Having played EverQuest and World of Warcraft, I think that although the terminology largely borrows from soccer, as you say,
@EzekielRaiden, it's striking how close the set-up is to EverQuest (where controllers, in the form of the obligatory Enchanter class, at least at the time 4E was developed, are very much a thing). But even at its peak, EverQuest had been played by far fewer people than WoW ever was, so it was rarely in the 4E conversation that I saw (but I also was playing Castles & Crusades during that period, so I may have missed it).
It is worth noting that, while "Controller" isn't strictly its own
role in WoW, it has its place--or at least it did up through when I stopped playing (late Cataclysm). That is, Mages could sheep, Hunters had a trap (sleep, maybe?), Rogues could Sap, I think Warlocks could "Banish" certain types of foes, etc. This CC wasn't strictly mandatory, but I remember running The Vortex Pinnacle and observing how significant it was to CC specific mobs in most packs.
I do think you're correct that there's a strain of old-school MMORPG design that moves in the same direction, but I would argue that that old-school MMO design specifically
came from D&D, rather than the other way around. A lot of the design lessons MMOs have learned over the years...pretty much do come from needing to shed excessive adherence to old-school D&D design elements that were not super well-liked.
Now, conversely, many computer games today whether they are single-player or mulitplayer (particularly the one I play, FFXIV) are grappling with the reverse issue. They've smoothed out the experience
so much that it becomes boring for anyone who isn't extremely casual,
unless you do the bleeding-edge highly difficult content. Such "midcore" players have been left in the dust, even though they actually make up a sizable portion of the playerbase.
The correct response is to find a midpoint, not to conclude "ah, so because Elden Ring sold well and people are complaining about things being too easy,
obviously we must make everything a meatgrinder!" That's not productive. Instead, what
is productive is finding a better mdipoint for the needs of current and future audiences. Finding where the dividing line between "frustrating difficulty" and "rewarding challenge" lies. Finding the opposite side's dividing line, between "digestible and approachable" and "nothing to learn and no value to be gained" as well. Working to fill the space between--approachable but rewarding challenges, digestible but still somewhat demanding experiences.
Designers are beginning to realize that it's not bad to have a game that players need to
learn to play.
Unnecessary impediments and
unproductive difficulty should be addressed! But removing everything that resists player action results in a bland, dull experience that is unfulfilling and far too easily dumped for the next all-too-easy experience.
And although we now know that WotC folks in-house did have marching orders to pull in MMO players, per
@mearls, it's not like D&D didn't have these de facto roles before. I remember very clearly during the peak of 3E character optimization, that wizards controlling the battlefield was always seen as the optimal approach to the game, and leaving the damage dealing to other classes.
Correct, though I must beg your pardon for taking some of what Mearls says with a grain of salt. He has...done and said things which have eroded my trust in his judgment and, more importantly, his biases.
(And, I'd argue, all of these roles still apply in 5E and OSR games, although there's a lot more wiggle room since the math is less strict and not every class is so finely tuned to carry out their functions.)
Oh, most assuredly. There is no Fighter that doesn't have fairly strong ability to stand in the front and act as a meatshield. I disagree that strictness of math is even relevant here though, and would need to know what you mean by "so finely tuned"--being a Leader pretty much just boils down to "can heal a few times per combat, and can support allies in other ways, like with saving throws, condition removal, or granting attacks". Being a Defender pretty much just boils down to having the ability to punish those who choose to flaunt your marks, and being able to take a few more hits than others (and shrug off more attacks than others).
Which is one of the reasons why it's pretty infuriating the way folks talk about 4e's roles. This was straight-up something WotC did
all the time in 3e, including specific advice for ways to play the various classes along these lines. You always--in both 3e and 4e--have the ability to ignore your base features if you want, and you always have the ability to branch out or grow in new directions. Some of those directions are harder than others, e.g. a Fighter who wants to do Leader things is going to have a long road ahead of them, but that's no different in 5e (indeed, arguably worse, since 5e offers so little in the way of alternate options and the Battle Master is a piss-poor substitute for an
actual Warlord with
actual healing, something Mearls explicitly said we would get and then reneged upon, hence my comments above.)
