My problem with Monte Cook...

[KDLadage]

Before I begin, I like Monte Cook.

As a game designer.

However, when he delves into things that are decidedly not game design, it irks me in ways I cannot explain. Perhaps it is related to the same things that bug me about Sean Reynolds -- such as his recent 'boy killed by stupidity' thing... the kid was not stupid, he was ill-informed of the dangers.

Its like when you have a basketball coach as your history teacher (something I had one year) -- they may or may not be fully qualified to do what they are doing. And when Sean Reynolds and Monte spout forth on topics unrelated to game design, I have to wonder...

Take, for example, Monte Cooks recent "Another Rant" column...

The Anti-Corporation Rant

This new rant of mine shouldn’t surprise any of you too much. Here are four reasons why corporations are bad.

Right off of the bat, the column gets under my skin. He makes the first mistake of debate -- he assumes what the audience believes is exactly what he does. It is like the old saying about Liberal Democrats -- they have at the core of their beliefs the idea that all opinions should be regarded as valid and treated with respect, and are then shocked to find out that there are opinions that differ from their own.

1. Corporations are needlessly and unfairly top-heavy.

If you are an average employee at an average corporation, your CEO makes around 500 times what you make. That's okay, though, right? After all, he (and let's face it, it's almost certainly a "he") works 500 times harder than you do.

Doesn't he?

Right. Of course he doesn't! Sure, some probably work very hard... but are they worth 500 employees? Think about that at layoff time. You could cut one person's salary, or lay off 500 others. Five. Hundred. Others.

And yet, which do you think is more likely, that 500 employees get laid off or that the CEO does? Yep. I thought so.

Wow! This is a lot to take in all at once. How can Monte spout forth this much drivel in one section of his argument. Well, let us look at this, shall we?

OK... in order to look at this, I will look at the state of Iowa -- mainly because I live here. In the state of Iowa, the average person makes $24,811 per year (in 1997, source: FYIowa). This would mean that, a typical CEO of a corporation in Iowa should, according to Monte Cook, be making 500 times this, or about $12,405,500 per year, right?

Heck no! Clay Jones, President/CEO/Chairman of Rockwell Collins, the largest corporation in Cedar Rapids, for example, makes $810,000 per year (2001 salary, source: Yahoo Market Search) -- less than 1/15th of Monte's claims. Heck, if you were to combine the salaries of all of Rockwell's VPs and add those to Clay's Salary, you would still be very, very shy of this 500 times multiple that Monte is throwing about.

So what about other corporations in the state? Let's see... we have SMI (Seedorf Masonry, Inc.); these guys are the third largest specialty contractor in the world. Certainly, old-man Seedorff makes too much money, right? Nope... annual salary of just under 500,000 per year. Yes, by Monte's reasoning, we have to wonder how this 70 year old man gets as much work done as 20 typical laborers in the state... he doesn't. But then again, he did build this corporation from the ground up, why shouldn't he make that kind of money?

Who else can we look at? Well, Iowa is not a representative state for corporate America, so let us look at someplace like Michigan (where the big auto makers are) or New York (financial capital of the world). Are there corporations where a CEO makes 500 times what a typical employee makes?

Sure there are. But this does not mean that they are representative of Corporate America. Monte states this figure like it is a foregone conclusion. Does he back up his figures? Does he provide evidence of his opinions to validate them?

I didn't think so.

But lets look at two other portions of this section: Needlessly and Unfairly.

Are you, Monte, invested in GM? Are you a stockholder in Rockwell Collins? Do you own a stake in Citicorp? Then you are have NO RIGHT to decide what is and is not fair within the bounds of that company, or to determine the needs of that entity. You have no vested interest.

You may speculate. You may rant all you like. But it does not make you right. If I start a corporation and I make it succeed and Monte comes along and tells me that it is unfair that I do not pay my employees 15 times what they make now, and I should cut my salary by 30% because I don't need that money -- who the hell is he to make these choices?

I thought so.

Its like this, Monte. If I feel that it is needless that you have a ceiling fan in your living room, does this make it so? If I am adamant about it, does it matter? No. It is your house, Monte, and only you (and whomever lives there, and thus has a vested interest in the house) can decide what is needed and not needed in that home. If I then feel it is unfair that your daughter does not get a ceiling fan in her room, does that matter? No. I do not have a vested interest in your home. My opinion counts for squat.

2. Corporations are inefficient.

The main problem with corporations is that they don't act like a person would. A person can be smart. A corporation is only as smart as its stupidest employee. To use the above rant as a point here, you -- as a person -- would never devote 500 times the resources to one aspect of your life when it does not even produce anything of real worth.

Take Wizards of the Coast, for example. They layoff a number of creative employees from their R&D department a while back, and then they launch a contest that costs them more than $160,000 to get a new campaign setting. This makes sense only in corporate logic (which is to say, it doesn't make sense at all). It's like someone selling his car and then spending that money -- and probably more -- to rent a car.

