Mike Mearls on mechanics versus "identity", 3e/4e versus 5e, etc

So Mearls tweeted this:

He touches on lots of interesting points there: rulings versus rules, "narrative", options (and maybe the paradox of choice)  and mechanics versus "identity".

I am a bit curious about this bit:

With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.

Starts out alright but... Do they really expect the DM to turn to the book for an answer? Not during the game, I hope! As you can see in the link, I view the book as guidelines, not something I am expected to follow at all times.

On one ahnd, I agree that the GM is the only one to turn to for mechanical answers. However, in a game as complex as 5e, IF I were to follow the rules strictly (which I don't), I would ask THE PLAYERS to know their own rules (as pertaining to their PCs) since I'm incapable of keeping track of the (literally) dozens of features and powers that a party of four 5th level characters have.

There is also "who you are is more important than what you do". Sounds like something anathema to old school play, where what you DO during the game is more important than what you character is, since your character isn't special.

However, in this context, it seems that Mearls is advocating for something like one mechanic per (archetypal) trait, something I obviously agree with. I'm doubtful if 5e achieved that - it has enough mechanics that seem to indicate nothing within the fictional word - but it is certainly an improvement over 3e and 4e in this aspect.

There is also this last part:

I like the fact that Mearls wants to do away with the insanity of 3e purposefully (?) adding bad feats to the game*, but TBH I wished that "mechanical expertise" was kept to a minimum instead of simply being "balanced" (which doesn't mean much).

[*to be fair, there are lots of people saying that this isn't what Cook meant. I still think toughness is a stupid feat that shouldn't exist, but Justin Alexander makes a good point]

Playing D&D - or being good at playing D&D - should be about being creative, fun, and using the fictional world in awesome ways, not knowing your ways around the rules (we have a GM for that) or looking for loopholes and combos to make your character more powerful. Loopholes in the fiction can be awesome ("So he cannot be killed by a mortal man? Good thing I'm a woman!"), loopholes in the mechanics are a lot less so.

The "mechanical expertise" part is also a bit discouraging to newbies, specially if they feel that they must be experts on 400 pages of mechanics to enjoy D&D. This is not the case at all.

All in all, I'm happy that Mearls and Crawford have taken 5e to a more straightforward and, in many ways, old school approach.

As always, I'm not sure that it actually beats Basic D&D, since many WotC-ism that I dislike were kept in the game. For me, its back to "playing 5e the old school way" or just going with Dark Fantasy Basic, my 5e+B/X mashup.

But hey  - that's just us! Individual groups have different experiences and all...