In other words, throughout their career as adventurers, player characters strive to attain more and more power (in terms of levels, magic items, and so forth) - yet they also strongly reject any explicit duty deriving from said power.
Now, I know this is not universal in all groups. But I think it might be a common trend. Do you agree with this? And if so, is this something particular to D&D, or is it common with all RPGs?
If this is a pattern, it is a change in the way D&D is played (and perhaps reflects changes in the rules). In OD&D/1e everyone aspired to get their keep or castle, start managing the land, getting involved politically. The rules supported that first rung on the ladder and inspired all the gamers I knew then to see that as the obvious next step - one which was eagerly anticipated and worked towards. Although I never saw the "basic-advanced-companion-etc" set, I understand that in the higher level sections they had rules on this kind of thing too.
One of the things that disappointed me about 3e was the elimination of all that aspect of gaming from the rules. It was 'back to dungeon' for your whole adventuring life, which I found bland and disappointing.
Since we've now had 10 years of D&D rules which don't even suggest that there is a whole 'dominions' game to be played, I'm not surprised if large numbers of people haven't developed any interest or anticipation of the prospect of role-playing the ruling of a nation or whatever.
Trends follow rules IMX.
Cheers
Excellent set of observations.
I think at this point in the D&D game (at least) ideas about responsibility and power are setting dependent.
In my setting responsibility is in-built and expected. As is the idea that over time responsibilities will increase. Both of those ideas are important milieu components of "character development."
But in a lot of settings there is a seeming aversion to responsibility. In the sense of which I think you mean it.
I also agree with Doug that just because a character is a good adventurer, doesn't mean he'd be a good ruler. However that is what practice is for. As things develop in a setting there should be opportunities to practice "exercising power" in the larger sense just as there are opportunities to practice any other skill. As a matter of fact social and political and governance and "responsibility" skills should be written into the game, or setting, so that they can be easily practiced and played. Otherwise you never get the chance to practice becoming better at certain kinds of responsibilities. That being said not all "responsibility tasks" involve direct rulership. There are administrative functions, defensive functions, law enforcement functions, civil defense and maintenance, economic and trade responsibilities, small group command, clerical authority, teaching and training, etc, etc. All of which can be fun depending on who they are handled. Okay, maybe to me administrative functions are not so much fun, I've never been fond of a desk-job. Then again sometimes you can administer "from the field" if you work it out right. In other words there are many and diverse kinds of responsibilities that can be assumed.
Responsibilities then could easily be practiced as an in-game "Role-function"
So although the game of D&D itself doesn't seem to emphasize this component anymore, it could easily be practiced in any given setting.
As for other RPGs, I think that depends, as others have said, on the game itself. Though I imagine it could also easily apply to settings developed within those games.