Why is this? Because corporations discourage long-term planning. Not intentionally, but consider this. The average person spends only four years at a job these days (the amount of time decreases the more technical the job is). Thus, when a manager makes a decision, is she ever going to think about the long-term welfare of the company? Why would she? She's not going to be there. She's going to make a decision based on the next few years, at most. This is called maximizing short-term gains, and you can see it all the time in most companies. A smart person plans for the long term (investing for retirement, or for the kids' college fund). A corporation -- not the board of directors, but the people in middle management actually running things -- never does. It can't. The process prevents it.

Here's another nifty little tidbit to think about, from Robert Anton Wilson, author of the Cosmic Trigger series. Wilson points out that no hierarchical system can ever work, because the very hierarchy itself precludes efficient communication. Here's how:

If a subordinate must tell his superior something, he is not going to tell her the complete truth all the time. He's going to tell the superior what the superior wants to hear, or what the subordinate thinks the superior wants to hear. If the subordinate does tell the superior the truth all the time, he's likely to get fired (not always, but often enough that the behavior is rooted out of the system like some evolution of inefficiency -- survival of the most survival-minded).

Thus, the superior never has 100 percent accurate or complete information to work with. She also never tells her subordinate the complete truth -- knowledge is power, and if she gives the subordinate all her knowledge, she gives him all her power. And then he's not a subordinate anymore.

So the subordinate doesn't have 100 percent accurate or complete information to work with either. This is a communication breakdown, and the cumulative effect, over time, is disastrous.

Wow. And I thought the first section was bad.

Corporations are inefficient? I would love to see a non-corporate entity build of airplanes and do it as efficiently as the Boeing Corporation does it. I would love to see a non-corporate entity build automobiles and do it as efficiently as Ford, or Chrysler, or Toyota, or Nissan, or Mercedes, or any of the other auto-manufacturing corporations.

Can I ask you, Monte -- if a corporation, by definition, is inefficient, then why do so many of them succeed? If a corporation, by definition, is inefficient, then why are they the only organizations to do certain things?

This is the problem with seeing one thing that is inefficient in one organization and drawing a broad-based conclusion from this "sample of one" data.

Are there corporations that are inefficient? yes.

Are there CEOs that are overpaid? yes.

Do some corporations make flawed choices and stupid errors? yes.

Does this mean that all corporations are inefficient with overpaid CEOs and make continued stupid and flawed choices? According to Monte Cook, evidently. But I live in a real world where Monte's skewed views do not rule the roost.

3. Corporations mishandle creative properties.

Corporations are, by definition, a large group of people. Each one of those people has an important job, or at least they think they do. Thus, each one of them wants to have input into whatever the corporation produces.

That may be a great way to produce new and improved dishwashing soap or zesty taco-flavored chips, but it's no way to produce a creative property such as music, a movie, a book or, for that matter, a role playing game product. Each of these naturally must represent the vision of one person, or of a band or small group -- not a committee.

This is the worst form of mis-informed tripe I have read yet -- and the first two sections were pretty close. Monte, you outdo yourself in each step.

I have worked for a lot of companies and corporations. I have never been one to think that my job in the Mail Room or in the Data Processing areas entitled me to a say in how the company ran its creative efforts (such as when I worked for a large music company -- it was not like I was able to influence the way the next great recording artist put there next album together).

You are making a lot of generalizations and drawing some pretty ignorant conclusions from them.

Stick to D&D. At least there you can only ruin my DMG with your flawed thinking.

4. It's people that are important.

For some reason, we often really want to like entities or groups. We say that we really like a TV show or a sports team. But most of the time, I believe what we really like are the individuals that make up that group. You need look no further than The X-Files to see an example of an "entity" that many of us liked. But when they changed the individuals involved (the actors), no one liked it.

It's the individual that matters. While plenty of people point to a specific author or actor or painter that they like, pretty much no one says, "I always buy every book that comes out from Del Rey" or "I only go to movies distributed by MGM."

Even the old brand loyalties ("I only use Craftsman tools" or "I drive only Ford cars") seem to quickly fade into the past nowadays. Of course, I think that's probably more due to the homogenization of our society, with everything taking on a bland sameness, but that's actually Another Rant...

It may be another rant, Monte, but that does not mean that I happen to care for your opinion on these matters.

Look, I like your work in RPGs. I like the DMG (despite my earlier comment). But you apparently have no experience-baseline from which to draw conclusions about Corporations. Try building one. And when it becomes successful, have someone tell you that your salary is too high.

Then have a rant about that.

