Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
Vancian Casting's already been mentioned, so I'll mention D&D's general insistence that magic is always superior to mundane effort, and 3.5's insistence that if you want to do anything more interesting in a fight than sword your opponent in the hitpoints, you'd better cast a spell, spend a feat, have a magic item, or be prepared to suck a Attack of Opportunity.
That's mostly 3e+ in my experience. I remember AD&D fighters who did things like pin vampires to the ceiling with tridents and pile drive medusa into chamber pots. It was rather more fun than the guy who said "I cast shield, I cast slow, I cast flaming sphere, I'm out of spell so I give up."

In all D&D up through the 3.x editions I've found that playing an interesting and fun character to be more effective than playing a cardboard cut out with super powers. Mostly, I think, because being invested in the character and the session causes you to think and react more appropriately than just having buttons to push. People who listen when the npc says "invisible demons and fire trolls live there" do better than casters who assume that their current set of spells can fix anything.

I'm not saying that more options aren't better options, just that players can make more options if they try and tend to choose worse options when they assume one thing is always better than anything else.