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."

 

[dbolack]

How many smaller content creation companies left after the OGL debacle? Kobold Press and Paizo left, two of the biggest content creators, and then Paizo even created it's own ORC rules as a direct challenge to the supremacy of WotC in the RPG market. Others, like Green Ronin, were also very displeased. The loss of those two companies alone, with their combined revenues for the content they created for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons trademark is in the millions of dollars.

While I don't spot anything factually incorrect, I also don't see anything supporting damage to WotC.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

They plan on doing just that. And it's a good move. But will have a small impact on the community. OSR games already exist without their respective editions being released into the CC. 3E OGL games already exist without this.

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).

This would be another good move, but one I don't expect WotC will bother with. They seem to have left the OGL behind with the move to CC. And really, by released the SRD into the CC, they have effectively done this.

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).

Creating SRDs and releasing them into CC for classic editions would be fantastic. Opening up the DMsGuild to prior editions and all campaign settings would be awesome.

But all of this doesn't "repair the harm" . . . it goes above and beyond. Which I hope WotC chooses to do, they certainly could use the PR boost. They already "repaired the harm" by abandoning plans to change the OGL and then by releasing the SRD into Creative Commons.

The OGL is dead. Long live Creative Commons!

 

[Burnside]

making Spelljammer and Planescape Slipcases

That was Ray Winninger.

 

[_Michael_]

While I don't spot anything factually incorrect, I also don't see anything supporting damage to WotC.

It's not damage to WotC. It's damage to the trademark. Making a trademark toxic is a breach of fiduciary duty. Yes, WotC might survive, but it's not clear that Dungeons & Dragons as we know it will. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. WotC has shown that they will resort to shady practices to increase their bottom line; now, content creation companies will be that much more hesitant to create content for WotC after this, and that results in a degredation of quality content and artwork, and that in turn means less quality products on the shelves, and more gewgaws will appear to try to make up the slack, which will not work. This will ultimately result in the IP being pushed into mediocrity, and eventually, obscurity.

 

[Alzrius]

But all of this doesn't "repair the harm" . . . it goes above and beyond.

Going "above and beyond" is part of repairing the harm. I think that the posts made by @Faolyn and @Pedantic, above, really capture the essence of that. Loss of trust (which is a form of harm) requires that measures be taken (i.e. making amends) in order to regain said trust.

The OGL is dead. Long live Creative Commons!

Honestly, the community would be better served by the type of OGL v1.0b that I laid out above, even if the older SRDs are put under the Creative Commons. That's because not only is the OGL's usage much more familiar to the people and companies who make use of open gaming, but the fact that you can't utilize existing Open Game Content under the CC license (even if the relevant SRDs are posted under it) cripples a great deal of how the open gaming community operated.

Even if you put the 3.5 SRD under the Creative Commons, you aren't going to be able to release PF1 supplements, or Mutants & Masterminds supplements, or FantasyCraft supplements, etc. unless literally all of the books that you'd be utilizing content from (and all of the books they utilized content from, in a recursive manner back to the SRDs) were re-released under the CC. Since that's almost certainly never going to happen, the CC will never be as good as the OGL still is.

Or, to put it another way, the rumors of the OGL's death are greatly exaggerated.

 

[mamba]

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.

I am not so sure this is true. Is she the one making that decision, was this set in motion by Chris Cox already? I have no idea

She joined in Feb 2022, the OGL rumors started around October I believe. I have my doubts that this was a shot she called right after joining WotC.

 

[Burnside]

I am not so sure this is true. Is she the one making that decision, was this set in motion by Chris Cox already? I have no idea

She joined in Feb 2022, the OGL rumors started around October I believe. I have my doubts that this was a shot she called right after joining WotC.

It could be. It's certainly a shot you might call if you were a more or less total outsider with a background in protecting corporate IP, and no real knowledge or understanding of how and why D&D didn't die in 1998-2000 and eventually flourished into the renaissance years of 5E.

 

[mamba]

Her lack of a stance is a stance in itself. She should have, at the bare minimum, addressed it publicly, and stated her stance on it.

no, she should not. There is an official WotC stance, and that is the only one that should be communicated.

 

[_Michael_]

no, she should not. There is an official WotC stance, and that is the only one that should be communicated.

Doesn't wash. She is the company, and the face of it. If she says something, it's the same as the company saying it. If the BoE didn't want her to lead, then they shouldn't have installed her as President.

And the CC mess is just more proof of WotC's monopolistic intent.

 

[dbolack]

It's not damage to WotC. It's damage to the trademark. Making a trademark toxic is a breach of fiduciary duty. Yes, WotC might survive, but it's not clear that Dungeons & Dragons as we know it will. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. WotC has shown that they will resort to shady practices to increase their bottom line; now, content creation companies will be that much more hesitant to create content for WotC after this, and that results in a degredation of quality content and artwork, and that in turn means less quality products on the shelves, and more gewgaws will appear to try to make up the slack, which will not work. This will ultimately result in the IP being pushed into mediocrity, and eventually, obscurity.

The trademark has not be damaged. The trademark has vastly more value outside of TTRPG than inside it. OGL products haven't even MENTIONED the tie to D&D since the D20STL ended.

No. This did did less damage than Pat Pulling to the trademark.