I've written some stuff about this on my blog recently and roles have changed somewhat over the years. Short version: One of the biggest is that in 1E and 2E there was no Striker/Defender split - Fighters were the combat monsters for both offense and defense and "Tanking" as a concept really didn't exist. They were up front because they hit the hardest AND had the best AC and HP, not just to soak up hits for the rest of the party.
When I think of "tank", though, I'm thinking of something that can take damage *and* give it out. Like a tank.
Clerics were fairly similar to the leader role but were a lot handier in melee than the way the leader is typically viewed today. With an AC equal to that of the fighter and good offensive capability as well they could stand in for a fighter when needed.
Very true at low levels. I find that as levels get higher, Clerics stand farther back in the ranks.
Thieves were not strikers except possibly under very specific conditions - the genesis of the Striker lies more with the 2E Ranger than with the thief class.
I'm still not sure what a "striker" is supposed to be. Am I right in guessing it's someone who gives out lots of damage but can't (or doesn't) absorb much?
Artillery as a concept was also largely restricted to certain wizards as in 1E a fighter by default was just as good with a bow as he was with a sword outside of stat modifiers. There was not much specialization required, certainly nothing like what we saw in 3E or 4E.
If you used 1e specialization rules from UA there was - or could be - loads of difference. A bow-spec'ed high-Dex. light-armour Fighter could artillerize with the best of 'em.
Depending on the level & the opposition involved M-U's could be good buffer/debuffers and Clerics could be decent nukers too so there was some flexibility as far as role.
Very true, and the roles in general were more blurred; which in and of itself isn't really a bad thing.
Also remember most parties were bigger than the 4-5 man modern standard. You might have 6-8 PC's + various hirelings and henchmen. Looking back 1 thief, 1 cleric, 1 magic-user, + 2-3 fighters (including sub-classes and multi-classes) was a pretty typical party.
Our average party size is around 8-10. I find a nice side effect is there's lots more chance for character interaction, with so many different personalities involved, than in a small 4-5 character group.
When putting together a party, you'd also tend to fill a "role" with more than one character - the tank would be a front line made up of several characters; the artillery might be a couple of wizards and an archer; the support might be a Cleric and a Druid; and so forth. And, there'd still often be room for an oddball...a Monk, or Bard, or Assassin; whatever.
You might think people were more concerned with nice protection/roles but they really weren't. Roles were not seen as conceptually distinct from the classes themselves - it wasn't "we need a tank or a brick" it was "We need a fighter" or "we need a cleric". Thieves were usually seen as optional - you could go without them a lot easier than you oculd a wizard, fighter, or cleric. The idea of balance was very different than it is now.
It's a fun topic to discuss. There are some assumptions in 4E that "things have always been this way" but it's really not true. This arrangement works for 4E and makes sense in the game, but the Four 4E Roles have not always been true for other editions of D&D or other games either.
Not true directly as written, but I think the same vague ideas have always kind of been there. The biggest difference I can see - assuming I'm interpreting things correctly - is 4e took what used to be a scout role, gave it damage output, and called it striker.
Lan-"unbalanced"-efan