Speaking is cathartic. I don't really think that solutions are that easy to come by. From my own experience a lot of proposed solutions tend to only wok when you are DMing and not playing, or when you have a considerable sway over your DM. But it takes way less persuasion to make other editions work for certain styles, sometimes even none, as they are out of the box.
One thing that I can't help but wondering about when the 'style' complaint comes out is what people really want for their style. Is a system that allows their style enough, or does it have to actively 'support' that style, does support really mean reward, can it 'support' other styles, or does it have to be style-exclusive, etc?
For me, if a system merely allows my style - doesn't actively discourage/punish it, doesn't radically over-reward others, doesn't force a given style - I'm not seeing a lot to complain about.
Yes, 5e does that for me as a DM more than it does as a player, I'll grant that it's very DM-oriented, 'DM Empowering.'
I don't think a game has to dis-empower players to empower the DM, though. 5e may arguably do so, but it doesn't have to, and the DM doesn't have to let it.
I feel this in itself is open to debate.
Sure is, feel free.
Not having a solid base as well a base hurts certain ways to play.
A solid base of clear, well-defined, consistent, playable, balanced rules is certainly a good thing to aim for and very nice to have. It's a valid game-design philosophy, and in any game other than an RPG, you probably wouldn't get a lot of push-back for expecting such qualities in a game. RPGs though, seem to really /need/ a DM, no matter how much effort goes into the system design. At some point, a designer has to ask, 'what -
who - am I doing this for?' If you can assume a good-enough DM using the system, you have less need to build difficult-to-achieve qualities into that system, you can focus on other aspects of the design than the details and interactions and functionalities of the system - like the Story, 5e's stated emphasis.
It is easier to do certain things -like thecasualoblivion optimizing for combat, or my own going for rp heavy special snowflakes- when you know the clear limits and the clear "rights",
Easier or even possible, with a given skill set. Given a system you know won't be modded much - whether it's a 'solid' system or an easily 'broken' one - you can develop and apply system mastery to get a better character. That's a certain kind of skill. OTOH, given a system you know will be heavily DM-moderated, you can cultivate the relationship with the DM to achieve much the same result. A different skillset. Depending on your relative talents, one may well be much easier than the other. But which way you go is as much about the 'table-culture' you're playing in as the system. A DM could run 4e or 3.x with flagrant disregard for RaW and just rule as he likes, or run 5e or 1e (madness!) strictly 'by the book' (even if the book strictly tells him not to run strictly by the book).
I feel less confident expressing myself into a character the less I have to work with, not for lack of creativity, but because that would be extremely unfair and I would hog the spotlight for the wrong reasons -not to mention that I would feel like an outsider that is demanding special treatment from the table-.
As a player, I understand the concern, but as a DM, I feel that is the kind of concern it's the DM's responsibility to address, especially in a game like 5e. A good DM will work with a player to provide them what they need to play the character they want. If that's guidance as to how some things that are vague in the rules are likely to work, so be it. It's no guarantee (even in the most tightly-defined RPG, the DM could whip the RAW right out from under you at any time), but it's better to have it out there.
DM empowerment also tends to facilitate "Emperor DMs" that are very closed to input from players, I don't know but some of the most open minded and facilitating DMs I've played with came from the rules-heavy 3rd and 4th editions (Ok also from 2e), but I have found way too many dictatorial DMs with 5th.
There are good DM and not so good DMs. No system can shield you from the bad ones, though - at best, a clear system will make it more obvious when a bad one is abusing his position. So 5e chooses to be open to being used very well by the best DMs, as well as to being abused by the worst. That's a legitimate choice. Like having a
laize faire regulatory environment, it's
caveat emptor.
I'm delighted with it. Just as you'd expect the best - and worst - DMs to be. ;>
