# WotC Ex D&D Beyond Staffers Criticize Relationship With WotC



## billd91

Gutsy statement. I hope they don’t retaliate.


----------



## darjr

Apparently he left Dec 16th. He also just updated his twitter profile.


----------



## ReshiIRE

darjr said:


> Apparently he left Dec 16th. He also just updated his twitter profile.



Weren't there other WoTC associated staff that left around that time?

It seems like WoTC has lost a number of their own - some fairly high up - over this change.


----------



## Burnside

ReshiIRE said:


> Weren't there other WoTC associated staff that left around that time?
> 
> It seems like WoTC has lost a number of their own - some fairly high up - over this change.




I wouldn't necessarily assume they left "over this change." But having left, they can now safely comment on it.


----------



## darjr




----------



## ReshiIRE

No, you are right, it's highly likely they didn't. _But_ around December does seem to be the point that WoTC started to make moves internally re: OGL 1.1. They also seem to have had a number of staff, some high up, around this time. So, it is possible this change could have been a factor in some of those staff deciding to leave.

It's hard ot know and I expect people who leave not to comment on it, but it strikes me less of a coincidence and more possibly a factor.


----------



## ReshiIRE

darjr said:


> View attachment 271697
> View attachment 271698



I hope Andrew is okay. It sounds like it was a tough working environment, and it's clear there is a disconnect between WoTC staff and management - which always seems invetiable in any non-union, non-worker inspired or operated company.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Apparently he left Dec 16th. He also just updated his twitter profile.



It strike anyone else as weird that WotC / D&D Beyond is shedding people left and right and they’re all mum about it for weeks after the split?


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> It strike anyone else as weird that WotC / D&D Beyond is shedding people left and right and they’re all mum about it for weeks after the split?



Almost as if they signed something


----------



## Reynard

Isn't it common for WotC to shed employees in December? Didn't we use to make threads specifically about the inevitable Christmas layoffs?


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Almost as if they signed something



Sure. But why would they not be able to say they don’t work there any more for weeks after leaving. What possible benefit would that have to WotC? Besides avoiding the annual Xmas firing squad jokes of yore.


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr

darjr said:


> View attachment 271701



Note there are people who tout this argument all the time. It is only partially true.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> Note there are people who tout this argument all the time. It is only partially true.



I mean, if DDB was "Hero System Beyond" it wouldn't be significant to the industry broadly (NOTE: I love Hero; that wasn't a dig.) But that doesn't mean the DDB devs didn't work their butts off to create something really valuable. (I almost said "great" but I don't use DDB so I don't know.)


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> View attachment 271701



Wow. That’s not something you say out loud, to a person’s face, even if it were true.

But, terrible as it is, if Beyond was the digital character builder and encyclopedia for say…Fate…no one would know who they were or what they did. It’s that they worked on D&D that got them the spotlight. They also did great work, as others have said. Without both, they got nothing.


----------



## darjr

Yes. But if dndbeyond made gigabyte sized pdfs for character sheets and required a download that didn't work for many computers with an abandoned technology we probably wouldn't have heard much more about it.


----------



## Morrus

darjr said:


> View attachment 271701



Yeah. It's successful for two reasons:

1) It is for D&D
2) It is very good

Both of those things needed to be true for it to be a success. Many things which are for D&D are not a success.


----------



## Velderan

overgeeked said:


> Wow. That’s not something you say out loud, to a person’s face, even if it were true.
> 
> But, terrible as it is, if Beyond was the digital character builder and encyclopedia for say…Fate…no one would know who they were or what they did. It’s that they worked on D&D that got them the spotlight. They also did great work, as others have said. Without both, they got nothing.



That's also not something you say to someone on a team you're trying to integrate into your organization and make them feel like valued members of the overall team.


----------



## Cadence

Morrus said:


> Yeah. It's successful for two reasons:
> 
> 1) It is for D&D
> *2) It is very good*
> 
> Both of those things needed to be true for it to be a success. Many things which are for D&D are not a success.




Amen.

As an MtG player I have a hard time picturing WotC doing anything  well online.  They can't even maintain Gatherer properly as the official repository of what all the cards say, let alone give it much functionality (to the point that Scryfall seems to be the default for everyone who has ever been to a sizeable MtG discussion board before).


----------



## Voadam

overgeeked said:


> Sure. But why would they not be able to say they don’t work there any more for weeks after leaving. What possible benefit would that have to WotC? Besides avoiding the annual Xmas firing squad jokes of yore.



Separation agreements vary. Some include not discussing the reasons for the separation for a period of time. Some include agreements tying some separation payments or retirement type bonuses to agreements not to disparage the company, which can keep former employees quiet on certain things. Some companies require signing onto these types of agreements as a condition of being hired so that it is not an extra to negotiate at the end.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> I mean, if DDB was "Hero System Beyond" it wouldn't be significant to the industry broadly (NOTE: I love Hero; that wasn't a dig.) But that doesn't mean the DDB devs didn't work their butts off to create something really valuable. (I almost said "great" but I don't use DDB so I don't know.)



I have a fan made 4e adventure tracker called MasterPlan... it isn't available anymore but 10+ years later I still use it. The guy that made it was awesome it got a dozen update back then... but without the D&D push it didn't catch on. 

This guy this Andrew sounds like he may be the same way. 

BUT... I agree with the culture of arrogance, weither it is deserved or not


----------



## Scribe

darjr said:


> View attachment 271701




Pretty wild to watch Wizards follow Blizz in the 'too big to fail' self importance world view.

Feel bad for the employees not at the top, but I hope it burns to the ground.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

billd91 said:


> Gutsy statement. I hope they don’t retaliate.



Opinions are protected speech.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> It strike anyone else as weird that WotC / D&D Beyond is shedding people left and right and they’re all mum about it for weeks after the split?



It occurred over the holidays.

More broadly, I know a lot of people who work in soul-crushing "dream" jobs and when they leave, they rarely decide to put on a show for the general public. They often just want to collapse onto the sofa and be mentally and emotionally exhausted for a while.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> I mean, if DDB was "Hero System Beyond" it wouldn't be significant to the industry broadly (NOTE: I love Hero; that wasn't a dig.) But that doesn't mean the DDB devs didn't work their butts off to create something really valuable. (I almost said "great" but I don't use DDB so I don't know.)



