Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
General RPG DiscussionFor discussion of RPG topics in general, GM/player issues, and topics which don't belong in a specific game forum below.
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
Darrin, Monte, or anyone who knows how WOTC operates, do you know if it is their standard operating procedure to have employees sign some sort of non-compete agreement either as a part of their employment, or as a condition for a larger severance package? Just wondering about these guys' ability to work in the industry in the foreseeable future.
Unless things have changed drastically in the past four years, the noncompete lasts only as long as they work for the company. Also, again dated information because I haven't been there for a few years, but you could ask permission to work on projects for other companies and still work for them. Such requests were usually approved as long as they didn't see it as a danger to the brand. Back then, nothing was seen as a danger to the brand, not even other D20 projects, so it wasn't a problem. These days it might be a little more strict, but I'm fairly positive that once you're shown the door, you're free to write for whoever.
__________________ Darrin Drader
Writer/RPG Game Designer
I'm willing to write this and take the criticism, and indeed this is naive and ignorant, but I don't like the business of DnD and have never seen it as a business. Gygax did I'm sure, but what I bought as a youth was more than just some game out of a business model. What I always liked was that TSR seemed to "care" about its fans and its contibutors [emphasis on "seem"].
I'm pissed. Letting these people go now seems wrong especially given the supposed success of the product line. I have stuck by 4E and bought a copy of everything at least once, now I am not so keen to suport this bunch of goons. I hope and pray Dave finds a great job with Paizo or starts something himself... but I find this distastful, not because it's December, but because this "game" and the people behind it don't care about keeping the quality in house.
I was so excited about the Character Creator... now, I'm thinking of looking at that Paizo beta gathering cyber-dust in some obscure Folder ... maybe they care about their fan base and their employees more.
This is not the economics of the time.. this is "business" and these people didn't fit the model or brand anymore.
Which goes back to my earlier post--does anyone with WOTC experience know how they draft their non-competes and terms of termination agreements? Can these guys be hired by Paizo on Friday?
I don't recall the specifics of my non-compete, but:
* The day after I was laid off in 2003, Monte asked me to write a book for him, and Wizards didn't bat an eye.
* To the best of my recollection, the elements of the non-compete relate only to things the employee was working on or had knowledge of at the company. For example, if Dave was working on the 4e book of dragons, his non-compete would prevent him from publishing a similar book, at least until some period after his termination date. It didn't address all game design in general, just "proprietary knowledge" of what the company had planned.
And FYI, because of the Microsoft ruling, Wizards can't hire any of these people back as contractors for a certain period of time (6 months?). Apparently MS had a habit of laying off employees and then contracting them at lower wages and no benefits, and in response the court ruled that companies weren't allowed to do that any more. So while Dave and Jonathan can easily find work elsewhere in the industry, Wizards has now prevented itself from accessing their talents for a while.
Please pardon my unemotional post, I've already expressed my sympathies to my friends in private.
The idea is that no business likes to lay off people. They do it because they have to, not because they want to.
It depends on what you mean by "have to."
If your RPG division expected to make $10,000,000 dollars this year, and it now looks like it's "only" going to make $8,000,000 dollars this year, does that mean you "have to" lay off people so your numbers are better?
If your company expected to make $100,000,000 dollars this year, but screwups with your digital initiative mean that you "only" made $95,000,000, does that mean you "have to" lay off people in other departments so your numbers are better?
To use a Hasbro example, if your overall revenue is down, and all divisions have negative revenue, and one division (say, Wizards) has positive revenue, does that mean you "have to" make 10% cuts across all divisions (including Wizards, your ONE profitable division), just so your numbers are better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenarisk
I'm sorry to break this to you but 99% of the people who buy and use D&D products have no idea who these people are and don't recognize/care about the names.
And 93.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where is your proof of the number you cite? There are many people who DO buy books based on the author's name. Just because you aren't one of them, or you don't have anyone in your gaming group, doesn't mean that you are an example of an overwhelming majority
...
All I know is, if I see one press release in the next 12 months about how 4e is making record-breaking sales, I'm going to link to this thread, and I'll probably have to stab somebody.
I don't recall the specifics of my non-compete, but:
* The day after I was laid off in 2003, Monte asked me to write a book for him, and Wizards didn't bat an eye.
* To the best of my recollection, the elements of the non-compete relate only to things the employee was working on or had knowledge of at the company. For example, if Dave was working on the 4e book of dragons, his non-compete would prevent him from publishing a similar book, at least until some period after his termination date. It didn't address all game design in general, just "proprietary knowledge" of what the company had planned.
Thats encouraging news. Hopefully they will be able to get back on their feet sooner, rather than later.
All I know is, if I see one press release in the next 12 months about how 4e is making record-breaking sales, I'm going to link to this thread, and I'll probably have to stab somebody.
