Bear with me, as much of this is off the top of my head, though fairly recently.
In the OSR there is both the opinion that: A) modern rule sets encourage "roll-playing" and emphasize character ability, and B) the Thief is the start of that trend. While the second opinion is not quite so common, it is still espoused by prominent OSR figures, such as Grognardia and Philotomy. Whether or not that opinion is correct (it is an opinion), there is precedence for the argument.
However I think a lot of guys are misreading, or not reading all of it, or forgetting what they're reading. In OD&D the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures booklet (proto-DMG) clearly has rules for finding and setting off traps, surprise (stealth), outrunning monsters (athletics), finding secret doors (perception), etc... All of these rules have a die roll that can be made, usually a range of pips on a six-sided die. Furthermore in Men & Magic there is reference to some abilities modifying those rules, though specifics are never given.
I think the big difference between OD&D, and later games however, was how those rules are presented. Rules for character abilities resolving problems are found in the Referee's booklet, instead of the player's booklet. Therefore it is left up to the Referee to determine what happens in those situations, instead of players demanding what gets to happen. A sort of sub-point in this, is that in OD&D those situations are presented as dangers that can be sprung on characters, or helpful tricks. In later editions much more importance is placed on giving the players control, and making the world safer for them. This means more rolls: does the trap spring? did the character pass a saving throw? did the character pass a skill check? etc.
Another item I think a lot of OSR guys don't think about is how the Thief could actually function (I'm not going to say should, because I don't know how it was intended). They argue that "before the Thief came along, everyone could do those things!". I'm not quite so sure about AD&D, but I do know that Greyhawk does not invalidate the LBB's. Therefore all of those rolls are still there for other classes to make. What makes the Thief unique, is that those abilities progress and improve over time. In fact if we look at some of the Thief's abilities, they start off relatively close to a percent equivalent to the d6 rolls, if not a little lower. A similar thing happens with the Ranger in 1E, having a 50% chance of surprise, instead of the usual 2 out of 6.
Furthermore OSR types like to bemoan how "roll-playing" prevents "role-playing", but if that were the case, the LBB's are just as guilty; as I already pointed out the rules are there. If you can "role-play" and problem solve in character with LBB OD&D, then why not with a thief class? Let the player make the roll; if they fail it or don't have the skill, let them role-play it out. Now I most certainly won't argue that later editions put a higher emphasis on "roll-playing", as I've experienced that first hand. 3E players, and those I've been playing with in D&D Next, heavily rely on their rolled skill checks.
How do I feel about the Thief? Well I do think it started a bad trend, but not that of skill rolls. I think it started class bloat, in both the number of classes to later be found, and the amount of abilities each class has. It was introduced simultaneously with the Paladin. While the Paladin had a few restrictions, and benefits, it remained very similar to the Fighter, even in experience points needed. The Thief however, was an entirely new class, not a sub-class; complete with new attack tables, restrictions, and experience point progressions. Furthermore the Thief has a laundry list of abilities: Back Stab, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Hear Noise, Remove Traps, Open Locks, etc...
In every later edition of D&D we see more independent and different classes, with ever expanding class abilities. In 3rd Edition, they entirely did away with any sort of class hierarchy, and made every class independent and separate. Furthermore, to make them interesting enough to play, and balanced against each other, large lists of abilities and options were provided.
I'm thinking of getting rid of the Thief in my games, and making most of the class feel more like kits/backgrounds/specialties (thought not completely like 2E did). I've already discussed this before, each class having only a couple unique abilities they are good at, and that makes them interesting to play. With this method, I had originally intended four archetypes, just like 2E, mostly because the Thief/Rogue has become such a tradition of D&D.
However, as you could guess, I'm starting to question the necessity of the Thief. After all, couldn't the Thief just be a light-Fighter, that's good at dealing with hazards? The Rogue, a sneaky Fighter that deals in Subterfuge? I don't anyone would argue that an Assassin wouldn't be a perfect type of Fighter subclass.
I'm thinking this would greatly simplify my house rules. In white box OD&D, you have three clear archetypes: Martial, Arcane, Divine. Only three hit dice types (d4, d6, d8), with no need to later strengthen certain classes against each other. Three attack progressions, and three saving throw progressions. Three clear combat roles; straight damage dealing combat, spell sword that strengthens and heals, and finally the dedicated spell caster. The Thief or Rogue would simply deal damage in a different way. In fact there are things the Thief and Fighter can both do, simply in different ways; like bashing open doors vs unlocking them.
Furthermore this would encourage me to expand upon the original system of general adventuring skills. How to you handle stealth, climbing, traps, etc... I'd emphasize "role-playing" and problem solving, while providing fall backs like the X out of d6 roll, or general percentage chances. I wouldn't necessarily want to develop a full skill system like 3E, or a proficiency system like 2E; but the possibility of improving those general skills over time wouldn't be precluded. If I did all of that, I could simplify a lot of the "skill monkey" classes like the Rogue, Ranger, Thief, Barbarian etc... Giving those classes small, but unique, ability lists.
For example, I'm thinking my Thief would have: Stealth (which only he could use in combat), Security (finding/removing traps, etc.), and some sort of Sneak Attack. My Ranger would have animal handling skills, and dual-wielding, but tracking and survival skills would probably be cut. My Barbarian would be focused on the Constitution and Dexterity bonuses the 1E Barbarian had, but cutting most of his tertiary skills, or the abilities that the 3E Barbarian latched onto.
Well this was much longer than I intended, so I'm off for the evening, er uh morning I suppose.
