WotC D&D Hiring New Game Designer Months After Firing Many

The job pays from $86-145k and is for an experienced game designer—presumably much like one of those they let go a few months ago!

228 Senior Game Designer jobs in United States

Today's top 228 Senior Game Designer jobs in United States. Leverage your professional network, and get hired. New Senior Game Designer jobs added daily.

www.linkedin.com

Notably, one of those let go in December in Hasbro’s company-wide cost-cutting cull of over 1,000 jobs was D&D designer Dan Dillon. Dillon posted on Twitter—“Well. There it is. D&D is hiring a game designer, 8 months later. Was it worth it, you soulless f*****g cowards? Did you save enough money?”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

shrugs That's what they are willing to give someone, it's up to someone else to say yes or no.

What I mean is that if you have a job for longer then next Christmas, it might be better then the job till Christmas. Depending on the situation, you might not even have a Starbucks shift supervisor position you could apply to. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting the most for your skills. But I also think it quite unlikely that WotC is paying out the max, it's more likely that WotC will pay the min. Sometimes companies are just looking for juniors to fill their ranks, instead of hiring 'seniors'. If you're some famous designer, sure, they might pay you $150k, but if you're that famous/good, why not do something on your own?

They're literally asking for an "experienced designer", which means they're going to want someone who is not necessarily "famous", but at least has a pretty serious resume in game design, whether it's TT RPG or videogame (there's so significant crossover, which is why some people go back and forth between the industries, well, I mean, it's usually people getting hired into video game dev, which whilst underpaid by software dev standards, is still a lot better paid than TT RPG work).

As for why not do something on your own, I think that's the key issue they face in hiring people actually. If you can get a decent Kickstarter going, then this isn't going to be a lot of money. The main reason not to is likely to be benefits etc. - I dunno how good at they are at WotC, but I imagine they're not bad. That and in theory you've got more steady work, which may well be good for people with families etc.

But I'd be surprised if they were intending to offer near the minimum with a range like this. I think they're more likely to be intending to offer an amount commensurate with the level of experience the candidate they prefer has. You generally don't want to insult people by lowballing them on salary when you put a salary range, unless they're clearly underqualified to for the role but for some reason you want to hire them anyway.

 

[TiQuinn]

I really don't want to get involved in this thread (honestly, I have a feeling that the life span is limited), but I saw this and I have to ask .... what?

I mean it in the sense that the vast majority of Hasbro's profit comes from WotC. Corporations divest unprofitable holdings and divisions all the time. I meant it the sense that it's very possible that Wizards of the Coast continues to make the majority of Hasbro's profits, and increasingly their overall revenues, and Hasbro decides to split the company.

I'll give you an example. HP split back in early 2010s into two separate corporations, both with their own management, and both with their own stock symbol. Hewlett Packard Enterprise took all of the IT consulting and software that HP had at the time. HP, Inc. took over the entire printer and ink business.

Now the way I said it was a bit tongue in cheek, but the reality is that the bulk of Hasbro is a millstone, and it's Wizards of the Coast that is the shining star within the company. It's entirely possible that Wizards gets spun off, and Hasbro, instead of remaining its own company, sells its brands off to other entities, including private equity.

Edit: And by the way, companies restructure, delist, go private, or go public all the time. WOTC could reorganize and go public. HAS could delist or go private.

 

[Von Ether]

But I'd be surprised if they were intending to offer near the minimum with a range like this. I think they're more likely to be intending to offer an amount commensurate with the level of experience the candidate they prefer has. You generally don't want to insult people by lowballing them on salary when you put a salary range, unless they're clearly underqualified to for the role but for some reason you want to hire them anyway.

Honestly the base pay in this industry is such a difference compared to what Hasbro offers, it makes me wonder if "they," whoever that might be, are lowballing everyone in the WotC department.

 

[mamba]

So, what could possibly happen? If you wanted to realistically discuss the possibilities, there are a number of them!

the CEO of Hasbro could spin off much of Hasbro and ‘jump ship’ to WotC, which at that point essentially is what is left of Hasbro, but yes, the initiative would have to come from Hasbro

 

[TiQuinn]

the CEO of Hasbro could spin off much of Hasbro and ‘jump ship’ to WotC, which at that point essentially is what is left of Hasbro, but yes, the initiative would have to come from Hasbro

Exactly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Edit: And by the way, companies restructure, delist, go private, or go public all the time. WOTC could reorganize and go public. HAS could delist or go private.

So I'm going to focus on this last part, and again, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sure we are on the same page.

WoTC cannot reorganize or go public. Yes, "companies" do things all the time, but specificity is not just the soul of narrative, it's also a requirement for things like the SEC and various legal restrictions.

The point that I made (and reiterated by @mamba ) is that WoTC isn't going to do anything. I'm not going into the finer points of LLCs, but I think we can be reasonably certain that it's got a single member, if you know what I mean. Hasbro could do things, but not WoTC. We have to start by understanding that point. We can refer to WoTC, and it has a reason (la la, taxes, la la, corporate shield, etc.), but Hasbro is the entity for practical purposes.

So everything has to be examined in terms of what Hasbro would do. They could spin off "WoTC" (referring to various ways to do that) but this is not some panacea; this incurs costs.

