I also disagree with the OP's point, especially in 2E. However, I don't blame them, as game designing was still "new" and DND was the main RPG.
Without getting into the details of game design, RPGs were used for a lot of different reasons, same as board games. In playing RISK with anyone who has played it before, even if they don't go for Australia, Australia is recognized as a good defensive place. No, no cite on that, all of this is in my experience.
Likewise, in 1E/2E, imx, the players I had felt their characters were not "heroic" if they didn't have at least one 18 (for the bonuses the 18 gave). In 3E, toward the end of my group playing it, they finally got out of needing an 18 and could accept a 16 but no less. I think a 16 is the minimum in 4E but they don't mind lower overall, knowing that the characters will improve.
I think with the bonuses of 3E/4E, I could sell a 16 as a very good stat. I couldn't have done that in 1E/2E. Further, in 2E, with the skill system roll being lower than the attribute score, it made it worse, in my player's eyes, when they didn't have at least a 12 in a score for the NWP checks. Again, this is just my experience.
Part of the problem is that my group wanted to emulate such books as Amber, Salvatore, Tolkien, Wheel of Time, Brooks, Feist and movies such as Krull, Conan, Excalibur, and the like. In these stories, the main characters are big as life heroes and that's what the players wanted. Nothing wrong with that! But, DND (1E/2E/3E) plays differently at different levels and 1E did not emulate heroes well when many characters could die with one hit up until even fifth level. The only way to help that was to have high stats and at least "feel" like the character was a hero because of how kewl they were.
But that's just me.
edg
