Obective look at WotC's history with D&D

[Drowbane]

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.

So make some effort.

 

[Fifth Element]

[MENTION=23396]Drowbane[/MENTION] - Did you read the OP? If the OP asks for objective facts and you come in with opinions, that's essentially threadcrapping.

 

[Drowbane]

[MENTION=23396]Drowbane[/MENTION] - Did you read the OP? If the OP asks for objective facts and you come in with opinions, that's essentially threadcrapping.

So you have nothing to say. Thats cool.

 

[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.

To provide my own answers to the question, I don't think one has to dig very deep.

Yup, there is clearly room to disagree with what I said.

I did provide a response to each of the points. What are your thoughts?

My point, which I think you are responding to, but I don't like to infer too much another's point of view, was that the framing of the question is problematic. Determining "facts", is very very difficult. I don't like the particular examples, and I gave reasons for why I have difficulty with them.

Thx!

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

What constitutes a "firing" vs. what constitutes a "layoff" is a technical/legal detail. Without know the specific details of each of the listed cases, all I know is that there was a termination of employment. The actual detail could have been a layoff, a firing (without cause), a firing (with cause), a resignation, or maybe some other variation that I can't think of.

Layoffs can be built in to the employment process. If a work environment is "competitive", with folks who consistently reviewing on the lower end of the scale being at risk for losing their job. That is, I don't agree that a layoff is necessarily a mistake. Although, there are better and worse ways to manage the details. Slow adjustments over time (folks retire, or move to new positions, or take leave), without there being new hires, will create a downward trend, and will remove the need for a termination. That is up to a degree. Business priorities shift, along with that particular employment needs. A savvy employee is looking ahead to adapt themself to the incoming changes.

On the other hand, abrupt employment actions ("firings") can mean that the employees (and perhaps the business) are being badly managed. That is very possible. I just don't have particular evidence to show that that is the case. I am definitely not here looking to be a Hasbro advocate: I detest their business strategy, for various reasons, which I don't think are appropriate to present here. But I don't find a strong reason to dislike Hasbro simply based on the fact of the firings.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

Yeah, I tried my best to word it as objectively as possible, but of course everything is shades of grey, and matter of degree.

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.

Not at all, I do get what [MENTION=8858]hafrogman[/MENTION] pointed out - the survival of D&D is a huge contribution!

The point of this thread is that my memory is imperfect and I'm not as hardcore of a gamer as other folks here who have been more keyed into the successes/failings of WotC's public relations. I'm not interested in vilifying WotC nor Hasbro, and neither am I interested in a shouting match. I want to hear objective (as objective as possible) insights from gamers more in the loop than I. And, yes, I'm mainly interested in the negatives for the purposes of this thread - that's my personal bias - but my OP made it clear that I wasn't artificially constraining the conversation to just negatives.

Fair enough?

 

[nnms]

EDIT: Got some facts wrong.

I don't thing today's WotC is the same as 10+ years ago.

Just look at the 5E playtest agreement and try to imagine them having anything to do with the OGL.

The horses are already out of the barn though. The OGL has meant they no longer have any real control over the fantasy side of the RPG industry beyond the name "Dungeons & Dragons" and it's not even the best selling game anymore.

 

[Umbran]

Layoffs are not firings.

This is true.

Layoffs is because of bad company behavior.

This, however, is an over-generalization, or a very, very broad definition of "bad behavior" which includes, "failure to have an accurate psychic on the payroll to predict the future."

Crap happens, sometimes. Or perhaps you've already forgotten the stock market dip of just a few years ago?

To be honest, another way to interpret it is that WotC is only a little clumsy in catching up with the rest of the world with respect to hiring practice - contractors are the new pink, you know. They come and go at the drop of a hat, and we the public wouldn't know about it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Objective facts:

1) They saved the brand. No doubt about that.

2) In each of thë editions on their watch, they have managed to clean up mechanics that were, in a word, confusing. In 3.X, it was unifying the stat bonuses and cleaning up the AC system so that plusses didn't take your AC into negatives.

In 4Ed, it was making level-gained benefits- spells, powers, etc.- actually match the level of the PC. No more gaining your 5th level of Wizard to get your first 3rd level spells.

3) Returned the brand to visual media. Regardless of what you think of the movies' quality, this is a good thing.

4) Brought the brand into the digital era. Implementation may be rocky, but it is a step in the right direction, both in terms of ensuring profitability and exploiting new markets.

5) The creation of the OGL. Groundbreaking.

 

[Janx]

This is true.



This, however, is an over-generalization, or a very, very broad definition of "bad behavior" which includes, "failure to have an accurate psychic on the payroll to predict the future."

Crap happens, sometimes. Or perhaps you've already forgotten the stock market dip of just a few years ago?

To be honest, another way to interpret it is that WotC is only a little clumsy in catching up with the rest of the world with respect to hiring practice - contractors are the new pink, you know. They come and go at the drop of a hat, and we the public wouldn't know about it.

Bad behavior doesn't mean they've been taking candy from babies. You had the gist of it. Layoffs happen when companies make mistakes. Managers made mistakes.

Firings happen when the employee makes a mistake.

Granted, both tools have been used by unscrupulous managers to hose an employee. But telling me you were fired from your last job, versus laid off has a whole world of connotations behind it that raise red flags on whether I should hire you for this job.

that was my point to the other guy, who equated that they were the same thing. As a manager, I see the difference. And in layoffs, I see a failing by managment. If I'm cutting a weak employee, I see where I failed to deploy that person to the right place where they'd be strong, or a mistake in hiring them and putting them in this position when they could have found a better fit had I not hired them.

Sure, I can blame the employee for sucking at their job. But I always look for what me and my company could have done better for both parties involved.