D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Halivar]

No real villains in this scenario the way I see it; just everyone acting in their own interests.

One thing I don't like is how they always spring it on you after you've already accepted the offer and are filling out your employment paperwork. I want to know that stuff up front.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One thing I don't like is how they always spring it on you after you've already accepted the offer and are filling out your employment paperwork. I want to know that stuff up front.

That's true. If you're in an industry where this kind of practice is standard and you're signing a boilerplate contract, it's less of an issue, but if that's not the case, it is the business's ethical responsibility to convey materially important conditions of employment before you and the company reach an agreement. I could imagine that someone signed up to work at WotC and expected more autonomy than they ended up receiving, and ended up quitting at an awkward time as a consequence. Of course, we'll probably never hear all the inside information on why Monte Cook (and many others) left.

 

[Dausuul]

No real villains in this scenario the way I see it; just everyone acting in their own interests.

Pretty much the definition of a villain is someone acting in his or her own interest without regard to anyone else.

However, I do agree that it's not unreasonable of WotC to demand that if an RPG designer working for them creates an RPG, it belongs to them. Nor is it unreasonable of Monte Cook to balk at such a demand, and quit.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Pretty much the definition of a villain is someone acting in his or her own interest without regard to anyone else.

Really? I think a villain does have an interest in the wellbeing of others, just a malicious interest. Of course there's a gray are between the level of indifference towards others that is normal and that which is callous. However, I think that a contract requiring employees to relinquish ownership of some topical IP they produce while you pay them and provide them with resources is not callously indifferent to the harm it will cause the employee.

 

[Nikosandros]

I will say though, if you are being paid good money to dream up idea's for X and you take your 'free time' to make your own X then sell it to compete with your company you work for's X... that seems pretty bad too... so I agree with atleast the basic theory of "If you work for WotC designing RPGs you can't sell other RPGs made during the same time" and replace Wotc with any company and RPG with any product that is mostly thought and intelectial property....

Well, there are several RPG companies that do not have such a provision. For example, Jason Bulmanhn, who is Lead Designer for PF at Paizo, works on his own RPG stuff on his free time and has released several items though his own imprint Minotaur Games.

 

[billd91]

well, there is a big difference between working (for example) as an insurance salesperson by day, and then writing your own novel at night, and working in the RPG industry during the day and then working on your own RPG at night.

Working on what could be almost the exact same thing and a potential direct competitor is an inherent conflict of interest.

Plus, you run into the issue of whether or not ideas incorporated into your own after-hours RPG received any development on company time. For creative output-type jobs, that's a commonly held concern.

This is nothing new for the owners of D&D. TSR put the kibosh on Gygax's Dangerous Journeys based on pretty much the same idea - that ideas incorporated into Dangerous Journeys were developed when he worked for TSR and thus were really theirs.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Pretty much the definition of a villain is someone acting in his or her own interest without regard to anyone else.

However, I do agree that it's not unreasonable of WotC to demand that if an RPG designer working for them creates an RPG, it belongs to them. Nor is it unreasonable of Monte Cook to balk at such a demand, and quit.

So, you're saying both sides are villains? WotC for trying to protect their IP, and Monte for quitting over it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, there are several RPG companies that do not have such a provision. For example, Jason Bulmanhn, who is Lead Designer for PF at Paizo, works on his own RPG stuff on his free time and has released several items though his own imprint Minotaur Games.

Well, that's the beauty of a free market, isn't it? WotC is the bigger company, but working there seems to bring its problems, of which I'm sure this is only one. Paizo seems to be a more attractive place to work, so there's been a steady movement of talent there for years. Now Paizo has the #1 rpg and the best collection of talent in the industry behind it. And for that gain, they may have given up profits that could have been made by owning various employees' side projects. Seems like a fair dynamic to me.

 

[Dausuul]

So, you're saying both sides are villains? WotC for trying to protect their IP, and Monte for quitting over it?

No. You can certainly act in your own interests without being villainous; but "just acting in your own interests" doesn't make you a non-villain. (I suppose I should change my statement to "acting in your own interests despite it being harmful to other people.")

Really? I think a villain does have an interest in the wellbeing of others, just a malicious interest.

Hardly. Disregard for the lives of others in pursuit of your own desires is textbook villainy. If you dump toxic waste into the water supply because it's the cheapest way to get rid of it, that's villainous behavior, even if you have no particular desire to hurt anybody.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Hardly. Disregard for the lives of others in pursuit of your own desires is textbook villainy. If you dump toxic waste into the water supply because it's the cheapest way to get rid of it, that's villainous behavior, even if you have no particular desire to hurt anybody.

Yes, but that would be one of those examples of "depraved" indifference. Conversely, if you buy lunch to satisfy your own hunger and eat it even though you know that there are other people in this world who are hungry and cannot afford anything to eat, I don't think that makes you a villain.

Again, I think there's a gray zone depending on when, in a particular scenario, concern for others presents a concrete moral choice.