Obective look at WotC's history with D&D

[Quickleaf]

I see a lot of ill will toward WotC online, and in these conversations there are often very emotional words exchanged. Also there are always folks who claim the detractors are just criticizing for the sake of doing so and have no real ground to stand upon. My memory is getting fuzzy.

Thinking back on how WotC has managed the D&D brand, I'm trying to put together a list of clearly articulated OBJECTIVE points about what WotC has done that antagonized the players. I'm looking for "just the facts" or as close to it as we can get.

For example:

* Deadlines about the VTT and DDi were not met, in part because of a tragedy. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/3...ider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html

* The GSL alienated many 3PPs who relied on the OGL in the past, and initially included a "poison pill" clause which prevented a company using OGL from also using GSL. This "poison pill" was later changed after severe criticism.

* WotC fired several people who had a profound effect on D&D over the years including Logan Bonner, Steve Winter, Michele Carter, Stephen Schubert, Bill Slavicsek, David Noonan, Jonathan Tweet, and others. Annual X-mas Wizards of the Coast Layoffs DDOcast – A DDO Podcast!

So, what are the OBJECTIVE faults of WotC's management of D&D?

Or, if you remember the positive things about WotC's involvement with D&D more, go ahead and talk about those.

 

[hafrogman]

Or, if you remember the positive things about WotC's involvement with D&D more, go ahead and talk about those.

The fact that D&D exists at all?

WotC didn't perform a hostile takeover of TSR, they purchased a fairly toxic property, revitalized the brand, published the 3rd edition, created the OGL in the first place . . .

. . . and at least in my opinion, ushered in a modern age resurgence of RPGs that continues to this day, produced by people who cut their design teeth on 3.X and the OGL.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hmm, I don't even think the facts, as listed, are incontrovertible. Each statement frames a number of details, with a particular emphasis, which may or may not be reasonable.

For example, the VTT and DDi failure, I would say, had little to do with the particular (truly horrific) tragedy which befell a part of the team. Corporations are large, with many folks with overlapping skills, and a robust corporate environment would be able to absorb the loss. From what I've gathered about the VTT and DDi strategy is that it vastly underappreciated the scope of the work, and incorrectly positioned Hasbro in a market where they had no particular technical or business skill.

Regarding the "poison pill", that is true, but perhaps that is unimportant to the large majority of the D&D customer base. If Hasbro had produced a vital suite of products, of If Hasbro had produced the license in a timely manner, the issue might have resolved much more favorably than it did.

On the matter of firings, I can't say. In a corporate environment, firings are a regular occurrence. Corporations are not there to maintain a headcount, they are there to run a business. Firings (or layoffs) will happen. What matters is how the employee base is treated during the process (morale and loyalty do matter), and whether the selection of underperforming employees is open and efficient. Here open means that employees are well aware of the process and their current ratings, not that they have a detailed view of other employees.

I do think that one needs to look at both what was done, but also what could have been done, but wasn't. For example, while having rough edges, I'd say the open playtest of D&D Next makes for a huge difference in comparison to 4E.

To provide my own answers to the question, I don't think one has to dig very deep. Hasbro described a potential product, then failed to deliver on that product. Hasbro also took steps to remove products (prior editions, PDFs, the magazines) which were valued. Hasbro put a spin on their marketing which was insulting.

As a conclusion, I'm not sure if Hasbro could have avoided much of the vitriol, as it wrested the reins of control from players. D&D has been largely a hobbiest driven game, with a large amount of content constructed by players. Hasbro has been attempting to insert itself, by assuming control of content delivery, into the player to player value equation. On the plus side of doing so, that can lead to better quality standards and more efficient product creations (which should mean more good content). On the minus, players are disempowered, which stings.

TomB

 

[doctorhook]

I like the sentiment behind this thread, but just remember: there's no such thing as an objective view of history -- events have to be measured against a set of values or beliefs to have any meaning.

 

[Janx]

For example, the VTT and DDi failure, I would say, had little to do with the particular (truly horrific) tragedy which befell a part of the team. Corporations are large, with many folks with overlapping skills, and a robust corporate environment would be able to absorb the loss. From what I've gathered about the VTT and DDi strategy is that it vastly underappreciated the scope of the work, and incorrectly positioned Hasbro in a market where they had no particular technical or business skill.

I don't know the VTT specifics (first I heard about a tragedy), but I do know that developers and development teams are not modular cogs that can be swapped in at a moments notice. They are more like organs in a living entity. Sure, you can transplant a liver, but that doesn't mean it'll take.

Just because WotC is a Corporation, doesn't mean they are large. They aren't Microsoft with 100 guys on a project. More likely it is 3-5 guys on a project that pretty much lives or dies by those guys.

At my own company, we're small enough, that if I died, the projects I am working would probably also die or be set back by a huge factor. Bringing in a new guy could be almost like starting over as he has to figure out what the whole project was about and come to the same conclusions the original person did OR he's just going to scrap the work and do it his way instead.

