Andrew, funnily enough I do the exact opposite and have done for 30 odd years.
My process for environmental portraits and urban and industrial landscapes (I don't photograph landscapes without man made elements) is to aim the camera at a the subject, level it in both directions and then use rise or fall to compose which bit of the image circle is on the ground glass. Any other way, particularly with the wide angles I use, leads to supposed verticals flying off in all directions. I realise this is a formal way of doing things and it suits my subjects, not all. Of course the classic flat landscape like John describes needs a different approach.
I was always taught to only use indirect movements when I had run out of direct movements, or as you say sometimes the camera forces you to use indirect because of it's limitations, not a problem with my Sinar P, but can be with my Ancient Technika. I do try for my type of subject to always keep the back vertical and use front tilt to reposition depth of field, but I can do that because I only use lenses with large circles of coverage. Of course sometimes I will want to create that looming effect you get by deliberatly tilting the back, but it's always deliberate, never an accidental byproduct of other movements.
I am in agreement with John here, movements are made out to be so complicated, I reckon go out in the world and look at the screen as you play with the movements and you could pick it all up in half an hour. If it's still a problem them buy Steve Simmon's book, that shows direct and indirect movements quite clearly.
all the best, Mark