While the Vanguard modification of the 4% Rule does make the approach more dynamic (i.e., it reflects actual investment experience to some degree), I believe this approach to be inferior to the actuarial approach suggested in this website for the following reasons:
As is the case for most "safe" withdrawal rate strategies, it defines success as not outliving accumulated assets. It does not adequately address the risk of under spending.
It doesn't attempt to provide constant real dollar spendable income in retirement.
It doesn't coordinate with other forms of retirement income such as immediate or deferred annuities and it doesn't reflect bequest motives.
With all the adjustments required for different planning horizons and investment philosophies, it is not appreciably simpler than the actuarial approach set forth in this website (particularly if you use the assumptions and algorithm I recommended several posts ago).