There is always going to be a balancing act between rules lite and rules heavy. The thing is that the previous two editions went the route of more and more rules. But all it did was add a layer of finicky rules, the DM still controlled the narrative and game as much as they wanted.
Giving the players detailed rules constricts PCs just as much or more than the DM. Bob can look at the influence chart and say "Hah! I got a 20 on my influence check and now the ogre has to let us pass!" but it doesn't really mean anything. The DM that doesn't want the players to get by the ogre with an influence check they will just make up some risk or sacrifice for the ogre that means the influence check doesn't work. Meanwhile if the players didn't have that chart in front of them maybe they would have tried tricking or bribing the ogre. In my experiences with this over the years having one specific route to achieving a goal spelled out tends to limit the imagination of people when it comes to problem solving.
In addition, D&D at various points has tried to steer everyone to play a very specific way, the way it was "supposed to be played". IMHO it's always been a mistake. I think one of the strengths of D&D is that people have always had the option to make the game what they want. If the developers think PCs should be able to hide quite often, there should be a section in the DMG talking about it and telling the DM what the intent of the designers is and the logic behind it. Then the DM can look at that advice and learn from it instead of trying to force it on them because that never works.
Last, but not least, I really don't understand how this shifts power in any way or somehow makes good DMs out of bad ones. Inexperienced DMs need advice and guidance, not more rules lawyers.
Giving the players detailed rules constricts PCs just as much or more than the DM. Bob can look at the influence chart and say "Hah! I got a 20 on my influence check and now the ogre has to let us pass!" but it doesn't really mean anything. The DM that doesn't want the players to get by the ogre with an influence check they will just make up some risk or sacrifice for the ogre that means the influence check doesn't work. Meanwhile if the players didn't have that chart in front of them maybe they would have tried tricking or bribing the ogre. In my experiences with this over the years having one specific route to achieving a goal spelled out tends to limit the imagination of people when it comes to problem solving.
In addition, D&D at various points has tried to steer everyone to play a very specific way, the way it was "supposed to be played". IMHO it's always been a mistake. I think one of the strengths of D&D is that people have always had the option to make the game what they want. If the developers think PCs should be able to hide quite often, there should be a section in the DMG talking about it and telling the DM what the intent of the designers is and the logic behind it. Then the DM can look at that advice and learn from it instead of trying to force it on them because that never works.
Last, but not least, I really don't understand how this shifts power in any way or somehow makes good DMs out of bad ones. Inexperienced DMs need advice and guidance, not more rules lawyers.