WotC WotC President Cynthia Williams Resigns

Cynthia Williams, who has been president of Wizards of the Coast for the last two years, will be leaving the company at the end of the month, according to an SEC filing dated April 15th. Hasbro is already looking for somebody to step into the role.

Williams worked for Microsoft on the Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team before joining WotC two years ago, stepping into the role that then-president Chris Cocks vacated when he was promoted to CEO of Hasbro in February 2022.

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
On April 15, 2024, Cynthia Williams, President of Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro Gaming, informed the Company of her resignation from the Company effective April 26, 2024. The Company is conducting a process to identify her successor, looking at both internal and external candidates.

According to Rascal News, WotC responded with a comment: "We’re excited for Cynthia to take the next step in her career and grateful for the contributions she has made in her more than two years at Wizards and Hasbro. We wish her the absolute best in her next endeavor. We have started the search for our next President of Wizards of the Coast and hope to have a successor in place soon."

 

[Oofta]

The expiration date is when the residual harm caused by that move ceases to have an impact on the industry. So, when the balkanization caused by having multiple different open licenses ceases to be a thing, and all the companies that stopped using the OGL because they don't trust it anymore decide that it's now safe to use again.

So ... basically never?

 

[Alzrius]

So ... basically never?

That's a rather uncharitable way of putting it.

The rubric here is really quite simple: is there still lingering harm from their actions? If the answer is yes, then WotC doesn't get a pass. If that's not the hoped-for answer, then as the ones who inflicted said harm, it means that WotC should do more to assuage it.

Now, there are some extremely disingenuous people out there who'll interpret that as "you just don't want to EVER forgive WotC!" Which is of course nonsense; I just want them to get the industry back to where it was (in terms of open gaming) before they embarked on that ill-considered scheme. Once they do, I'm more than happy to move on.

 

[Oofta]

That's a rather uncharitable way of putting it.

The rubric here is really quite simple: is there still lingering harm from their actions? If the answer is yes, then WotC doesn't get a pass. If that's not the hoped-for answer, then as the ones who inflicted said harm, it means that WotC should do more to assuage it.

Now, there are some extremely disingenuous people out there who'll interpret that as "you just don't want to EVER forgive WotC!" Which is of course nonsense; I just want them to get the industry back to where it was (in terms of open gaming) before they embarked on that ill-considered scheme. Once they do, I'm more than happy to move on.

What else could they possibly do?

 

[_Michael_]

Yeah, I'm not sure there's any coming back from that. I'm not even sure the industry can ever return to that.

 

[Alzrius]

What else could they possibly do?

You mean besides the aforementioned release of the older SRDs into the Creative Commons?

They could release an OGL v1.0b, which would be exactly the same as the OGL v1.0a, except that it adds the word "irrevocable" to Section 4, and is released into the public domain (the same way Paizo did for the ORC License). That would not only give it the same (perceived) stability/reliability as the Creative Commons, but also allow for extant Open Game Content to be used (which you don't get with the Creative Commons).

That's the big one. I'd say it would also be worthwhile to make new SRDs for previous editions which don't have them (or don't have useful ones, i.e. 4E), and open up the DMs Guild so that books compatible with previous editions can be made (though OneBookShelf should make a new storefront for it, rather than having it be part of the DMs Guild page itself; given how easily they throw up mirror sites like Pathfinder Infinite or the Storyteller's Vault, that should be easy).

I think things like that would go a very, very long way to repairing the harm they caused, and wouldn't take much effort on WotC's part either (the only thing that would require any sort of dedicated effort would be making new SRDs for earlier editions).

 

[dbolack]

And I disagree re: "not customers", that's a truly short-sighted way of looking at it. You're confusing the people who would be pleased with the people who really, really want this. The reality, most of D&D's playerbase who heard about this would react positively, even though 90% of them might never play a game based on the new CCBY SRDs, and it would change perceptions of WotC in a fairly long-term way, and make it harder to argue them as an "oppressive force" (unless whatever screw-up was something truly horrid like another OGL 2.0).

Yes. It is shortsighted. But ultimately, they care more about paying customers than pleasing past customers. Even though, ironically, are the reason their biggest customers ( licensors ) value the property. But it won't change perception long term. I do t it would trend upward for more than a quarter.

I'm not saying that they "NEED 2 MAKE IT PRIO #1" or something, indeed it might even be worth holding on to it as "ammo" lol, as I've said, but my point is pretty clear - it would benefit them significantly PR-wise.

And really, that's what I'm dubious on. I doubt it moves the needle. And even if it does move the needle, there are likely few in decision-making capacities altruistic enough about the idea that something with minimal to no fiscal return gets budget.

 

[dbolack]

What else could they possibly do?

Nothing. Those goalposts are in the back of a speeding earth-mover.

 

[mamba]

No we do know, she was the President of WotC, no way she was not invovled in that decision. If it came from below, she had to have approved it, if it came from CEO Chris Cocks (I doubt he did, he never made any such moves as President), he'd have consulted her on it and she could have pushed hard against it, or it was her idea to begin with.

agreed, I meant we have no idea what her stance on it was or what she did for / against that change. Obviously she was aware of it and in the discussions surrounding it

 

[Oofta]

You mean besides the aforementioned release of the older SRDs into the Creative Commons?

They could release an OGL v1.0b, which would be exactly the same as the OGL v1.0a, except that it adds the word "irrevocable" to Section 4, and is released into the public domain (the same way Paizo did for the ORC License). That would not only give it the same (perceived) stability/reliability as the Creative Commons, but also allow for extant Open Game Content to be used (which you don't get with the Creative Commons).

That's the big one. I'd say it would also be worthwhile to make new SRDs for previous editions, and open up the DMs Guild so that books compatible with previous editions can be made (though OneBookShelf should make a new storefront for it, rather than having it be part of the DMs Guild page itself; given how easily they throw up mirror sites like Pathfinder Infinite or the Storyteller's Vault, that should be easy).

I think things like that would go a very, very long way to repairing the harm they caused, and wouldn't take much effort on WotC's part either (the only thing that would require any sort of dedicated effort would be making new SRDs for earlier editions).

The number of customers that ever cared about the OGL is small. The number that still care is a smaller. The number of people that care about changing the OGL for older versions is smaller yet. The number of people who would change their mind? A rounding error.

I just don't see the offended minority changing their minds. Should HASBRO have done it in the first place? No. Did some suits not understand what the issue was? Sure, which explains the slow recognition of the gravity of the problem.

Based on other responses, it still wouldn't matter, once a mistake is made there can be no forgiveness. So at this point they may well not bring attention to it.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

agreed, I meant we have no idea what her stance on it was or what she did for / against that change. Obviously she was aware of it and in the discussions surrounding it

She was WotC President, at the end of the day it was her final say, if she was against it, it would not have happened, it was not just her invovlement in the dicussion, it is that the final decision on trying to do the OGL was hers, he chose it, there is not getting around it, hers is not a passive role, hers is the final decision as President of WotC.