It is only true for a certain type of player.
Interestingly, I've always loved playing wizards and rogues because in past editions they were the ones with all of the choices and "cool" tricks.
Since 5e has been out, I've played a clerics, wizards and even a battle master fighter and a barbarian.
I thought I would hate playing the battle master and especially hate playing the barbarian. The funny thing was that I really enjoyed both of them. For the barbarian in particular, the lack of choices/options (rage and reckless attack - although the basic combat choices like shove, dodge, grapple, etc actually gave me more choices than I thought I'd have originally) made it very easy for me to think more about the story and the character personality than just making rule choices. I liked it. In addition, I carried a maul along with a battleaxe and shield, so depending on the situation, I could become more offensive or more defensive as desired.
Choices are not only what attack or what spell to cast. Many people derive satisfaction from making choices that align with their character's personality, flaws, bonds and ideals. These aspects of 5e have really breathed some life into PCs. Sure, good players did it in other versions of the game because they created backgrounds and backstories and focused on roleplaying, but 5e has brought these choices into the arena for more people to enjoy.
I've been pretty happy playing all of the PCs I've been playing so far: War Cleric, Tempest Cleric, Light Cleric, Basic Wizard (Evocation), Battle master fighter and Barbarian. Granted, I've only played from levels 1-6, so I don't know what it feels like in the middle to upper levels, but so far, games are only as boring as the DM and the players make it.
The only problem I've had is with players that approach the game from a tactical perspective. Those types generally aren't satisfied with "it's up to the GM" style answers to the many vague or undefined rules in 5e. This generally means there's an adjustment period for anyone who's coming straight from Pathfinder, 4e, or something like Warhammer 40k, where the rules are hardline and there's little room for interpretation.
The only problem I've had is with players that approach the game from a tactical perspective. Those types generally aren't satisfied with "it's up to the GM" style answers to the many vague or undefined rules in 5e. This generally means there's an adjustment period for anyone who's coming straight from Pathfinder, 4e, or something like Warhammer 40k, where the rules are hardline and there's little room for interpretation.
A pedantic urge within me wants to correct this to "where there's less room for interpretation." 4e and Pathfinder (I've never played WH40k) still have moments of interpretation and adjudication. Certainly in 4e, all improvisational actions are an adjudication of some kind. It's just that with 4e (IMO unlike 5e), there is a set of clear, well-balanced advice for how to adjudicate, if you wish to use it.
Sounds like just a huge difference in our mental spaces. I never, ever lack for space to think about the story. When combat becomes hypersimplified, I find myself with a large and completely unused mental space, which then leaves me antsy and grasping for something to fill it. Ironically, filling it (since I usually play over the internet, with stuff like Minesweeper) can easily cause me to be distracted. So I'm either bored out of my mind because I don't have to exert any cognitive effort at all, or (frequently) I'm scatterbrained instead, slowing things down.
Making "choices that align with [my] character's personality, flaws, bonds, and ideals" comes as natural to me as breathing. The only times I need to really think about those things are when the characters themselves need to really think about them. And having spent a good year and a half playing Dungeon World, I'm well-versed in those sorts of mechanics. I guess I just have a somewhat...skeptical perspective on 5e making it so "more people" can enjoy this stuff. BIFTs had plenty of forerunners, some of which were quite popular in 4e (Backgrounds and Themes), and nobody made a splash about them back then. Sure, 4e BGs weren't in the PHB1, but they did appear in the PHB2, which was equally "core" and less than a year into release.
The only 5e character I've meaningfully played was a Valor Bard, geared for grappling. Which was completely useless and got him killed (he got better, with significant DM lenience). We only just barely reached level 3 before the DM called off the game, both because he's busy and because he was getting frustrated at how fragile our party was compared to the other 5e group he DMs for.
Some of the guys in my regular 5e group are becoming a bit bored with the simplicity of 5th edition combat.
Sure, 4e was very easy to run, I've seen relative newbies run it with little effort or trouble. And, a DM is always free (whether the tone of the system overtly encourages it or not) to take on that 'load' or 'pressure' if he has something he wants to do with it. But, as in the RAW zietgiest of 3.5, the attitude of the players can also be a factor. 4e played well 'above board,' how it worked was obvious and consistent, so players were pretty likely to spot when you deviated from it. If you were confident enough and had their trust, you could still do it with no issues, but it was a hurdle. 5e constantly calls on the DM to make rulings for playability, so when you make a ruling for an 'ulterior' reason, it's easy to slip it by.The DM didn't have to be as good in 4e because the system could carry quite a fair bit of the load of the game.
In 5e, with a minimalist system, a lot of pressure falls on the DM to perform.
Maybe I shouldn't be bursting this particular bubble, since it's a nice bubble to be in, but D&D - RPGs in general - have rarely been simple or minimalist in any meaningful sense. Whether you're comparing RPGs in general to other sorts of games, or D&D to other RPGs, or different eds of D&D to eachother, they all come out pretty complex or complicated, one way or another. But, 5e has done such a great job of feeling like classic D&D that it's very familiar to us, and familiar can feel simple/natural/right in a way that even a much simpler or more intuitive - but entirely unfamiliar - thing simply cannot (until you've become familiar enough with it, anyway).To me the simplicity is a substantial key to great and exciting combats.
Spells are predefined effects, and every class design uses them in some way. Attacks are all one predefined effect, too (that does damage on a hit, more damage on a crit, and nothing on a miss). Sure, you can use your imagination and visualize or re-skin that stuff all you want, whether you're re-skinning one attack mechanic or myriad spell mechanics.Because you don't rely on some pre-defined attacks or special abilities or whatever and instead you use your imagination.
Yep, you can say that instead of saying, "I move up to the nearest monster and attack ::roll d20:: did I hit? ::roll d8:: 12 damage," but, in the end, you still did 12 damage. If that was a declared action, rather than a description after the fact, then the DM might let you make some sort of check, probably STR (or two, maybe DEX for bouncing off the altar), to land on the monster's chest. The DC might be 12 of 35, or you might not get a check at all, because you're getting into that whole "DM may I?" paradigm in trying to make something of your character's one mechanical option."I run towards him, bounce off the altar, jump and thrust my sword into the demon's chest while landing on him"
YepDM didn't have to be as good in 4e because the system could carry quite a fair bit of the load of the game. In 5e, with a minimalist system, a lot of pressure falls on the DM to perform.