I get that you think rulings over rules suck. I'm not questioning that. But it is objectively true that the more freedom you are given (less defined rules as how you MUST do something), the more options you have. This isn't a question about which is better, which you seem to keep trying to preach, because that's subjective. If given two choices:
1. If you want to do something, follow step 1, then step 2, then step 3
2. If you want to do something, figure out how you want to do it to your full imagination
#2 is always going to allow more options of improvisation. Whether you prefer it or not doesn't matter. The more rules you have limiting you, the more limited you are in options. THis isn't even up for debate.
I'm sorry, but you have left reality behind when you start telling me what is 'objectively true' about games where the rules explicitly state you can do anything you want.
*Edit* Also, you might only stick to things written on your character sheet or in a book, but I'm here to tell you most other people don't. Especially in more rules-lite systems like B/X or 5e. The tagline for D&D for decades was "products of your Imagination", not "Products of what the rules say." To be honest, I can't even fathom playing an RPG where I was only allowed to perform actions that had a rule for them clearly written down. Screw that noise. Playing rpgs is pretend. Don't shackle my imagination please. Even if I fail, at least I had the option.
I have no idea where this came from. I want a game system to be able to largely cover the things that I am going to do. Why would I not want that!? I pay for exactly this in my rules. I hate to tell you this but I started DMing D&D games in 1975. I know ALL about what every version of D&D, and most of the other really popular RPGs have done and are about. Nothing is 'shackled' just because a way exists to represent it on paper. I mean you're subject to reductio ad absurdum here just for starters. If you want to free-form game, why buy an RPG? Going back to the example of my 'utility wizard' from 4e. ALL of the various things he was doing were supported by some sort of rule. He could make items, potions, alchemy, poisons, use rituals, and have a huge and varying spell book to pick from, ALL based on 4e RAW. In fact the game I played him in was an online game that had various rotating groups of players, it was explicitly using standard rules with no houserules or additions.
Now, I'm not saying that endless subsystems has to always add more value to every game. However, it worked quite well for 4e to have a structured set of rules that were carefully considered. The players/DM could then depart from that when they wished.
I don't think you read what I wrote. "Hard" means something in 5e too. Bounded accuracy is important, and you keep ignoring it. In 5e, a 15th level PC can't even succeed at a very hard (DC25) task they aren't proficient in unless they have a max ability score or some other outside influence. Whereas the same PC who is proficient in that task and also had a max ability score only needs a 15 or higher. 30% chance of success vs. 5%. That's a huge difference even with two PCs at the same level. I'm not sure how I can explain this. In 5e with bounded accuracy, you cannot assign a definition of what is easy/medium/hard by level of the PCs because two level 15 PCs can have a wildly different chance of success at a task depending on whether or not they are proficient in it.
So yeah, there is an absolute definition of what "hard' is. It's even right there in the book. In 5e, proficiency is the key, not level. With two equal level PCs, what's extremely hard for one is only moderately hard for another. That's why you can't have defined rules for what "hard" is that changes depending on what level the PCs are. The difficulty of the task stays the same, like hitting a target at 100m away. The most skilled someone is, it doesn't change the difficulty of the task overall, it just means they are better at it.
4e has AT LEAST as much, in fact considerably more, variation in skill bonuses than 5e does, so the same thing holds true. Yet we can still get a good idea of what is appropriate, and the Easy/Medium/Hard DCs scale in such a way that at all levels, accounting for character build practices, the Hard DC is hard to hit for any PC, the medium DC is moderately challenging for an average PC, and the easy DC is trivial unless you have very little talent.
Let me use this example. You've got 2 15th level PCs, both trying to do an Adele cover. The solo is very hard (DC 25). One is a musician proficient in singing, and has a high CHA to reflect that career path. The other is a pro basketball player who has his highest abilities in DEX, CON, and STR. No bonus in CHA at all, and not prof with singing.
It seems to me that your arguing that 4e is better because at 15th level, you'd know what DC to set as "hard" for PCs in general at that level. How would you do that here? The first PC has a +10 bonus overall, and the second has +0. How would you set a "hard" DC for 15th level PCs in this case? One will succeed half the time, and the other has no chance at all.
I don't know what the problem is. Of course one PC will find the task much easier than the other, you have set up the scenario so that this is the case. I would note two things about this. First that 'hard DC' in this case in 4e will mean moderately difficult for the high bonus PC and very difficult for the low bonus PC (probably impossible much beyond heroic tier as the gap increases with level).
The true answer though is again that this should be an SC. If its just some throw-away check for no real consequence then who cares? If its a significant part of the game, then it should be a series of checks and actions that tests the character in multiple ways and leads to some advancement in the plot. In such a case the level of the SC will be more likely to represent the difficulty of the challenge as you aren't tossing just one die, it will be an average of checks against various bonuses and tend to even out between the characters (assuming some sort of competition, TBH that part would never be structured this way in 4e anyway, but that's a whole other thing).
In fact I'd probably throw this at level 25 adventurers, because level+5 is really HARD stuff. TBH I'm not entirely sure why WotC chose to end the chart at level 30. The feeling may be that level 30 PCs should be getting a better break for thematic reasons, but you'd have to ask someone at WotC.
