To follow up my last point...I totally get it why some people are sick of the constant negativity surrounding WotC/D&D. It's the anniversary year, what should ostensibly be a time to celebrate a game that one loves and, from what I can tell, the mood isn't quite celebratory. That's a real let-down, especially if one is a big fan of the game. As well, one would hope that the stewards in charge of the game one loves are a decent company, so that one feels good about supporting them.
So when people start criticizing, and it seems indiscriminate, and full of hyperbole, etc., I can totally sympathize with wanting to just shout down the negativity for sure, especially when it seems there's more effort made to see the bad in the company or game than there is to see what's good. Maybe you just want to show up and talk about what's cool in the new rules, and it you feel it's just a matter of time before the party gets crashed by haters. I try to imagine being a D&D fan constantly encountering this and it seems like it would kind of suck.
My own position as a D&D fan is complicated. I don't play (and never have played) 5e D&D. I believe the last D&D product I purchased was Into the Unknown, for 4e D&D. It's possible I've picked up a PDF or two since then, but a quick search of my relevant drive didn't turn any up, and if I have those would be for TSR D&D, not WotC D&D.
But in this thread, even mentioning 4e D&D is taken to be a way to throw WotC, and the discussion, under a bus, not to celebrate or demonstrate one's affection for the game!
As to whether or not WotC/Hasbro is a decent company - to me, they don't seem any different from any other commercial content-creating company. Even with the Pinkertons/MtG thing, what I'm reminded of is this case -
Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd: ChD 1994 - swarb.co.uk, in which an injunction was imposed to prohibit the publication of photos illicitly taken of De Niro on set as the monster in Kenneth Branagh's film version of Frankenstein. That film was not especially well-received as an artistic work, but the studio's use of the private law to control its publicity and marketing didn't seem to attract any particular opprobrium. So WotC seeking to exercise a similar sort of control over the publicity and marketing for its creative endeavours doesn't outrage me. I'm sure the youtube creator got a bit more than he bargained for, but that seems to be the risk one takes when knowingly spoiling/leaking content that one can predict a commercial publisher will go to significant lengths to keep secret.
Overall, I find it a bit puzzling how so much of the ostensible discussion of D&D really seems to be about the company that publishes it, the commercial state of the RPG market, etc; rather than about the actual play of the game, the nature and merits of the system, etc. I don't think it has always been thus - I don't remember Usenet being like that when 3E was coming out, and during the 4e era there was a lot of discussion about RPGing as such. (Although also a lot of virtual ink spelled on the commercialities of Paizo vs WotC, to be fair.)
www.enworld.org
