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."

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As Alzrius pointed out, interest and entitlement are two different words. I used one of them; you've used the other.

Sure, they're different, but they have plenty enough crossover for the purpose of the discussion. If you're holding tight to the purest definition of entitlement, then yeah, we're not entitled to know. But I'm not sure that anyone was feeling particularly entitled when compared to interested.

I don’t agree here. When a high level executive of a publicly traded company leaves the question why is definitely the business of stakeholders in the company (which would include their customers).

That said, leaving for health/family/etc is an adequate explanation (no need to know what health problems or family issues) if true and not being used as a cover for other reasons (which is often the case).

You imply a good point here - Regardless of interest or entitlement, I think that most of us would happily drop the subject if companies hadn't used "left for personal reasons" as a cover-up for decades.

 

[Morrus]

SteveC's original comment made no reference to you let alone accuse you of having a sense of entitlement so your response to him came across as implying that he had a sense of entitlement.

I think you’re confused about who said what to who. And I’m sure he can speak for himself.

Sure, they're different, but they have plenty enough crossover for the purpose of the discussion. If you're holding tight to the purest definition of entitlement, then yeah, we're not entitled to know. But I'm not sure that anyone was feeling particularly entitled when compared to interested.

I can’t speak to what other people feel. I said that I don’t feel entitled to know.

 

[Morrus]

Worse, it gave the impression Morrus was looking down his nose at him, as in "I don't feel entitled." [emphasis on the I]

That’s an inference not an implication. That’s what you’re bringing to the table; nothing to do with me

 

[billd91]

That’s an inference not an implication. That’s what you’re bringing to the table; nothing to do with me

Yeah, you keep thinking that. People are going to interpret what you present, and it may not always be flattering to you.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, you keep thinking that. People are going to interpret what you present, and it may not always be flattering to you.

 

[Alzrius]

That’s an inference not an implication. That’s what you’re bringing to the table; nothing to do with me

Anyone would make the inference that, in the context of your original statement – "Because nobody knows why she’s leaving. And I, for one, don’t feel entitled to know." – your second sentence is related to, if not completely predicated on, the first.

Consider something like, "I don't like my neighbor. And I, for one, think Nazism is bad." Most people are going to assume that the second sentence expands on the one which came before it, and the speaker's protesting that they never actually called their neighbor a Nazi will be interpreted as an extremely pedantic, and disingenuous, excuse.

There's a reason why the "it's an unrelated article" skit is a joke, rather than something to be taken seriously.

 

[Morrus]

Anyone would make the inference that, in the context of your original statement – "Because nobody knows why she’s leaving. And I, for one, don’t feel entitled to know." – your second sentence is related to, if not completely predicated on, the first.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can, since the gentle approach hasn’t worked: stop telling me what I apparently "mean" and drop this nonsensical line of conversation. If people want to talk about me, go do it somewhere else; please get back to the topic at hand.

 

[FrogReaver]

So guys and gals, did you hear Cynthia Williams is resigning from WOTC in 3 days and no one knows why?

 

[Stormonu]

Well I would like to know. What if she was knocked off because she wanted to eliminate Gnomes from D&D? In that case, I would want to applaud WOTC for their actions!

Dark Sun Confirmed!

 

[CleverNickName]

So guys and gals, did you hear Cynthia Williams is resigning from WOTC in 3 days and no one knows why?

Don't get me wrong, it's definitely newsworthy for an RPG News website like EN World, but this isn't the first time anyone has ever resigned from their job before. It happens. It happens a lot.

Some people really want need this to be a huge deal, an omen of bad things to come, a symptom of some Great Problem. But it's probably none of those things. She probably resigned for the same reason I resigned from my last job, and the same reason most people resign from a job: she found a better offer elsewhere. It's boring, I know, but it's a resignation...how exciting were you expecting this to be?