I normally only skim the first paragraph of the blog posts on Gnome Stew. They very rarely have anything relevant to my interest. But in the most recent article, "You Can Totally Do That Thing (Or Maybe Not)", the author gave an example of a player paralyzed with indecision, and had this to say:
"In the opening example, the player hadn’t played D&D in quite some time and was coming at his choices from a very old-school perspective. The last time he had played regularly, if something wasn’t explicitly stated in the rules, you simply couldn’t do it. He assumed that he couldn’t jump up onto the wall because it was something he couldn’t do in one of his previous games."
Yep. "You can only do what is explicitly in the rules" is now a "very old-school perspective". All the work the OSR has done over the past decade or so trying to convince people otherwise, all of Old Geezer's rants and subsequent bannings on RPGnet for telling people that their character is not their character sheet. all of it, has been either a lie or a waste.
OK< yeah, I realize that the "Anything Not Explicitly Allowed Is Forbidden" attitude did start to creep in at least around the time of AD&D, but even there, the PHB and DMG go to some lengths to point out that yes, people other than thieves can climb, some scrolls are usable by people who aren't magic-users, it's possible to use a weapon you don't have training in... it took years for the so-called "very old-school perspective" to become the norm in all things.