Let me guess - you never played or DMed 0e or 1e, did you.
I did, briefly, play in older versions of the game, and hated it--but for very different reasons. There were so many restrictions on character creation back then that it truly stifled any kind of creativity out of me.
Now if you want to blame something for not giving more specifics, blame the DMG; as that's where the DM guidance should in theory be found.
This is the most useful thing that has come out of this thread for me. I've said elsewhere that I like
playing 5e, a lot, actually, I just hate
running it because of the reasons I've outlined here.
Conversely, 5e (and 0e-1e) leave you-as-player free to think like your character and let the DM worry about the mechanics while at the table, where 3e (and 4e) instead keep you-as-player thinking about meta-mechanics all the time.
Disagree. The weekly 3.x games I'm in feature a
lot, a
LOT, of roleplay, completely independent of the mechanics. Sure, the rules do come up, but there's tons of roleplay all the time. I wouldn't game with those folks if there wasn't roleplay. This is what's known as the Stormwind fallacy, which is to say that focusing on rules to build a powerful character (or, more broadly here, focusing on mechanics) means that one can't roleplay. I play with some of the munchiest people I've ever met and they're also some of the best roleplayers. One is a classically-trained actor and another plays one
on TV in game.
I guess this is where difference of preference comes in. What you call a scaffold of toothpicks, I call tools, supplies, and an instruction manual—items provided that give me the ability to be involved in the vision I want. What you call an impregnable fortress, I call shackles and a prison—things that prevent me from doing what I want.
You've always been able--and encouraged--to change the rules in earlier editions, to make rulings. The difference is that in 5e you're
required to, because the rulebooks don't provide you with many things you're likely to need.