And in so doing they a) overlaid those things on to a system that really wasn't set up to handle them and b) opened up a Pandora's Box of broken combinations and-or spell interactions through lack of foresight and-or full-stress playtesting.
In short, they broke their own system.
Well, in 2E due to the various conditions at TSR when the person who did not really like D&D took over there was actually very little playtesting in general. You also correct that the Players Option series was not play-tested in fact the Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books were evidently worked in by two different teams with not much cross collaboration. All that being said because their was a mistake in implementation on a past product does not mean a future direction should not be taken but the mistakes of the past learned from. D&D 5E seems to be well playtested internally with external playtesting involved as well. Also, while I don't work at WOTC and while I may not like all their decisions it seems from the D&D Brand standpoint the designers/writers are in fact very collaborative and keeping each other in the loop on directions of various projects, which makes sense given the small number of actual designers and writers left at WOTC. Additionally D&D 5E is much more streamlined than 2E was so laying additional layers on top of the system should not be that hard. As it stands now I see why a modular expansion adding more tactical options for those who want such things is not feasible and able to be implemented without breaking the system.
Maybe they realize they've got something right now that's more or less working pretty well and don't want to risk breaking it?.
See my above point. Furthermore the system was built on the premise of modular expansions that would allow the group to "dial the game" to their taste from more theater of the mind to tactical/power gaming options. From a power-gaming perspective I feel I need to add I don't feel gimped in this department. Between the PHB, the SCAG, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's guide, Volo's guide to Everything (to a much lesser extent) there are a number of class, subclass, and race combinations to choose from. I would say that in a modular expansion feat selection should be revised. As it stands right now there are a ton of good feats that will never get selected due to having to make the choice of a stat bump or a feat choice and in every group I have been in the Stat bump is almost always a better choice MOST of the time. Yet people want feats which is why humans are on of the most played races right now, something that was unheard of in other editions of D&D. We definitely don't need feat glut like in 3E and 4E and I can understand feats being optional to appease the OSR crowd (1E and 2E fans) but I feel like this could have been done better. It could have been as simple as noting 1) feats are optional (as they are) and 2) stating at every level you get a stat bump you can also get a feat. This way more feats would see play but as it is a lot of feats will just languish. Having said all that overall I feel characters are thankfully stronger in 5E than in every other edition except 4E and honestly they are not THAT for behind they just don't have the choices and customization 3E and 4E PCs had.
Where I think D&D could expand is by adding in more tactical options in combat and ways to tweak the game more to prior editions, also adding a little more charop choices would be a nicety. People are not being ridiculous in expecting this as this was the premise this edition was soled on. I don't see that many people on here saying they hate 5E (some are but not many). While 5E is not my favorite I like it well enough and I play it regularly and enjoy myself. I like some other people are just waiting on the dials and modular expansions they said WOTC would do pre-release. Well, its four years now and I am still waiting. We have gotten modules but not the modular expansions promoted.
Cool - you're one of the lucky ones who has players that can and will do both.
Which leads to a question: would those players be able to bring the same characterization and character personality to the table if using a system that doesn't have fine-tuned mechanical representation for differences between characters of the same class e.g. 1e D&D?t
The anti-power gamer attitude that some segments of the community hold I fail to understand. Many of these players dislike power-gaming or have a favorability of story telling etc. creating a dichotomy that should not exist. Yet, I have found that story tellers and "deep" role-players can be just as disruptive as a power gamer. In fact, in most of the groups I have been in especially random meetup or FLGS event groups it has never been a powergamer that was the most disruptive player it was usually a "deep" role-player that was more weird or outright disruptive. Straight up. Furthermore, if D&D 5E is all about history and drawing the history and what makes the game iconic (which again is something THEY i.e. the designers have talked about and promoted about 5E) then D&D has always been about mechanics and combat. D&D was grew out of tabletop WARGAMING which has about ZERO role-playing. In fact, I recall an article in Dragon magazine under 3e (I want to say Dragon 238 or 239) where they interviewed Gary Gygax and he went on the whole "ROLE-play not ROLL play crowd" and stated that D&D is open to everyone and every type of gamer but that D&D was founded as an sword and sorcery adventure wargame not "an exercise in amateur thespianism". I remember the last part stood out to me. Now, the market can grow and like I said my group of powergamers loves a good narrative and well built world. We develop and write background stories for our characters BUT none of that is any more important for some reason than how well we mechanically build our characters. Hack-and-slash, powergaming, whatever you want to call it is just as valid a playstyle as any other (it is in fact more rooted in the history and precedent of D&D) and I don't think D&Ders are wrong for expecting that as part of the game.....especially again since a variety of rules that would allow you to dial the game to your taste was a part D&D 5E's brand advertisement and promotion.