Valuable-but-not-great is accurate. They were hampered by manpower issues previously. Now, it's likely there are big changes of direction and a new roadmap being created, so we don't know how well the tool will develop from here on out.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> Yes. But if dndbeyond made gigabyte sized pdfs for character sheets and required a download that didn't work for many computers with an abandoned technology we probably wouldn't have heard much more about it.



LEAVE GLEEMAX ALONE!


----------



## Clint_L

Scribe said:


> Pretty wild to watch Wizards follow Blizz in the 'too big to fail' self importance world view.
> 
> Feel bad for the employees not at the top, but I hope it burns to the ground.



This is a pair of disgruntled executives, who were involved in a merger, airing their side of the issue. I don't think it should be compared to the decades-long toxic work environment, especially for women, that was revealed at Blizzard. It's not a similar situation and conflating the two seems kind of diminishing of the extent of the problems at Blizzard, and of what happened to many, many victims there.


----------



## Cistern

Andrew is a stand up guy.  We've had a number of conversations, most recently at PAXU, and he's always been a straight shooter in my book.  I thank him for being so honest and straight forward with all of us regarding a situation that sounds more like the rosy red apple called WOTC is actually rotten to the corporate core.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Velderan said:


> That's also not something you say to someone on a team you're trying to integrate into your organization and make them feel like valued members of the overall team.



What about any of this would lead someone to think that WotC execs value anything other than their coffers?


----------



## Scribe

Not 


Clint_L said:


> This is a pair of disgruntled executives, who were involved in a merger, airing their side of the issue. I don't think it should be compared to the decades-long toxic work environment, especially for women, that was revealed at Blizzard. It's not a similar situation and conflating the two seems kind of diminishing of the extent of the problems at Blizzard, and of what happened to many, many victims there.



Not talking about that, but the corporate delusion that they are the end all be all.


----------



## John R Davis

Morrus said:


> Yeah. It's successful for two reasons:
> 
> 1) It is for D&D
> 2) It is very good
> 
> Both of those things needed to be true for it to be a success. Many things which are for D&D are not a success.



Yeah. I dont use it but my youngling group all adore and spend on it 
Boycott that and stop buying stuff on it is a very quick way to protest. I think


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Micah Sweet said:


> What about any of this would lead someone to think that WotC execs value anything other than their coffers?



That he said it was a conversation with one person, rather than the initial meeting of the two teams, when the most high-ranking people in the room announced they were a bunch of worthless codemonkeys.

What he recounts is not great, but let's not make it more than one conversation with one person.


----------



## jerryrice4949

Clint_L said:


> This is a pair of disgruntled executives, who were involved in a merger, airing their side of the issue. I don't think it should be compared to the decades-long toxic work environment, especially for women, that was revealed at Blizzard. It's not a similar situation and conflating the two seems kind of diminishing of the extent of the problems at Blizzard, and of what happened to many, many victims there.



I think you make several good points.  Departing staff often have feeling or agendas specific to them.  Also there is no evidence WoTC has a situation like Blizzard.


----------



## Waller

jerryrice4949 said:


> I think you make several good points.  Departing staff often have feeling or agendas specific to them.  Also there is no evidence WoTC has a situation like Blizzard.



I dunno. There's been a bunch of stuff over the last few years. Not the same as the Blizzard situation obviously, but definitely _a_ situation. Somebody should compile all this stuff somewhere.


----------



## Zaukrie

overgeeked said:


> It strike anyone else as weird that WotC / D&D Beyond is shedding people left and right and they’re all mum about it for weeks after the split?



Do people regularly make really public statements when leaving? I don't find it odd at all


----------



## Rhineglade

That is really disappointing to hear.  It does seem that some folks at WotC must think their "naughty word don't stink."  And even worse in my opinion is all this behind the scenes drama is known by only a few insiders.  The consumer is left high and dry.  They will continue to gladly accept our money but what type of product do we receive in return.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Waller said:


> I dunno. There's been a bunch of stuff over the last few years. Not the same as the Blizzard situation obviously, but definitely _a_ situation. Somebody should compile all this stuff somewhere.



There are almost certainly legal firms doing just that.


----------



## Clint_L

Zaukrie said:


> Do people regularly make really public statements when leaving? I don't find it odd at all



A member of the maintenance staff was recently let go at my school. He made VERY loud and profane public statements when leaving (e.g. yelling in the parking lot. Of a school. With students present). I don't want to judge that situation based on his public statements.

In this DnDBeyond case, yeah, those statements are kind of unprofessional. They might also be accurate. It's a little unfair to judge because there are no names named, and it is almost impossible for WotC to respond. It may be representative of a more widespread problem, or it may be representative of personal issues. At a personal level, I don't like it when people air their grievances this way.

The situation at Blizzard was totally different, as specific offences, some of them criminal, were being brought to light. That was about malfeasance. This dispute seems to be about attitudes. This is one guy claiming that another unidentified person said something that was representative of more widespread "arrogance." There's a lot of ways to read that.


----------



## Vincent55

I suspect or hope, that those who spit from their own company split the player base again and put a death nail in the coffin of the corporate takeover of D&D. I really feel this is the last days of this brand as it gets squeezed for all the money they can then maybe sold off like an old used car they don't want to fix. The company needs someone who loves the game, like those that formed pathfinder and such, but I may be just hoping too much. This is hard to say for me as I have loved this game from the blue and red box sets to the last 5e book I got, but I feel it has since lost its way and has become more about making money and less about the quality of the product. This happens a lot with online games and such with the intro of no subscription and the lock boxes and the hoops they make the player jump through to do things all pay-to-win models and such. With D&D you will end up with, table scraps tossed to us for free, and others locked behind exclusive content on many things like digital-only or rare collectables covers and adventures with small bits of crunch and ther rest left up to the DM to fill in. We the community will be the creative staff, who will have our original creations taken and used to whatever ends they want and we have no say so. Try and complain and bam you are slapped with a court document forbidding you to make or sell anything. No pay, no rights, and no caring for the community only what we can do for them. Yes, this guy was one of the most dedicated D&D fans and DM's but now like a girlfriend who is a mess and keeps taking her back, I am done it's over.


----------



## Oofta

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That he said it was a conversation with one person, rather than the initial meeting of the two teams, when the most high-ranking people in the room announced they were a bunch of worthless codemonkeys.
> 
> What he recounts is not great, but let's not make it more than one conversation with one person.




