Let me restate: for a game to specifically provide for telling a story in play, it must have mechanics that enforce that playstyle. What do those games do to do that? What player choices or actions are curtailed or prohibited, if any?
The robust travel mechanics of A5E, as a non-controversial example that leaps immediately to mind. Personally I would add domain management, mass battles and war, and "courtly intrigue aka social combat" to the list at the very least.
I don't believe this for a second. The ruleset has little or nothing to do with a "story" playstyle.
Now, modules? Sure. They were often written in a "story" way -- but that's not rules.
Systems should be designed to accomplish their goals. I don't actually understand the reticence to engage with systems even if they might be a little different.
What's wrong with the tech that it can't handle new classes? Does that mean you can't create an Artificer on Beyond? Or is WotC just gatong 3pp classes?
I don't think this can be overstated. If 4E had gotten just Paizo on board, the entire history of D&D over the last nearly 20 years would look different.
That presupposes that WotC picks the "good ones." Since we know things are coming to Beyond as part of their crowd funding, it is clear they aren't weighing quality.
More to the point: something being "good" is not what gets it on the list. Some arcane process within WotC does that.
Nothing says such differences can't be negative. Bring back some actual downsides in addition to the cool powers. Dwarves suffer from Gold Fever and can be consumed by greed. Elves cannot be ressurected AT ALL, ever. Halflings need twice the rations of a non-halfling. Like that.