I don't really understand this association of RAW and old school, or "the dice fall where they may" with OSR (and grognards). The RAW phenomena seems more...middle school? Arising mainly during later TSR days and/or early WotC (3E). It seems aligned with an "anti-railroad" movement, and player empowerment, no matter the cost to the narrative.
I agree, I have the same feeling, which is why I reminded that the old school was more about the adventure than the rules, just as 5e is. 3e started a trend of "player empowerment" which had good intents at the core, but which, in my opinion, is detrimental from the spirit of the gamer, which has always needed a DM to be in control.
I mean, I get that people look back at olden tymes and think Tomb of Horrors. But that was one module, designed for a specific effect. It didn't represent all D&D played in the 70s and 80s. Having grown up in the 80s, we always played fast and loose, and DMs were always empowered to keep things behind the screen.
Indeed.
The key was preserving the illusion that dice always determined outcomes. And, for the most part (like 95-99%) of the time, they did. But there were occasions that DMs (including myself) fudged or ignored dice. It is quite simple, actually: the DM's judgment trumps random chance. Rule zero, and all that.
Exactly, and the basic principle was that the players trusted their DMs, and actually were part of that illusion too.
But what about abusive DMs? Well, that's a different problem. That sort of person is going to find a way to be abusive, no matter what. RAW can't protect players from a maleficent DM who, if they really want to, can kill off a party at any time.
Again, I fully agree, especially since I never met any abusive DM. Lots of things are said based on things which are, to me, mostly urban legends and odd exceptions.
And what about railroading? Again, different problem. I can see how frequent dice-fudging can lead to railroading, but let's be honest: it isn't railroading if the player's don't realize they're being railroaded.
Or if, being mature about what fantasy is about and in particular fantasy roleplaying, they agree on being railroaded now and then, and actually play along because they know it's one of the ways to really epic adventures.
I'm not saying that DM's should control the narrative towards whatever outcome they ultimately desire, but I am saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with nudging things along, and again, as long as the players feel like they have choice, that's all that really matters to the actual play experience. And as long as the DM feels good about what they're doing, then its all good.
And even beyond that, there is nothing wrong about the DM controlling the narrative, full stop. For Christ's sake, all the published adventures - which are very popular - are built that way with some sort of railroading in there, if only to start the adventure, and follow the chapters. After that, you can have adventures that are extremely linear and that people still love, for example WD-DH (I personally hate it, but some people really love it and place it first in the published adventure). It all depends on what the table expects and about maintaining that collective spirit between the players and the DM. If the DM railroads a bit, why is that against the players ? It is on the contrary probable that he is doing that FOR the players, so that the adventure can be properly epic, because sandboxes are very nice, but they are rarely epic, this requires at least some sort of storyline.
Now some DMs might be "chance purists" and detest fudging. That's fine, too. But that's their own choice. I mean, it is sort of like washing your hands every time you come inside. Fine if you want to do it, but no reason to criticize others for not caring.
Exactly. This comes from the more competitive side of gaming which came with 3e and player empowerment, leading in turn to more of a players vs. DM perspective. As you point out above, the previous competitive side demonstrated by modules such as Tomb of Horrors was really a very small fraction of gaming at the time. But with 3e, it took on a completely different tone, in particular with whole groups where a DM had to show that he was playing by the rules, using the RAW and rolling dices in the open, to show that he was not "cheating" against the players. And for me this culminated with 4e, with a very precise ruleset and the idea that the DM was really mostly the referee in a competitive sport, setting up situations to test his players in a completely fair process that could not be discussed.
I'm not saying that it's not a valid way to play the game, there are so many of these, but it has created a community of elitist DMs and players who sort of look down on people not being part of that "competition". And that is detrimental to the spirit of the game, which for me has always been that of the most collaborative game ever, with all players including the DM just sitting together as friends to tell a really epic story.