 

[derverdammte]

I have worked for a lot of companies and corporations. I have never been one to think that my job in the Mail Room or in the Data Processing areas entitled me to a say in how the company ran its creative efforts (such as when I worked for a large music company -- it was not like I was able to influince the way the next great recording artist put there next album together).

It's possible that the section you quoted wasn't clear, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about how committees are a bad way to handle creative products.

Anyway, corporations haven't ruined the music industry. Oh wait, they have. Or do you like Creed and all their clones?

And possibly the most flagrant example of committees ruining creative thinking can be found in the movie industry. Or television, even. Either way. Ever heard of "the City on the Edge of Forever"? Ever read the original script? What about "Kull the Conqueror," and how that movie got ruined? Etc.

I don't think Monte Cook is always a careful essayist, but I think his basic points are valid.

 

[Irysangel]

In my job, I handle the payroll of several different corporations (some very large, some small).

The majority of CEO's and such take a paycut, skip taking a check at all, etc, before letting someone go.

It's easier to cut the flow of cash into your own pocket for a few weeks while money is tight than to actually have to do a hefty severance package and watch your unemployment taxes skyrocket because you laid off Billy & Joe-Bob and they're now living off Unemployment.

The ones that get laid off are normally the ones that will be able to claim the least unemployment. Period.

 

[hammymchamham]

Re: Re: My problem with Monte Cook...

Anyway, corporations haven't ruined the music industry. Oh wait, they have. Or do you like Creed and all their clones?

Thank you for giving us your objective opinion on the music industry!

 

[hong]

It may be another rant, Monte, but that does not mean that I happen to care for your opinion on these matters.

Note that Monte didn't ask you to care. He isn't even asking you to take it seriously. It's not like he's publishing his rant as a pdf and putting it up for sale under the Malhavoc imprint.

A rant is just an expression of opinion. Monte may be a game designer, but he's also a human being, and human beings tend to have opinions. Would you prefer it if, instead of putting it on his own website, he had posted it to UNsenet or rpg.net? Really, a page on a self-published website strikes me as one of the most innocuous ways of expressing one's opinions.

So sure, you may not like his rant. That's okay, you don't have to like it to appreciate his work as a game designer. The job is separate from the man.

 

[KDLadage]

Re: Re: My problem with Monte Cook...

Note that Monte didn't ask you to care. He isn't even asking you to take it seriously. It's not like he's publishing his rant as a pdf and putting it up for sale under the Malhavoc imprint.

True. But just as he has the right to publish his rant -- which I never said he could not do -- I can publish my rebuttal.

A rant is just an expression of opinion. Monte may be a game designer, but he's also a human being, and human beings tend to have opinions. Would you prefer it if, instead of putting it on his own website, he had posted it to UNsenet or rpg.net? Really, a page on a self-published website strikes me as one of the most innocuous ways of expressing one's opinions.

This was mine. My opinion of his opinion. Nothing more.

So sure, you may not like his rant. That's okay, you don't have to like it to appreciate his work as a game designer. The job is separate from the man.

Yep. Same for this rant on his rant.

 

[alsih2o]

Before I begin, I like Monte Cook.

As a game designer.

However, when he delves into things that are decidedly not game design, it irks me in ways I cannot explain.

maybe you should avoid his rants then? my wife is allergic to poison ivy, thus she avoids it

 

[derverdammte]

Re: Re: Re: My problem with Monte Cook...

Thank you for giving us your objective opinion on the music industry!

Well, I *do* think the music industry is a travesty, as it exists. If you like Creed (or whatever), great; I'm just annoyed by the proliferation of soundalike bands, especially since Creed is basically Pearl Jam (just like Testament was 80s Metallica, etc.). Although I wouldn't mention that to Creed, because I already know I'd get punched (remember that news story?).

I don't have a problem with bands influencing each other, or even ripping off each other's sound. What I have a problem with is the peabrained thinking at the executive level that encourages bands to *actively* rip each other off so they can get a contract.

And, of course, I'm oversimplifying it. But this is the impression I get from everything I've read. It's possible that someday I'll come across information that convinces me I'm full of crap where this opinion is concerned. 'Till then, that's what I think.

(and in case I wasn't clear, this wasn't an "if you like Band X, you suck" statement...that's not what music's about.)

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: My problem with Monte Cook...

True. But just as he has the right to publish his rant -- which I never said he could not do -- I can publish my rebuttal.

Then perhaps you should follow his example, and either 1) email your rebuttal to him; or 2) post it on his board, which is where he specifically asks for feedback. His rant has nothing to do with roleplaying, D&D, d20, or his job as a game designer, and neither does your rebuttal.

 

[Victim]

So your example CEOs' salaries aren't that high.

However, what makes you think that all of a CEO's compensation is in salary? In many cases, CEOs and highly ranked people in the company receive stock options as part of their payment. In theory, the stock awards make the CEO's interest more inline with the interests of the shareholders.