Well, not 100%, but I've done pretty well.
Can't tell what the sarcasm quotient is on this post, but if I had any trenchant words of wisdom, I would share them. I do honestly suspect that if myself and the other experienced DMs of the world could have our services disseminated and experiences shared more widely, the gaming world would be a better place, but D&D is inherently insular, and everyone's game is different.
I am not 100% sure what accounts for people's varying experiences with wizards, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with real-world time.
Bottom line; I don't deny the diversity of people's gaming experiences in this regard, but I don't see power the 1e-3e arcane spellcasters as being the main issue for the game moving forward.
I've got 20 + years of DMing 50 or so players, 30 of which were of 10 year tenure or so. I've seen all manner of gamers. I can tell you precisely what I've noted as the largest issue with the wizard repertoire:
1) Extremely smart people who are well above average linear problem solvers and highly proficient nonlinear problem solvers. If you give them an extended supply of resources that leverage both their linear and nonlinear problem-solving-skillsets, expect them to max out the load-bearing capacity of those resources and expect the problems to be solved in short order...and expect investigatory and exploratory plot device to be nullified. The 4e analog to this is when decriers of that system complain that if you place scripted, thematic powers in front of people they will do nothing but leverage those buttons and it will create for a monotonous table experience.
2) Couple those players with your Average Joe who does not possess their skillset nor the drive to maximize it.
3) Couple that with well above average, highly analytical players who desperately want a proper and equitable "martial experience" from their fighters, rogues, rangers, etc.
4) Couple that with resources limited only by the propensity for DMs to use transparent conventions to curtail their limits. If the DM chooses to use said transparent conventions (the world hates you and therefore this contrived "happenstance" consistently disrupts your ability to restore your resources), expect either passive aggressive or open derision from the players who have more cognitive capacity than a box of rocks. The same passive aggressive or open derision follows from the effort to "operatively condition" the group, over time, through use of more subtle (but still contrived...hence the problem) resource disruption techniques. Following that, expect "suspension of disbelief", "immersion", "living, breathing worldism" to be short-circuited for all parties at the table.
5) Couple that with an open acknowledgement of the mechanical deficiencies of the system but an unwillingness, due to vindictiveness or other, to come to social accord to not leverage those deficiencies.
My guess is that one or more of these things are present in people's games who suffer from this issue. Ahnehnois, there are people out there who have just as much experience as you or I (or more)...just as much analytical ferocity as you or I (or more)...and they suffer these issues. Dismiss their experience and fail to address their concerns at the hobby's peril.
I desperately want this hobby to persist through the next few generations so I desperately would like all lobbies to be able to play the game of their choice within the framework of a unified ruleset (if possible). I hope we're on the same team.
