Quote Originally Posted by Bugbear View Post
For all of 1E and 2E D&D there were plenty of classes that did little more then 'hit a foe' with few special effects.
First and foremost, no, not really. Because, as previously pointed out, magic items. Regardless, the movement in 'flash' from fighters then until fighters now is less than the flash provided by magic users, who have been able to throw balls of fire initially built around the same template as artillery weaponry since chainmail. That some (some) fighters now have flashier options than some fighters had then is a point you really need to flesh out on why you feel that it is meaningful.

So, yes there are people that play D&D super hardcore gritty. 5E even has core rules for it, and there is at least one 'gritty' sourcebook out there. So, if that is what you are saying, then OK.
I have no idea why you think that is what I am saying. I am saying that if you want us to take you and your point seriously that I think you ought to stop trying to tell us what 'the most of' gamers are like unless you have any sources to back it up, and generally approach this as a discussion where you made an assertion, and are therefore prepared to back it up in a meaningful way. Even bringing in some anecdotes from games you've personally played in would be more convincing that continuously repeating 'most gamers want _____<things we disagree most games want>.'
*btw, If you mean Hardcore Mode, that 'gritty sourcebook isn't for people who want to play gritty, it is for people who want to pat themselves on the back for how 'hardcore' they are.

The rest of the gamers, when offered a choice between:
A. Your character can hit with a weapon and do some damage
And
B.You can use Lightning Strike to charge your weapon with energy, do more damage, maybe stun your opponent and possibly shot a arc as a bonus action at a nearby foe.
Now, I meet few players when given both options pick "oh, I want to just hit a foe and do damage".
If someone wants the former situation, why are they picking D&D at all, current edition or otherwise? There are so many other game (Hero System, Mutants and Masterminds, Lancer, Riddle of Steel and its successors, Runequest/Mythras. etc.) who do any of these (or at least complex tactical combat) so much better than D&D. D&D, despite an increase in... what I will call 'character-build-derived expendable resource actions/abilities with riders and effects,' the combat portion of the game is still mostly about using up your opponent's hit points.

I'm not trying to talk about Hollywood: my point was what "fans" like.

If you put out a action movie with no CGI period and only limited 'real' stunts and no explosions.....most action movie fans, that don't specifically like that exact setting, won't like the movie.

If you put out a movie with near endless CGI spam over the whole movie with no real stunts and lots and lots and lots of explosions....then nearly all action movie fans will love the movie.
Leaving aside all the CGI/explosion movies that failed at the box office (or, like Transformers, sold tickets but have been critically panned), this comparison seems incredibly lopsided. They're being compared to an Action movie that is only allowed "limited 'real' stunts" -- what exactly does that mean? Does the original Die Hard count? What about 60s James Bond?

AND this is NOT about "just" the bland fact that computers and special effects have gotten better so they AUTOMATICALLY put them in everything. You DO NOT have to use super computer special effects: It IS possible to make a movie with out them. Even an action type movie.
Yes. The Bourn Identity movies do a good job of using subtle computer effects to mostly put people in places where they aren't, but otherwise aren't crazy over-the-top like the Transformer movies or the like. Both exist in modern times. Both existed in the past (just with the effects looking less impressive at the time).

So my point is MOST gamers LIKE and WANT special flashy abilities in the game. And D&D over the years has added more and more and more effects.
You keep saying this but not showing it in any way whatsoever.

BUT the setting lags way, way, way behind. A character can be covered with lightning and force effect spam......but in the setting it is still 'strike two rocks together to make a fire to cook for dinner'. A character can teleport around, but still have to walk 100 miles to the next city.
The characters in D&D are coded as having rare abilities, yes. Others in that world who do not have access to routine magic very well may have to use flint and steel (which is pretty far removed from 'strike two rocks together,' but whatever) to light their fire or to walk instead of use magic flight or teleportation. That is part of the power fantasy of D&D -- you are (or quickly become) powerful people. Honestly, that's probably a reason why fantasy is more popular than sci-fi in gaming -- in science fiction, your powerful PC can often be outclassed by any old foe with a better spaceship. set of power armor, etc.

Regardless, what is systematically not clear is why you think that the desire to garner special abilities (which again, I do not think you have shown has progressed since the 70s) means that the D&D setting should have moved to science fiction. The two do not seem to be correlated in any particular way.