All versions of D&D are strongly G/s or S/g, with 2e arguably being the most dysfunctional with its strong narrative desires but no mechanical narrative support. (What does it say about me that 2e is my favorite ed?
)
I won't judge you harshly for your dislike of a dysfunctional game - I continue to have a very very soft spot for Rolemaster (and it's offshoots like HARP) after GMing it for nearly 20 years, but Rolemaster suffers from obvious, deep, and perhaps ineliminable, design flaws (much deeper than its issues with search-and-handling time for action resolution, which is simply about acquired taste).
As you know, I think that 4e is the best version of D&D for running a vanilla narrativist gonzo fantasy game, because of (i) its thematically tighter story elements, and (ii) its focus on scene-based play, and (iii) (as part of (ii)) its jettisoning of all the fiddly resource management aspects of classic D&D that make scene-based play difficult if not impossible.
3e emerged in a world where what we now call character optimization was derided (common, but derided) with pejoratives like "munchkin" and "minmaxer". As with any edition of D&D, they weren't totally absent, but they were certainly not the main thrust of people's concerns.
In my mind, I associate that "anti-munchkin" attitude with the weaknesses of AD&D 2nd edition relative to the purposes it was ostensibly aimed at - namely, quasi-Gygaxian gamist character build and advancement rules ostensibly in service of "story"-oriented play.
Whereas my feeling is - if you want to avoid character optimisation, choose a system that doesn't permit it (I'm thinking, for example, of HeroWars/Quest).
3e seemed to discount "event" based esteem over "status"-based esteem. "I am now X" was usually more important than "I did X."
<snip>
prestige classes were a totally new idea. The focus was on the development of a character expression. They added a zillion fiddly bits like feats, skill points, and the prestige class system. The functional purpose of all those fiddly bits was (I feel) the Simulationist desire to "live the dream" and its need to defend against creeping Gamism (see below).
<snip>
One odd (and often self-defeating) result of this focus was often an inability in 3e to play the character you envisioned right from the start. Even the prestige system reflects the idea that getting to play your concept was a goal of the game. You want your character to be X?...wait 6 levels and you can be close. You had to "earn" the right to be what you wanted (yet another hidden aspect of the design process that subtly favored the caster over the martial character.)
This is a very interesting feature of 3E that I hear about from time to time, and can see myself when I look at the rules, but that doesn't seem to get as much attention as (perhaps) it deserves.
There were plenty of concepts (especially martial character concepts) that you just couldn't do in 3e until you'd snagged enough feats to pull it off without living in penalty hell (if you could do it at all.) Even then, some of them were barely workable.
That's the cost of a Simulationist system (at least within the realm of D&Dness.) From a Sim point of view, you can look at...oh a dual-whip-wielding non-lethal attack specialist, and you have to break it down into all its little fiddly bits (feats, skills, proficiencies, whatever.) Since 3e dribbles these out over the levels, some concepts just have to wait. '
<snip>
I've played other systems that ditch Simulation entirely. This can give them tremendous advantages in the "express a character concept" realm. In some of my favorites, you could play that expert dual-whip-wielding non-lethal attack specialist right next to the deadly veteran and the farmboy just picking up a sword for the first time...and they'd all be "balanced" and participating equally.
I think that this whole "you have to earn the right to play the character you want to play" thing is somewhat unique to D&D. In classic D&D, where getting a truly viable PC (especially a magic-user) is itself a goal of play, it made some sense.
Retaining it despite the cultural transition from Gygaxian gamism to the high-concept simulationism of 2nd ed AD&D and early 3E (as you are describing it) just seems strange. And tending to promote not only dysfunctional rulesets, but (in my view) somewhat dysfunctional play, based heavily around GM force and dispensation (as per the Ron Edwards quote that you posted).
The 4e categories of Heroic, Paragon and Epic seem to me an attempt to reconcile player protagonism with D&D levelling, by making your "character identity trajectory" a
given background to play, rather than a goal of play as such: you don't have to
earn it (from the game or the GM) - it will come to you, over time, simply by turning up and playing. (Hence, I think, why some people criticise 4e as "player entitlement" or "munchkinism" or "overpowered" - criticisms for which I personally have little sympathy.)
That does, of course, give rise to the question "what
is the goal of 4e play, then?" I don't think the rulebooks for 4e are completely clear on this.
I haven't yet got a sense, yet, of how D&Dnext is going to handle this sort of stuff: what is the goal of play, and how does character development and expression fit into that goal.
