I think I agree with this, but one thing I cant escape is how each edition can be seen to overreact to a problem in the previous edition. For example the way that 4e standardised classes to make martial and magic classes on par to avoid the "angel summoner and bmx bandit" problem of 3ed. While I personally could live with this standardization (because I found DMing mid and high level 3ed with a wizard PC horrible), I can see how it annoyed many.
Oh there's definitely been a ton of what we'd now call overcorrections. And, yeah, DMing 4e was very easy. It just wasn't the game that most players wanted for D&D. It's a fantastic tabletop skirmishing game, though.
Problem?
That'd DM Empowerment, and it's back!
But, yeah, there's been a pendulum swing between DM-focus and Player-focus. The classic game was very DM-focused, the first two eds of the WotC era very player-focused, and 5e is back to a DM focus.
Actually, I don't think it was DM Empowerment at all.
I think that with the way mechanics worked in 1e/2e it was impossible to tell how the game was
supposed to be played. There's no conveyance in the early game rules at all. The mechanics were all different and often needlessly cryptic so you could never tell by looking at a mechanism whether accomplishing something was supposed to be easy or hard. Like, look at the grapple rules. Is it supposed to be easy or hard to grapple an opponent? Well, clearly it's supposed to be hard because these rules are arcane and cumbersome, but it's impossible to get any sense of what they mean. So when your players want to do something that has no mechanic... what do you do? Do you use d% like most class abilities (move silent, pick pocket) and ability score abilities are (learn spell, bend bars, system shock, etc.)? Do you use the "roll under your relevant ability score" ability check even though that ignores level? Use a saving throw even though that is wildly different between classes and pretty arbitrary overall? Do you ignore that and just wing it with no dice rolling?
The 1e DMG has like one page on actually running the game well (the introduction), and then sprinkled throughout the rest of the book it constantly reminds the DM to not let the players get away with things because they're sneaky bastards. What is a new DM supposed to take away from that?
With no mechanical conveyance and often adversarial language throughout the DMG, exactly how are new players going to interpret the game? Now, no, the 1e DMG itself isn't
mean or unfair about things, but it often just presumes the DM is going to act fairly and seldom reminds the DM that fairness and fun are what he's there to ensure. I'm saying that if you go into the DMG with the presumption of being
unfair, the book doesn't try very hard to dissuade you from that unless you read the introduction. It's like saying, "Now Warden, remember to be fair and ensure the security of your charges. Now let me show you the torture rooms and implements execution and explain their use."
