There's never been a better time to be a gamer. It's our golden age. The mainstreaming of the hobby means we're no longer dismissed as nerds (not a pejorative in these better enlightened, media-saturated times), while the Satanic Panic, safely relegated to the dustbin of cringe history, is an amusing footnote to better days. If we want a new game, we can probably find what we're looking for, sometimes free. No niche is overlooked; and should we seek to publish original stuff, there's no keeping a good creative down...
But it's a trade-off world, and we pay for this abundance with other concessions, although it's entirely subjective. It probably depends on when someone was born, their influences, and whatever cryptic reasoning drew them to the pastime. Regular readers probably know where this is going, but stick around. The earliest hobby was an obscure subculture with an air of exclusivity, very much like a secret club; and with fewer games, its variety was largely down to individual campaigns, fostering an amateur, more player-focused atmosphere.
The scene today is vastly more crowded. Anything new is a needle tossed into an Olympic sized swimming pool filled to the top with still more needles. This is great for consumers, presumably, who can only benefit from the maximum possible choices, and perhaps even for a certain (amateur) breed of creative who delights in their process and is content to share, never asking for more than that. But the sheer volume of new stuff tends to obscure that not immediately rising to the top, becoming commercial and product-driven...
.png)
Is this Good? Bad? Neutral? Options are always good, and those who only want to flex their creative muscles and get their stuff out there benefit from doing so, which is their absolute prerogative. But mainstreaming also means too many choices to easily absorb by those with lives beyond roleplaying. And there's a tendency to approach these things as some higher authority, although this is far from a universal. Even the so-called GM is subject to a product's formal dictates because today's rules are complete, leaving less to interpretation.
Alternately, while exclusive clubs promising endless potential offer fun, exclusive clubs can also be self-isolating. And ultimately self-limiting. And it's not like there aren't still endless horizons to seek and explore. New releases, once an exciting rarity, are regular occurrences in these abundant times, allowing us to pick and choose. We can play the way we prefer, ignoring any unwanted current trends. The old days were imposed by circumstance, but now we can choose our experience, be it mechanics, approach, or anything else...
Exclusive communities, including the OSR and assorted forums, still exist within the hobby; and with so many looking for new games, it's likely everything gets its share of attention, especially from appreciative players boosting a signal. There's literally nothing that can't be had, meaning we're wrong about the trade-off conundrum. This dichotomy only happens when we allow it. The earliest gaming scene was accidentally intimate, imposed by its early environmental conditions. Now it's a conscious choice, which is the ultimate outcome.
