You might mean DMG 236 (or perhaps the number varies with editions). The middle path is what most DMs use in my experience. It contains scope for a wide variety of approaches. However, it doesn't cover the appreciation of the use of dice that I was thinking of: none of that section does.Sounds like you are referencing The Role of the Dice (DMG p274) here. It is true, the document is best suited for "The Middle Path" as described on that page.
I see this kind of comment a lot and it rings false to me, because it frequently comes up just when a poster wishes to denigrate another's point of view. Listening to the WotC designers on how they developed 5th edition, they consciously aimed to capture the heart of D&D from across all editions. One can trace advancements that came out of 3rd edition, through Book of Nine Swords and 4th edition, and landed in a streamlined form in 5th. There has no doubt been change and increasing sophistication in roleplaying generally... and yet very often what we see is simply widespread recognition of strands that were there from the very beginning.At the outset (4 years ago or so), our table play used to be informed quite a bit on assumptions from prior editions that the more experienced players brought in and, frankly, it felt very clunky at times. As I hadn't played 2e through 4e, it was hard at first for me as DM to identify that most of those habits the players were introducing just weren't jiving with the 5e ruleset.
I'd most urge DMs to read - really read - the core books... and to value their individual style. To consider the views of others, but make up their own minds, and be very conscious that these boards represent a small and opinionated subsection of the D&D community. Myself included