Again, not wanting to get dragged into this. But the idea that Hasbro could simply "get rid of the bad stuff, and keep the awesome stuff," sounds great in theory, but there's a reason that they aren't doing that other than stupidity. They may choose to pursue that in the future, but even assuming, arguendo, that every thing works out, you have to remember this-

A standalone "NuHasbro" that is called WoTC will have additional issues caused by the transaction, and will, if anything, be further driven to monetize the brand.

TLDR; there is no such thing as a free lunch, and it is difficult to see a future that doesn't include "MOAR MONETIZATION" of D&D and MtG and so on. Because, you know, capitalism.

 

[TiQuinn]

So I'm going to focus on this last part, and again, not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sure we are on the same page.

WoTC cannot reorganize or go public. Yes, "companies" do things all the time, but specificity is not just the soul of narrative, it's also a requirement for things like the SEC and various legal restrictions.

The point that I made (and reiterated by @mamba ) is that WoTC isn't going to do anything. I'm not going into the finer points of LLCs, but I think we can be reasonably certain that it's got a single member, if you know what I mean. Hasbro could do things, but not WoTC. We have to start by understanding that point. We can refer to WoTC, and it has a reason (la la, taxes, la la, corporate shield, etc.), but Hasbro is the entity for practical purposes.

So everything has to be examined in terms of what Hasbro would do. They could spin off "WoTC" (referring to various ways to do that) but this is not some panacea; this incurs costs.

Again, not wanting to get dragged into this. But the idea that Hasbro could simply "get rid of the bad stuff, and keep the awesome stuff," sounds great in theory, but there's a reason that they aren't doing that other than stupidity. They may choose to pursue that in the future, but even assuming, arguendo, that every thing works out, you have to remember this-

A standalone "NuHasbro" that is called WoTC will have additional issues caused by the transaction, and will, if anything, be further driven to monetize the brand.

TLDR; there is no such thing as a free lunch, and it is difficult to see a future that doesn't include "MOAR MONETIZATION" of D&D and MtG and so on. Because, you know, capitalism.

Okay I’m being facetious. You’re getting all serious which I find hilarious given nearly every other post you make but let me talk you down off your cliff.

Yes. You are right, Snarf. WotC can’t do this. I’m joking about that.

But…Hasbro may be the parent company BUT the profit maker of Hasbro is Wizards of the Coast. The board and executives of Hasbro could decide that the best way for Hasbro to go forward is to sell Hasbro, and spin off WotC.

Does that help?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay I’m being facetious.

Facetious is the only word in the English language that has all the vowels in order.

I would say that facetiously, but I resent the whole "and sometimes y" propaganda foisted upon us by BigEnglish.

I once went to the shareholders' meeting of BigEnglish, and they said that they were pushing the whole, "Two negatives make a positive" thing. And furthermore, two positives can't make a negative.

To which I shouted out, "Yeah, yeah."

 

[mamba]

A standalone "NuHasbro" that is called WoTC will have additional issues caused by the transaction, and will, if anything, be further driven to monetize the brand.

TLDR; there is no such thing as a free lunch, and it is difficult to see a future that doesn't include "MOAR MONETIZATION" of D&D and MtG and so on. Because, you know, capitalism.

agreed, the upside would be that the profit would no longer be drained by OldHasbro to keep it alive and could instead be used to boost WotC

 

[occam]

As for why not do something on your own, I think that's the key issue they face in hiring people actually. If you can get a decent Kickstarter going, then this isn't going to be a lot of money. The main reason not to is likely to be benefits etc. - I dunno how good at they are at WotC, but I imagine they're not bad. That and in theory you've got more steady work, which may well be good for people with families etc.

Right, a steady paycheck and benefits are huge incentives for many people. Besides, I think some folks may be overestimating how financially rewarding doing "something on your own" is likely to be; from what I've seen, I don't think most people running Kickstarters, even relatively successful ones, are raking in as much money for themselves as some might think.

But I'd be surprised if they were intending to offer near the minimum with a range like this. I think they're more likely to be intending to offer an amount commensurate with the level of experience the candidate they prefer has. You generally don't want to insult people by lowballing them on salary when you put a salary range, unless they're clearly underqualified to for the role but for some reason you want to hire them anyway.

Besides, this is Washington State law as of last year; employers must post accurate pay ranges with advertised positions or run the risk of getting in trouble with state authorities. In particular:

A wage scale or salary range should provide the applicant with the employer’s most reasonable and genuinely expected range of compensation for the job. The range should extend from the lowest to the highest pay established by the employer prior to publishing the job posting. If the employer does not already have an existing wage scale or salary range for a position, a scale or range should be created prior to publishing the posting.

For instance, at my current employer, we tend to post a range encompassing the bottom 60% of the full internal range for a position (since we generally want to hire people who will have room to grow in the position, not start at the top of it). My experience has been that we generally offer in the middle or somewhat higher of the advertised range, but it can vary quite a bit depending on experience. A well-qualified candidate for this game designer position could reasonably expect an offer significantly over $100k, more with lots of industry experience, or less if this role is a stretch for them.