Totally ass-backwards. Sorry, but it's true. 3.5 characters (for example) are thoroughly defined by what is on the character sheet. Older D&D is famously/notoriously more "free-wheeling". Seriously.
I understand where you're coming from, but for those who say AD&D was a "free-wheeling" system, I still have to greatly disagree with that.
I first have to ask you to show me where on your character sheet the DC is for opening doors, hiding in shadows, and sneaking? In 3e, this doesn't exist.
Let me clarify my point. I'm not talking about how people actually "ran" or "played" D&D. I'm referring to the intent of the author and (in large part) the rules in place. Although 3rd Edition rules appear more organized and more set in stone - the underlying mechanic is anything but.
First of all D&D 3rd Edition's rules (and the many numerous games that mimic it), rely on a subjective DM invented mechanic called Difficulty Class. Every other mechanic in the game is second to this. How you define what each challenge's DC is, is completely up to the DM. In other words, in most cases it's created on-the-fly depending on the many factors involved in a situation. And let's be honest, most of the time it is completely inaccurate.
Notice the following 3rd Edition example (and something I used recently in my AD&D game):
DM: There is a small army of Kobolds coming this way, they don't yet notice you, but are closing fast.
Player Fighter: Okay, I want to throw my rope over the top of the building next to me, climb it, and then prepare to ambush them.
DM: Okay, hold on a sec (Thinking). Hmm, The stone building is made of rough mud bricks, but they are pretty fragile when stood on by a heavy warrior. It also just rained the night before so the stone is wet. The warrior is wearing some heavy armor, and has his shield and sword out. He doesn't have much experience using ropes, and there really is nothing for it to hook onto either. But if I don't do something, he's going to get killed and it will ruin my story. Hmm, I'll say it's a DC 12.
DM: Roll a D20 + dex modifier.
Player Fighter: Okay, I did it (result 16).
DM: You successfully climb up and avoid the Kobolds!
This is why I have come to detest 3rd Edition and it's subject DC ilk. Who hasn't done this before and "fudged" the DC just to keep the story going and to give your player a free ride in 3rd Edition? I know I've done it many times, and I've seen many other DMs do it as well. This SERIOUSLY cheapens the experience, makes your players get passes, and makes for a boring game.
But above all else, it was a waste of freaking time and effort for the DM to have to think through all the nuances of climbing a wall when the "Fighter" really had no business doing it in the first place.
This is what AD&D says, "Look, you're a fighter, you were trained with Swords and Axes and getting beat up. You spent your whole life training in combat. If you really wanted to play a Thief, then you should have rolled one up, or brought one along with you. Solve the situation in a way that a Fighter, not a Thief, would solve the situation. If you don't have 'climbing' skill on your character sheet, then you shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place."
Now, from the example above, which system is more free-wheeling and which system is more strict? I recently played this scenario in AD&D in my last game and, you know what? The player agreed with me and ran inside the building instead. Things worked out, and they worked out in the right way. When everyone can wear a different hat for every situation, you lose all sense of flavor in the game.
Let me reiterate, I am referring to the "intended" rules, not the way many players played them back then. Gary Gygax made it quite clear when he designed AD&D, that he wanted to set things in stone for continuity and for player tournaments. He may have failed in a few instances (Surprise and Initiative come to mind), but the spirit of the game was not meant as free-wheeling at all.
3rd Edition could be summed up as a "Qualitative" game, meaning that the DM constantly needs to determine circumsantial modifiers for each challenge. On the other hand, AD&D was much more "Quantitative" meaning, in most cases true or false, that the rules were the rules and it was not negotiable. If the game is played this way, it heavily encourages your players to actually "think" and "prepare" about resolving situations rather than pulling a dog-and-pony trick by stealing from other Classes when they get into a bind.
