So dumb question I have to ask, right? For those of you who played D&D BX/BECMI and AD&D 1e/2e, did you guys really play D&D the way the OSR movement says it was meant to be played? I keep hearing about how their way is the right way to play D&D, yet I also hear people from Dragonsfoot claiming that’s BS.
The short answer is "no".
The long answer:
(1)There were wildly different approaches in these editions, which we did not even realize back then, on the virtue of being teens with limited access to game books (Internet already existed, but you couldn't get the entire DnD library on demand for free yet), who scarcely understood the differences between various editions available. The Slavelords adventure series which was intended to be a stage for a tabletop sport, with parties competing for the best final score at conventions and the Dragon Lance adventure series, which involved characters more or less following the script, defined by the books' plot, could not be farther apart in terms of design philosophy, despite being published roughly at the same timeframe. The former is more associated with BX/BECMI, the latter with AD&D, but again, they existed in parallel for a time, even if with AD&D2e the latter became more prominent, and most of the publications catered to it.
My early RPG experiences were more informed by the latter, story/narrative-focuses approach.
(2)That said, the general course I observed was green GMs running things entirely by the book at first, with PCs dying to random encounter tables and whatever. Then everyone found that not fun, because running games with emergent stories that challenge players rather than character stats required better DMs and players than dumb teens whom we were, as well as following unspoken assumptions, which were in effect at the designers' tables, but weren't effectively translated into actual game design. Then groups gravitated towards the "telling heroic fantasy stories" side of DnD. Which early editions enabled better out of the box - characters with a few levels under their belt and optional rules which everyone I knew used (like death at -10 hp) could do a tolerable job running through most fantasy plots. The best, if imperfect, cure for the game turning into "guess DM's script" we found back then was making the DM's seat rotating for the same party.
(3)I note, though, that OSR fanboys don't seem to ever recognize the fact that early editions were by no means monolythic. At least their manifesto articles do not, I haven't engaged in personal discussions with them. Together with their unhealthy attachment to legacy game mechanics, they impress me as a "old good new bad" crowd in the same vein as dumb nostalgiafags who lap up heavily pixelated graphics in modern indie games.
In fact, a lot of their statements also are just fucking retarded and betray either lack of in-depth knowledge of older editions, or wilfull blindness to many aspects of them. Case in point, the first OSR-hyping article that Google provides.
"The world isn’t split into levels for you to work through, and dragons are truly dangerous - if you find one in a dungeon, it will likely kill you."
Given that OD&D had explicit rules for slapping dragons and making them your bitches (sure, it wasn't an easy task, but not outlandishly difficult either, the trend of making dragons Cooler Than You only began with AD&D monster manual), I question how authentic their old-schoolness is.
"You’re not medieval superheroes, which is what a lot of OSR fans felt D&D was turning into. Instead, you’re regular folk brave or stupid enough to make your living through looting long-lost tombs and labyrinths."
Nothing says "regular folk" like level progression in itself, and supplments extending it basically to high heaven, and combar rules for gods, and an actual adventure where you kill Lolth and take her stuff.
"Firstly, old-school games are much more loose and free with rulings. There aren’t rules for every encounter of move - and that’s okay. Rather than looking up how to fight underwater or if your climbing speed would allow you to make a specific jump, DMs just rule in the moment."
Having rules for fairly common situations, like fighting underwater or making long jumps is the reason to run DnD, instead of freeform, you fuckwit. I am saying this as someone who had been mostly DMing for decades. Having good rules for a given situation offers consistency to my judgment and offers players a framework to encourage their creativity, because they won't have to guess whether I'm going to reward them for their unconventional approach or punish them for their stupidity. Yes, there always will be edge cases, and bad rules can be worse than no rules, but that's why you should strive to make your rules good.