In addition, the simple truth is that many management types don't understand the complexity of software. They see someone throw together a non-functional UI that looks pretty and think it's easy.  It can't be any more difficult than putting together an excel spreadsheet, can it?

Doesn't excuse anything, but also not surprising.


----------



## darjr

Oofta said:


> In addition, the simple truth is that many management types don't understand the complexity of software. They see someone throw together a non-functional UI that looks pretty and think it's easy.  It can't be any more difficult than putting together an excel spreadsheet, can it?
> 
> Doesn't excuse anything, but also not surprising.



Oh this very thing happened to me. Show a mock-up in jpg and next thing I know the managers want to know why it doesn’t work as advertised.

One of them called me while clicking buttons in a jpg.


----------



## Clint_L

I think it is fair to say that communications between management and tech have a reputation for being notoriously problematic.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Oofta said:


> In addition, the simple truth is that many management types don't understand the complexity of software. They see someone throw together a non-functional UI that looks pretty and think it's easy.  It can't be any more difficult than putting together an excel spreadsheet, can it?
> 
> Doesn't excuse anything, but also not surprising.



Absolutely. Never let anyone senior, unless they're very technically knowledgeable and level-head, get a hold of any kind of app prototyping software, I can tell you that much. We had an unfortunate incident a few years back where a couple of fairly senior but non-technical people used it (or rather stood around and instructed someone else to use it) to create pretty-but-non-functional "apps", and then basically said "Make it work! How hard can it be?".






Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That he said it was a conversation with one person, rather than the initial meeting of the two teams, when the most high-ranking people in the room announced they were a bunch of worthless codemonkeys.



I mean, not even codemonkeys, like just plain monkeys, because codemonkeys might get some respect for the coding they'd done, if nothing else.


Voadam said:


> Separation agreements vary. Some include not discussing the reasons for the separation for a period of time. Some include agreements tying some separation payments or retirement type bonuses to agreements not to disparage the company, which can keep former employees quiet on certain things. Some companies require signing onto these types of agreements as a condition of being hired so that it is not an extra to negotiate at the end.



Indeed. It's really variable. Condition of being hired stuff isn't as common as one might expect, too, I think because it can spook people (perhaps rightly in some cases).


Morrus said:


> Yeah. It's successful for two reasons:
> 
> 1) It is for D&D
> 2) It is very good
> 
> Both of those things needed to be true for it to be a success. Many things which are for D&D are not a success.



I'd agree.

I think DDB faltered as time went on, particularly after they got sold to Fandom in 2018 and later as they seemed to start losing people, but the basic core product they had was a very solid and importantly - attractive and largely pleasant-to-use product. Their app was surprisingly not bad either, even the books-only version of it. I have plenty of criticisms, but they all boil down to "They stopped meaningfully improving the product in late 2018", which seems to be due a combo of factors not worth addressing here.

It's very easy to imagine a conceptually-similar product that wasn't as well-produced or conceptually sound. If they hadn't basically made the product I was looking for, I don't know if I'd even have DM'd 5E much and I'm sure my groups would have played it less.


darjr said:


> Oh this very thing happened to me. Show a mock-up in jpg and next thing I know the managers want to know why it doesn’t work as advertised.
> 
> One of them called me while clicking buttons in a jpg.



Been there lol.


----------



## darjr

Ex B&G person has a story.


----------



## jerryrice4949

darjr said:


> Ex B&G person has a story.
> View attachment 271733



Kind of feels like people are sensing WoTC are vulnerable so anyone with a grievance is ready to jump in.


----------



## overgeeked

Wait, what? You mean after being the industry leader from the inception of the hobby until today (with the exception of maybe a few months) and more than two decades of practically the _entire_ mainstream RPG industry kissing their butts and kowtowing to them…they got all egotistical about it? Nah.


----------



## Rabulias

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Opinions are protected speech.



So the US government can't come after him -- I don't think anyone was worried about that. Opinions are _not _protected from actions/reactions from private individuals and private companies, especially if they have signed some sort of NDA or non-disparage clause.


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> Ex B&G person has a story.
> View attachment 271733



Is G&S Geek & Sundry?


----------



## Remathilis

Vincent55 said:


> I really feel this is the last days of this brand as it gets squeezed for all the money they can then maybe sold off like an old used car they don't want to fix.



That's all these brands are now. Star Wars, D&D, Magic, Marvel, Etc. Perpetual cash machines betting on nostalgia and inertia until the next "It" thing comes along. To say it's discouraging to see my favorite things turned into cash-grabs is an understatement.


----------



## overgeeked

Nikosandros said:


> Is G&S Geek & Sundry?



That’s my assumption. That’s Eric from Eric’s TBD RPG.


----------



## Haplo781

overgeeked said:


> Wow. That’s not something you say out loud, to a person’s face, even if it were true.
> 
> But, terrible as it is, if Beyond was the digital character builder and encyclopedia for say…Fate…no one would know who they were or what they did. It’s that they worked on D&D that got them the spotlight. They also did great work, as others have said. Without both, they got nothing.



This is true. It's also true that if the D&D logo were the only requirement for success, WotC wouldn't have paid $146 million for DDB, and we'd all be playing 4e right now.


----------



## jeffh

Vincent55 said:


> I really feel this is the last days of this brand as it gets squeezed for all the money they can then maybe sold off like an old used car they don't want to fix.



I don't see the D&D brand being sold off unless Hasbro itself outright dies (which, granted, feels possible in a way it didn't a couple months ago - not likely, but possible). Hasbro would rather sit on the IP for a decade or two then bring it back as, I don't know, a line of action figures or something. That's been their business model for as long as anyone here has been alive. I once joked that if they'd been around in 600 BC they would still own the _Illiad_.

A game recognizably derived from D&D would probably arise (if it hasn't already, in the sense that this would probably push even more people to Pathfinder), but I don't see the _brand _escaping Hasbro's clutches so easily.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> This is true. It's also true that if the D&D logo were the only requirement for success, WotC wouldn't have paid $146 million for DDB, and we'd all be playing 4e right now.



Precisely.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Rabulias said:


> So the US government can't come after him -- I don't think anyone was worried about that. Opinions are _not _protected from actions/reactions from private individuals and private companies, especially if they have signed some sort of NDA or non-disparage clause.



There's no evidence of such happening, though.

I'm not happy about what's happening either, but the catastrophizing on this board is through the roof.

Everyone doesn't _have_ to jump to the worst case scenario on every possible item.


