bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
This is the only way to enjoy social media, I say as someone who has worked professionally in social media
TSR Whatever Happened To TSR's Michael?
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
Modeled, yes.
It borrows the colors of the Ranger Battalion and Special Forces arc-badges, and doesn't use the Old Guard's official badge, which is Honor Guard.
How about I put it this way:
From a creative standpoint, TSR created some amazing art and content that lives strong to this day. From a commercial standpoint, TSR represented terrible business practices and died painfully.
The new TSR has created no new artwork or creative content, yet they are still striving to follow in the old TSR's footsteps.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
You could say that.
Just like I could say that WoTC, and D&D, exemplify the worst of modern corporate practices in that the risk is offloaded to the employees ... sorry, there are almost no employees working for D&D ... "independent contractors" while the parent corporation retains all of the profits in order to distribute those profits to its shareholders. And while they certainly strive to make people feel good (and I genuinely appreciate that they do their best to make the game more inclusive and representative), they are not particularly good corporate citizens in terms of their actions.
Sure. TSR did engage in litigation (who doesn't ... what, HASBRO doesn't sue people?), and TSR had its share of issues, including eventually going out of business, not to mention laying off people. But at least they were employing people to lay them off.
Regardless, any company that employs creatives and allows for that much amazing work deserves to be lauded. Given that the vast majority of Hasbro's D&D output is derivative of TSR's original work, or, at best, derivative of WOTC's M:TG stuff, I'm not sure I would be so quick to discount the original TSR. Especially when one of your points is:
And lets not forget that TSR was the brand associated with D&D during the satanic panic.
TSR standing up to the scolds and fearmongers of the 1980s, given the atmosphere of the time, was a profile in courage. Not something to be sneered at.
Just saying.
LaNasa's political activities really aren't appropriate fodder for discussion here. Can we not, please?
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Hasbro is actually a good corporate citizen, they've actually won awards from ethics warchdog groups for responsible behavior. Nothing to do with TSR, kind of besides the point, but it's a thing. The D&D team is also sizeable, now.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Really> Great awards, huh?
Let's see,,,,
1. Hasbro makes a lot of toys. A LOT OF TOYS. Where are those toys made? What are the working conditions in those places? Yes, those Are rhetorical questions, and if you don't already know the answer, I wouldn't suggest googling it- it's not great for the "ethical awards."
2. Lawsuits? Well, to begin with, there is the pretty well-known issue of Hasbro's executives dumping their stock while not fully divulging the company's financial position. But that's par for the course.* Given the issue at hand (C&D letters) it is hardly surprising that Hasbro is well-known for protecting their IP. And that's before getting to the thorny issue of how Hasbro (like many other companies, such as Marvel/DIsney) has used variations of the work for hire doctrine to ensure that creatives do not receive recompense for their labor.
3. Hasbro is well-known for poor compensation ... assuming you are in a division that bothers hiring its creatives.
Again, I truly appreciate that Hasbro does things - from keeping D&D around, to making games more inclusive, to not gendering the folk in, um, the greater Potato Head Extended Universe (movie soon!). But being a truly good corporate citizen should require more than the bare minimum of making your products inclusive- it should require paying employees good wages, not using sweatshop labor ... you know, stuff like that.
YMMV,
*I mean, what company's executives don't benefit to the detriment of the shareholders? To do otherwise would be ... un-American!
Could you kindly look to the thread title and recall the topic and move back to it, please and thanks?
Similar Threads
