The thesis _almost_ makes sense. Then the article does nothing to support it.
The history of D&D is an example of capitalism commoditizing creativity.
Initially, there were some very thin rules about character stuff to accompany miniature wargaming. This was not terribly interesting to most people. Wargamers or otherwise.
That grew into some still thin and permissive rules and more of a focus on playing a role and storytelling. The onus was on the players to do most of this. There wasn't much in the way of example or instruction. This attracted the crowd we think of today as makers - self-directed problem solvers who like to greenfield.
That all seemed sort of interesting but not approachable enough, so, in typical capitalist fashion, there were more and more manuals and rule sets and published scenarios. There was a lot more hand-holding for the creatively needy.
Meanwhile, simple algorithmic dungeon crawlers were created on computers. There was only a thin whiff of role playing as theme in combat-mechanic- and metric-heavy CRPGs.
Then we bounce back to TTRPGs who've learned from CRPGs and they become something a bit like CRPGs with slightly heavier theme. Almost all the creativity is sucked out of it. What we used to call "munchkining" prevails. The only meaningful decisions are in character creation, itself a strictly bounded system.
How did this happen? At every step along the way decisions were driven by profitability, economies of scale, and the general commoditization of creativity, turning every game into the same pleasant McAdventure.
The history of D&D is an example of capitalism commoditizing creativity.
Initially, there were some very thin rules about character stuff to accompany miniature wargaming. This was not terribly interesting to most people. Wargamers or otherwise.
That grew into some still thin and permissive rules and more of a focus on playing a role and storytelling. The onus was on the players to do most of this. There wasn't much in the way of example or instruction. This attracted the crowd we think of today as makers - self-directed problem solvers who like to greenfield.
That all seemed sort of interesting but not approachable enough, so, in typical capitalist fashion, there were more and more manuals and rule sets and published scenarios. There was a lot more hand-holding for the creatively needy.
Meanwhile, simple algorithmic dungeon crawlers were created on computers. There was only a thin whiff of role playing as theme in combat-mechanic- and metric-heavy CRPGs.
Then we bounce back to TTRPGs who've learned from CRPGs and they become something a bit like CRPGs with slightly heavier theme. Almost all the creativity is sucked out of it. What we used to call "munchkining" prevails. The only meaningful decisions are in character creation, itself a strictly bounded system.
How did this happen? At every step along the way decisions were driven by profitability, economies of scale, and the general commoditization of creativity, turning every game into the same pleasant McAdventure.