----------



## jmhimara

Haplo781 said:


> This is true. It's also true that if the D&D logo were the only requirement for success, WotC wouldn't have paid $146 million for DDB, and we'd all be playing 4e right now.




Yeah. I can't say I have statistics on the matter, but I think it's safe to say that there's a significant amount of people that would not be playing 5E at all if it wasn't for DDB. Half of my gaming group, for example. 

Also, how many times has WoTC has attempted to create similar tools and failed?


----------



## Hussar

jmhimara said:


> Also, how many times has WoTC has attempted to create similar tools and failed?



Once?


----------



## agrayday

you could do a quick score sheet of successes and wins along with support and abandonment both in products and staff careers of the life of D&D and it should tell you something. To me it tells me its a rough train ride where most things are treated and invested in, as momentary.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:


> Once?



Twice, I think? Wasn't there a similar attempt in the Gleemax era, then whatever they did during 4E?


----------



## coyote6

Reynard said:


> Twice, I think? Wasn't there a similar attempt in the Gleemax era, then whatever they did during 4E?



The original 3e PHB came with a CD-ROM with character generator software on it, and a promise for updates later.

It was never updated.


----------



## Reynard

coyote6 said:


> The original 3e PHB came with a CD-ROM with character generator software on it, and a promise for updates later.
> 
> It was never updated.



Oh, man, I totally forgot about that!


----------



## Kramodlog

Would the DnD logo, any online platform would be a success... if it _worked_. 

4e never got one and 5e was supposed to get projet Morningstar and others. They didn't work. For that you need a good team of programmers. Which Beyond had. The DnD brand brings the fans, but you still need to sell them a product.


----------



## Azzy

coyote6 said:


> The original 3e PHB came with a CD-ROM with character generator software on it, and a promise for updates later.
> 
> It was never updated.



That was (supposedly) the precursor to eTools.


----------



## Scribe

jerryrice4949 said:


> Kind of feels like people are sensing WoTC are vulnerable so anyone with a grievance is ready to jump in.


----------



## jmhimara

coyote6 said:


> The original 3e PHB came with a CD-ROM with character generator software on it, and a promise for updates later.




There was also one for 2e AD&D, but I forget if that was TSR or WotC, but either way, not a success. At least not financially.


----------



## Remathilis

jmhimara said:


> Also, how many times has WoTC has attempted to create similar tools and failed?




Core Rules 1.0 (2e). Weak and not customizable.

Core Rules 2.0 + Expansion (2e). Probably their best early attempt. Fairly customizable, uses PHB or PO options. 

Master Tools. (3e) Demo came with 3.0 PHB. Project bogged down with feature creep. Never released.

E-Tools (3e) an attempt by another company to get Master Tools finished. Did a decent job of salvaging bad software.

DDI - exe version (4e) after the original 4e tools project suffered a horrendous setback, the first 4e tools were rather lackluster.

DDI - web version (4e). A decent redo of the 4e tools. Probably came too late in 4e's lifespan.

Project: Morningstar (5e). A nice idea from a sham company that couldn't deliver.

D&D Beyond (5e). What we got currently.


----------



## jmhimara

Kramodlog said:


> Would the DnD logo, any online platform would be a success... if it _worked_.




Perhaps you need the users that the D&D logo brings for economic viability, but not necessarily "success," depending on how you define it. 

The GURPS Character Sheet (GCS) program has nowhere near the same amount of users, yet I'd still consider it very successful. It does what its supposed to do incredibly well.


----------



## Lanefan

Rabulias said:


> So the US government can't come after him -- I don't think anyone was worried about that. Opinions are _not _protected from actions/reactions from private individuals and private companies, especially if they have signed *some sort of NDA or non-disparage clause.*



Given that one of the founding tenets of the USA is freedom of speech I'm surprised such things are even allowed there.


----------



## Rabulias

Lanefan said:


> Given that one of the founding tenets of the USA is freedom of speech I'm surprised such things are even allowed there.



The foundational principle of the freedom of speech is speech free from interference or retaliation _by the government, _not other people. But this may be getting too close to politics for the board.


----------



## Zardnaar

Lanefan said:


> Given that one of the founding tenets of the USA is freedom of speech I'm surprised such things are even allowed there.




 Context at the time was political/government. You could still get the death penalty in Europe for insulting the king (18th century). 

  Frenchman was executed in 15th or 16th century for insulting the king. Had sex with two of the Kings sisters.

 It was never absolute.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Zardnaar said:


> Frenchman was executed in 15th or 16th century for insulting the king. Had sex with two of the Kings sisters.



His last words: "Worth it!"


----------



## deganawida

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> His last words: "Worth it!"



Totally. Dude went out as Le Chad.


----------



## Dimitri Mazieres

Morrus said:


> He later went on to comment on WotC itself -- "Quick story. When DDB was first acquired by WotC, I had a conversation with someone on the WotC side. They told me that DDB was only successful because of the D&D logo and not the work we had put into it for 5 years. It’s a culture of arrogance."



I was reading (still am) Ben Rigg's Slaying the Dragon when all of this exploded last week, and I still can't believe that the same corporate attitudes from the eighties and nineties are being repeated 30+ years later. Talk about history repeating itself...


----------



## deganawida

Dimitri Mazieres said:


> I was reading (still am) Ben Rigg's Slaying the Dragon when all of this exploded last week, and I still can't believe that the same corporate attitudes from the eighties and nineties are being repeated 30+ years later. Talk about history repeating itself...



And with a Williams in charge of WotC, no less! Irony seems replete in D&D’s history.


----------



## Dimitri Mazieres

deganawida said:


> And with a Williams in charge of WotC, no less! Irony seems replete in D&D’s history.



Totally. One would think that with the benefit of hindsight these blunders would be avoided... Oh, well...

@BenRiggs if you're not doing so already, you should be taking notes. This may be your sequel happening right now...


----------



## Zardnaar

Dimitri Mazieres said:


> I was reading (still am) Ben Rigg's Slaying the Dragon when all of this exploded last week, and I still can't believe that the same corporate attitudes from the eighties and nineties are being repeated 30+ years later. Talk about history repeating itself...




 Nothing really changed they're just better at masking it. 

 Beats me why people thought differently. Once Adkinson left....


