Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EpicureanDM" data-source="post: 8866900" data-attributes="member: 6996003">Of course they didn't. They're both career managers and executives from tech companies. They each received promotions in title from their prior jobs, which is how they keep score. They'll move on in a couple of years to new jobs. [EDIT: "Both" refers to Cynthia Williams and Dan Rawson, but the same logic could also apply to the guy who replaced Winniger, who seems to have spent his career in video games before suddenly becoming the head of the D&D design studio? Again, this guy was promoted over Crawford and Perkins, two guys with long experience in the D&D business. There's something weird about that.]Besides, if they had done their due diligence and studied the history of D&D, do you think they'd be excited about steering their "massively profitable IP" into the same waters that created a massive schism in the fanbase and the rise of Pathfinder? Everyone on this thread, on this message board, and across the Internet with actual experience of D&D's history keeps pointing out how similar, past strategies by WotC (under different management) utterly failed.So your contention is that the D&D leadership team has both done enough due diligence and study of D&D's business history to know that the stuff they're trying now looks like stuff that's failed in the past AND they've decided that the stuff that failed in the past now has a good chance of making D&D more profitable than ever?</blockquote>

Verification