Mari Kolkowsky (D&D Art Director) got laid off yesterday

[Scrivener of Doom]

Not part of law, but "non-compete" clauses in contracts are common. If you work for me, you cannot turn around and then go to work for one of my direct competitors for a time. This is meant to prevent you from taking current knowledge of my business and clients to my competitors.

In Massachusetts, non-competes are nearly unenforceable in court, but in some other places, and in some industries, I'm told they stick pretty well.

Yeah, they're unenforceable in Oz also and that's a decision made by our High Court (the equivalent of your Supreme Court) so it's essentially established in law. I think the only time it can be enforced, and the US does this a lot, is where the person accepts an offer of payment for the non-compete period which is a de facto extension of his or her employment.

Anyway, the main point seems to be that Next is going to be released - I am thinking of counting to 100 while playing hide and seek: "Ready or not, here I come!" - and so the regular retrenchments are coming back.

 

[Warbringer]

Depends on the state. Some states have an "at will fire" policy where they can let you go for any reason except things such as race, religion, sex, etc...

WA is an at will state, but that does not mean without cause. Termination for cause has to be clearly documented (3 verbals, 2 written, with a 90 day improvement plan). Temp workers (under 30 hrs (I think)) can we released at will with no cause.

If you release without cause under the guise the position is superfluous, that position is considered locked for 6 months and cannot be back filled.

INAL, but I've managed staff in large corporations in WA

 

[Jester David]

Do you think so? The number of DDI subscribers speak a different language IMHO.

I remain skeptical that the numbers of DDI users continues to grow. While it is generating some money, the profit margins are unknown.

We also don't know about the income stream generated by projects like the online games.

Or the board games. But the last new board game was last year. And the online games, being licences, probably generated money when the video game company bought the rights. Given the development time on video games, that was almost certainly *not* this year.

Are they really trimming the department "due to economical reasons" or are they preparing the brand for sale?

Hasbro does not sell brands. They seldom even licence them. They just shelve them and wait for the market to change and bring them back. Which, for a niche game like D&D, would be never. They didn't sell HeroScape, Dreamblade, the miniature line, or any of the other myriad product lines WotC was responsible for that died. Why would they sell D&D and lose the ability to make money off it via movies, video games, and board games?

In September I wrote as reaction to the Dungeon and Dragon hiatus:

So they're stopping the articles, which in turn means no work whatsover will be done for the tools; they we're doing updates for the sparse contents of Dungeon and Dragon anyway.

So we don't have a release announcement for D&DN.

Let's see what the December layoffs will bring this year.

With this turn of events I'm extremely sceptical right now. There are so many signs of a project dying...

I don't see the signs. WotC always has layoffs around Christmas. They just started them a little early this year. And, again, the D&D brand isn't make money compared to KaiJudo or Magic so that's where they make the cuts. The reason they opted for someone in the Art Department was likely because they couldn't fire anyone in the other departments, which are likely stretched a little tight.

 

[Campbell]

Then it sounds like WoTc should just hire nothing but freelancers and temps.

Freelancers are independent contractors. As such:

• You have minimal control over their day to day activities.
• They are paid only for a specific duty stipulated in the contract.
• Generally do not work within the same place of business
• Have other contracts/jobs
• Retain copyrights barring separate assignment
• Generally work for the business for a short period of time.

There are other factors. Determination of employee/independent contractor status is an issue for courts to decide if it becomes relevant, such as when the IRS wants their payroll taxes.

More importantly unless they are also contracted as agents of the hiring party (known as the principal) they cannot enter into contracts on behalf of the principal. Agency also entitles the principal to notification of all important facts, have a duty to act solely on behalf of the principal, duty to follow all lawful instructions, must account for all funds paid/received on behalf of the principal, among other factors. Employees are generally assumed to be agents of their employer.

