I found myself agreeing with a large percentage of what Colville was saying, especially the idea that D&D exists (or can exist) in great variation and each table is different, and then scratching my head at his quasi-suggestions towards the end, which essentially boils down to yet another way of systematizing something which is ultimately organic.
As someone--like Colville and many reading this--who grew up playing D&D in the 80s, I've been somewhat struck by what seems to be an ever-increasing trend towards a kind of monolithic/consensus approach to "how D&D is to be played," at least partially fostered (whether intentionally or not) by WotC's publishing approach with 5E, with a small number of products covering a relatively narrow range of play styles. It almost seems like they have decided on what D&D is (or should be) for everyone, and they're going to publish within that narrowish band - or, at least, are moving in that direction. Perhaps a more accurate way of expressing what I'm trying to get at is that everything is re-contextualized within the current paradigm of what D&D is - so we might have a broad range of D&D's 50-year corpus, but it is homogenized towards a specific style and approach and ethos.
Just to be clear, I don't think this is a nefarious ploy on WotC's part to control how you play the game, but is rather mostly market driven. They have identified their new core audience--younger millenials and zennials--and are focusing on what they perceive to be their interests. In the past, especially so in 2E, they offered such a range and sheer quantity of product, that it was like a river branching into countless streams - and the water trickling away. Now it seems that they are focusing on a single river, bringing different streams into it. This strengthens sales and perhaps community cohesion, but seems to sacrifice creativity and diversity, to some degree - and the kind of "every table is different" approach that Colville is talking about.
Now where I find Colville's suggestions to be a bit off the mark is that it is yet another way of systematizing--even codifying--something which should ultimately be fluid and, as he himself says, customized to the specific game table. Of course this is a common cultural phenomena: everything must be labeled, identified, declared. Are you this or that? What specific variation are you? The problem, of course, is that real life (and people) cannot be so easily named and systematized. Lines are not so easily drawn. One danger is tribalism: Are you a theater nerd or a wargamer? Are you an X-ist or a Y-ist? Are you pro or anti? Etc. Another is an over focus on labels, at the expense of perceiving the actual individual (or campaign, etc) involved. It obfuscates nuance and dumbs down complexity.
What about this as an idea: Foster a culture in which when you join a gaming group, you realize that you are entering into a unique "eco-sphere" (or world) that has its own laws, own social and gaming contracts, each a variation on the Great Game that is D&D? Meaning, "WotC D&D" becomes a template that each group improvises off of, and improvisation and customization is assumed - to whatever degree each group desires. And we, as individual gamers, learn to feel comfortable with some degree of ambiguity.
I mean, when you start reading a novel or watching a movie, you probably have some idea of what you are getting into: you know the genre, you probably read back cover blurb or film description, and also probably picked up on a keyword descriptors. But none of that defines what the book or film actually is, and more creative and unique media will become its own entity outside of any labels. Sometimes you might even find that you enjoy something you didn't expect to enjoy, because you didn't like rom-coms but then you saw About Time and realized that rom-coms can be serious and witty and philosophical and moving. Etc, etc.
Now again, to some degree this is already the case. But I think WotC could do more to emphasize and encourage this, and I think the gaming community at large can do a lot more to foster such an environment.
Back in the day, the first question you'd ask when joining a group is, "What are the house rules?" There were almost always house rules. But this can also extend to play styles, themes, and even social dynamics. Generally these things are gradually discovered; I think it is somewhat artificial that we try to label them at the get-go as Colville suggests, even though I appreciate his underlying intention, and of course am not saying that no such "declaration of identity" cannot be useful. I mean, if I want to run a combat-heavy game in which gore is described in great detail, it is probably a good idea that I communicate that on my bulletin board at my FLGS when looking for players.
But what I'm taking issue with, and what I think Colville touches upon, is the implied idea that there is a OneTrueWay to play the game in any aspect of game play (mechanics, style, theme, social dynamics, etc), and that way is the way that WotC suggests, or even the community as a whole suggests or is fostered by various high profile examples such as Critical Role. I mean, how many online discussions/debates/arguments have we seen or been part of that essentially boils down to, "What is the right way of doing D&D?" with the erroneous implication that there is a right (and thus wrong) way?
I don't mean to overly criticize WotC or CR, as I don't really think they are explicitly saying, "This is the way to do it, and if you do it otherwise, you are wrong." But there does seem to a strong stream within the gaming community that subconsciously moves in that direction. It starts as "How do we do this?" and becomes "What is the best way to do this?" and edges too close to "What is the right way to do this?" with the implication being that every other approach is wrong or bad or even morally repugnant.
I think we should double down on real diversity in the gaming community in terms of how we approach the game, the styles of play, etc. We should foster a community that is inclusive of customization and uniqueness, in which fringe and heterodox approaches are the norm. We don't all have to agree, and we don't have to all do things the same way. I mean, a lot of online arguments could be solved if we accepted and embraced this, so that are debates would be less about "What is the right way to do this" and more, "What are the many ways to do this?"
