Hiya!
Static, 98% with about 2% Non-Static.
I want to be able to look at a campaign setting, pick some location/area that interests me, and say "All right. All five of you awaken to the sounds of the morning kitchen staff and early-risers downstairs having what smells like a wonderful breakfast...". That is when the "timeline" starts. If we play in that same campaign "timeline" for two or three years (real time), and in that time 20 years campaign-time has passed...I don't want my games events to have to over-ride what is in official books any more than I have to. I also don't want players, and others I'm talking with online for example, to make assumptions that I'm using the "latest meta-plot events" and then start trying to point out why X would never happen or that I did Y wrong or that Z would have completely messed up the "official meta-plot".
IMNSHO, that last point... about talking to others... is the *biggest* grief I get and one that sucks the fun out of talking to other DM's who do follow the 'official meta-plot/timeline'. It breaks apart the community. It divides the DM's and the players into different camps, so to speak. This is a BAD thing. It's bad because, well, it's divisive, and it's bad because I've often felt that I was being talked down to or otherwise ignored or brushed off as "Oh, don't bother with him...his campaign is stupid" simply because my game doesn't follow what is "official". And, because my name isn't on the book they are reading, the assumption that my decisions and game is inferior simply because of that.
*WARNING! Old-Grognard Rambling Below!!!*
Back in ye olden days of yore (pre-90's...well, maybe pre-mid-90's), DM's each had their own "Campaigns". This was a game setting and bunch of rules (house or otherwise) that gave each and every DM's game a different feel. It was easy to find the "munchkins", as they were called in those days. When someone says "I have a Half-Demon Paladin/Magic-User/Assassin who's level 45/42/30!"...munchkin. But when you were talking with a non-munchkinized group...there was never, to my recollection, any sense of "your campaign is doing it wrong". Rules differences? Sure! Play preferences? Sure! But there was never "Oh, you're not using the official updated timeline of X, Y or Z. Your opinions don't matter anymore".
Yeah yeah, I'm old. I get that. I like what I like and am not likely to change anytime soon. I'm cool with that. But one of the things I'm not cool with, and haven't been cool with, is having me and my groups campaign "looked down on" because we do our own thing and have our own timeline. This sort of "othering" has only become a noticeable thing (since about the mid 2k's). It's a problem for those who DON'T use official "stuff" because of the aforementioned "division" between what is out, published, officially...and home-campaigns. Someone asking "What's the best way to X?" will get answers that just assume certain OPTIONAL rules, or assume certain campaign happenings (for the non-static game world). Then someone replies without referencing those and suddenly we have "You can't do that because..." or "That wouldn't work do to..." referencing said OPTIONS or world-timeline-advancement. The end result...confusion at best, name-calling at worst.
Ahem. I'm done now.
IMHO, Static is the best way to go. If a company/person wants to officially advance their campaign world and publish an update (ex: World of Greyhawk // From the Ashes), that's fine. Because, at least with Greyhawkers, it's easy to say "That wouldn't work because of X, if you are using FtA; if you are using GH base, then you're fine"). Two DIFFERENT timelines. But with FR, you have to distinguish how many world-changing events? There was that Spellplague thing, the AO god-war thingamajig, wasn't there something else to do with that "Azure Bonds" adventure? The list goes on and on for FR. One of the reasons we don't like it, overall, and if/when we do play in FR it's core Grey-Box Set only.
Bottom Line: Static is the best practice for D&D campaign settings. IMNSHO.
^_^
Paul L. Ming