Spin Cycle meets Spin Doctor

This is in part to a reaction to Cimmerian's question here.

The average person who now plays D&D does it from the perspective of when they were rooted in the time stream of that exchange.  If one started in the era of AD&D then they gravitate to that era.  If they did so in the latter or earlier times, then there is a greater proclivity for those eras to manifest in their overall expression, with expression here being a perceived standard of tools of information and participation within these.

While OD&D was for the most part in its entire time stream dependent upon no further source for playing it other than creating and "stocking" maps and/or similar scenarios, the advent of Basic+ and AD&D by contrast added the dimension of pre-made adventures.   This in fact split the D&D constituency then into easily recognizable camps--I list them as the "Creationists" (those who create their own material); the "Middlings," who create their own stuff and use some printed matter to complement their designs, and the "Dependents," those solely dependent upon pre-made (published) material to run (and in many cases, even fathom) their own games and/or game worlds.  As I have tracked over time, the dependents were the majority, and in that, they were those that moved on to support whole-heartedly newer forms of the game, such as 3E.  In as much as their camp later fractionalized into different percentages based upon this tri-concept of consumption and demand, it ranks even higher in its curve as its base was soundly rooted in the third category to begin with.  These consumers were easy adherents for a set-in-stone rules system and also for the d20 movement.  "Buy and dispose" syndrome as I name it.

Though the creation of new material has its merits and desires for and by those who 1) have no time in their schedules to create, or 2) are not very creative, and thus in both cases benefit in no small way from published material, this however creates a need-based way of publishing material and in turn promulgates a direct market> to> game style which dominates the other two categories for expression (for their individual information assimilation).  Thus we see (until the latter explosion of blogs and forums dedicated to such exchanges, such as DRAGONSFOOT, etc.) a lack in the printed area of theoretical-based game ideas, notwithstanding those articles in the Dragon magazine which were for the most part game-specific-driven and thus confined themselves to a structure as already realized and promoted on both sides.

Where is this leading?  Well, going ALL THE WAY back, we find correspondences to this in many games by Avalon Hill and others of the Historical Simulation age predating D&D.  But D&D actually broke that category.  Solidly broke it.  From it spawns tons of new ideas and RPGs (EN Garde by GDW is the most prevalent example of this, as it does not stay within the defined limits of RPG one-on-one combat but indeed sheds the preset emulation of a mechanical simulacrum present in both Avalon Hill  Games and in TSR RPGs by taking the role-playing concept to new and different exploratory levels).

Now, in as much as we are in a niche industry, TSR promulgated the industry in different forms and to different mind-sets of people.  Traditionally industries market to the greatest area of sales and with TSR that was no different.  People for the most part who come from that era and who are now in our niche were of course propagated from the 2nd sector of my tri-concept and thus represent most of whom support such companies as PPP and others in this reformed niche.  The ongoing indication is that people are solidly rooted from the AD&D era (making sense of course as this is the height of appeal as it was the height of TSR's growth and marketing world wide of the game).  That in itself foretells a lot of expression as is being seen in today's re-examining the history of the game.  There is a tendency to over value the things that individuals invest in, of course.  If I make a decision to buy a pen, for example, then of course it must have been to use it, and that in itself is worthy of the time and expression and of my continued attachment to the pen; and for the most part I will have nothing bad to say about said pen, for woe-is-me for having made a bad decision in purchasing and then using such an instrument.  Compare this to the dependent followers of many of WotC's games and you might get the gist of such psychology which is partially re-rooting in the "OS Movement".  And do note that this "syndrome" was not started by WotC, but of course by TSR as it marketed into the boom of adventure crafting.

This industry is in a self-perpetuating state, IMO.  Emulations of the past do not point to a single golden age but to separate rooted eras of individual expression only. D&D was and still is (NOTE) an ongoing and burgeoning concept which, unfortunately, and later, got rooted in marketing and expanding sales. It fast became an object of desire and of need, replacing self-made-enchantment and immersive participation on primary creative levels.

The quiet sadness of it all to me is just this:  It was meant to expand minds and not to contract them, or worse, to set them spinning in a circle.