This is RPG 101. I fail to see how any example you have every given across many threads has the players take control of a situation. The player wants to do a task, so they roll at rule check. You look at the rules, and the rules tell you what to do, and then you do it. The player just sits there and nods. Though I guess you might say "the rules" are in control?Notice how, in these examples, the GM is maintaining control over how the situation is presented to the players. The PC successfully performing the declared action doesn't actually change the situation in any significant way.
The players can never be "in control", as the rules are very strict and clear and say they can't.....right? I player can't just say "my character finds a billion gold coin" as the rules stop the player from doing that.
I guess an all rule dice rolling game is more fair to you? You can have failure based on the dice and rules, not on a DMs whim.Not really. There are reasons I don't play 5e D&D. The fact that, by default, it has no resolution mechanic for most things beyond "GM decides" is one of them.
And it sounds great for a defensive DM who can point to the rules or roll and say "I did not do anything it was the rules and or the roll". I guess the roll is very attractive as the DM can point to it and say "it's your fault for rolling low player....I'm innocent".
But....I wonder why you don't see the game beyond the rules here?
I understand in your personal closed circle game with your best of best friends who all agree on nearly everything about everything together always have a smooth game as everyone is on the same page and mndset.
But you oddly give all the credit to the rules...and not your chosen groups mindset play style. But the rules are not that great. They say things that are utterly useless, like "be reasonable". And "reasonable" only works for tight, closed minset groups....