On the matter of firings, I can't say. In a corporate environment, firings are a regular occurrence. Corporations are not there to maintain a headcount, they are there to run a business. Firings (or layoffs) will happen. What matters is how the employee base is treated during the process (morale and loyalty do matter), and whether the selection of underperforming employees is open and efficient. Here open means that employees are well aware of the process and their current ratings, not that they have a detailed view of other employees.

Layoffs are not firings. Firing is for bad employee behavior. Layoffs is because of bad company behavior. Everytime I have laid somebody off, it was because of a mistake the company made in hiring fit or resource loading. Regular rounds of layoffs is a sign of a company failing to manage its resources and failing to grow its workload to keep those resources busy.

Every manager I've met who wants to streamline processes so he'll need less people has failed in the company's goal of increasing profit. Focussing on cost cutting is less risky, but it is anti-employee and anti-growth. A manager who sees the big picture knows that streamlining a process so it needs less employees to handle the current load means he can then handle MORE load or other processes which will make the company more money.

 

[Janx]

I like the sentiment behind this thread, but just remember: there's no such thing as an objective view of history -- events have to be measured against a set of values or beliefs to have any meaning.

I would think that as each statement of fact gets weighed subjectively on their importance, that you're right.

Show me units sold, etc and that's objective. Or at least more objective.

Has WotC increased the number of people playing D&D or RPGs? I suspect the answer is hard to get.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t get, why such a thread is opened at all, if the opening poster fails to remember any good thing about wizards of the cost and D&D.

 

[Drowbane]

Disclaimer: I am a 3e gamer, so my views of what went down may not agree with yours. This is *not* an invitation to Edition War, don't try to refute my views as its pointless. Just post your own.

WotC saves D&D!: TSR was going down and WotC flexed its magic muscles and bought the brand. To keep the brand going, WotC figured a new edition was in order. And this wasn't just a slight change up of 2e or a return to Basic, it was largely a whole new beast.

3.0: I remember being *very* skeptical of this new edition, after all I still have a fortune in 2e books and our weekly games are going strong. However, WotC had just saved D&D from obscurity as TSR was going down quick, so I gave it a thorough look through. 3e was radically different from anything come before. While some grognards loathe these changes, some of us recognized that 3e was chock full of "modern" innovations for the game. Gone was THAC0 and "backwards AC", Saving Throws reduced to just 3, Skills and Feats replace Weapon proficiences, Non-Weapon Proficiences, and "Special Talents" (early feats, from such books as 2e's Combat and Tactics). Biggest gripe I have seen: Core Wizard, Cleric, and Druid > the other 8 classes.

3.5: three short years after 3.0 is released. Many of us considered this "semi-new edition" come too soon" and as just an obvious ploy to resell the Core books. Sure, 3.5 had some fixes, but not all the changes were an improvement (huh, reminds me of PF...).

Certain of the later books were seen as potential material for an eventual 4e. Such as Star Wars Saga (not "D&D", but considering that Star Wars d20 was based on 3e...) and Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords.

4e: five years (?) after 3.5 is released what some of us hoped would be something that Fixed 3e's ills was instead unrecognizably different from what we thought of as D&D. Unlike the changes from 2e into 3e, 4e was not a bunch of improvements over 3e.

As 4e was still being worked on, there were Pod Casts of WotC peeps blasting earlier D&D tropes. Very childish and not well received, at least in these parts.

DDI: WotC murdered Dungeon and Dragon mag (which was run beautifully by Paizo for its last couple years) for a PoS online version that never came close to replacing what was lost. I still miss my hardcopy magazines, and I am unlikely to forgive WotC for this.

4.5: (read: Essentials): WotC releases the pseudo-edition it said it never would, 4.5. One in my group bought into this, the rest of us refused (ahem, I didn't buy into 4e at all).

5e: Two years (?) after Essentials WotC says, "Next!", and claims that this will be the One Edition to Rule them All or some such nonsense.

As another said, WotC let go some of the most talented people in the industry...

No doubt I am missing some things.

 

[Fifth Element]

To provide my own answers to the question, I don't think one has to dig very deep. Hasbro described a potential product, then failed to deliver on that product. Hasbro also took steps to remove products (prior editions, PDFs, the magazines) which were valued. Hasbro put a spin on their marketing which was insulting.

As a conclusion, I'm not sure if Hasbro could have avoided much of the vitriol, as it wrested the reins of control from players. D&D has been largely a hobbiest driven game, with a large amount of content constructed by players. Hasbro has been attempting to insert itself, by assuming control of content delivery, into the player to player value equation. On the plus side of doing so, that can lead to better quality standards and more efficient product creations (which should mean more good content). On the minus, players are disempowered, which stings.

Hmm, I don't even think the facts, as listed, are incontrovertible. Each statement frames a number of details, with a particular emphasis, which may or may not be reasonable.

 

[Fifth Element]

Disclaimer: I am a 3e gamer, so my views of what went down may not agree with yours. This is *not* an invitation to Edition War, don't try to refute my views as its pointless. Just post your own.

<snip>

Hmm, I don't even think the facts, as listed, are incontrovertible. Each statement frames a number of details, with a particular emphasis, which may or may not be reasonable.

I suppose a thread as described in the OP is really unattainable (and I don't mean in the "there's no such thing as objective truth" sense), but we could at least make some effort.