Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[Jeff Wilder]

They are all Wotc employees in a certain sense. All of them are supposed to work for the good and benefit of Wotc. Unless you mean that the suits may possibly want to "tank" Wotc for some reason I cant see where your point is.

You've overlooked what we writers call a "restrictive clause."

 

[CharlesRyan]

I think you're misreading people's underlying mindset on this pretty spectacularly, Charles.

People aren't blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because they're cynical. People are doing it because they don't want to blame the WotC employees they know and like from EN World. I guess that's not the opposite of cynical, but it's sure not "somewhat" the same.

Jeff, you may be right, but I'll counter with a couple of my perceptions:

• First, the suits are almost always invoked in a context of bitterness.
• Second, it may seem charitable to deflect blame, but as I've posted already, doing so can seem tantamount to saying the individuals have no actual power or responsibility. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I was in the Big Chair, I found that subtext a bit insulting.

(They're also blaming "the suits" and "Hasbro" because nobody else will admit who's to blame. It's all well and good for Scott Rouse to say, "The responsibility is mine," but when everybody who's been following the GSL saga has also heard him say he's passed it up the ladder and it's "waiting on Legal" and so on, "The responsibility is mine" doesn't ring quite authentic. And regardless, "responsibility" and "blame" aren't synonymous.)

This is exactly my point: You're taking a perfectly reasonable statement and turning it into "proof" of an imagined corporate structure you actually know nothing about.

The GSL is a contract. Of course the legal department has to buy into it--what sane entity would enter into a binding contract without the support of their legal advisors? Certainly, when I ran my own business, my lawyer wrote or at least reviewed every contract. That didn't change the fact that I was responsible for those contracts and the business and strategy they represented.

It's also a major strategic decision. Of course there are people--peers and up the chain of command--who have a vested interest in the strategy and who's buy-in is important. That's true in any business or organization with more than three people.

So from where I'm sitting, the mere fact that you equate "waiting on Legal" with "Scott can't actually be responsible" reveals what looks like a cynical predisposition.

I think this cynicism is so widespread that people don't even recognize it. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's a long-time pet peeve of mine.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Jeff, I've been meaning to ask: Why are you up posting on EN World at what must be 4:00 AM your time?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So from where I'm sitting, the mere fact that you equate "waiting on Legal" with "Scott can't actually be responsible" reveals what looks like a cynical predisposition.

From where I'm sitting, the fact that you got what you quoted from what I actually said reveals a serious need to reread what I said.

I didn't state or imply any conclusions on my part at all, except that "the responsibility is mine" and "it's now out of my hands and in others' hands" are very, very understandably viewed as contradictory.

(To answer your question, I work nights. Well, I try to work nights.)

 

[xechnao]

You've overlooked what we writers call a "restrictive clause."

Pardon? You were trying to make a point up there and if I understood it correctly it was about the protection of an employee while trying to "defend" your interests against who he was working for. And I said that I fail to see the meaning of this "protection". You cant see such employee as one that works for your interests and the interests of who he is representing here if you intend that such interests are in conflict. Unless you are suspecting that the interests of who the employee is representing are against the interests of the employee.

 

[xechnao]

I didn't state or imply any conclusions on my part at all, except that "the responsibility is mine" and "it's now out of my hands and in others' hands" are very, very understandably viewed as contradictory.

Yes, here you' ve got a point here the way you put it. But perhaps Scott was explaining technical procedure in the second phrase rather than political intent and responsibility? In this case it is not viewed so much contradictory. Not so understandably.
My opinion is that they share responsibility, Scott included. You wanted to distinguish roles here, to put him in a role against the rest of his group. Why?
Nevertheless his position may indeed indicate some hierarchy and such hierarchy assumes that he takes responsibility against the public. And in this case what Scott said should be intended as explaining hurdles of technical procedure.

 

[Maggan]

I think this cynicism is so widespread that people don't even recognize it. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's a long-time pet peeve of mine.

I don't think you're overreacting.

