Caves of Chaos"-style setup. Unlike B2, it is focused less on exploration, and more on engaging the situation. And the WotC authors seem to recognise this - so they are not writing exploration-focused modules. But what they have produced as the alternative are situation-based modules which read as if all the play has already happened - all the events, the relationships, the theme, the drama, has already been prepackaged. All that's left for the purchaser at the table to do is to roll the dice to work out exactly how costly the combats will be, in time and healing surges.
I don't think the solution is to try and go back to the classic module style. I think ideas for how to present situation-focused modules that are more flexible and open to player input - that read like a starting point for play rather than an output of play - can be found in the sample adventures for HeroWars (I'm thinking of the original Narrator's Guide) and Burning Wheel (I'm thinking of the Adventure Builder). The focus would be more on setting up a scenario in terms of the relatioships within it, ideas for how to use those relationships to engage and put pressure on the players via their PCs, then leading that into a range of suggested framings for skill challenges and/or combat encounters.
Of WotC modules that I know, The Speaker in Dreams goes some way towards trying this. And of the 4e modules, P2 has a stab at it, although somewhat bizarrely the skill challenge guidance is summarised over a couple of pages, while the combat stats for the same situations are given two pages each. It would have been better, in my view, if the authors had had the courage of their convictions and subordinated the combat info while putting more effort into setting up the relationships between the NPCs and the skill challenges they might support.
