The point when this really sunk in for me was watching the D&D episode of Gravity Falls. There was a throwaway joke about “the dark times” when DD&D tried too hard to be cool, which to me was pretty obviously a jab at 4e. But it was framed as a bygone era of the game’s history that old-timers are relieved to be over and the new generation is lucky not to have lived through.There are people playing dnd right now who weren't born when 4e was first released, and who would have trouble recognizing it as the same game as the current iteration of the game.
In my experience, that's exactly what it is. It's also interesting and useful -- I love OSR-style play -- but it's "revisionist."For most old-school gamers I know, "It's a romantic reinvention, not an unbroken chain of tradition," is objectively false.
In my experience, that's exactly what it is. It's also interesting and useful -- I love OSR-style play -- but it's "revisionist."
I think we agree. I used the word "revisionist" in the sense of "challenging the orthodoxy by taking a new look/reinterpreting something old." I think the OSR looks at how classic D&D was designed (regardless of how it was actually played at the time) and explores the implications of that.Not revisionist, but a deliberate attempt at alternative history.
Like I said, OSR obviously bases its reinterpreted rules on a something that did exist in 70s and 80s. But as @Greg Benage put it, it takes what may have been unexplored assumptions about a certain playstyle in the 70s and 80s and creates a robust play ideology. That ideology itself is new.I really think that is way off. I started in 1984 with B/X and AD&D and that is literally how we've always played.
For most old-school gamers I know, "It's a romantic reinvention, not an unbroken chain of tradition," is objectively false.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.