Now, I do kind of understand that if you have people who are great at CharOp and someone who is not good at Charop joins a group that the less skilled Charop person can feel overwhelmed. I have seen this happen. Likewise if a strong Charop person joins a group where everyone is not good at CharOp that character can overwhelming shine (in combat) and make other PCS feel useless. I have seen this happen although in all honesty not as often. The way to correct this is 1) people who are stronger at CharOp will hopefully help and teach someone not as skilled. In my 20+ years of D&D I have mostly played with very tactically minded and CharOp minded players. When I first started I was not as experienced as my peers at this but being around them made me want to be better. It made me strive to show what I can do and I like that. 2) It could be that the non-CharOp person is okay with suboptimal choices that could drain the party combat wise and if that is the case the group can a) except that pc and everyone have fun. I as a powergamer don't mind building a class that shines in combat and letting the deep role-player get his/her kicks from non-combat stuff. If he accepts me I can accept him and it is a great symbiosis. I would think people would be mature enough to play this way. b) the other option is for people to know what kind of group they are getting into and join a group that fits their playstyle. No harm, no foul.
What should not happen however is people who are good at CharOp and tactics combat being told they CAN'T do it(not even via an official OPTIONAL expansion) because a specific group will not do CharOp for whatever reason (inability or dislike of the style). This mindset seems very draconian to me (and not in a D&D way). It is like somebody being a vegetarian and saying "Hey! I don't eat meat because I don' t like it. Therefore we can only go to restaurants that serve zero meat so you can't eat meat either." The D&D table is big enough for various playstyles. I truly believe that. What D&D can't tolerate is toxic players and even more impactful toxic GMs (because yes GMS can be problematic too and in fact have more an impact on the game). The DM-May-I-ism of 5E btw makes "Power GMs" or toxic GMS more feasible.
To answer your question. 1E D&D was the granddaddy of all RPGS. I would have played that system because there was nothing else around for me to compare it too at the time and no one knew any better until later on. So, in 1E there would be no way for my Thief X to be different from Thief Y other than background and story but again that is because D&D was the first and RPGs were limited and not with the nuanced and varied taste in playstyle gamers have now (see P.S./Addendum). I started in 2E (though I have some 1E books) and in that system people wanted official ways to differentiate themselves which is why we had "The Complete" series where characters could take a kit and in a crude manner try to gain a difference mechanically in class features. Then Players Option came out in 2E where you could distinguish yourself. Then 3E and 4E came out which was all about customization. Now we are in 5E and supposedly some people are claiming people don't want customization yet anytime WOTC releases a book with actual rules expansions it flies off the shelf at every game store I have seen. Xanathar's was gone within a day at my FLGS. None of the fluffy adventures WOTC has released has ever sold out that fast. So somebody's wanting options.
Addendum: Due to a discourse I had with 2 individuals on here I feel I am forced via irksome arguments to clarify a statement that should be readily apparent. Of course at the time of AD&D 1E there were other RPGs around but if you have one product occupying the vast amount of shares in a niche market then for all intents and purposes that is not a market at all. For example, if only 4 % of the populace drank soda and Coca-Cola was the soft drink 98% of soda imbibers drank most marketers would be loathe to really say there is a soft drinks "market" despite the fact there were other soda makers fighting over 2% of the market share. This is why if you recall there was an article not too long ago about how the end of 3.5 kind of saved RPGS being in local bookstores and not only gaming stores. This was because prior to Pathfinder D&D was really the only RPG (again in a NICHE/specialty market) that was selling enough copies to warrant chain store occupancy. Thus bookstores chains were starting to question having a totally separate shelving space for RPGs when the only RPG that warranted enough sales to be in chain stores was D&D. Evidently when PF started becoming popular it sold enough and gained enough attention that book chains like B&N and Borders were able to say look we have 2 products that produce X amount of supplements therefore we can justify having a separate section for RPGs. My point is during the early phase of the 1E era D&D while other games were around D&D really had no real market challengers from TTRPG perspective therefore the mechanical options or lack thereof was not as big an issue. Please accept my apologies if this sounds condescending (it is NOT my intent) and probably already know this and what I meant but again I felt the need to justify given certain interactions of recent.