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Remathilis said:


> Core Rules 1.0 (2e). Weak and not customizable.
> 
> Core Rules 2.0 + Expansion (2e). Probably their best early attempt. Fairly customizable, uses PHB or PO options.
> 
> Master Tools. (3e) Demo came with 3.0 PHB. Project bogged down with feature creep. Never released.
> 
> E-Tools (3e) an attempt by another company to get Master Tools finished. Did a decent job of salvaging bad software.
> 
> DDI - exe version (4e) after the original 4e tools project suffered a horrendous setback, the first 4e tools were rather lackluster.
> 
> DDI - web version (4e). A decent redo of the 4e tools. Probably came too late in 4e's lifespan.
> 
> Project: Morningstar (5e). A nice idea from a sham company that couldn't deliver.
> 
> D&D Beyond (5e). What we got currently.



Yeah. A lot of people don't realize that 4e was almost irreparably marred by a literal _murder-suicide_ in its digital tools team, which demolished any hope of improving the downloadable version of the digital tools. Then, when they finally got a new team together, they adopted Silverlight...which got axed by Microsoft a few months later.

4e's run is a study in Murphy's Law. It's hard to imagine how a TTRPG launch and run could have gone more poorly, both in the unforced errors WotC themselves made and in the back to back to back unforeseeable problems and tragedies they faced. That it was _still_ financially successful (just not hitting the _incredibly lofty_ "core brand" targets WotC sold Hasbro on) despite all of that is a friggin miracle.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Kramodlog said:


> Would the DnD logo, any online platform would be a success... if it _worked_.
> 
> 4e never got one and 5e was supposed to get projet Morningstar and others. They didn't work. For that you need a good team of programmers. Which Beyond had. The DnD brand brings the fans, but you still need to sell them a product.



I think that is the right way to say it... D&D brings the customers, but if what your selling doesn't work they aren't staying... the exact same hard work and great system for Rifts, or TORG, or Vampire just doesn't get the same start up...

Having said that I HAVE fan made TORG and Vampire character creators that work amazing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> Core Rules 1.0 (2e). Weak and not customizable.
> 
> Core Rules 2.0 + Expansion (2e). Probably their best early attempt. Fairly customizable, uses PHB or PO options.
> 
> Master Tools. (3e) Demo came with 3.0 PHB. Project bogged down with feature creep. Never released.
> 
> E-Tools (3e) an attempt by another company to get Master Tools finished. Did a decent job of salvaging bad software.
> 
> DDI - exe version (4e) after the original 4e tools project suffered a horrendous setback, the first 4e tools were rather lackluster.
> 
> DDI - web version (4e). A decent redo of the 4e tools. Probably came too late in 4e's lifespan.
> 
> Project: Morningstar (5e). A nice idea from a sham company that couldn't deliver.
> 
> D&D Beyond (5e). What we got currently.



and this is NOT all of the failures they had with electronic stuff... this is just character things. Gleemax isn't on there at all...


----------



## Remathilis

GMforPowergamers said:


> and this is NOT all of the failures they had with electronic stuff... this is just character things. Gleemax isn't on there at all...



I'd have been here all day going over the MTG and video game side of things. I just shot for the immediate ancestors of D&DB.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> I'd have been here all day going over the MTG and video game side of things. I just shot for the immediate ancestors of D&DB.



I wish I could put 3 emojis on that post... laugh cry and heart.

Like that is the sum of it


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

A brand is a powerful hook, but it is not enough. In the last years we have seen several examples of famous IPs from Hollywood productions or videogames didn't work too well. 

And here we are talking about the TTRPG industry, where the consumer is different. They have to understand our mind to can know what type of products we want to buy. 

And in the age of internet and pirates files they have to offer an interesting product to be bought by collectors. 

This seems as if the top of the megacorporations were chosen among psycopaths and toxic bosses and not people with traits of true leadership. As if you weren't allowed to ente into the top if you don't sacrifices kitties in the name of Chulthu or something like this.


----------



## Dausuul

LuisCarlos17f said:


> This seems as if the top of the megacorporations were chosen among psycopaths and toxic bosses and not people with traits of true leadership. As if you weren't allowed to ente into the top if you don't sacrifices kitties in the name of Chulthu or something like this.



I know a guy who reluctantly agreed to be CEO of his company (after the previous CEO ran it into the ground and there was no one else who could right the ship), and who is now counting the days till he gets to step down. His theory, only half joking, is that anyone who isn't a sociopath and/or narcissist cannot last as CEO of a large company -- the stress and the responsibility will crush your soul, particularly when you have to do things like layoffs.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dausuul said:


> I know a guy who reluctantly agreed to be CEO of his company (after the previous CEO ran it into the ground and there was no one else who could right the ship), and who is now counting the days till he gets to step down. His theory, only half joking, is that anyone who isn't a sociopath and/or narcissist cannot last as CEO of a large company -- the stress and the responsibility will crush your soul, particularly when you have to do things like layoffs.



I have met good CEOs. I have met very bad CEOs. I have watched the two go into negotiations with teams behind both and felt sick that the good ones always lose. 
There really are corps (mostly small ones) that are run for the emplyee and the customer. The thing is if you run that way you hit a wall. A time where if you want to grow you have to hurt one or both of those. When a good CEO refuses he is either replaced or the company slows down to 0 growth or even loses ground.
Interestingly enough though I have NEVER seen a good CEO drive a company to the ground... the same can NOT be said for bad ones.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

What's so great about growth?

I know that it's what capitalism is all about, but I would think (and I run my business this way) that sustainable reasonable profits should be a perfectly fine business goal. 

The desire for growth is often what causes busts. It's often what causes mass layoffs. Essentially you've eventually got to screw someone over - either your customers, your employees, your industry, your society, and/or the entire world, to maintain continuous growth.

IMO it's a foolish goal.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dausuul said:


> I know a guy who reluctantly agreed to be CEO of his company (after the previous CEO ran it into the ground and there was no one else who could right the ship), and who is now counting the days till he gets to step down. His theory, only half joking, is that anyone who isn't a sociopath and/or narcissist cannot last as CEO of a large company -- the stress and the responsibility will crush your soul, particularly when you have to do things like layoffs.



Yep. The structure of publicly traded corporations basically demands a willingness to knowingly do that which is wrong for the company, employees, customers/clients, industry, and social order, in the pursuit of quarterly profit growth to serve the shareholders.


