I'm suprised that most posters here do not understand the OP. I'm even more suprised that many of them rudely make fun of what they don't understand. That's not a behavior I expected to see at EN World.
Having said that, back to the topic.
There are a few themes described in the OP. One of them is a general trend of centering on the past. Old great empires, artifacts found in ancient crypts and dungeons, rituals created by mages ages before. The golden age is long past and we now only rediscover what remains of its glory.
This trend truely exist. Even more so - it is nearly necessary for a game that assumes the PCs to be among the most powerful beings of their time, but still finding challanges and items appropriate for their abilities. Especially if the ancient underground mazes full of dangerous creatures are so important as to give the name to the game system.
The other theme is the social mobility; the possibility or really going "from zero to hero". The OP speaks of both the heroes that face mortal dangers and the "geeky wizard" hero that gains power (and probably shares it with other people) through his own research, experimentation and ingenuity, not through ancient tomes.
Then, the OP states that OD&D follows the social mobility theme while 4e delves in the past. I understand the point, but I do not agree with it.
All editions of D&D focused on the past. In each of them PC rather found magic items and spells than created them. In each they fought minions of evil gods banished ages ago. In each they discovered what was left of ancient empires. In each much more rules were given for exploring dungeons than for politics, wars, magical and technological research and other ways of changing the world in a significant way, all taken together. More wealth was found in hidden crypts than produced by the whole cities. Most plotlines center on "saving" something, keeping status quo, instead of real advancement (other than the level advancement, of course). The only change is that 4e is more focused on the main themes of play, while the older editions had some rules for the side matters, most of them neither time-saving nor more useful than average DM's common sence.
In the same vein, no edition of D&D really allowed social mobility. Each one assumed the PCs to be exceptional, with most of the population completely unable to equal them. Once again, 4e is more obvious here, with PCs being powerful from the first level while in older editions low-level adventuring was deadly dangerous. No matter how the PCs careers began, most of people in the world were assumed to never gain levels. In editions in which majority of NPCs had levels at all it were levels in special classes designed to be much weaker than "the heroes". In each edition it was very uncommon to start a campaign with the PCs being commoners. None of them takes you from zero to hero - 4e only gives you a safety net at the beginning.
Having said that, back to the topic.
There are a few themes described in the OP. One of them is a general trend of centering on the past. Old great empires, artifacts found in ancient crypts and dungeons, rituals created by mages ages before. The golden age is long past and we now only rediscover what remains of its glory.
This trend truely exist. Even more so - it is nearly necessary for a game that assumes the PCs to be among the most powerful beings of their time, but still finding challanges and items appropriate for their abilities. Especially if the ancient underground mazes full of dangerous creatures are so important as to give the name to the game system.
The other theme is the social mobility; the possibility or really going "from zero to hero". The OP speaks of both the heroes that face mortal dangers and the "geeky wizard" hero that gains power (and probably shares it with other people) through his own research, experimentation and ingenuity, not through ancient tomes.
Then, the OP states that OD&D follows the social mobility theme while 4e delves in the past. I understand the point, but I do not agree with it.
All editions of D&D focused on the past. In each of them PC rather found magic items and spells than created them. In each they fought minions of evil gods banished ages ago. In each they discovered what was left of ancient empires. In each much more rules were given for exploring dungeons than for politics, wars, magical and technological research and other ways of changing the world in a significant way, all taken together. More wealth was found in hidden crypts than produced by the whole cities. Most plotlines center on "saving" something, keeping status quo, instead of real advancement (other than the level advancement, of course). The only change is that 4e is more focused on the main themes of play, while the older editions had some rules for the side matters, most of them neither time-saving nor more useful than average DM's common sence.
In the same vein, no edition of D&D really allowed social mobility. Each one assumed the PCs to be exceptional, with most of the population completely unable to equal them. Once again, 4e is more obvious here, with PCs being powerful from the first level while in older editions low-level adventuring was deadly dangerous. No matter how the PCs careers began, most of people in the world were assumed to never gain levels. In editions in which majority of NPCs had levels at all it were levels in special classes designed to be much weaker than "the heroes". In each edition it was very uncommon to start a campaign with the PCs being commoners. None of them takes you from zero to hero - 4e only gives you a safety net at the beginning.