Let's hope that the timing of the release and the availability of a knife don't happen to coincide with my impending tour of the Paizo offices.
__________________ Darrin Drader
Writer/RPG Game Designer
And 93.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where is your proof of the number you cite? There are many people who DO buy books based on the author's name. Just because you aren't one of them, or you don't have anyone in your gaming group, doesn't mean that you are an example of an overwhelming majority
Quite. For example - keeping in mind here that the gamers I know, some of whom I game with, are not by any means all 'hardcore' types, let alone necessarily even very part-time inhabitants of the interwebs - most gamers I know are probably familiar with at least most of the major names relevant to most of the games they play. Or hey, even the games they just own and haven't tried yet.
And with regards to Mr. Noonan, I suspect that well, every single person who's ever listened to one of those podcasts (and that's likely to be a lot of gamers, in all likelihood) knows his name, at the very least.*
* This is directly relevant, because of what the post i replied to was in reply to, +1 or so, perhaps.
Last edited by Aus_Snow; 4th December 2008 at 02:07 AM..
Woah, a lot of posts to reply to. I'll just stick to the most germaine ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
It's certainly very different from the employee's part of view, but your overriding assumption here seems to be that these layoffs are unexpected. I doubt the WotC staff looked back at the layoffs after 3.0 and 3.5 and said, 'that won't happen this time'.
You really seem to be misreading or misunderstanding me. If the layoffs were unexpected, then why would that point to poor management? As I've already stated, even the best companies can sometimes get tripped up. It's exactly the fact that they have been cyclic and expected that leads me to believe it's poor management and not just hiccups behind them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
Okay, we won't get into it. Though I'd suggest it's quite relevant to the discussion, and avoiding it avoids an important aspect of the discussion.
The reason I suggest we don't get into it is exactly because it isn't relevant. The fact is that most people in permanent positions have those expectations - whether or not the expectations are valid doesn't change the fact that layoffs result in ill-feelings towards the company (from ex-employees, remaining employees and customers) largely because of those expectations.
Do people get upset (heck, do people even notice?) when a contractor or freelancer who worked on a previous book isn't offered the contract for the next book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
Indeed. You seem to feel that WotC has not considered this.
Not at all. I'm sure they did consider it, unless the management is truly incompetent. I don't see why you'd think this or how it's even relevant...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
Legally, yes. You've been a contract worker. Have you also been a manager? The management perspective is quite different from the staff/contractor perspective.
Firstly, yes - I have been a permanent employee, a contract worker, a manager of a small team, and a senior manager (not quite part of the company executive, but one step below and I was privy to a lot of their discussions and decision making). So you could say that I've seen it from a lot of angles, in both well and poorly run companies. Other than a business degree, what about yourself?
Secondly, what way other than legally is there to look at a confidentiality agreement? All it is is a legal way of saying "I promise I won't tell", and IME, contractors are no worse than permanent employees in respecting them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they're usually better because as someone else pointed out, in my industry at least, word quickly gets around about contractors with loose lips and they'll find it very hard to find employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
There are all kinds of reasons why this business model could be the best for WotC, before jumping to "it's not a well-run company".
Product-based software development usually has a big first release of the initial product. A lot of thinking and product design goes into that initial release, along with a large team and a goodly amount of creativity in determining the technical foundation and feature set. Then, you typically enter a maintenance period whereby a much smaller (and arguably less creative) team is involved in supporting that product. Eventually, the product reaches end of life, and the cycle is repeated with a new and improved version or even a totally new product.
Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see how what WotC does and what the software development industry does is significantly different. As someone else pointed out there is (arguably) a more creative element in RPG design, but fundamentally they seem pretty similar to me. In fact, with the advent of DDI it's becoming even more similar if not identical...
To help me understand, perhaps you could explain to me how hiring a bunch of permanent employees to work on a single product/project for a year or two (with the foreknowledge that you'll just be firing a large number of them afterwards) is a better business model than bringing on freelance/contract workers for the project with an explicit and mutual understanding that the contracts are only for 1-2 years?
I can't see it being cheaper. Not even in raw cost, as the total cost of a permanent employee to a company is usually more than that of a freelance/contract employee, but especially not when you consider the impact on company image (and the perception of company stability) and morale of the staff not laid off. Arguably laying off senior employees to (ultimately, when the next hiring cycle comes around) replace them with new juniors could work out cheaper on the bottom line, but it is very shortsighted and will have other obvious costs. I've worked at a company that tried that, and it went very badly for them - to the point that only now (about 5-6 years later) are they finally starting to turn things around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allister
M:TG is basically always producing a new edition every 4 months so there are never mass layoffs from that side....
That's a good point. Maybe WotC management is just too used to thinking about this model of business, rather than a more publishing/software oriented model. Although after a couple of cycles now you'd think they would start to look at it and adjust. Maybe they don't see it as a problem. While IME it isn't the best way to do it, maybe it's good enough for them so they just don't recognise it as a problem and continue with the same practice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seankreynolds
It depends on what you mean by "have to."
