This really gets to the heart of the issue, I think.
Because many 4e fans will say that, "No, the rules shouldn't limit the kind of world you play in." World = flavortext, system = mechanics, and never the two shall meet.
Bringing things back to N/G/S (for what little THAT's good for), 4e manages to be an excellent game for both narrative and gamist play: but it does so by making a total trollface at simulationism (i.e the relationship between system and gameworld), thus freeing up the narrative parts and the mechanical parts to go their separate ways unhindered by eachother.
A 4e player can describe his character's victories in the most evocative and awesome terms that he can come up with, without worrying about "contradicting" the rules. If he wants to say that THAT HAND OF HIS IS BURNING RED, he bloody well can, and he doesn't have to be playing a monk/wizard to do it.
He should likewise feel free to do whatever awesome thing he wants mechanically; I don't think I've EVER heard anyone call a character "cheesy" in 4e, which is damnwell remarkable.
I think that this is all awesome and that 4e players should go on having fun with their game. All I ask is that they recognize that not everyone shares their values. For some of us, the best part about roleplaying games (as contrasted with non-roleplaying games, or with rules-free roleplaying) is the interesting and complex interactions between the narrative/gameworld elements and the rules/system elements. And if you're that kind of gamer, then 4e just doesn't have much to offer you.