@Campbell
I agree with your assessment. Combat in the classic games was only a part of the game experience, it wasn't even really the primary focus. Those who criticize older editions for being boring in combat are missing the point. For those games, most of the mechanical weight is expressed in exploration. Hence the detailed and rich mechanical support for exploration that exists in classic D&D that is missing in more modern versions.
The focus of the game has shifted.
I also think as the game has changed, the influence of mechanics has become more prevalent. Maybe something similar to the popularity of Eurogames.
There appears to be a demand that the mechanical actions executed by a player to create a result in the game be more interesting, varied, and novel.
Hence the claims that the fighter is boring (just dice rolling) and the wizard is interesting (the menu of rules mechanics they can implement in the game from their spells).
In classic editions of D&D, the mechanic is simple and basic. How a player creates a result in the game is a function of creative and imaginative interpretation and a simple mechanic is implemented when needed. This is using your imagination to interact and interpret a shared space with a mechanic to guide these interpretations.
Modern D&D seems to favor the development of execution steps that create more tangible rules results that can be leveraged and manipulated to achieve a result. The act of doing so is the fundamental experience in the game. This is like using your imagination to build something out of Legos and unleashing it on the world.
This isn't meant to state that this is less imaginative, it is just meant to state that there is demand for more of the player's agency in the game to come from executing specific mechanics and less from interpretation.
Player agency in classic D&D comes from making choices based on information presented in a shared narrative space. Player agency in modern D&D is being able to execute and manipulate rules mechanics to achieve a desired result.
Some people prefer one over the other. Neither approach is objectively wrong or bad.
I agree with your assessment. Combat in the classic games was only a part of the game experience, it wasn't even really the primary focus. Those who criticize older editions for being boring in combat are missing the point. For those games, most of the mechanical weight is expressed in exploration. Hence the detailed and rich mechanical support for exploration that exists in classic D&D that is missing in more modern versions.
The focus of the game has shifted.
I also think as the game has changed, the influence of mechanics has become more prevalent. Maybe something similar to the popularity of Eurogames.
There appears to be a demand that the mechanical actions executed by a player to create a result in the game be more interesting, varied, and novel.
Hence the claims that the fighter is boring (just dice rolling) and the wizard is interesting (the menu of rules mechanics they can implement in the game from their spells).
In classic editions of D&D, the mechanic is simple and basic. How a player creates a result in the game is a function of creative and imaginative interpretation and a simple mechanic is implemented when needed. This is using your imagination to interact and interpret a shared space with a mechanic to guide these interpretations.
Modern D&D seems to favor the development of execution steps that create more tangible rules results that can be leveraged and manipulated to achieve a result. The act of doing so is the fundamental experience in the game. This is like using your imagination to build something out of Legos and unleashing it on the world.
This isn't meant to state that this is less imaginative, it is just meant to state that there is demand for more of the player's agency in the game to come from executing specific mechanics and less from interpretation.
Player agency in classic D&D comes from making choices based on information presented in a shared narrative space. Player agency in modern D&D is being able to execute and manipulate rules mechanics to achieve a desired result.
Some people prefer one over the other. Neither approach is objectively wrong or bad.