Pathfinder 1E D&D and Pathfinder tied for first place on ICv2 Q3 RPG sales list

[MrGrenadine]

Do you have a specific reason for thinking that all the WotC employees over the years who have, repeatedly and consistently, said Hasbro is extremely hands off are being untruthful?

I never said I thought anyone was being untruthful, and since we're speculating here, let's see if we can think of some alternatives: Maybe those quoted were mistaken at the time., or were misquoted. Or whats more likely, maybe things changed after those particular quotes were given--there have certainly been quite a number of personnel changes at WotC for that to be a possibility. Maybe there has been just a wee bit of meddling from Hasbro--not enough to make a case about as far as WotC is concerned. Or maybe there isn't now, nor has ever been any Hasbro meddling in WotC's decisions.

Ultimately, I have no horse in this race. I'm just being the devil's advocate in the hopes that you'd see that your conclusions based on hunches are no more accurate than other folks'. I would think the fact that you have no evidence for your conclusions would make you open to the possibility that the opposing view's conclusions are at least possible, but faith is a powerful thing.

Fair enough. But it couldn't possibly hurt to be less dismissive though.

 

[Wicht]

I would think the fact that you have no evidence for your conclusions would make you open to the possibility that the opposing view's conclusions are at least possible, but faith is a powerful thing. emphasis added

I'm not sure of your definition of "no evidence," but as far as I know eye-witness testimony is generally considered evidence of some sort. Thus, his appeal to ex-employees who say that Hasbro is hands off constitutes a type of evidence. The amount of weight you give to it is, of course, your decision.

There is also the evidence that Hasbro pays people to manage WotC. You may disagree with the conclusion drawn that these people are more than figureheads, but their existance cannot be entirely thrown out as no-evidence. I must say, as one with no horse in this race either, having perused these sorts of posts for several years now, the evidence always does seem to point to Hasbro being hands off. This is not a conversation occuring in a vaccuum: we have years of evidence pointing in this direction. Things, may of course change, but when stockholders, employees, etc, all say Hasbro is hands off, I have no reason to disbelieve them.

 

[billd91]

I have a hard time reconciling "hands off" with Hasbro putting in one of their guys as WotC's CEO. Once he's in, having come through Hasbro's corporate culture, Hasbro's hands are integral to WotC's leadership. Greg Leeds may not have a lot to do with day to day development and content decisions considering that's not what a CEO does, but essentially everything he does for WotC is with Hasbro-cultured hands.

 

[Wicht]

I have a hard time reconciling "hands off" with Hasbro putting in one of their guys as WotC's CEO. Once he's in, having come through Hasbro's corporate culture, Hasbro's hands are integral to WotC's leadership. Greg Leeds may not have a lot to do with day to day development and content decisions considering that's not what a CEO does, but essentially everything he does for WotC is with Hasbro-cultured hands.

There is a difference between 1) putting someone in charge who thinks the way you think and 2) putting someone in charge and then telling them what to think everyday. The first is good management, the second is micro-managing. If I am a boss, I don't want to have to tell my people how to operate, thats what I pay them for. But at the same time I'm going to tend to trust people who consistently act in a way I approve of and promote them over others. That's just natural.

So "hands off" and putting a guy I trust in charge are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if I had someone who's ideas I didn't trust in charge of a division (hypothetically speaking) I would probably be more "hands on." And the more I trust him, the more "hands off" I would be.

 

[Shemeska]

I very much doubt that Hasbro does any micro-managing of WotC. They probably set profit expectations and allow WotC to manage itself. They would only look closer if somebody totally and horribly botches something (such as Gleemax and the initial DDI development).

But beyond that example, I'd be really surprised if Hasbro at large really bothered to meddle with how the D&D division attempts to hit their quarterly or yearly targets.

 

[jaerdaph]

You know what would be really cool? A Web series in the style of The Office about an RPG company.

I'd watch that.

 

[billd91]

There is a difference between 1) putting someone in charge who thinks the way you think and 2) putting someone in charge and then telling them what to think everyday. The first is good management, the second is micro-managing. If I am a boss, I don't want to have to tell my people how to operate, thats what I pay them for. But at the same time I'm going to tend to trust people who consistently act in a way I approve of and promote them over others. That's just natural.

So "hands off" and putting a guy I trust in charge are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if I had someone who's ideas I didn't trust in charge of a division (hypothetically speaking) I would probably be more "hands on." And the more I trust him, the more "hands off" I would be.

I think one problem I'm having here is I am not equating "hands off" with lack of micro-managing. I'm looking at the area between the two - managing. And if the continuum runs hands-off -- managing -- micro-managing, then by installing a Hasbro insider as CEO, they're not hands-off. And if there's no evidence of micro-managing, what they're doing is somewhere in the middle - managing.

 

[Azgulor]

I think one problem I'm having here is I am not equating "hands off" with lack of micro-managing. I'm looking at the area between the two - managing. And if the continuum runs hands-off -- managing -- micro-managing, then by installing a Hasbro insider as CEO, they're not hands-off. And if there's no evidence of micro-managing, what they're doing is somewhere in the middle - managing.

You're equating "installing the CEO" to "can't/won't be hands-off". That's not necessarily true. It's perfectly feasible that Hasbro can install the CEO & then step back and let him do his job.

Also, companies are made up of individuals. Working at Company A does not brainwash a person such that they are incapable of being receptive to new ideas once they're at Company B.

In this particular case, the CEO often sets the tone for the corporate culture. So if the CEO can only do Hasbro-think, I'd say it's likely that by now everyone within WotC has been assimilated. (Go Borg.)

 

[Hussar]

/snip, please ignore me, didn't realize I was responding to something six pages ago. oops.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Isn't it funny that what Paizo says should be taken as unvarnished truth, yet someone at WOTC could claim that the sky is blue and water is wet and people would accuse them of having an agenda.

Well, everyone knows the Paizo people come to work in shorts and tank tops, the exact opposite of 'suits'