----------



## Scribe

FitzTheRuke said:


> What's so great about growth?
> 
> I know that it's what capitalism is all about, but I would think (and I run my business this way) that sustainable reasonable profits should be a perfectly fine business goal.
> 
> The desire for growth is often what causes busts. It's often what causes mass layoffs. Essentially you've eventually got to screw someone over - either your customers, your employees, your industry, your society, and/or the entire world, to maintain continuous growth.
> 
> IMO it's a foolish goal.




Indeed, almost like the pure expression of capitalism, unchecked, leads to abuses and negative impacts because literally all that matters, as you will see parroted around here all the time is...

"Its a corporation, it must maximize profit!"

Wont SOMEONE think of the SHAREHOLDERS?!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> What's so great about growth?
> 
> I know that it's what capitalism is all about, but I would think (and I run my business this way) that sustainable reasonable profits should be a perfectly fine business goal.
> 
> The desire for growth is often what causes busts. It's often what causes mass layoffs. Essentially you've eventually got to screw someone over - either your customers, your employees, your industry, your society, and/or the entire world, to maintain continuous growth.
> 
> IMO it's a foolish goal.



It’s built into the fundamental nature of the idea of shareholders. Any publicly traded company works for its shareholders. 

The shareholder only make money if the company grows.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FitzTheRuke said:


> What's so great about growth?



in the short term it means more jobs more production more input and more people helped by your product... it's only when growth is chased at crazy points that it is a problem...

IF I sell 2 apples today 3 apples tomorrow and 5 apples the day after that, the growth is great but if the day after that I sell 4 I should be happy to sell 4 not mad it wasn't the 6 or 7 I projected.  
It only gets worse when you are selling so many apples you can't imagine more people wanting them... and you STILL want to find a way to do more the next day. 


FitzTheRuke said:


> I know that it's what capitalism is all about, but I would think (and I run my business this way) that sustainable reasonable profits should be a perfectly fine business goal.



The BEST businesses I have worked with thought that way. Some times you grow sometimes you sustain and sometimes you fall a little behind. Its a marathon though not a sprint and I feel many (especially bigger) companies forget that. 


FitzTheRuke said:


> The desire for growth is often what causes busts. It's often what causes mass layoffs. Essentially you've eventually got to screw someone over - either your customers, your employees, your industry, your society, and/or the entire world, to maintain continuous growth.
> 
> IMO it's a foolish goal.



yup... sooner or later you hit a wall. You have to decide if this wall is your growth ending, or if you want to hurt your customers or your employees or both (or worse do something illegal) in order to keep growing. 
And every briskness hits the wall in different ways at different times. I am sure Amazon and Walmart could still be HUGE and not cut the corners they do, BUT they would be smaller huge companies...

sorry this will get political if I keep going, just know I am happy you run your company the best way,


----------



## Lojaan

darjr said:


> One of them called me while clicking buttons in a jpg.



Oh man. This made me laugh and cry at the exact same time


----------



## darjr

Lojaan said:


> Oh man. This made me laugh and cry at the exact same time



Oh wait until I tell you how management wanted to name all the database tables because of product identity.


----------



## Lojaan

darjr said:


> Oh wait until I tell you how management wanted to name all the database tables because of product identity.



Oh god


----------



## Bagpuss

Morrus said:


> Both of those things needed to be true for it to be a success. Many things which are for D&D are not a success.




Anyone remember the 3rd Ed D&D Tools? Or their VTT that never appeared.

The other digital tools under their subscription serve were actually getting usable by the end but still missing features that were promised at the start, but then they switched system, and didn't support it anymore.


----------



## Dungeonosophy

the “culture of arrogance” resonates with me in regard to how—following a statement by Jeremy C. that there’s only one Canon—in an ENWorld thread years ago, i made a strong case for recognizing multiple “canons”, not only the 5e RPG Studio Canon. (e.g. the novel canon, various video game continuities, and the previous editions’ timelines did happen).

Chris Perkins then made a statement affirming that. which was cool. except there was also a kind of denigratatory tone like, “you fanboys don’t tell us about d&d canon or history. we know it.”

And at the same time, WotC released a “canon quiz” which could’ve been cool, but was just a dumb joke with like four questions. the gesture was like: “now run along and play, fanboys, and quit bothering us D&D bigshots.”

its the little things


----------



## Nylanfs

Bagpuss said:


> Anyone remember the 3rd Ed D&D Tools? Or their VTT that never appeared.
> 
> The other digital tools under their subscription serve were actually getting usable by the end but still missing features that were promised at the start, but then they switched system, and didn't support it anymore.



I know the people that took the program from the back of the PHB and made eTools from it. They have said that the original program was in NO WAY ready for public release.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I suspect the current capitalism we are suffering is too far to b the free market I was defending. All the big megacorporations are under the umbrella of the investment funds, like JPMorgan, Blackrock and Vanguard. 

We need some rivalry in the economy, but we should worry when in the companies the predator culture replaces the true leadership. There is a difference between an agressive strategy and being a toxic boss.

And we are people, not machines. We can't work better if we are too burnt. We have got our limits, and this is not about lazyness vs willpower. 

We need the right balance between faith in onself and self-criticism. Both are necessary but also too much both can hurt you. 

* Of course, the best people don't want to be on the top, they would rather to enjoy the life with their family and watching their children to grow up.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> The shareholder only make money if the company grows.




Well, the shareholders make _more_ money if the company grows.  Often substantially more. I know that by comparison dividends are often chump change, but they do exist, in theory.


----------



## Umbran

Cadence said:


> As an MtG player I have a hard time picturing WotC doing anything  well online.




They don't have a great history with software projects, that's for sure.


----------



## reelo

FitzTheRuke said:


> What's so great about growth?
> 
> I know that it's what capitalism is all about, but I would think (and I run my business this way) that sustainable reasonable profits should be a perfectly fine business goal.
> 
> The desire for growth is often what causes busts. It's often what causes mass layoffs. Essentially you've eventually got to screw someone over - either your customers, your employees, your industry, your society, and/or the entire world, to maintain continuous growth.
> 
> IMO it's a foolish goal.