But rather than cynicism I think one of the reasons people do this is because as gamers get to know (at least sort of know) the actual people behind the game, such as Mike Mearls, Scott Rouse et. al. it gets increasingly difficult to rant and rail against them and still retain sympathy from your peers, i.e. other gamers.

But when ranting and railing against unnamed suits, you can say just about anything, and be just about as offensive as you want to be, since you can't really be called on it like you would if you directed the attack against a named person, who might be a member of our community, and a personal real life friend of several other people here.

So to vent, I think it is an easy way out to blame The Man and his army of Grey Men in Suits, because then you can really let loose.

Maybe corporate cynicism is part of it, maybe Dilbert is to blame. Mostly I think it's a convenient way of venting.

/M

 

[DaveMage]

Re: Cynical thoughts/suits

I can understand why people get angry and blame "suits" rather than *people* in instances such as when WotC lays off staff that folks here admire. It's hard to not be cynical in such an environment (when on one hand WotC staffers report that D&D is breaking sales expectations yet on the other WotC has to lay off folks who, presumably, helped make the game successful).

So while there are certainly *people* behind decisions like the OGL/GSL, there are also (the same?) people behind the decision to make the layoffs.

There is also the disconnect that fans have with regard to the secretly-kept numbers (sales figures, revenue expectations, etc.) and sometimes deceptive/insulting (or what is perceived to be deceptive/insulting) market-speak originating from people at WotC which puts up a barrier as well.

Since it's unlikely that fans will ever get transparency in all that they desire to know (or a thorough explaination every time something happens that they don't like), it's understandable that they conclude that since things didn't go the way they wanted (or think they should) that those behind the decisions are idiots, and using the term "suits" to define these people makes it easier because it's not personal.

 

[DaveMage]

Whenever the old "WotC would have done [the thing I like], but the lawyers/Hasbroids/coporate suits wouldn't let them" routine is trotted out, it pushes all of my buttons. It tells me you're basing some or all of your opinion on a cynical, Dilbertian preconception of how things work in business.

Charles - did you read the press release that came out after the latest round of layoffs? The quote from the WotC CEO was about as Dilbertian as it gets.

To wit (from here):

Wizards of the Coast President Greg Leeds also weighed in. “Consolidating internal resources coupled with improved outsourcing allows us to gain efficiencies in executing against our major digital initiatives Magic Online and D&D Insider,” he said. “Wizards of the Coast is well positioned to maximize future opportunities, including further brand development on digital platforms. The result of this consolidation is a more streamlined approach to driving core brands.”

 

[billd91]

They are all Wotc employees in a certain sense. All of them are supposed to work for the good and benefit of Wotc. Unless you mean that "the suits" may possibly want to "tank" Wotc for some reason I cant see where your point is.

They may all be WotC employees, they may all want WotC to do well. But I think a lot of people refer to the nameless suits because they see them as different sorts of employees than the creative R&D sorts. And they are. They are, compared to designers with by-lines on products, nameless to the consumers of WotC's products.

Whether or not they actually wear suits, they are assumed to be the middle and upper management, accounting, legal, etc. The further implication of the people using the term is that these are the employees most focused on WotC as a business venture rather than as a creative venture, in no small part because that's what their roles at the corporation focus on. Running the business, not game design. They may need to run the business-side of things effectively to enable the game design to flourish, but their focus and practices are insulated from the nature of the end product. They'd do many of the same things whether WotC was publishing games or cookbooks in protecting the IP, researching effective marketing tactics, running the HR department, and so on.

That's what I figure people mean when they talk about nameless suits. And comments about Dilberteque views of the world aside, different job roles produce different views and interests in the practice of the business even if all roles want the business to succeed. And you can see it in plenty of other corporate bodies as well, not just game publishers like WotC. People assume that these "nameless suits" at WotC and Hasbro have their say on the way WotC runs their business and have few other ways to express it since we barely know who any of these people are and their decision processes are part of the inner workings of WotC and generally not appropriate for WotC employees to share.

So what do you expect people to do when they want to complain or comment on decisions that they suspect come out of levels of WotC structure aside from R&D?