There are also certain liabilities that go with employment (taxes) and agency, but an art director most definitely needs to be able to act as an agent of WotC. You are also going to want more substantial control over their day to day activities, and certainly want them in house since they are going to be privy to trade secrets.

I'm not a lawyer. I am a business student.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Poor Dungeons & Dragons. Despite being such an innovation that it pioneered an entire new kind of hobby, it's had the misfortune to never be owned by a company that knew what to do with it. First TSR, which was simply owned by people who didn't know what they were doing, and then Hasbro/WotC, which is owned by people who don't understand D&D. The idea that D&D is not a brand that you can simply exploit with yearly products is obviously confusing to management.

The truth is, the D&D game and brand is an odd bird. It doesn't fit any normal categories. To be properly managed it probably needs to be owned by a company that does Tabletop RPGs and not much else. Hopefully one day that will happen.

Until then I suppose we can look forward to Hasbro's yearly flailing as it tries to 'monetize' the 'brand' with increasing desperation.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Freelancers are independent contractors. As such:

• You have minimal control over their day to day activities.
• They are paid only for a specific duty stipulated in the contract.
• Generally do not work within the same place of business
• Have other contracts/jobs
• Retain copyrights barring separate assignment
• Generally work for the business for a short period of time.

There are other factors. Determination of employee/independent contractor status is an issue for courts to decide if it becomes relevant, such as when the IRS wants their payroll taxes.

More importantly unless they are also contracted as agents of the hiring party (known as the principal) they cannot enter into contracts on behalf of the principal. Agency also entitles the principal to notification of all important facts, have a duty to act solely on behalf of the principal, duty to follow all lawful instructions, must account for all funds paid/received on behalf of the principal, among other factors. Employees are generally assumed to be agents of their employer.

There are also certain liabilities that go with employment (taxes) and agency, but an art director most definitely needs to be able to act as an agent of WotC. You are also going to want more substantial control over their day to day activities, and certainly want them in house since they are going to be privy to trade secrets.

I'm not a lawyer. I am a business student.

Well what they could do is just give them contracts on a year to year basis. At the end of each year, they can evaluate the situation and decide if they want to keep that employee or end their contract. You can work for a company under contract or you could work for them as a permanent employee. Really the only difference is you could be let go after your contract expires.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Poor Dungeons & Dragons. Despite being such an innovation that it pioneered an entire new kind of hobby, it's had the misfortune to never be owned by a company that knew what to do with it. First TSR, which was simply owned by people who didn't know what they were doing, and then Hasbro/WotC, which is owned by people who don't understand D&D. The idea that D&D is not a brand that you can simply exploit with yearly products is obviously confusing to management.

The truth is, the D&D game and brand is an odd bird. It doesn't fit any normal categories. To be properly managed it probably needs to be owned by a company that does Tabletop RPGs and not much else. Hopefully one day that will happen.

Until then I suppose we can look forward to Hasbro's yearly flailing as it tries to 'monetize' the 'brand' with increasing desperation.

I would almost be my life that Paizo could run D&D much better than Hasbro/WoTc.

 

[Argyle King]

No; if you lay someone off you can't hire someone to replace them. If you want to replace someone, you have to fire them properly, not lay them off.

There are ways to get around that. They could create a different position which does the same job, but has a different label, and then hire someone for it.

 

[mlund]

I would almost be my life that Paizo could run D&D much better than Hasbro/WoTc.

They'd probaby do a much better job merely supporting an existing D&D edition.

Their ability to manage so large a brand or actually roll out a new edition they didn't borrow directly from another company that already paid all the overhead for development? That remains to be seen. Frankly, that's the kind of undertaking whose risks can be absorbed by a large company like Hasbro easily but can obliterate a small publisher like TSR or Paizo.

- Marty Lund

 

[Gundark]

I would almost be my life that Paizo could run D&D much better than Hasbro/WoTc.

Speaking as someone who really dislikes 3e/PF that would be the worst case senario. Unless they developed a better lighter game.