"Perpetual growth" is the definition of cancer. It's unsustainable by definition.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Dungeonosophy said:


> the “culture of arrogance” resonates with me in regard to how—following a statement by Jeremy C. that there’s only one Canon—in an ENWorld thread years ago, i made a strong case for recognizing multiple “canons”, not only the 5e RPG Studio Canon. (e.g. the novel canon, various video game continuities, and the previous editions’ timelines did happen).
> 
> Chris Perkins then made a statement affirming that. which was cool. except there was also a kind of denigratatory tone like, “you fanboys don’t tell us about d&d canon or history. we know it.”
> 
> And at the same time, WotC released a “canon quiz” which could’ve been cool, but was just a dumb joke with like four questions. the gesture was like: “now run along and play, fanboys, and quit bothering us D&D bigshots.”
> 
> its the little things



But of course, let's also not forget the other side of the equation... which are the fans' occasional "culture of entitlement".

I've seen more than enough threads and posts here over the last 20 years to know that the things so-called fanboys and fangirls think they are owed shows us quite often that the customer ISN'T always right.  So I personally will not denigrate all the people at Wizards of the Coast completely out of hand because I know full well that the "little guys" on the other side of the equation aren't always on the side of angels in these events either.

Both sides can be real jerks when they are only thinking of themselves and their own preferences and happiness.  So it's very hard for me to feel for either of them 100% either way.


----------



## Umbran

DEFCON 1 said:


> Both sides can be real jerks when they are only thinking of themselves and their own preferences and happiness.  So it's very hard for me to feel for either of them 100% either way.




Yeah, but I'm pretty sure we haven't been, "Realistic threat to put companies out of business and people out of work" level jerks.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but I'm pretty sure we haven't been, "Realistic threat to put companies out of business and people out of work" level jerks.



True.  Although responses here on EN World in all the differing threads about this fiasco have had numerous people state they want and hope for WotC to go under and lose everything because of this... which would ALSO put probably thousands of people out of work on WotC's side that have nothing to do with any of this.

Now granted... those individual posters can't actually accomplish what they are hoping for... but their attitudes are such that they give the impression that they WOULD do it if they could-- and many of these people don't even have any skin in the game (other than just wanting to buy products for their own games.)  So that sends up dozens of red flags for me to take EVERYTHING that is said regarding this situation with many grains of salt.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but I'm pretty sure we haven't been, "Realistic threat to put companies out of business and people out of work" level jerks.



that is what I wish we could all keep our eyes on. The people who might loose jobs and or companies are the real victims here.



DEFCON 1 said:


> True.  Although responses here on EN World in all the differing threads about this fiasco have had numerous people state they want and hope for WotC to go under and lose everything because of this... which would ALSO put probably thousands of people out of work on WotC's side that have nothing to do with any of this.
> 
> Now granted... those individual posters can't actually accomplish what they are hoping for... but their attitudes are such that they give the impression that they WOULD do it if they could-- and many of these people don't even have any skin in the game (other than just wanting to buy products for their own games.)  So that sends up dozens of red flags for me to take EVERYTHING that is said regarding this situation with many grains of salt.



yup... the tar and feather crowd doesn't always care if they get the people who did this to them, or if they get the 'anybody close to them'.


----------



## Ancalagon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Opinions are protected speech.



... protected from government intervention.  If this is a first amendment comment, it wouldn't apply to WotC or other corporations


----------



## Umbran

DEFCON 1 said:


> True.  Although responses here on EN World in all the differing threads about this fiasco have had numerous people state they want and hope for WotC to go under and lose everything because of this... which would ALSO put probably thousands of people out of work on WotC's side that have nothing to do with any of this.




It isn't as if what people say when it is a complete hypothetical have much relation to what they'd actually do if in the position.



GMforPowergamers said:


> that is what I wish we could all keep our eyes on. The people who might loose jobs and or companies are the real victims here.




It isn't a competition.  We can embrace the power of "and".


----------



## Ancalagon

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. The structure of publicly traded corporations basically demands a willingness to knowingly do that which is wrong for the company, employees, customers/clients, industry, and social order, in the pursuit of quarterly profit growth to serve the shareholders.



And if they don't (seek to maximize shareholder value) the shareholders can sue the company!  

This is *clearly * going to lead to bad outcomes, and I don't understand why we are keeping this harm-inducing set of rules.  It wasn't always this way.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Umbran said:


> It isn't as if what people say when it is a complete hypothetical have much relation to what they'd actually do if in the position.



Also true.  But it does make reading all of these takes occasionally irritating to read and follow along... when so much of it seems to be the airing of personal grudges moreso than actual concern for the events that are unfolding.

It is not lost on me that I'm seeing a lot of the same level of rhetoric regarding this possible shutting down of the OGL as I do when Jeremy posts a UA that has a couple rules changes in it that people don't like.  It makes it hard for me to take a lot of comments seriously when people have cried wolf about D&D for so long.

But you know, that's just me.  And who am I to be any sort of judge?  And it's mainly why I'm just staying out of most of the threads on this at this point because I have nothing notable to add.


----------



## deganawida

Dausuul said:


> I know a guy who reluctantly agreed to be CEO of his company (after the previous CEO ran it into the ground and there was no one else who could right the ship), and who is now counting the days till he gets to step down. His theory, only half joking, is that anyone who isn't a sociopath and/or narcissist cannot last as CEO of a large company -- the stress and the responsibility will crush your soul, particularly when you have to do things like layoffs.



That's why I'm working to get out of management.  I've had to deal with so many layoffs the last four years and I'm just sick of it.   Well, there's that part, and there's also the part where eventually my tongue will get away from me, I'll answer truthfully (and bluntly) some stupid question, and get my tail end fired.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ancalagon said:


> And if they don't (seek to maximize shareholder value) the shareholders can sue the company!
> 
> This is *clearly * going to lead to bad outcomes, and I don't understand why we are keeping this harm-inducing set of rules.  It wasn't always this way.



do you mean the 'share holders can sue you for not being enough of a jerk' or do you mean the d20 system or the ogl? in this post the phrase 'harm-inducing set of rules' could be miss interpreted...

if it's the 'share holder can sue the company for not persuading profit over people' then I agree though... I have delt with companies that use that as an excuse to do morally bankrupt things (most are technically legal though...but not all) and I have heard horror stories of whole boards all the way down to VPs being 'retired' or 'resign with these benefits' to put in MORE cut throat people to do these morally bankrupt things.

I often share RPG stories on here but this week I have talked my muggle life more... I was part of a contract negotiation only a few years ago (minor part really) and when I let it slip I thought someone was not playing nice or fair, someone told me the previous person in that position was fired for not 'maximizing profits'


----------



## dbolack

GMforPowergamers said:


> The BEST businesses I have worked with thought that way. Some times you grow sometimes you sustain and sometimes you fall a little behind. Its a marathon though not a sprint and I feel many (especially bigger) companies forget that.