To use a Hasbro example, if your overall revenue is down, and all divisions have negative revenue, and one division (say, Wizards) has positive revenue, does that mean you "have to" make 10% cuts across all divisions (including Wizards, your ONE profitable division), just so your numbers are better?
Exactly. I'd also add that any business purely making these decisions based on this years performance is the very definition of "poor management" (unless of course the company is set up purely to realise short term gains, but - I hope - neither WotC or Hasbro is in this category). Management should be pro-active, not reactive. The proper response when earnings are down 10% on your forecasts is to figure out *why* it's down 10%, what the trends are and what the forecast for the next year (and probably the following couple of years as well) is looking like. If there isn't anything you can do (short term) to pull them around, the indicators are that you really do need to cut costs longer term, and you don't have better ways of cutting costs, then the regrettable reality is that laying off permanent staff may be your best (or only) option. But (to bring the discussion back to the original post that sparked everything) - it shouldn't be considered a normal part of your business operation in a well run company.
Plus, IMO, the first heads on the block should be the forecasters who put you in this position. Though that's just personal taste and not based on sound business judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
And I want to say that I hope all this discussion doesn't distract from the sympathies being given to these great people who are now out of work. They certainly have mine.
I couldn't agree more - they certainly have mine too. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree then? Although I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on the questions I posed above. Perhaps you could PM me or fork the thread if you're interested in continuing the discussion?
Last edited by gribble; 4th December 2008 at 02:21 AM..
While there could be some underestimation there, I think there is also a track record on WotC's part, too, with respect of layoffs and their timing.
On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up had to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
When you say "layoff or similarly amicable separation of employment", how is a layoff amicable?
"Layoff" is often used to denote separation for reasons other than your job performance. It isn't that you didn't do your job well, or someone didn't like you - the company simply didn't have a place for you any more. It is amicable in that the people who let you go still like you, and are apt to give you a good recommendation.
"Amicable" and "you like what happened" are not necessarily the same thing.
And 93.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where is your proof of the number you cite? There are many people who DO buy books based on the author's name. Just because you aren't one of them, or you don't have anyone in your gaming group, doesn't mean that you are an example of an overwhelming majority
Unfortunately only a small percentage of any consumer looks at the people behind the scenes for making <product> At a certain point people begin not so much looking at the stars in a movie and look at directors and writers. People stop looking at the president as the face of a faceless government and start paying close attention to congresspersons and senators and their staffers. They don't just look for the Masthead of their favourite fantasy shared world (ie Dragonlance) and only read the ones by Tracy & Hickman or Jeff Grubb. You're not just reading Wolverine for the character but you want to read the arc written by Jeph Loeb.
It's the same in any business or media. The vast majority of people will just look at the surface, and the people who are genuinely interested (and these are the people who ususally end up working in the field)
I don't know where I am going with this, but I am really sorry to hear about all this, Tweet and Noonan were both great designers... it's a loss for all D&D players.
At least Buehler will be able to use his permanent invite to the Magic pro-tour now, so at least a small upside there.
I'm not that familiar with the others other than some vague recognition of the names, and I feel bad for you all of you. Good luck and try to have a good christmas despite all this.
Major layoffs during the 3e era created some award-winning game companies: Green Ronin, Malhavoc Games, and quite a few more. I can only hope that layoffs during the 4e era do the same.
With the GSL being the way it is? Unlikely.
__________________ I'm thinking you're totally out to lunch on this one. Find another form of foreplay that doesn't involve 3 hours of explanation and a pocket calculator.
On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up had to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.
Tweet was there a long time before that!
But I agree though: anyone who's signed on with WotC since, say, 2001, has to be aware that their business model defines "permanent employment" as "4 to 10 years."
And my sympathies for all those made redundant. The "just before Christmas" technique always seems particularly cruel, though I doubt it's any more fun at any other time.
On the other hand, anyone who signed on with WoTC for the 4E ramp up had to realize that fewer people were going to be needed after the launch, and planned accordingly.
Not necessarily. With all the secrecy around 4e, a prospective employee my not have known about the ramp up until after the hiring process. And even if they did, as I said previously, when you're offered a permanent position the expectation is that it's permanent and that you'll have until until you're not longer capable or willing to do the job. At least that's what I'd expect, barring an unforseen disaster and I certainly wouldn't join a company with the expectation that the company wouldn't do well and the position I'm being hired for would be obselete or redundant in the short-medium term
I'd assume that in a well run company any temporary ramp up would be met by contractors and/or freelancers, or at the very least that the position would be described to me as only being temporary or with a limited shelf life. IMO, companies should be hiring permanent employees when they're trending or forecasting permanent growth. Not when they need to meet short-term project-based needs.
Recent News
Linear Mode
