I don't think you are anyone else in this thread has adequately shown that the play procedures between 3E and 5E (just by way of example) are significantly different. I don't have a 3.x DMG near at hand, but I do not think the description of those procedures is notably different than the ones in 5E.
1. DM describes the situation and asks "what do you do?"
2. Player answers.
3. repeat steps 1 and 2 until a die roll is called for by the DM.
4. Player rolls and reports the results to the DM.
5. DM describes the outcome.
6. goto 1
Again, the difference I perceive is in the specifics of who is saying what in steps 2 and 5, and in how the DM determines whether or not to call for a roll in step 3. In what I view as the 3e and 4e style, generally the player simply states what they want to accomplish and maybe a proficiency they want to employ in step 2 (e.g. “I use persuasion to try and get the guard to let me past”). In step 3, the DM might call for a roll if the player asked to make one in step 2, or if they feel the character might conceivably fail to achieve the stated goal. in step 5 the DM determines the specifics of what the character did to achieve whatever degree of success or failure the result of the roll indicates, in addition to how the guard responds.
In what I perceive as the 5e style, the player states both what they want to accomplish
and how the character goes about trying to accomplish it in step 2 (e.g. “I explain to the guard the importance of our mission to try to convince him to let me through). In step 3, the DM assesses whether the stated action could reasonably succeed at achieving the stated goal, fail to do so, and what the consequences of failure might be, calling for a roll if success, failure, and consequences are all reasonable possibilities. In step 5, the DM determines based on the result of the roll whether the stated goal was successfully achieved or the consequences of failure were suffered, and describes those results.
The difference may seem subtle, but there are many consequences of these different methods that may not be obvious to one who has not tried both. For example, in the former method, rolls are often called for that have no consequences, or trivial consequences, for failure. In the latter method, many more actions succeed or fail without a roll being called for. The methods demand different levels of engagement with the fiction from the players and from the DM. There are many ways these techniques affect the play experience, despite seeming at a glance to be more or less the same.