It's not that they forget. Too many members of C level aren't in it for the marathon, so you end up with a series of never-ending sprints as headcount rolls over and Golden parachutes deploy.


----------



## dbolack

Morrus said:


> Yeah. It's successful for two reasons:
> 
> 1) It is for D&D
> 2) It is very good
> 
> Both of those things needed to be true for it to be a success. Many things which are for D&D are not a success.




The problem here is that brand owners frequently do not see any type of third-party license as enhancing their brand. They think their brand _always_ does the heavy lifting. D&D made E.T.! D&D made Stranger Things!  

They do not seem to understand that many of these things are brand enhancers that lift them up in previously unaccessed/unavailable ways.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Ancalagon said:


> And if they don't (seek to maximize shareholder value) the shareholders can sue the company!
> 
> This is *clearly * going to lead to bad outcomes, and I don't understand why we are keeping this harm-inducing set of rules.  It wasn't always this way.



 Yeeeeeup


----------



## Ancalagon

GMforPowergamers said:


> do you mean the 'share holders can sue you for not being enough of a jerk' or do you mean the d20 system or the ogl? in this post the phrase 'harm-inducing set of rules' could be miss interpreted...



the rules I was talking about were the "maximize shareholder value" rules.

the D20 system can't destroy our civilization.  Maximizing shareholder value could.


----------



## Erdric Dragin

DEFCON 1 said:


> True.  Although responses here on EN World in all the differing threads about this fiasco have had numerous people state they want and hope for WotC to go under and lose everything because of this... which would ALSO put probably thousands of people out of work on WotC's side that have nothing to do with any of this.



I'm pretty sure those people can easily find jobs in the non-D&D market, especially since those publishers will absolutely need more workers when they receive the massive influx of customers ditching Wizbro and giving their wallets to these other publishers instead.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm pretty sure those people can easily find jobs in the non-D&D market, especially since those publishers will absolutely need more workers when they receive the massive influx of customers ditching Wizbro and giving their wallets to these other publishers instead.



Nobody  should assume ANYONE will have an easy time finding a job in the best of times. 

(I don't know if you are in the US) Here in the US our retirement founds, our health care and sometimes our life insurance are tied to employment... so you change employment to a new job you have to restart all of them. Does the new health insurance require you to go through pre auth again? Does the new health insurance even except your doctor? Does your 401k roll over easy to an IRA or the new job's 401K?

I have a friend that had to switch doctors when she switch jobs (only unemployed for like 2 weeks) and as such had to switch medication stepping down 1 and stepping up another... just to find she is allergic to the new one and had to stop, and got VERY sick for it... the kicker, being sick she lost time from work (and since she was new it was unpaid). 

Job switching is NEVER even on the best of times easy.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm pretty sure those people can easily find jobs in the non-D&D market, especially since those publishers will absolutely need more workers when they receive the massive influx of customers ditching Wizbro and giving their wallets to these other publishers instead.



Heh... this is the kind of response that makes me even more assured of my point that I have to take everything everyone says here on the boards with a grain of salt.

"Culture of Arrogance" / "Culture of Entitlement" indeed.


----------



## bedir than

Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm pretty sure those people can easily find jobs in the non-D&D market, especially since those publishers will absolutely need more workers when they receive the massive influx of customers ditching Wizbro and giving their wallets to these other publishers instead.



Either writing for a specific system is a skill or it isn't.
When you suggest people who are good at one thing can do a similar, but different thing quite easily it minimizes the time and effort creators put in to do things well.


----------



## Shardstone

Erdric Dragin said:


> I'm pretty sure those people can easily find jobs in the non-D&D market, especially since those publishers will absolutely need more workers when they receive the massive influx of customers ditching Wizbro and giving their wallets to these other publishers instead.



Id love for this fantasy to be reality, but it isnt.


----------



## Shardstone

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh... this is the kind of response that makes me even more assured of my point that I have to take everything everyone says here on the boards with a grain of salt.
> 
> "Culture of Arrogance" / "Culture of Entitlement" indeed.



Your sanctimonious stance neither impresses nor moves anyone. It just makes you as arrogant as everyone else.


----------



## Umbran

DEFCON 1 said:


> "Culture of Arrogance" / "Culture of Entitlement" indeed.




*Mod Note:*
Please stop antagonizing people.  It isn't constructive.


----------



## Mirtek

dbolack said:


> It's not that they forget. Too many members of C level aren't in it for the marathon, so you end up with a series of never-ending sprints as headcount rolls over and Golden parachutes deploy.



This. Why care where the company will be in 15 years if you have a 5 year contract and actually plan to end your stint there after three years getting send into paid garden leave with a golden handshake


----------



## TheSword

I’m surprised that this meme is doing the rounds more.


----------



## Lojaan

dbolack said:


> It's not that they forget. Too many members of C level aren't in it for the marathon, so you end up with a series of never-ending sprints as headcount rolls over and Golden parachutes deploy.



This. You are a CEO. You join a company. You sacrifice all of its long term feasibility and potential for success for short term gains. Leave in 5 years with a massive bonus for all the "savings" you made. Get new job as CEO. Repeat.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ancalagon said:


> ... protected from government intervention.  If this is a first amendment comment, it wouldn't apply to WotC or other corporations



There's more to free speech than that.

In the U.S., you also can't sue for damages over what is clearly an opinion.

I can say something that's obviously an opinion -- "everyone at WotC are a bunch of evil puppy eaters" -- and they cannot sue me for damages, since it's clearly not meant to be taken literally.

On the other hand, I cannot say "I have video footage of WotC staff eating puppies at a corporate retreat" because I'm saying that the puppy eating is a literal fact and it's not impossible that people who love puppies (which is pretty close to everyone) might choose not to buy products from them.

EDIT: Unless, of course, I _do_ have the video. You cannot be successfully sued for defamation for the truth. (This is why so few journalists get sued by celebrities/politicians who claim they're going to do so. They have a sit-down with their lawyers and say "well, you _did know_ she was 17, didn't you?" and the lawsuit never goes forward.)


----------



## Blue

jerryrice4949 said:


> Kind of feels like people are sensing WoTC are vulnerable so anyone with a grievance is ready to jump in.



Really, you can't see how the exact same situation where WotC belittles others work and believes it's all the brand could be relevant to bring up in context?


----------

