Quote Originally Posted by Tehnar View Post
In 3.5 there is unpredictability, though it is governed by the dice rather then the GM.
Actually, it's governed by the dice and the game's designers. Its unpredictability applies only to the things that the designers, well, predicted. If they didn't predict it, you can't even try it. (For example, there are no rules for mutilation in combat, therefore you can't attempt to chop off a foe's limb with your greataxe. Isn't that limiting?)

Now, about the "magical tea party" you mentioned (with contempt, I gather?)... that's not at all what I had in mind. I expect the DM to be reasonable, I expect his decisions to make sense, and I don't expect him to pull random and conflicting rules out of his behind. I expect dice, stats and relative modifiers to determine each outcome. No tea parties of any kind.

In the end, I trust my own DMs to make informed decisions on the spot more than I trust a bunch of game designers to fulfill the noble but impossible quest of Predicting Everything We'll Ever Need.

The designers of 3.5 tried to do that, and also tried to provide rules that are complicated yet internally consistent, and which make sense for Everything We'll Ever Need. So how did it go? To answer that, I'd simply count the threads of "RAW Vs RAI", "RAW Vs Common Sense", and "is that RAW? the rules aren't clear..."

(Disclaimer: I play 3.5 exclusively lately, I really like it - without being blind to its faults - and I just happened to be consumed by a surge of nostalgia today. I may be over it by midnight. Also note that using ability checks often doesn't necessarily mean that 5e will end up like 2E, so it's possible that none of the above will even apply. We'll see.)

I don't think that there should be a rule for every situation that could come up, but there should be rules for common situations adventurers could find themselves in. Even better there should be a system of guidelines to resolve things the rules do not cover.
Oh, I agree with that in principle. We obviously imagine the ideal implementation differently, that's OK. :)