Stan! Talks "Life After Wizards (Again)"

Morrus · Nov 24, 2012

You may have heard of Stan! (exclamation point included). He's worked for TSR and WotC, helped found The Game Mechanics and Super Genius Games, is a novelist, and two-times ENnie award winner (and some other awards, apparently). Most importantly, he's recently left WoTC - again.

Stan! has written a series of three blog posts discussing his time at WotC; the trilogy of articles is entitled "Life After Wizards (Again)" and is a fascinating insight into what it's like to be hired by, work at, and eventually made redundant by the company which publishes Dungeons & Dragons.

He makes it clear that he has no hard feelings; that his departure was due to a creative policy that he couldn't agree to - a policy he characterizes as "we place no value on nor have any need for experienced creative people with broad experience—we are only interested in raw, fresh creatives whose every thought we can control and own." and expresses his hope that it will one day change. Basically it's a an agreement that anything an employee creates - even if not employed to do so - belongs to Hasbro. No, it's not malicious or evil; but it's something that some people can agree to and others choose not to.

Check out Stan!'s current Kickstarter project here. The Littlest Shoggoth is a heartwarming holiday tale of the Cthulhu Mythos. Fun for "anyone who has the heart of a child (whether in a jar or still beating)". A children's story that tells the tale of Squammy, the smallest of all the Mythos creatures living around the lost and sunken city of R’lyeh. Tired of being picked, Squammy decides to explore the world above the waves. To put it mildly, things do not go well. But with some help from Santa Claus, maybe things can turn out right for Squammy after all. Inspired by the tales of Dr. Seuss, Edward Gorey, and (of course) H.P. Lovecraft, the Littlest Shoggoth is equally cute and disturbing.

Kaodi · Nov 24, 2012

Morrus said:
Basically it's a an agreement that anything an employee creates - even if not employed to do so - belongs to Hasbro. No, it's not malicious or evil; but it's something that some people can agree to and others choose not to.

I have to disagree. It may not be malicious, but without extraordinary compensation it is evil. And perhaps even with extraordinary compensation. I would contend that to own the entirety of a person's creativity could be interpreted as akin to slavery, just as indentured servitude is.

Morrus · Nov 24, 2012

Kaodi said:
I have to disagree. It may not be malicious, but without extraordinary compensation it is evil. And perhaps even with extraordinary compensation. I would contend that to own the entirety of a person's creativity could be interpreted as akin to slavery, just as indentured servitude is.

It's just a price. No more, no less. Too high for some, not for others.

DaveMage · Nov 24, 2012

If Monte Cook was under the same restrictions, I can see why he left....

Pour · Nov 24, 2012

Kaodi said:
I have to disagree. It may not be malicious, but without extraordinary compensation it is evil. And perhaps even with extraordinary compensation. I would contend that to own the entirety of a person's creativity could be interpreted as akin to slavery, just as indentured servitude is.

I'm pretty sure this is standard policy elsewhere. I know Disney for a fact. And no, I don't like it one bit, but when you're being employed for your ideas and creativity, they want all of it. Not sure I could do it, though. It would be an internal struggle, for sure. Job security and whatever assets come with working in their environment, including the company of other creatives, but at a loss of my creative independence... idk, I mean it might allow me to see my brainchildren realized (and with the added support of others), but I'd have no control over them. Tough, really tough...

Kaodi · Nov 24, 2012

Morrus said:
It's just a price. No more, no less. Too high for some, not for others.

This is about principles, not price. Were it not, it would still be legal to sell yourself into slavery.

Kaodi · Nov 24, 2012

Pour said:
And no, I don't like it one bit, but when you're being employed for your ideas and creativity, they want all of it.

The logical conclusion of everything you create belonging to your employer is that they would have a legal veto over anything you write in regards to politics, even if it has nothing to do with them. That is anti-democratic; creativity is a necessary component of democracy. To allow someone to be robbed of the creativity is, in a sense, an endorsement of their being disenfranchised from the political conversation.

Pour · Nov 24, 2012

Kaodi said:
The logical conclusion of everything you create belonging to your employer is that they would have a legal veto over anything you write in regards to politics, even if it has nothing to do with them. That is anti-democratic; creativity is a necessary component of democracy. To allow someone to be robbed of the creativity is, in a sense, an endorsement of their being disenfranchised from the political conversation.

The sort of threat you speak of doesn't even register to a corporate entity. If it happens, it's purely coincidental in their pursuit of profit. Corporations need not actively squash any lone political voice, no matter how compelling or crazy. They are already above the voice of common men within America's corporatist system by right of their money, supported by their lobbyists, lawyers, and rulings such as Citizens United.

I think this contractual clause has much more to do with employees creating the next big franchise in their spare time and the corporation not profiting from it. They need to cover themselves legally, though even then they can funnel so much money in the legal battles that they simply bankrupt their opponents into submission (if it's worth it). It's how Disney gained the rights to Whinny the Poo.

Kobold Boots · Nov 24, 2012

Kaodi said:
This is about principles, not price. Were it not, it would still be legal to sell yourself into slavery.

Lets' not get overly dramatic about the matter.

1. Tons of jobs/careers have a non-compete and creative rights contract.
2. Older workers with a significant portfolio hate them.
3. Younger workers that haven't a significant portfolio often don't know better.
4. The CEO made a call and the HR VP obviously agreed with it.

I agree with both sides and believe that if Stan wasn't a part owner in a game company it likely wouldn't have mattered. The other outlets are irrelevant.

Kudos to both sides, they stuck to their guns.

Kobold Boots · Nov 25, 2012

Kaodi said:
The logical conclusion of everything you create belonging to your employer is that they would have a legal veto over anything you write in regards to politics, even if it has nothing to do with them. That is anti-democratic; creativity is a necessary component of democracy. To allow someone to be robbed of the creativity is, in a sense, an endorsement of their being disenfranchised from the political conversation.

You are not thinking clearly as it pertains to business and adding color where there is none.

Corporations own things for the purposes of making money. The creative rider does not afford for ownership of all ideas regardless of their use or intention. Specifically it calls for ownership of all creative ideas for the expressed purpose of making a profit off of them and is written to avoid intellectual property that belongs to Hasbro from showing up on another game company's IP list.

Were this to come to trial, and it would have to if WoTC intended to enforce the non-compete, there are at least three questions that are asked when judgments are handed down:

1. Is this case material to the business that Hasbro executes as of the time of the suit being heard?
2. What is the potential loss to Hasbro's business that this IP affords?
3. Is there intent to defraud Hasbro on the part of the defendant?

Hasbro can't sue for things they're not currently doing at the time of the suit being heard, and there's a good chance that a judge won't assess real monetary damages to one guy illustrating a book with limited distribution against the number 5 sci-fi/fantasy publisher's books. Intent is also very hard to prove.

Now, how can you say that every game related thought belongs to Hasbro? Because salaried employees are never considered to be "off the clock". Off-time is a benefit. Contractors are, and their off-time belongs to them. So you have a clear delineation of when something is being done with an hourly employee that you don't with a salaried one.